Also I think you have an imperfect understanding of the best evidence rule, which (to summarize, omitting minor exceptions and qualifications) merely prohibits secondary evidence of the contents of a document when the original document is available.

Law is Cool: Thank you for continuing this, it’s fun.
If anything, any of his theological positions would only lend credibility to the translation, because he would be better positioned to understand the context and terminology that he cites in his review.

Algar’s translation is not being used for “court,” or any metaphor of one, because the actual veracity of the review in question is not the issue being tried by a court of public opinion. The lack of editorial scrutiny is, which in part is assessed by the weight afforded by the editors to the qualifications and biases of Steyn’s translator.

Algar therefore is exactly what can be referred to as secondary evidence, because the original document is not even Steyn’s translation, but Khomeini’s original in Farsi. Again, remember this is would be tendered only for the purposes of demonstrating the lack of editorial scrutiny, given that this was published many years before Steyn wrote his piece. The actual contents of the review are only slightly probative after that.

Actually, that isn’t correct as a matter of law. When the “extraneous” issue is the witness’s conduct as a “purveyor of hate,” evidence of that conduct is, if properly presented, admissible to impeach his credibility. At least that is the case in US jurisdictions generally, see FRE 608, and as that is a common-law principle of evidence I assume that’s true in the common-law jurisdictions of Canada as well. Do correct me if I’m wrong.

(Note that I have no idea, and am not taking a position on the question, whether or not Hamid Algar is or is not a “purveyor of hate.” But that is what he’s accused of being in the comment that you responded to, and let’s assume for this purpose that the commenter meant he is an Islamist or an apologist for Khomeinite theocracy.)

Law is Cool:
That’s actually an interesting proposition, and we’ll address it simply because this is a law school site intended to illustrate legal principles.
It would only be applicable to viva voce evidence in a court of law, so that the trier of law can assess the demeanor of the witness as well. Algar is a British convert to Shi’a Islam and presumably at least a sympathizer of Khomeini, but his theological positions have little to with his assessment of the accuracy of a translation, especially in light of the complete absence of any views to the contrary of similar weight. However, his use of the word “turgid” would appear to indicate an at least somewhat critical stance, and his statements elsewhere have explicitly expressed disinterest with the polity in Iran. None of the views identified would serve impeach his credibility for the purposes of translation, especially since the process of peer-review subjects his assessment to further scrutiny.
Using the best evidence rule (also a common law principle), this would serve our purposes both at law and for academic investigation. And it’s the latter we’re more concerned about. The person discussed enjoys frequent diversions into other subject matters, which is why the initial focus of inquiry is emphasized above.

Nanji J
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 1986; LIV: 370-371

Couldn’t find Ahmad’s review listed at the IJMES. Maybe someone is more skillful with their search skills. I guess worth a trip to the stacks some day.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=MES

Law is Cool:

We’re more than willing to help you out.

Hamid Algar. Reviewed work(s):A Clarification of Questions: An Unabridged Translation of Resaleh Towzih al-Masael by Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini; J. Borujerdi. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (May, 1987), pp. 245-246. Cambridge University Press

Please do spend the $20 and help support the accredited academics who dedicated years to actually learn Farsi and provide critical assessments (it’s not the native language for either, and both actually studied it formally).

The answer to your second question is that there is not a single credible academic reviewing the translation (key words) who has endorsed it as accurate in a peer-reviewed journal. We weren’t going to say that until Steyn said something stupid again, but hey, you seem like you actually were making the effort. He’s still scrambling to find the first source we cited, but this is a good teaching exercise in what he should be doing before putting questionable material in print in Canada’s only national news magazine.

I take your point. But I don’t think this is an instance where we are allowing for some random standard of error.

These words of Khomeini in either the Blue or Green Book are obviously in question. I personally find it a little troubling to use references from Khomeini to smear an entire religion, in spite of the legitimacy of the words. Coupled with the very real possibility that these words are inaccurate, using Khomeini to represent the Muslim community is unconscionable.

Nobody is defending Khomeini, in fact if Steyn would have noted that his quotes are attributable to Khomeini I’m sure this debate would be more of a non-issue. If Steyn wants to castigate Khomeini’s views he should do so; he shouldn’t use him as source representative of the Muslim community.

Why the hell does it matter if as you say Hamid Algar appears to be a purveyor of hate? If that was something worthy of serious consideration Steyn wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

As someone with a LLM you should be a little more genuine by accepting factual documentation over uneducated hearsay and scholarship.

At least admit that there is the tiniest possibility that the book and verses in question may not be accurate and that it is not sound practice to use such a source for such a controversial issue.

Law is Cool: For the purposes of addressing the accuracy of the quote and translation in question, extraneous issues should be ignored.

Squirming out of a tight situation is usually what Steyn does best. Stick to the issue please, or we’ll will cease approving your comments along with the other Steynians.

Law is Cool: It has nothing to do with his ability to translate Farsi in a peer-reviewed journal. You should have learned that much during your LLM.
The review he provides demonstrates very specific examples of mistranslations.

Steyn, on the other hand, can’t find anyone endorsing either the translation or his quote in a peer-reviewed journal.

What I like best is you kept it simple, without all the distracting rambling Steyn engages in.

What else you guys have hidden up your sleeves?