Hazards of Translation
Awhile back, I sat outside with the Arabic words to the five daily calls to prayer in hand & followed along as a single muezzin called the 3:15 PM Asr. It was the first time I’d heard the words clearly. It opened it up to me at little, at last, & this was exciting.
All around the globe the calls to prayer are almost always in Arabic. The sermons, Friday khotbat (galvanizing, fiery speeches) & local announcements are typically made in Indonesian, or the local language. But even that choice has its detractors.
The reason the prayers are in Arabic—& this not the vernacular but a high, classical Arabic—is one of purity. The Qur’an (Koran) was originally written in classical Arabic, according to scripture: directly from God to Muhammad. (Most believe it was compiled, like the Bible, over time by many authors) But to translate it would subject it to interpretation. As anyone who has ever compared Bible translations knows, this can make for some significant changes in meaning.
As one online article puts it: “…the Bible is Bible, no matter what language it may be written in. For Muslims, the divine Word assumed a specific, Arabic form, and that form is as essential as the meaning that the words convey. Hence only the Arabic Koran is the Koran, and translations are simply interpretations.”
The purity of this ambition appeals to me in many ways. I find a rare beauty in the original language & form still preserved within today's global, schismatic, polyglot worship.
But there are some obvious disadvantages, too.
There are roughly 1 billion Muslims in the world, but only about 200 thousand Arabic speakers, not all of whom are Muslims. More, today's Arabic in its many dialects is to classical Arabic is sort of like Californian English is to Shakespearian English: not all that many people get it on the first pass. Some never do.
Though the reasons are different, one effect is that Arabic sermons & prayers in non-Arabic-speaking countries are a lot like Latin mass. There’s a quality of ritual, meditation, beauty & tradition in it, but almost no one understands it. That has its downsides. Already, I’m told, many Indonesians pray (privately) in their own language. To do so in public, however, has its dangers.
In December 2005, in the east Java town of Mulang, a charismatic cleric, Yusman “Gus” Roy taught his students & congregation to do the prayers in Indonesian. Radical groups (who exactly that is here is unclear to me) objected, declaring his translation—ie: interpretation—to be blasphemous. They threatened his life, destroyed his home & school. The government, called in to help, labeled Roy the provocateur. He was named the creator of the unrest & so was arrested. He was found not guilty of blasphemy, but convicted for “despoiling” or insulting Islam.
Maintaining an original 'purity' of form forever--especially of language--requires us to strive against the forward nature of things, & so comes at a price.
He was imprisoned for 18 months.
Cleric Roy has recently been released & came out at once, radically, declaring his intention to continue praying & leading prayers in Indonesian.
My appreciation of its aesthetics aside, let's ask the question: Has the preservation of language shielded the Koran & Islamic prayers from the hazards & vagaries of human interpretation, & despoiling maniacs like cleric Roy? Of course it has: how could 1,217 years & 1 billion people find any textual grounds for disagreement when it's all written, quite clearly, in classical Arabic?
All around the globe the calls to prayer are almost always in Arabic. The sermons, Friday khotbat (galvanizing, fiery speeches) & local announcements are typically made in Indonesian, or the local language. But even that choice has its detractors.
The reason the prayers are in Arabic—& this not the vernacular but a high, classical Arabic—is one of purity. The Qur’an (Koran) was originally written in classical Arabic, according to scripture: directly from God to Muhammad. (Most believe it was compiled, like the Bible, over time by many authors) But to translate it would subject it to interpretation. As anyone who has ever compared Bible translations knows, this can make for some significant changes in meaning.
As one online article puts it: “…the Bible is Bible, no matter what language it may be written in. For Muslims, the divine Word assumed a specific, Arabic form, and that form is as essential as the meaning that the words convey. Hence only the Arabic Koran is the Koran, and translations are simply interpretations.”
The purity of this ambition appeals to me in many ways. I find a rare beauty in the original language & form still preserved within today's global, schismatic, polyglot worship.
But there are some obvious disadvantages, too.
There are roughly 1 billion Muslims in the world, but only about 200 thousand Arabic speakers, not all of whom are Muslims. More, today's Arabic in its many dialects is to classical Arabic is sort of like Californian English is to Shakespearian English: not all that many people get it on the first pass. Some never do.
Though the reasons are different, one effect is that Arabic sermons & prayers in non-Arabic-speaking countries are a lot like Latin mass. There’s a quality of ritual, meditation, beauty & tradition in it, but almost no one understands it. That has its downsides. Already, I’m told, many Indonesians pray (privately) in their own language. To do so in public, however, has its dangers.
In December 2005, in the east Java town of Mulang, a charismatic cleric, Yusman “Gus” Roy taught his students & congregation to do the prayers in Indonesian. Radical groups (who exactly that is here is unclear to me) objected, declaring his translation—ie: interpretation—to be blasphemous. They threatened his life, destroyed his home & school. The government, called in to help, labeled Roy the provocateur. He was named the creator of the unrest & so was arrested. He was found not guilty of blasphemy, but convicted for “despoiling” or insulting Islam.
Maintaining an original 'purity' of form forever--especially of language--requires us to strive against the forward nature of things, & so comes at a price.
He was imprisoned for 18 months.
Cleric Roy has recently been released & came out at once, radically, declaring his intention to continue praying & leading prayers in Indonesian.
My appreciation of its aesthetics aside, let's ask the question: Has the preservation of language shielded the Koran & Islamic prayers from the hazards & vagaries of human interpretation, & despoiling maniacs like cleric Roy? Of course it has: how could 1,217 years & 1 billion people find any textual grounds for disagreement when it's all written, quite clearly, in classical Arabic?
posted by Anne E. Campisi at 12:22 AM
1 Comments:
Haha, I love the last sentence.
The transition of religion over time is something that has always interested me. Being Lutheran of course the nature of language in the word of God is also of utmost importance. I remember reading about a man in Afghanistan who only spoke Pashtu, but had memorized the entire Koran. Apparently this bestowed some special knowledge on him.
Conversely, the notion that the Latin (vulgate translation) of the Bible is the "original" is completely laughable. The only reason the vulgate existed at all was the split between the east and west roman empire, and a realization that the western bishops couldn't actually read the original greek documents, and the greek translations of the earlier works. Even the word of God is tied up in politics.
(Just finished a great book on this time period called "The Closing of the Western Mind" if you are interested in that stuff. Spends a lot of time looking at how a radical and divergent religion can end up coopted by the powers of the day, pretty useful stuff to know in today's political environment.)
Post a Comment
<< Home