Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Arabic and authorities

January 21, 2008

Fitzgerald: Arabic and authorities

A Jihad Watch reader recently said: "We need people to be able to learn Arabic. How is this going to be achieved without indoctrination?"

The need for "people...to learn Arabic" is greatly exaggerated. There is no need to "learn Arabic" in order to learn the contents of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. 80% of the world's Muslims are not Arabs and do not know Arabic. Arabs today have a great deal of difficulty understanding Qur'anic Arabic -- though not as much as English speakers would have reading, unaided, Beowulf or The Seafarer or The Wanderer or the riddles in The Exeter Book. But it is less important to pick up your Thackston (for an elementary guide to Qur'anic Arabic) than to pick up your book on Islamic law, by Joseph Schacht, or on war and peace in Islam (by Majid Khadduri), or other books by Snouck Hurgronje, or Henri Lammens, or others by those Western scholars, those Orientalists, who wrote before the age of fear, the age of flattery, the age of mental confusion, the Age of the Great Inhibition, set in.

And besides, there are native speakers of Arabic -- Maronites, Copts, Jews in Israel who came from Arab lands -- who can give us all the help we need, and who, what's more, can vet others, including possible "islamochristians," who might otherwise be hired or even put in charge of critical translations. When you have no idea what you are doing, as this Administration has not, you hire, you rely, on all kinds of doubtful characters to give you "insight" and "knowledge."

Hire Youssef Ibrahim. Hire Franck Salameh, whose devastating article on his own experience teaching Arabic one summer at Middlebury deserves to be read. It should be read not only by the President of Middlebury and others who may work to clean up the thought-police and implied threat-thuggery at the Arabic School, but also by those in the government in charge of giving students grants to attend such a school in the dreamy belief that they will "merely be learning the language and so politics can't come into it." Of course it can.

Hire the equivalent of Kanan Makiya, or if he finally comes around on Islam, and realizes that the missing explanation for what happened in Iraq, is the effect of Islam, its habit of mental submission, its aggression, its Victor/Vanquished view of the universe (its everything that he has had a hard time defending, but still can't quite bring himself to jettison), hire Makiya himself.

Just as the outspoken Magdi Allam, in Italy, from time to time mentions his humble, decent, and officially "Muslim" Egyptian parents (who nonetheless, despite having very little money, made sure to send him to a Christian school in Egypt), so Kanan Makiya has been quick, in the past, when he senses that others (say, on a television panel discussion) are impugning Islam, mentions his pious Shi'a grandmother. But while it is clear that Magdi Allam has reached the stage of "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, Kanan Makiya has not yet shown that he has connected the dots of behavior, attitudes, atmospherics, in societies and individuals suffused with Islam, with the texts and tenets of that same Islam. But eventually, because he is an honest man, he will be forced -- he will force himself -- to do so.

And the absurd reliance on Muslims, rather than on non-Muslim native speakers of Arabic, maddens. It shows that there are too many people in positions of authority who have not studied Islam, not even a bit, and are deep believers in "using moderate Muslims" as their guide to... the other kind.

Gordon England, being led by the nose, is hardly the only one to have been deeply impressed with the quiet voices, sincere looks from liquid-brown eyes, and expressions of deep loyalty to the American Way, and great personal charm -- an entire shtick that may be transparent to you and to me, but then, we're the kind of people who are wary, who don't simply accept things but do our own homework, and are therefore not the kind of company men likely to rise high in an atmosphere that rewards groupthink, and company men.

Look at how Hesham Islam has England wrapped around his little finger, or should we vary the metaphor, and have him, rather, leading England around by the nose?

Oh, we have all the Arabic speakers we need, but fearful, ignorant, and also dangerous people are keeping them out, and hiring the wrong ones, on the principle that "only a Muslim can understand Islam" or "only a Muslim can be hired" to deal with "fellow Muslims" or "only a Muslim can possibly broadcast to Muslim countries."

Only a Communist can be hired to broadcast about democratic freedoms, for Radio Liberty? For Radio Free Europe? Or could an émigré, a refugee, a defector from Communism, or someone who never was a Communist at all, be the best person to describe the attraction of Western-style democracy and individual rights, and link the failures and hideousness of Communist-ruled societies to Communism itself?

And the same is true, mutatis mutandis, with dealing with the meaning, and menace, of Islamic Jihad.

Posted by Hugh at January 21, 2008 3:03 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

" Before the age of fear, the age of flattery, the age of mental confusion, the Age of the Great Inhibition, set in."

You are the wordsmith of excellence, Mr. Fitzgerald. Its unfortunate that we have few of your kind to diagnose a malaise the way you do. No flattery intended.

I was always a sucker for people who know their stuff. You have proven time and time again that you're head and shoulders above everyone in this jihad debacle. Can we clone you?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at January 21, 2008 4:08 AM

Arabic language studies can help the West to understand the nuances of Arabic culture in much the same way as studying;

Arabic Mathematics: If one martyr can kill an average of 20 infidels at an Israeli marketplace, how many martyrs will be needed to retake Palestine from the illegal Zionist regime?

Arabic Biology: Discussing the similarity of the DNA makeup of Jews to that of pigs and monkeys.

Arabic Geography: Examining the order in which the European countries will become Muslim majority starting with France.

Posted by: Xero G

at January 21, 2008 5:29 AM

Just knowing Arabic means the can no longer safely talk or write in your presence assuming the infidels don't understand a word that's being said.

Much neglected here in Israel as a 2nd language. Two of our children are studying Arabic. Let the camel kissers beware!

Posted by: Shy Guy

at January 21, 2008 5:44 AM

Learn Arabic in order to know Islam through the Qur'an? Which Arabic? Classical Arabic? Modern Standard Arabic? Vernacular Arabic in, what, a score of distinctly different regional forms?

"thesaracen," posting his piece for da'wa, argues that the meaning of the Qur'an is inextricably bound to revealed Arabic ineffable in any other tongue. The universal Message to mankind is: God Is An Arab in Being and Divinity, revealing Himself only in Qur'anic Arabic--not Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, nada--rendered and understood only as He, capriciously, Wills it.

Allah Is Absurd. Accept this. Dare not believe otherwise.

Posted by: John C

at January 21, 2008 7:20 AM

“leading England around by the nose?”

Because of his treasonous acts, I’m thinking more like,

“leading England around by the noose!”

Nathan Hale is rolling in his grave!

Posted by: patagonianplato

at January 21, 2008 8:10 AM

Yes, Sheik yer mami, we should clone Hugh, except he probably cannot be replicated.

I like this part:
"...hardly the only one to have been deeply impressed with the quiet voices, sincere looks from liquid-brown eyes, and expressions of deep loyalty to the American Way, and great personal charm -- "

I lived in Asia for a good 22 years and actually envisioned it this way when I first heard the story. An Egyptian guy hit on me once and, yes, they can be quite charming when they want. Then on the other hand they can entirely ignore your existence if you have nothing to offer.

"...an entire shtick that may be transparent to you and to me, but then, we're the kind of people who are wary, who don't simply accept things but do our own homework, and are therefore not the kind of company men likely to rise high in an atmosphere that rewards groupthink, and company men."

See. He cannot be cloned.

Posted by: rishika

at January 21, 2008 8:24 AM

A Jihad Watch reader recently said: "We need people to be able to learn Arabic. How is this going to be achieved without indoctrination?"

Since that person was myself, Hugh, you've not understood why I wrote this. Let me explain. It was not about 'dhimmitude'. Far from it!

I meant for counter-terrorism purposes.

We need to be able to read these Arabic blogs and sites and intercept intelligence coming from the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm of the school of thought that goes 'if you want something done properly, do it yourself'. I don't trust agents and intermediaries. I will always fear that they are double-agents. Or that their judgement is not as sharp as mine.

I like to be in control. Knowledge is power. I don't entirely trust other people's knowledge, I trust my own better.

For a kick off, there can be nuances to words. English is a very rich but precise language. Words have nuances but we try as far as possible to give each nuance a separate word; pin it down. We generally try not to pile on the multiple meanings if at all possible. At the moment, we're trying to get to the bottom of the word 'Islamist'. That's because we're logical, honest, straight dealing people.

But Arabic likes to pile on the multiple meanings because its stance is to go for rhetoric and innuendo; emotion, rather than reason. It likes to 'suggest' to the emotions without being clear to the rational mind. This is a real part of what we're up against. I'm reading Gilles Kepel at the moment. He is discussing two Arabic words used in Sayid Qutb's Milestones: jahiliyya, and juhl. Both mean ignorance. But juhl seems to mean ignorance in the straightforward sense of lack of information, but jahiliyya means ignorance of a more profound order, an ignorance that comes from depravity or moral darkness. Kepel says is might equate to 'barbarism'.

Now, if we relied on go-betweens, they could be palming us off with a more benign construction, because they sense that this is what we want to hear. Or, they have their own agenda. Whereas, what we need to know is not necessarily the best news, but the worst. In fact we need to know the entire range, so that we can use our judgement and not theirs.

I'd rather be in control of that.

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 21, 2008 8:25 AM

If reading, or chanting the Quran in Arabic puts one in touch with the 'real', yet hidden truth of Islam, we, at least not I, have never heard just what that 'revealed ' truth is. You would think if muslim who read and chant in Arabic, who get 'more truth' out of the Quran than reading it in English,
would be very interested in passing this 'truth' on to infidels (not to mention other muslims), to reinforce the glories of Islam.
Yet we only hear of this in terms of fantasy,
because there are no hidden meanings discernable only in Arabic...If there are, I would like to hear about them...

Posted by: duh_swami

at January 21, 2008 8:28 AM

Lan Astaslem.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses

at January 21, 2008 9:17 AM

The Arabic word we MUST know? "Taqiyya."

Posted by: darcy

at January 21, 2008 10:20 AM

Could this be because the English language is becoming the "new international language" when it comes to information and business just as Greek, Latin, and French was in the past?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at January 21, 2008 10:30 AM

"thesaracen," posting his piece for da'wa, argues that the meaning of the Qur'an is inextricably bound to revealed Arabic ineffable in any other tongue. The universal Message to mankind is: God Is An Arab in Being and Divinity, revealing Himself only in Qur'anic Arabic--not Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, nada--rendered and understood only as He, capriciously, Wills it."

This is the complete opposite of what happened on that first Pentecost when the good news of the Gospel was spoken in different languages, showing that God does COME in different languages.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at January 21, 2008 10:36 AM

Because Arabic has no fixed vowels (only some suggestion "marks"), every word is an interpretation.

Which means there is no fixed meaning.

Which then means that the Koran cannot be a single "perfect" document (as its proponents are always crowing about), since it relies on each reader to guess what "vowel sounds" are implied by the writer of every single word.

BRK could be "Barack" or "Burook" or "Bireek" or "Boorik" or "Beriek".

It's poetry, not prose, at the root.

Defending it to the death is the madness of Islam's adherents, since they have mistaken a collection of potentialities for an actuality.

Lying to themselves by overlooking this fundmental slippery aspect of their own language.

Unconscious self-taqiyya?

Posted by: profitsbeard

at January 21, 2008 12:24 PM

Reposting for thesaracen something I wrote yesterday that is more on-topic here:

There is no evidence that Arabic, or Classical Arabic, is especially difficult for translators to translate, compared to other languages. In fact it has been translated successfully.

It is the meaning that is important, and that is what is translated. The meaning is grasped by understanding the ideas and facts, the values and goals of early Islam in the context in which the Quran was 'revealed.' To grasp those important concepts does not generally require learning Arabic (surface forms of the words, sounds, shapes of the letters, etc.). Grasping the meaning generally occurs most easily in one's own first language.

If it were true that the person needed to know Arabic, and Islam’s claims were true, and there really was an ‘Allah’, then Allah knowingly and intentionally prevented nearly all of mankind from having the opportunity to receive his message. The vast majority of humankind has not known, does not know, and will probably never know Arabic.

There is nothing in the Quran that says that it must be read or heard by someone who understands Arabic. In fact, the Quran claims Mohammad's message is to all mankind (34:28, 7:157-158). That would obviously be false if the Quran’s message could only be understood in Arabic.

Much of the Quran is in Classical Arabic, not modern Arabic. Most Arabic-speaking people today do not know Classical Arabic, and must rely on translations of the Quran.

It is unlikely that a non-Arabic speaker’s learning of Arabic would lead him or her to make a notably superior translation to the many that have already been provided by expert, professional scholars who are highly fluent in both languages. This is not to say that the translations are perfect, or could not be made a little more accurate in certain spots, but rather to indicate that translation is not a major issue. That being the case, there is no need for anyone who is not fluent in Arabic to go out and invest enormous amounts of time and money learning Arabic in order to understand the Quran, any more than someone who doesn't understand Latin, Hebrew or Arahmaic needs to learn those to understand the Bible.

Numerous translations are in reasonably high agreement on the main points. It is unlikely that they are all or even most are wrong or deficient. Also, there is considerable ideological consistency between the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, with regard to the major issues of concern for critics (see below, point # 12). There are some differences in translations, of course. There are some inaccuracies, and there are sectarian differences in interpretation. However, among the widely-respected professional translations, there are not major differences in the overall messages of the Quran.

The Quran is an opaque, vague text in any language, including Arabic. It is often ambiguous, with some individual words having numerous different meanings. (As Mohammad is reported to have said "I have been given the shortest expressions with the widest meanings"). The style of expression does not often lend itself well to precise interpretation. Part of the problem is that there is very little contextual information in the Quran itself--which again is another limitation built into the Quran itself. Also, unclear speech and writing can be produced in any language, if the speaker/writer lacks the skill and care required for clear communication.

The problem of understanding the Quran is solved, for the most part, not by learning Arabic but by reading additional sources, including expert scholarly tafsirs, (commentary, explanation), as well as the Hadith (numerous reports on the words and deeds of Mohammad) and Sira (life story of Mohammad), because these clarify the meaning of the verses. Those sources are available in non-Arabic languages. In order for readers to make sense of some of the Quran's stories, references, and policies, they must first be familiar with many parts of the Judeo-Christian Bible--which was not originally written in Arabic. Even if the reader did know Classical Arabic, they would still need to read these additional sources in order to make sense of the Quran.

Most of the Arab-speaking people who had originally heard the Quran recited by Mohammad himself, in Arabic, rejected the message (until Mohammad gained power and used force against them). On the other hand, there are devout Muslims all over the world today who do not know Arabic. In fact, most Muslims do not know Arabic. Therefore, hearing or reading the Koran in Arabic is not the crucial factor for understanding or appreciating its message. By the same standard, it is generally not a crucial factor for critics of Islam.

Some Arabic terms turn out to be worse-seeming to non-Muslims, once they are understood. The original Arabic terms in some cases are worse, once the reader finds out what they mean e.g., corruption/mischief (fasad), the wrong-doers (az-Zalimun), oppression/persecution (fitnah), "cursed" (qutila--he was killed). Each of these terms has a somewhat different meaning, in Islamic ideology, than is suggested by the English translation. No doubt, there have been some attempts to make the Quran seem kinder and gentler (e.g., Yusuf Ali's translation, in some spots, is an example of that; and most English translations tone down the offensiveness), but even these still convey the same messages of imperialism and intolerance. Note that translators are sometimes taking it upon themselves to make metaphors out of words, whereas the issue of literalism should be left up to the judgement of the reader. In these cases, it is useful to know some Arabic. However, one need not know Arabic in the sense of being able to read, write, and speak it fluently. One only needs to know the various meanings for the relevant key words and phrases.

The translation issue does not affect the policies to which a critic objects. In raising the translation argument, the Muslim apologist seems to imply that the problems in Islam would magically disappear if only the critic learned Arabic. In fact, the language issue (whether in relation to the Quran or the Hadith) does not have any impact on Islam’s objectionable practices: The killing of apostates and blasphemers; the unfair treatment of women; the practice of slavery; the approval of the rape of non-Muslim female captives and slaves; the legislation of jihad against non-Muslims until the Last Day; the institution of dhimmitude (derived in part from verse 9:29); the classification of non-Muslims as “filthy” and “vile” (9:28; 98:6); and the goal to conquer the whole world to make “all religion for Allah” (8:39; 9:33). Therefore, critics should regard the translation issue as largely unimportant and, usually, not relevant in addressing these substantive issues.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at January 21, 2008 1:16 PM

Shannon Rossmiller, housefrau, judge and home made spy, began to learn Arabic in order to spy on her computer from home. She managed to infiltrate and gain the trust of a number of cyberjihadists, two of whom are behind bars, and now, thanks to her public testimony and knowledge of Arabic, she and her family need 24/7 police protection! Me...I think Arab Hubris Studies and knowledge about Middle Eastern Histrionics is the best education. I do know some Arabic, through self study courses, and if you are interested in doing it yourself...it can be done. Here are some I have used: anything by Jane Wightwick, Transparent Language's Complete Learning Suite. Rosetta Stone, and my personal fave: IDI's Arabic Series, a voice recognition computer program designed for the military in Iraq. You get 4! count 'em 4!!! different Iraqi POWs to interrogate! How fun is THAT? There is even another computer software program, also designed for the military where you have to know the correct customs and phrases. If you don't do it right...you get killed, virtually speaking.
Now why would you want to go spend tens of thousands of dollars at Middlebury, when you can spend hundreds or so at Rosetta Stone or IDI and probably get a better education?

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

at January 21, 2008 7:39 PM

The Deoband Curriculum - a 6 year course - for production of an "ulama" (muslim dogmatist) dictates training in arabic in the first year. At least one US islamic center uses the curriculum.

Unfortunately, "arabs" do NOT speak "arabic." Of literate members of those who claim "arab" status, less than one-third can read premier newspapers, like "al Ahram." Those of that linguistic identity speak one of 35 different dialects. The average Moroccan cannot speak with the average Yemeni. Pirated English language programs are flooding the Middle East, as a useful linqua franca.

The language of diplomacy with the arab is: Modern Standard Arabic. It is the creation of the American gay male "arabists" who devised the standardization, at American University in Beirut. Arab nationalism - as founded by the gay Beirut Christian, George Antonius - was synthesized in an American linguistic laboratory. Chomskyism is very much a politicized derivative of the Beirut Frankenstein. No MIT nation-building; no Nasser or Osama bin Laden and no Noam Chomsky and his human viruses.

The formal classification of MSA in Raymond Gordon's Ethnologue: Languages of the World, is as follows:

MSA has 246,000,000 second language speakers (in the "arab" world; or MIT cinematography) is not a first language. MSA is used for education, official purposes, written materials, and formal speeches, all of which come not spontaneously, not as mother-tongues do, but out of prepared materials. MSA is used for religion and ceremonial purposes, having archaic vocabulary. MSA is a modernized variety of "Classical Arabic." In most arab countries only the well educated have adequate proficiency in Standard Arabic, while over 100,500,000 do not.

One of the gay, nation builders of Beirut, was asked by Dick Cavett of what drove his interest in "arabism." He answered, "arab boys." The pre-Chomsky gays in search of free sodomy, were stimulated by underground arabic text.

The poetry of abu-Nuwas is published by the gay American press. Check out this poem, that led to Nasserism and bin-Laden cave-ulama:

O the joy of sodomy!

So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of devils.
------------
Once you stop laughing, remember that Tirmidhi' hadith quotes the phony cave-muslim "prophet" as offering jihadi bandits and murderers, more than only "72 virgins"; the arab butcher also gets: "28 boys" as "smooth as cultured pearls."

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html

American academics created the Beirut-Frankenstein, in part in an MIT linguistic lab experiment; an American President must destroy that monster.

Posted by: supercargo

at January 21, 2008 10:46 PM

Hugh, you mention several books in this interesting post as a basic set of readings. Could you provide your top 5 or 10 (or more if needed) that should be in everyone's library if they're working in this area?

On the question of learning Arabic - if you decide you need to learn Arabic - some universities are now offering 3rd and 4th year classes in dialects, rather than 3rd and 4th year classes in Arabic literature using MSA. It seems more practical if you're focused on speaking and listening in a particular country.

Posted by: Christine

at January 22, 2008 10:17 AM

"This is the complete opposite of what happened on that first Pentecost when the good news of the Gospel was spoken in different languages, showing that God does COME in different languages."

i had not thought of that before, catgirl - nice one.

Posted by: freddiefreeloader

at January 22, 2008 12:07 PM

"This is the complete opposite of what happened on that first Pentecost when the good news of the Gospel was spoken in different languages, showing that God does COME in different languages."

i had not thought of that before, catgirl - nice one.

Posted by: freddiefreeloader

at January 22, 2008 12:08 PM

Certainly, Hugh, one does not need to know classical Arabic to understand the nature of Koran/Sunna's precepts -- translation's are OK.
But, in addition to devorgilla's and Shy Guy's pursuit of Arabic (vernacular, I presume?) for purposes of understanding enemy communications, there is another aspect that I'd like to see researched further.
Just like Sanskrit's sounds (ok, allegedly) have transformative effect and much of Vedas are to be recited aloud, so does chanting of Koran, I suspect, have transformative effect, albeit in another direction.

Posted by: kuchuklambat

at January 22, 2008 5:20 PM

kuchuklambat

simple way to test that one.

Get: Benedictine monk, Taize brother, Orthodox monk from Athos, Hasidic rabbi, Buddhist monk, Hindu priest, and Muslim Quran-by-heart chanters (one that knows the Arabic; one that doesn't and is simply parroting without conscious comprehension).

Hook each one up to MRI-type device (realtime brain mapping).

Tell 'em to start chanting their favourite pieces and watch what, if anything, happens in the various brains. After all, we know roughly where the hotspots for aggression, pleasure, complex thought, etc. are located, by now.

See which texts press which buttons.

After all, Tina Magaard, Sorbonne-trained, compared the language of Muslim sacred texts with that of the texts of ten other religions and concluded there was, objectively considered, more incitation to violence in the Muslim texts than in any of the others.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at January 23, 2008 12:25 AM

kuchuklambat

A further refinement of my hypothetical experiment.

Compare what happens in the brain of an Arabic-speaking Christian chanting either the liturgy or the Psalms in Arabic, and what happens in the brain of an Arab Muslim chanting surahs from the Quran.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at January 23, 2008 12:27 AM

sure, dumbledoresarmy, except of course the transformations happen over time, so you'll need a longitudinal study, and you'll need a largish sample of each group to allow for statistical variation.
Quite a few Ph.D. theses can be cooked up here, I am sure, if you can get funding for brain MRI machines.
You think Al-Waleed bin Talal can throw some cash at this?

Posted by: kuchuklambat

at January 23, 2008 1:46 AM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.