Was the imam's remark taken out of context or mistranslated from another language?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting shows a clear arc: MEMRI published a translation and unedited video of a California imam’s sermon; the mosque and imam initially accused the watchdog of mistranslation and contextual distortion, but the imam later apologized and MEMRI has insisted its translation was accurate [1] [2] [3] [4]. Taken together, the contemporaneous evidence in the reporting leans toward the remark having been neither grossly mistranslated nor secretly stripped of context, though the record in these sources lacks an independent, neutral linguistic audit to close the question absolutely [2] [4].
1. The core documentary record: uncut video and transcript published by MEMRI
MEMRI’s translations in this episode were accompanied, according to reporting, by the unedited sermon clip and a published transcript that the organization said permitted no meaningful dispute about wording or immediate context [2] [4]. Multiple outlets note that MEMRI posted the sermon "uncut and unedited," and that assertion forms the factual basis for claims that the translation was testable against raw footage rather than a clipped excerpt [2].
2. The mosque’s initial response: claims of mistranslation and political motive
The Islamic Center of Davis (ICD) issued statements accusing MEMRI of twisting the imam’s words and of advancing a political agenda that exacerbates divisions over the Middle East, framing the episode as an instance of selective amplification rather than accurate reporting [3]. Local reporting recorded the imam himself telling a TV reporter he was “very sad” that his words were being “twisted,” and the mosque cited concerns about MEMRI’s motives and methodology in public statements [2] [3].
3. The countervailing actions: apologies and organizational responses
Despite the denials, reporting documents that the imam ultimately apologized for the sermon and its effect on the community, and civil-society groups such as the ADL welcomed the apology—an outcome journalists and community leaders treated as significant regardless of translation debates [3]. MEMRI, for its part, publicly stood by its translation and reiterated that the full sermon it posted allowed verification against its English rendering [2] [4].
4. How translation debates typically complicate intent: lessons from parallel controversies
Translation disputes are not new in political-religious speech; debates over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “wipe off the map” remark demonstrate that literal wording, idiom, rhetorical convention and political context can yield sharply different English renderings and geopolitical consequences, with authoritative actors and critics disagreeing about whether a phrase is literal, idiomatic, or incitatory [5]. Reporting on that precedent is instructive because it shows how literal-versus-idiomatic translation arguments are often marshaled by both defenders and detractors to frame intent.
5. Weighing the evidence: what the cited reporting supports and what it does not
On the available evidence in these sources, two facts are most important and well-documented: MEMRI released an uncut source and an English translation, and the imam later apologized—both facts undermine a strong claim that the English rendering was a deceptive, out-of-context fabrication [2] [4] [3]. These same sources, however, also document pushback about MEMRI’s institutional agenda and the mosque’s insistence the sermon was misrepresented, which means reasonable observers will continue to question selective framing even where a literal mistranslation is not proven [3] [4].
6. Conclusion and the evidentiary gap that remains
Taken together, the contemporaneous reporting tilts toward the conclusion that the imam’s remarks were not simply invented by a translator or rescued from a deliberately misleading snippet—the uncut original was available and the speaker’s apology undercuts a total denial—but the supplied sources do not include an independent, neutral linguistic review or transcript from a mutually agreed third party, so absolute closure on nuance and idiomatic meaning is not possible from this record alone [2] [4] [5].