Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading, and commenting; I appreciate your thoughts. That being said, let me tear them apart, and I’ll do so in a post rather than a comment because Blogger insists that my response violates the character limit, despite my strongest protestations. Please do not see this as an attempt to exercise a greater degree of power over you. Rather understand that I feel very strongly about this topic and want to continue to discuss the issue without limiting my reply, and I hope that you will continue to post your ideas and responses, particularly when they conflict with mine.
Actually, I whole-heartedly agree that (a) the religions are significantly enough different from each other that despite a shared origin, they have plenty to disagree about; (b) Peace Corps volunteers use language in far more complicated ways than the average "normal;" and (c) many uses of the word "Allah" are done with the intention of showing solidarity with the Islamic community.
What I want to address, however, is what I think is a misunderstanding of my purpose in using so many different languages - "linguistic elitism." I'm not entirely sure what that even means, but I certainly never claimed that people shouldn't use their native languages to speak with others of different linguistic traditions. Girls from a [nedi neswi] ("women's association" for non-volunteers) can - and should - greet foreign guests as "Hello my sister" or "bonjour ma soeur" or whatever. I'm raising the issue that they should not say "Hello ma soeur."
I don't really care, however, if people want to mix their language around in innocuous settings, such as concerning the word "sister," "house," or "director." I'm talking about significant political issues, such as God and religion. My use of the Arabic alphabet is not to say that people need to read Arabic to speak it, but rather to show that the Arabic word that transliterates as [allah] is appropriately used in the context of speaking Arabic, not English. I whole-heartedly encourage all volunteers to say [allah] as a part of the many Darija "God phrases" when greeting their Moroccan friends. I certainly do, and I am neither Christian, Muslim, nor Jewish, either (in fact, I'm not even atheistic - I don't particularly care one way or another if there is or is not a supreme being).
I'm speaking about the political baggage of the words "God" and "Allah" as they are manifested in English. Christians and Muslims have vastly different beliefs of the desires of God, but so too do Catholics and Protestants. Even Episcopalians, Catholicism's closest Protestant relatives, scoff at Transubstantiation, Original Sin, and the Pope. We don't say "Catholic God Concept bless your heart." Judaism and Islam are greatly similar in many of their practices, such as dress and eating regulations (Christians have essentially none of these, excepting Fridays and Lent for some) to name a few. The point I'm making is that we don't tell our Jewish friends "Allah will be pleased" they didn't eat that bacon cheeseburger even though Islamic theology similarly forbids pork. We also don't use "Yahweh" when we speak with them, nor do the majority of English-speaking Jews. I'm trying to point out the irregularity of accepting Judaism as "same" within in the Christian-majority English community while continuing to label Islam as "other." They're either both on the inside or both on the outside.
Nor do I intend to imply that volunteers should necessarily know about the interrelationship of the Abrahamic faiths. I'm chastising my colleagues for encouraging the perception that the Islamic "God" is separate from that of Judeo-Christianity. A volunteer claiming that they use "Allah" rather than "God" as an English word because they appreciate the subtleties of the language makes me think of a parallel. Supposing we had been Teaching for America in some inner city school instead? We'd do what we could to integrate into our student community, including adopting their "language," and so when I speak with my fellow volunteers, I would tell them about the amusing anecdote provided in class by of my niggas. Well, maybe I wouldn't. It’s not that I don't wish we lived in a world where everyone understood that I was using the colloquial definition of "friend or compatriot;" it's just that we don't. Until then I’m arguing it's best to include Muslims within our monotheistic community rather than exclude them, and that acknowledging our shared tradition with the same word for the same meaning is greater than hoping for others to appreciate my culturally-sensitive nuance.
Finally, a Darijian transliteration of "hope to see you after you cross the big pond" would be: "entemna enshofek fesh doozti addaya kebira. inshallah."
2 comments:
You made a few interesting points, Duncan, and I agree with some of them, yet I don't really see where you are going by singling out PCVs as being guilty of misusing "allah." I say this not because I'm a PCV or take any personal offense, but because I think you are being inconsistent in your reasoning. And forgive my use of transliteration here but I’m going to use it for the sake of time/ease.
As you stated in the original post, “when you borrow inter-linguistically, you borrow the whole phrase.” Then you pose “inshallah” as an example – pointing out that it doesn’t really make sense to say “allah willing” or “insha God.”
However, in another part of your post you criticize volunteers that mix God-phrases into their speech by saying things such as “I’m doing well, lhamdullah” or “see you tomorrow, inshallah.” I don’t see the problem, since it conforms to your original principle that the whole phrase should be borrowed. lhamdullah and inshallah ARE the whole phrases.
If PCVs were going around saying “I’m doing well, thanks be to allah” then you would have a legitimate gripe, but I’ve never heard anything like that. I’ve experienced plenty of people saying “God bless your parents” but have never heard “allah bless your parents.”
You point out Sami Yusuf as someone who is guilty of perpetuating the allah/God distinction, but I’m going to go several steps further and posit that it is Islam itself that contributes to the phenomenon. I’m sure you are well-aware that Muslims of any nationality, regardless of mother tongue, must recite prayers in Arabic and that saying the articles of prayer in any other language invalidates them. This contrasts with your examples of Catholics and Protestants who are free to conduct services in their own languages. Don’t you think that if Muslims with English as their only language did not have to pray in Arabic and could instead say their prayers fully in English, there would be much less “borrowing” of allah and we would see God more frequently instead?
I also think Sami Yusuf committed no crime in using the transliterated Allah in his lyrics. English or Spanish don’t share the elite status among Muslims or Jews of being the languages of the Divine. For Jews, YHWH is the name they should use because YHWH said his name was YHWH, and I’m guessing that Allah said that he was Allah. For some believers of each faith to replace either one of these names with other language equivalents that somehow encompass their meaning may be considered inappropriate despite the assertion by linguists that they have the same meaning.
I always find it interesting how so many Latin American baseball players choose to keep their Spanish names despite the availability of agreed English equivalents. Vice versa, when Michael Jordan gained prominence, the Spanish broadcasters did not change Michael to the Spanish equivalent Miguel. Why? Perhaps out of respect to Michael who probably prefers to be called by the name that he chooses to call himself in his mother tongue.
I’m not saying that God has a mother tongue. While I am sure Muslims believe that God can speak all tongues, they believe God revealed himself in Arabic and hence the language is revered and I assume so is the name of the Supreme Being. I’m guessing that Sami used Allah out of respect and maybe by not using “God” he is telling us that we should also be saying Allah.
I enjoy reading your rants. I encourage you to read Karen Armstrong’s A History of God: The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It takes the reader through the evolution of the different faiths as they responded to the change in times. She states that all faiths have debated on what to call the Supernatural. Some believers would chant that It was Nothing and then negate the human conception of nothing so as to prevent any confinement of the Almighty into any human perception or code.
Language is an arbitrary human code. I don't see words as something that can be entered into equations perhaps inequalities especially when attempting to describe something as inexplicable as " ".
I have a copy of the book at my place if you choose to indulge.
Post a Comment