Written words and sacred languages

Ishtiaq Ahmed

Posted Jan 12, 2007      •Permalink      • Printer-Friendly Version
Bookmark and Share

Written words and sacred languages


Ishtiaq Ahmed



Human beings are a species that have the intelligence to use their brain to make abstract connections between objects, events and themselves. They are able to do so in the form of speech. As far as we know, only humans have developed the faculty of speech and are able to create both descriptive and normative concepts to describe as well as theorise about natural and social phenomena. At some stage, such intelligence and speech were put into abstract symbols and pictorial forms and this way the spoken word was converted into the written word. It was a most revolutionary step forward.

We know that only those peoples, nations, cultures and civilisations have left a mark on history and human affairs that developed a written script and thus preserved their history in it. I believe there are still some tribes in the forests of Asia, Africa and Latin America whose existence is gravely threatened because they have not adopted some script to record their story and tell it to the world

It should not be difficult to pursue this argument further and say that even in the present era those nations that are literate are able to influence the world more effectively than those which are partially literate. Therefore we must acknowledge that the written word makes a qualitative difference to how peoples and nations evolve a grand narrative about themselves and are able to disseminate it over time, and influence others. But the presence of a script and literal skill are no guarantee that the nation as a whole or people as individuals benefit from it. Rather, historically we notice that in almost all societies the literary skill, and with it the ability to read and write a book, was confined to closed power elites: often the religious establishment.

Moreover a classical language rather than the vernacular tongues of the people was employed in the religious scriptures. Thus the Hindu scriptures were written and read in Sanskrit and the Brahmins alone enjoyed exclusive authority to interpret them. In the European context too the religious establishment insisted on reading and writing the Bible in Latin only; a language the ordinary people of Europe did not comprehend in any meaningful sense.

When we look at Islamic heritage and its relationship to book culture the interesting thing is that pristine Islam had an open system of clerical and lay scholarship. Anyone with genuine devotion, learning and wisdom could distinguish himself through his writings and gain the respect of his peers and become an authority on Islamic teachings.

The system functioned very successfully until about the middle of the 13th century when not only religious sciences but also poetry and art were composed in Arabic. The caliphates at Baghdad, Cairo and Cordoba (Qurtaba) were centres of enlightenment and intellectual sophistication. Those who converted to Islam faced no theological hindrance in learning Arabic or joining the fraternity of scholars, jurists or Sufis.

The Muslims of those times translated Greek classics, made contribution to science and technology, invented scientific instruments and carried out scientific experiments. Various schools of free-thinkers, philosophers, writers, artisans and manufacturers contributed in different ways to a culture in which books were written and read with curiosity and enthusiasm. More than four hundred thousand handwritten books were available in the main library in Cordoba alone.

Unfortunately, the sack of Baghdad in 1258 proved to be a blow from which the Islamic civilisation has not fully recovered even today. The Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires that emerged later in different parts of the world were feudal-military entities in which Arabic was not the mother-tongue of any significant group in the population.

Under the circumstance, the ulema by default became the sole experts of Islam, and although no church was formally established among Muslims anywhere in the world they came to acquire almost a monopoly in the interpretation of Islam. One needs to emphasise that even among the ulema few were experts of Arabic as a language and as a medium of intellectual discourse.

Most of the lower strata were simply prayer leaders who memorised the Quran but were in no position to discuss it intelligently and competently. Also, the translation of the Quran into the local vernaculars was considered impious and even heretical by the arch traditionalists. Thus when Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) translated the Quran into Persian it was not received well by his peers.

Now, in the western world and elsewhere it was first when the Bible was translated into the living language of the people that modern interpretations of its contents could be made. Although the intention of the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther (1483-1546), was to restore the true church he considered the translation of the bible into German the first step towards it. However, the unintended consequence of such an undertaking was that people could read the Bible themselves and thus make up their mind as to how much they wanted religion to govern their lives. The Catholic Church, however, resisted translation well into the twentieth century.

The Hindu reform movements, such as the Brahmo Samaj (founded 1828) and Arya Samaj (founded 1875), undertook translation of the Hindu scriptures into Hindi and other vernacular languages. They also came up with the argument that pristine Vedic Hinduism was not based on hereditary caste. They did not succeed in eradicating that institution, but the monopoly of priests on interpreting Hinduism was definitely weakened.

With regard to Islam, the contemporary ulema—just as their predecessors did—insist that all that we need to know about the world is given in the Quran and, more importantly, can be known only to those who are experts of Arabic. As long as Muslims do not make their sacred books accessible in the tongues spoken by the ordinary believers the ulema will continue to present a narrow and rigid interpretation of the Quran.

This thesis can of course be called into question because the most literalist interpretation of the Quran is provided by the most genuine speakers of Arabic—those of Saudi Arabia. Therefore direct availability may be a necessary but not a sufficient basis for a dynamic and modern interpretation of a religion. Other factors such as industrialisation, urbanisation and a culture of rational discourse also play a role.

Nevertheless it is important that a miniscule minority of Wahabis does not dictate to 1.3 billion Muslims its narrow interpretation of the sacred word. And, therefore reading the Quran in the real tongues of the Muslims peoples is necessary.

The writer is an associate professor at the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University in Sweden.  First published Saturday, January 13, 2007, in The News International at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/news.asp?cat_id=9

 

Permalink