INTERPRETING DIVINE TEXTS- Let the Qur’an define itself

[shadha]

INTERPRETING DIVINE TEXTS

Let the Qur’an define itself


In our schools, we get an “A” if we can memorize something, but an “F” if we dare to analyze it. If God had wanted us to be parrots, he would have given us feathers and beaks instead of minds and free will.


BY NAIF AL-MUTAWA, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008

In the Arab world, it is held as an unadulterated truth that the Qur’an is best read in its original classical Arabic. But is keeping it closed off to further translation supporting God’s will or suppressing it?

Many believe that what differentiates the Qur’an from other holy books is that it is undiluted by translation, that once a word is translated it loses its original breadth and depth. But is that really the case? Can we not also make the argument that a word, once translated into 100 languages, expresses an even greater breadth and depth?

The Qur’an defines itself. Less perfectly, perhaps, in Swedish than in Arabic, but surely far more valuably to the Swedes. One cannot hold goodness hostage to perfection.

Life is all about the grey area. When I was growing up I wasn’t sure where I belonged in the world of religion. The way religion was taught in the Arab world was always in absolutes. While I didn’t know much when I was young, I knew that I could not live in a black and white, either-or world. This was made most clear through a sermon delivered by a young imam who was studying for his doctorate at the Harvard Divinity School.

Speaking to a group of Muslim students, Imam Talal Eid said, “If you ask me whether charging interest is haram (forbidden) in Islam, I would say ‘yes’ and I would quote chapter and verse from the Qur’an for you.”

After a long pause, he went on to say, “But if I didn’t pay for my car with an installment loan, I wouldn’t be able to come here to talk to you about Islam.”

With that simple, expressive example between the absolute and the relative, the imam carved out a place of tolerance and compromise for me. He made it safe for me to be the judge of my own actions, to set my own course, to walk to the beat of my own drum. He made it safe to make my own rules using the lessons I learned with the heart and mind that God gave me. No one could force me to walk away from my duty as a Muslim by insisting there was only one way to live my life and practice my faith.

Tolerance begins in the classroom. Tolerance begins when we are allowed to read any text from any source, in any translation, and offer our opinions. Tolerance is born when there are as many opinions as there are people and when the power of reason is what separates a good grade from a bad one. In an Arab education, the power of memory and repetition are too often rewarded, while the power of reason is reprimanded.

In our schools, we get an “A” if we can memorise someone else’s teachings but an “F” if we dare to analyse it. Worse yet, we can be branded as heretics. I have heard many proudly say that one should value repetition over the use of one’s mind.

But if God had wanted us to be parrots, he would have given us feathers and beaks instead of minds and free will.

We need to move on.

In Europe the Renaissance helped break the control of those who favoured recitation over reason. Art played a huge part in that revolution. Suddenly, people were encouraged to have opinions about art and to discuss its implications. Meanwhile, art in our neck of the desert was, until recently, limited exclusively to the beautiful calligraphy of the Qur’an.

As beautiful as our art is, its meaning gave no room for openness of interpretation. How could one comment? I don’t like the colour purple on that verse? Maybe the writer should have used a larger font?

I once asked my ten-year-old son, Hamad, what he thought of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting, the Mona Lisa. He liked her smile but not the colours. “Too dark”, he said.

I then asked him what he thought of a beautiful piece of Qur’anic calligraphy that honours a wall in our home. He looked at it and asked me what I meant. “Hamad, you just told me what you liked and didn’t like about the Mona Lisa”, I replied. “Why can’t you tell me the same about this piece of art?”

He looked at me confused and said, “It’s the Qur’an. Of course it’s beautiful.” And indeed it is. But that is beside the point; someday he will know of his own intellect why it is beautiful.



Dr. Naif Al-Mutawa is the creator of The 99, the internationally acclaimed group of superheroes based on Islamic archetypes. For more information, please visit the99.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

__________

This is what I'll be teaching the Senior Islamic Studies Class this Sunday that I'm substituting.


shadha-

[Shivermetimbers]

on your marks, get set, go!

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by shadha

Many believe that what differentiates the Qur’an from other holy books is that it is undiluted by translation, that once a word is translated it loses its original breadth and depth. But is that really the case? Can we not also make the argument that a word, once translated into 100 languages, expresses an even greater breadth and depth?

As-Salam Alaykum.

Bismillah.

So translating the Quran (taking it from its God-sent wording to man made wording) gives it greater breadth and depth? In other words, God failed and man can do better?

This is what I'll be teaching the Senior Islamic Studies Class this Sunday that I'm substituting.

May Allah [swt] have mercy on your students' souls.

In any case, the author raises some valid concerns and real issues that must be addressed by the religious community, but sometimes the wrong people further the right causes and end up giving wrong solutions, mixing up truth with falsehood.

Fi Aman Allah

[Timbit]

With that simple, expressive example between the absolute and the relative, the imam carved out a place of tolerance and compromise for me. He made it safe for me to be the judge of my own actions, to set my own course, to walk to the beat of my own drum. He made it safe to make my own rules using the lessons I learned with the heart and mind that God gave me. No one could force me to walk away from my duty as a Muslim by insisting there was only one way to live my life and practice my faith.

Love it.

There's definitely an orthodoxy in Islam, but at the same time, it's not like we have a Church that can claim hegemony over you/the religion.

[MuslimZ]

This guy came to my masjid to give a presentation on the 99 and he touched on these subjects. Awesome dude.

[jinnzaman]

وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا لَّقَالُوا لَوْلَا فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ أَأَعْجَمِيٌّ وَعَرَبِيٌّ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هُدًى وَشِفَاء وَالَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى أُوْلَئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِن مَّكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ

And if We had sent this as a Qur'an in a foreign language (other than Arabic), they would have said: Why are not its verses explained in detail (in our language)? What! (A Book) not in Arabic and (the Messenger) an Arab? Say: it is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness (deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur'an) is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so they neither listen nor understand).



Quran: 41:44





“The Koran was first translated into English in 1649, and since then dozens of people – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – have translated it into many languages. No matter how good the translation is, however, Muslims believe that every single one of them falls short of the original. That is because Muslims regard the Koran as it was delivered in Arabic (more on this ‘delivery’ later), as the literal and divine word of God. Any variation from the text is no longer divine and no longer the Koran. So although a translation in English (or any other language) may be helpful and necessary for non-Arabic speeches, Muslims and those interested in the Holy Book, it should never be confused with the Koran itself.”

-Page 5 “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran” by Shaikh Mandal Sarwar and Brandon Toropov



“In translating the Text I have aired no views of my own, but followed the received commentators. Where they differ among themselves, I have had to choose what appeared to me to be the most reasonable opinion from all points of view.”

Xii



“For my part I agree with this protest. While freely reserving the right of individual judgement on the part of every earnest writer, I think the art of interpretation must stick as closely as possible to the text which it seeks to interpret. Every serious writer and thinker has a right to use all the knowledge and experience he possesses in the service of the Quran. But he must not mix up his own theories and conclusions, however reasonable, with the interpretation of the Text itself, which is usually perfectly perspicuous., as it claims to be.”

Pg xvi of Yusuf Ali’s “The Glorious Quran”



"The Koran cannot be translated. This is the belief of the old-fashioned Shayks and the view of the present writer [pickthall] . . . (this) is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Koran - and peradventure something of the charm - in English. It can never take the place of the Koran in Arabic, not is it meant to do so." (Pickthall's "Traslation of the Glorious Quran", p. x)



“In this connection it is necessary to add a word of caution. There is a general tendency to regard the English translation of the Holy Quran as “The Quran”. It is obviously a misnomer. No translation, however good it may be, can ever take the place of the original Quran, which is its Arabic text; for it is impossible to reproduce its matchless, enchanting and grand style, its highly emotive and fiery language and its forceful rhetoric. Therefore one must turn to the original Arabic Text for fuller appreciation and understanding.”

Pg 5 Muhammed Akbar’s Preface to Maulana Maududi’s “Meaning of the Quran”.



“It is common knowledge that the Quran is well-nigh untranslatable because its form and content are both divine. Its meaning, however, may be interpreted in other tongues. Obviously, no interpretation can express the whole range of meanings contained in any given verse.”

Ismael al Faruqi, American Islamic College

~back cover of “The Quran Translated” by T.B. Irving

[jinnzaman]

While the Qur'an is a polysemantic text, its polysemanticism is limited, not infinite, in nature. Its a basic aspect of hermeneutics to try and understand a text in its original language and through the author's intent. With the Qur'an, that can only be done in Arabic. Moreover, since Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has infinite knowledge, wisdom, and has absolute will power, his decision to send the Qur'an in Arabic creates a strong presumption to use that as the means of interpretation. What this means is that while its not prohibited to translate the Qur'an into another language, its wrong to presume that any other translation is equally authoritative as a means of interpreting the text as classical Arabic is to the Qur'an.

[Chisti]

I have heard some good stuff about this person. Heard that he is a psychologist and his work with Kuwaiti's after the gulf war gave him the idea of a Muslim comic series.

I do agree with his assertion, paraphrasing it: We should use our rational minds to interpret others ideas, critique them, challenge them etc AND that we should tolerate difference of opinion. But I think he is coming close to blaming the lack of 'inquiry' on religion. It is true that the secular education in the Arab world sucks and he should ciritize and fix it, but blame should not be put on religion. Maybe in this day and age the teaching of religion has become "narrow minded" but this isn't the case everywhere.

Often people tend to compare what happened in Europe to the Islamic world, which isn't always correct. Europe had a different history, culture, religion, and problems. I see a lot of "secular" and "progressive" people doing this more often.

My point is that the Islamic world was mostly always tolerant and that is why we accept 4 schools of fiqh etc ... we have had scholars of religion criticize other ideas without calling them kaffir or suppressing their voices. Of course there were times when suppressing wrong ideas was essential to the purity of religion. And this is the reason Islamic teachings have been preserved to this day. Whereas if you look at what happened in Europe, they lost their "good" traditions and authentic teachings during the "reformation" ....

Also, science and inquiry flourished in the Islamic world when Islamic sciences flourished. If we look at history we see that the most famous scientists and philosophers were also hadeeth, fiqh, tasawuf etc scholars ... Ibn Sina is the most perfect example.

Compare that to Europe during renaissance (when science took the lead) we see that most scientists were also religious etc but gradually during the latter part of history the best scientists were secular atheists.

To conclude, I think it was the beginnings of Islamic sciences that propelled the ummah towards learning other sciences (physics etc) ... Remember Jaffar at Tayar r.a. (Imam Ali r.a. brother) said to the King of Abyssinia something like : We were lost and had no morals etc until we were guided by the Prophet saw. (someone may know the exact words).

We simply need to "RE-CREATE" or "REVIVE" our way of learning and teachings - AND not "REFORM".

[Biryani]

The title to this article is misleading. It does not match the content.

There is a lot of 'fluff' in the article, but very little objective analysis. Some concerns I have:

1) Difficulties of translation are not taken into consideration. Anyone who has tried to translate a book / article from one language to another has experienced this first hand. I for one have done some Urdu to English translation and the fact is no matter how meticulous you are and how hard you try to get an exact translation it doesn't happen. Translating 'Allah' as God while it is close is not accurate. After all there is no plural to the word 'Allah' and unfortunately there is a plural for the word God (ie gods).

I don't think there is much harm in translation as long as it's coupled with the original n Arabic and there is a clear indication that this is a translation.

2) Generalization regarding the 'A' and 'F' system. I'm not sure who he's referring to here. If anything, as a Muslim I have been repeatedly invited to analyze conclusions, ideas and thoughts. There is a difference between matters of faith and matters of fiqh. Matters of faith are things you should analyze and learn for yourself. Don't hold a belief unless you have a conviction. Matters of fiqh should be analyed also; however, since the common man does not have the time to commit to the resources and become an expert he/she usually emulates someone who he considers an expert (taqlid).

This whole idea of every person doing their own 'ijtihad' is something people like Irshad Manji propagate. It ignores the fact that one man's ijtihad is superior to to another man's ijtihad. It's kind of like saying my opinions on medicine are just as valuable as a doctor's opinons on medicine. I know this is not true. This is why when I get sick I goto a doctor.

3) "We should be able to read any text and give our opinon on it." See the problem with this statement is not what it says. There is no problem with you giving your opinion on what is being said. The problem is your opinon on the scripture usually ends up becoming less a commentary on the scripture and more a commentary on the level of purity in your nafs. (IE A femminist may read the Quran and see it as femminist literature while at the same time someone else may read it and see it as being sexist.) Why does this happen? The problem is the two readers have not detached themselves from their nafs. In order to understand the true meaning of the Quran, you have to detatch yourself from your own nafs and allign your nafs with the nafs of God. Only then can you understand the meaning of the Quran based on what the author meant for it to mean. You're essentially reading "into" the text not reading the text. Hope this makes sense. It's an idea easier to articulate in person than in writing.

There is a strong need to use the intellect. At the same time we need to make sure we understand the level of our intellect as well. The opinon of a school child on the pythagorean theorum may be built on a misunderstanding of the concept. The opinon of a professor of mathematics will always be more likely to be correct. No one will stop you from using your intellect and establishing your own opinons on scripture as long as you've actually elevated the level of your intellect in such a way. If you haven't taken the time to do this and still consider your uneducated opinion to be equal to or superior to the opinions of experts in the field then you are mistaken.

Bir

Bir