# على هامش



## Reema

Hi everyone, how would you translate على هامش ​

in this context:​​

العالم أجمع استنكر الجريمة التي واجهتها أمريكا. وعلى هامش الاستنكار الجماعي برزت أسئلة وسلطت الأضواء على حقائق منها أن أمريكا ساهمت في ولادة الإرهاب, وهاهي تستيقظ لغفلتها وغرورها بعد أن وقعت الجريمة تحت أنظار أجهزتها الإستخباراتية والأمنية.​

لماذا أمريكا؟ سؤال ردده مواطنون أمريكيون بسطاء قد لا يعلمون ما ارتكبته وترتكبه دولتهم في حق شعوب عديدة في أمريكا اللاتينية وآسيا وأفريقيا. شعوب عانت وتعاني من مظالم السياسة الأمريكية التي تسببت في موت الملايين من البشر ودفعت جماعات من البشر إلى اليأس فالإرهاب الأعمى.​

I would really appreciate it if you try and propose a translation of the text.​

Thanks​​


----------



## Josh_

Literally, it is "on the margin" but in this context I would translate it as "in connection with."


----------



## Reema

what about : on the periphery of...

or on the side lines of


----------



## cherine

Is it possible to use "in the context of" ? or "going along the..."?


----------



## elroy

Maybe "alongside"?

_The whole world denied the crime that was committed against America.  Alongside the collective denial, questions were raised and light was shed on certain facts,..._

To be honest, though, I'm having some trouble with this translation because I'm not quite sure what exactly the relationship is supposed to be between the part before على هامش and the part after.


----------



## Josh_

I suppose ..."the crime that was committed against America" would work, but wouldn't it just be better to say "...that America confronted..."

Also, isn't استنكر used in the media with the meaning of condemn or decry?  If that is so, I would suggest:

_The whole world condemned/decried the crime that America faced/confronted. In connection with the collective condemnation __questions were raised and light was shed on certain facts including (the idea) that America contributed to the birth of terrorism..._


----------



## elroy

Whoops - you're right.  It's استنكر and not أنكر - but that's beside the point.  I'm still not sure what على هامش is supposed to express here.


----------



## Reema

elroy said:


> Maybe "alongside"?
> 
> To be honest, though, I'm having some trouble with this translation because I'm not quite sure what exactly the relationship is supposed to be between the part before على هامش and the part after.


 
That's my problem,too.

Perhaps if you read the full text things will get more 
clear……​
​I think this is a through argumentative text "in which a thesis is cited, then extensively defended"​​​
العالم أجمع استنكر الجريمة التي واجهتها أمريكا. وعلى هامش الاستنكار الجماعي برزت أسئلة وسلطت الأضواء على حقائق منها أن أمريكا ساهمت في ولادة الإرهاب، وهاهي تستيقظ لغفلتها وغرورها بعد أن وقعت الجريمة تحت أنظار أجهزتها الإستخبارية والأمنية.
لماذا أمريكا؟ سؤال ردده مواطنون أمريكيون بسطاء قد لا يعلمون ما ارتكبته وترتكبه دولتهم في حق شعوب عديدة في أمريكا اللاتينية واسيا وأفريقيا. شعوب عانت وتعاني من مظالم السياسة الأمريكية التي تسببت في موت الملاين من البشر ودفعت جماعات من البشر إلى اليأس فالإرهاب الأعمى.
الشئ الذي يجب أن تستيقظ له الدولة الأعظم ودول الاتحاد الأوروبي عوضا عن دق طبول الحرب وإرسال التهديدات أن يعيدوا النظر في فيما زرعوه هم أنفسهم بمساندتهم الإرهاب وجماعات المتعصبين.. وحمايتهم. ​


----------



## elroy

What is الجريمة التي واجهتها أمريكا?


----------



## Reema

أتصور حادث الحادي عشر من سبتمبر


----------



## elroy

Ok, I think I get it now.  If I understand everything correctly, the word "meanwhile" should do the trick:

_The whole world collectively condemned the crime committed against America.  Meanwhile, questions were raised and light was shed on certain facts,..._

Notice that I have done a little rewording to make the text more concise.  And in response to your earlier question, Josh, I think "the crime that America faced/confronted" would be too literal.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I think _alongside_ or _in the sidelines_ is more appropriate.  It seems to me that it's sort of like: the world condemned the crime but at the same time and despite the condemnation there were also some fingers pointed towards America.


----------



## elroy

Mahaodeh said:


> [...]the world condemned the crime but at the same time and despite the condemnation there were also some fingers pointed towards America.


 But I don't think the two statements are contradictory.  It makes sense to me that in the wake of 9/11 people would have started to think about what America may have done to drive someone to perpetrate such a crime against it.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Maybe.  I do think that the original text in Arabic is unusual though, على هامش is generally used in contexts like: على هامش المؤتمر زار المشاركون متحف المدينة, in which case it would be literal.  Maybe it was a wrong choice of words of the original author.


----------



## suma

The entire world denounced the violence that was perpetrated against the US; notwithstanding, this collective denunciation has raised questions and has also brought to the fore certain realities among which is the idea that the US has had a hand in the rise of terrorism...




Reema said:


> Hi everyone, how would you translate على هامش ​
> 
> 
> 
> in this context:​
> 
> العالم أجمع استنكر الجريمة التي واجهتها أمريكا. وعلى هامش الاستنكار الجماعي برزت أسئلة وسلطت الأضواء على حقائق منها أن أمريكا ساهمت في ولادة الإرهاب, وهاهي تستيقظ لغفلتها وغرورها بعد أن وقعت الجريمة تحت أنظار أجهزتها الإستخباراتية والأمنية.​
> 
> لماذا أمريكا؟ سؤال ردده مواطنون أمريكيون بسطاء قد لا يعلمون ما ارتكبته وترتكبه دولتهم في حق شعوب عديدة في أمريكا اللاتينية وآسيا وأفريقيا. شعوب عانت وتعاني من مظالم السياسة الأمريكية التي تسببت في موت الملايين من البشر ودفعت جماعات من البشر إلى اليأس فالإرهاب الأعمى.​
> 
> I would really appreciate it if you try and propose a translation of the text.​
> 
> 
> Thanks​


----------



## elroy

I don't like "notwithstanding" for the reasons I stated in Post #13.


----------



## suma

More literally one could say:

"... and as a footnote to this collective denunciation, certain questions have been raised and brought to the fore; among which is the idea that the US has contributed to the rise of (Islamic) terrorism..."

...that the US has helped give birth to (Islamic) terrorism..."


----------



## suma

Reema said:


> what about : on the periphery of...
> 
> or on the side lines of


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:


> Ok, I think I get it now.  If I understand everything correctly, the word "meanwhile" should do the trick:
> 
> _The whole world collectively condemned the crime committed against America.  Meanwhile, questions were raised and light was shed on certain facts,..._
> 
> Notice that I have done a little rewording to make the text more concise.  And in response to your earlier question, Josh, I think "the crime that America faced/confronted" would be too literal.



I'm not really sure I like "meanwhile," but I'm exactly not sure why.  Possibly, because for me meanwhile should have equal statements on both sides of it, that is, one is not more important than the other -- just two events that happen at the same time (if that makes any sense).  For example "Jane went to the store to buy bread.  Meanwhile, her husband was busy at home with the children."

هامش means margin and what is a margin -- an a small, ancillary part of the whole that is of secondary importance. I believe the author of the sentence in question wants to stress that America underwent a condemnable crime, and as a secondary (somewhat lesser important) point the author notes that America may have a hand in the rise of terrorism that led to the crime.

With that I suggest "at the same time:"

_The whole world collectively condemned the crime committed against America. At the same time, questions were raised and light was shed on certain facts,...
_


----------



## elroy

"At the same time" was actually one of the first possibilities that occurred to me.

However, I don't agree that the author is trying to diminish the importance of the second part. I think على هامش is used here to express that the universal condemnation of the 9/11 attacks was the more prominent, more public of the two phenomena, and that the questioning was perhaps less prevalent, occurring "on the fringe," as it were, but not necessarily less important. In fact, if you continue reading you'll see that the point of the article is to discuss America's contributions to triggering terrorism, so the author probably feels that the questions and the conclusions to which they led are at least as important, if not more so, than the condemnation of 9/11, which seems to be provided more as background information than anything else.

With all that being said, I don't have a problem with your "at the same time" because it's pretty neutral, but I also think "meanwhile" is fine - but then again, as explained above I don't feel that the second part is less important than the first.


----------

