Image by jovike via Flickr
The nature of language is such that not only does it contain words and phrases but also a dimension of meaning that allows for words to carry more than one meaning. The study of Semantics and Pragmatics in linguistics addresses this dimension very well and any linguistic student would have studied these at both the basic and advanced level. Linguists by practice and understanding of language naturally develop and eventually posses the ability and sense to always take care when interpreting meaning of words or meaning of a written text- there is always a slim chance that they will jump to conclusions. Of course there are non-linguists who also have this take on words and text, and are very good at communication because of it. The small and deep meanings of words become very important especially in the areas of our lives that carry consequences for us and others at different levels, such as religious and legal. If we fail to understand a clause in the law we fall prey to being penalised by those in charge of enforcing that given law, if we fail to understand a religious rule this may affect our practice and ultimately our relationship with God. Thank god there are experts and scholars who dedicate their lives in helping others understand religion and its intended practice and lawyers to decipher the laws. I came across the following blog post written by Hamza Yusuf (he is the teacher in video on the ‘Arabic linguistic beauty and complexity’ page) titled: ‘ the importance of being ambiguous or the sin tax of ignoring syntax’ even before understanding the title the first thing that grabbed me was this clever wordplay. The sentence itself conveys the meaning of the words and his intention of writing this piece (the overt rhyming of sin tax and syntax both sounding the same and yet their meanings are not connected). The other reason I wanted to share it with my readers was because it is written by a religious figure, someone usually associated with religion and not linguistics. But what he proved was that he knows how to write, he knows the nature of language and meaning and that he demands readers to be sure of the meanings of a text before jumping to conclusions. He did not curse or invoke wrath from above on those who disagreed with him on a previous post he put up, instead he showed how they misunderstood him. This post is not to praise or show complete agreement with everything he writes, rather it is to highlight how linguistics and semantics can be applied in real-life; how it can live outside the text-book. This is sociolinguistics taking place at the highest level, the variable here and the reason of discussion is language use and interpretation. The post he wrote is very long, as you can imagine, I have once again only taken out the relevant parts to share here (after expressed permission and of course without editing on my part) so please feel free to go back and read the rest.
————
The Importance of Being Ambiguous Or the Sin Tax of Ignoring Syntax by Hamza Yusuf
“
If a profligate comes to you with news, make sure you understand it (tabayyanu) and make sure you know it indeed happened (tathabbatu), or else you will attack people out of ignorance and end up in great remorse” (
Qur’an 49:6).
1How many fault-finders of statements
Yet the fault is faulty understanding
Upon seeing one of his students reading a difficult book, a teacher said, “Don’t read that book yet.”
The student replied, “I promise only to take from it what I understand from it.”
“It is not what you understand that concerns me,” responded the teacher, “but what you think you understand.”
– Shaykhna b. Mahfudh
“How quick people are to condemn things they don’t understand.”
– Lady Aishah, the wife of the Prophet, peace be upon him.
Sahih Muslim, Chapter on Funerals
I want to write about the importance of proper reading and writing, as well as the importance of proper adab (manners) when one criticizes or debates another. This topic was partly inspired by the general debasement of our public discourse taking place these days and partly by some comments from readers of my recent blog posts. These comments, some published and some not, concerned statements I wrote regarding Islam and politics, so I shall also take this opportunity to elaborate on those statements.
First, we have to understand that one aspect of language, even in its most simple usage, is ambiguity. Anyone who has ever used a dictionary knows that words often have multiple meanings. (For that reason, Wikipedia has a “disambiguation” option.) In rhetoric, amphibolyrefers to the phenomenon of ambiguous syntax.
In the Islamic tradition, the prerequisites of debate include a mastery of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and a branch of logic that involves the comportment of research and dialectic (adab al-bahth wa al-munadharah). Those ill prepared in these areas fall prey to common misunderstandings. In the past, such people did not debate with or challenge statements made by an erudite person because they knew well the verse in the Qur’an, “Are those who know and those who don’t equal?” (39:09) – a rhetorical question, needing no response, as the answer is obvious. Furthermore, in the Islamic tradition, a long-standing convention of glosses exists whereby scholars would shed light on the abstruse language used by their predecessors. The Maliki scholars, in particular, preferred to write in such abstruse language in order to prevent ill-equipped readers from venturing into their books. (In the West, legal books often use a similar tactic so that only jurists can comprehend the text with ease.) Sometimes, glosses were written on previous glosses, and some works contain marginalia that involve three or four books in one. All of the above were ways in which highly capable scholars removed ambiguity from previous texts in order to enable educated but less capable scholars to understand the texts.
I spend a good deal of time reading such texts as a result of my own dependence on far more knowledgeable scholars. I also frequently look up a word in my readings, sometimes for the sheer pleasure of exploring nuances and other times to make sure I understand the word correctly. Recently, reading an Arabic poem, I came across an unusual word and looked it up only to find that the meanings provided in one Arabic dictionary did not make sense within the context of the poem, demanding I resort to another larger dictionary, which, indeed, provided the appropriate meaning.
Reading is an activity largely of the mind, but reading well is an exhausting effort of one’s mental faculties. One of my own teachers said that reading has four levels: understanding the outline of the piece; coming to terms with the author’s terms (meaning that one understands terms as the author intended); understanding the propositions, their arguments, and evidence supporting them; and finally, responding with the appropriate etiquette. This last phase, which
Mortimer Adler describes as “talking back” to the author, is the most difficult level of reading. It is the ability to criticize with understanding, giving your reasons for dissent, and supporting them with counter arguments, but this last and problematic phase of reading is entirely predicated upon the mastery of the first three. At this level, criticism means disagreeing with all or part of an author’s assumptions, logic, or conclusions based upon an accurate and contextual reading of his work.
A serious student of knowledge must work to grasp the ambiguities of the text she is reading. For instance, Imam al-Ghazali is noted for saying, “Laysa fi al-imkaan abda’ mimma kana,” and multiple meanings can be inferred from this statement. Indeed, whole books were penned in an attempt to pin down Imam al-Ghazali’s precise meaning.
To use a classical example of an ambiguous statement in usul, scholars mention the hadith of the Prophet, peace be upon him, which may be translated from the Arabic as, “Whoever follows up Ramadan with six days from Shawwal, it is as if he has fasted constantly.” The original Arabic contains the phrase, “min Shawwal,” which means, “from [the month of] Shawwal.” “Min” is a preposition in Arabic. Ibn Hisham’s famous Mughni al-labib is an exhaustive compendium of Arabic prepositions and particles, along with a few verbs and adverbs that he felt needed to be included. (Despite his exhaustive study, commentaries on this book further explain what he meant.) Ibn Hisham lists fifteen possible meanings of the preposition “min” when used in a sentence. Imam Malik believed the “min” in the context of this hadith is initiative, so he interpreted the hadith to mean Shawwal as the time when the fasting may begin and then continue on into the following months. (For example, if one says, “I began my journey fromMecca,” it means one initiated travel from Mecca but continued beyond Mecca.) However, Imam Shafi’ understood the preposition “min” to be partitive, (as in “I ate from the bread,” which does not include eating from other foods.) Hence, Imam Shafi’ believed the hadith to mean that the days of fasting must be only within the month of Shawwal and not extend to the later months. Both interpretations of this hadith are valid. In this case, the disambiguation is simply choosing one interpretation over the other.
The fact that language allows so many meanings and multiple possibilities reveals its richness. Readers can marvel at the sundry possibilities of words on their own or in order; explore the possibilities of meaning in their attempt to exhaust meaning, which is what Muslim scholars and exegetes tended to do; or they can misread and subsequently fall victim to anger and confusion. Some go even further by responding with vituperative diatribes, even using foul language; such people are known affectionately as “trolls” in internet jargon. In actuality, due to their failure to understand as opposed to their ability to read, they simply reveal their own ignorance, as reading and understanding are two distinctly different phenomena. The Qur’an describes those who know the literal Torah, but do not understand it as being like “donkeys carrying books.”
Misunderstanding with the assumption of understanding is common to people who are arrogant, ignorant, or just too lazy to probe further in order to grasp the subtleties or nuances of the language. Their self-conceit leads them to believe that they simply know. “I understood it, and Iam right. Hence he is wrong.” This is the path Iblis chose: “I am better than Adam; I am superior to him. My knowledge surpasses his.” On the other hand, when a humble person finds words that ring false or challenge his own assumptions, he pauses, thinks, and asks himself, “Am I understanding this correctly? Did the author mean what I think he means?” If they can ask the author, all the better; if not, they may seek a second opinion from an intelligent friend or resort to a good reference book or dictionary, seeking shades of meaning they may have missed. The Internet provides another albeit dangerous option.
——————————–
Very thorough and the reading becomes easier because he provides examples of what he is claiming as any good writer would. Apart from the fact that one also learns manners of a student of knowledge, his knowledge and deep understanding of Arabic comes through once again. By the mere fact he quotes Al-Mutanabbi would have been enough for me to like the post, this poet was called ‘Abul-Hikma’ the father of wisdom due to such wise sayings in his poems. Until this day we still use many of his poetry lines and quickest real example that comes to mind is the use of his eulogy at funerals today, although he wrote it hundreds of years ago for his sister…but I digress! Hamza Yusuf makes a good point on the different meanings words can carry and how that can affect how religion is practiced. On the other hand, I am sure someone reading this post is saying but surely language has to be simpler than that since it affects the lives of people? I agree, it should be simple(r) and it can be simple, WHEN and IF we truly understand how to use language. If that was the case a post like the above would never need to written because we all understand how to use and interpret language. Given that he is not a linguist I would say it is written very well with mention of both contemporary and modern issues as it relates to the points made in the post. Share your thoughts here about the article and as usual any feedback is appreciated, really better get back to my work, I had to post it because ever since I read it on the day it was published I have been meaning to share it with Arabizi readers- done!
–
Source:
Arabizi this with others!
Like this:
Like Loading...
