Doubt or infallible? Rashad on Surah 2:1

 Doubt or infallible? Rashad on  Surah 2:1

 

This is the first installment of perhaps more commentaries on the “Final Testament.” I do not claim to be an “Islamic scholar” or hold any particular type of scholarship. I am only giving my opinion which may or may not be correct.  This author is not trying to refute Dr. Khalifa but “struggle” with him on the meaning of the text.  This author also encourages revolutions in understanding the Qur’an. We do not need to keep recycling old assumptions so there is no criticism of Dr. Khalifa if he diverges from ijma (we encourage it.)

 

[2:2] This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous;

 The saying “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover” may be justified in most cases. But what happens when there exist poor editing of the cover itself?  The latest edition of “The Final Testament” has such mistakes. The back cover refers to “physical evidence” to describe the mathematical “miracle” of the Qur’an for example.  Editors themselves make mistakes and it may not be the fault of the authors. Regardless, it is universally recognized that we can judge a book by the first couple of pages. But what about the first page , first paragraph? Can we judge a book fairly by just the first sentence?  It would be unsound to throw out a great novel because of the quality of one sentence.

It is however more fair to judge a translation of a text by the first sentence than a text in it’s own respective language. The translation quality of a text is something we can more objectively evaluate than poor wording of a text in it’s original language.  Anyone can give their opinion on a translation but only translations allow some point of consensus and frame of reference to make an evaluation. In the case of the Qur’an we have Arabic dictionaries and other translations to compare. If one comes across a bad translation of one word, we could expect a bad translation of the same word used elsewhere. But sometimes translators are inconsistent and when they are this also becomes proof that a bad translation is an accurate description of the text.

 

The late Dr. Rashad Khalifa and his students tend to acknowledge a number of rules that guided Dr. Khalifa (and his students) in creating the Final Testament.  In the first place, Dr. Khalifa wanted to make a translation that was easy to read. There is an admirably egalitarian assumption in the Qur’an translation. Do we want knowledge of the Qur’an in hands of a small elite who claim only they could understand it?  The existing translations were considered archaic.  Dr. Khalifa also wanted to purge the Qur’an translation of anything reeking of what he considered shirk (not worshiping God alone.) An important guideline that Dr. Khalifa said he followed, and what is still advocated by his followers today, is that it is God that explains the meaning of the holy writ. Dr. Khalifa vehemently opposed the notion that Muhammad explained the Qur’an.  The notion that one can teach or translate a text without explanation is incoherent, but we will leave this point aside for now.  However, we would expect a certain degree of literalism in Dr. Khalifa’s translation so it could confirm this teaching, which he held as important.

 

This scripture is infallible;.

In the first part of RK’s rendering of 2:1 we already have a lot to unpack.  The first word of 2:1 is “Dhalika.” The word “dhalika” literally means “that.”  But Dr. Khalifa translates the word “dhalika” as “this.”  The word “this” in Arabic is transliterated as “hadha”, which is of course a separate word.  Why does Dr. Khalifa write “this scripture” as opposed to “that scripture”?  If. Dr. Khalifa was trying to write a literal translation (not that claimed to as far as I know) he would be incorrect.   But how is Dr. Khalifa justified in writing “this” and not correctly “that”?

 This

Most translations of the Qur’an translate “dhalika” as “this.” Sincere Muslims translate 2:1 in the same manner. Dr. Khalifa is not diverging from the consensus here as he would in a few important ways elsewhere.  If Dr. Khalifa is right or wrong on “this” then so is everyone else.  But here lies the problem. Dr. Khalifa certainly knew better as to the true meaning of “dhalika” as a school age Arabic speaker would be familiar with the difference between “this” and “that.” Dr. Khalifa does not translate the word literally, gives the opposite meaning. More over he gives it the meaning which may be unintended by God.

 

Suppose the translation said “That scripture is infallible.”  While this would be correct in the confirmation of translation and grammatically speaking, admittedly the translation would not sound as good.  If we say “This book is infallible” then there is nothing to ponder about the wording.  But if we say “that book is infallible” then we are compelled to ask why does it say “that book is infallible. Why does it not say “this” book?  When something is referred to as “that” it indicates being far away in some sense. When “this” is used it means something is near by.  The challenge of understanding “dhalika kitab” exists in Arabic and English as well.  Most  of the translators wanted to make an easy translation and ignore the problem. Dr. Khalifa is included in the category of those who want to make an easy translation and followed the others who jumped to make conclusions. This may be fitting of a regular translator but Dr. Khalifa claimed to be a messenger of God. Is it befitting of someone of Dr. Khalifa’s claimed status to produce such a generic and unfounded translation?

 

There were two competing principals at play when Dr. Khalifa made his translation. On the one hand he wanted the Qur’an to be easy to understand. But he also wanted to ensure that it was God who explained the Qur’an.  If Dr. Khalifa translated the phrase in 2:1 literally the Qur’an would not be “easy” to understand because you would have to ask ponder the meaning “that book.”  Dr. Khalifa wanted to ensure that the book was easy to understand so he translated the Arabic is “this scripture.”  But by making this translation Dr. Khalifa sacrificed the principle of letting God explain the Qur’an.

Sometimes in the field of law there are competing principals at play. A wise judge has to use wisdom to pick the best choice among others. Dr. Khalifa had to make similar decisions in the translation process. The questions about translation are not just questions about being literal or non-literal, but are also about explaining the “plain-meaning” which may intend a literal or non-literal meaning.  Dr. Khalifa should have left the text as “that book.”  By giving the plain-meaning, and consequently literal translation, Dr. Khalifa would have not sacrificed the principle of making the text “easy to understand.” It is up to the reader to ponder the text and ask for God’s help in knowing the meaning. Unfortunately, Dr. Khalifa did not think things through and jumped to conclusions about this and many other things.

 

Scripture

Why does Dr. Khalifa use the work “scripture” for Kitab or not use another word like “book”? Scripture implies  a written text that is holy.  The implication of the whole passage is that “kitab” has something to do with revelation and is the Qur’an according to most people.  But the Qur’an is not a “written book” in the first place. The Qur’an is first and foremost a verbal revelation that was transmitted by the prophet to the masses orally.  Revelation itself is not tangible and the biblical tradition does not record God sending down books to people. (An exception can be made for Joseph Smith receiving Golden Tablets that were purported to be the Book of Mormon.)  God does however communicate with people through various means such as dreams, visions or direct speech as in the case of Moses.  But to call the Qur’an as “scripture” may be true in common understanding of printed books but it is not the intended meaning of the text.  The Qur’an was no written down until after the Prophet dictated the recitation to the scribes. But even in this case, the written material of the Qur’an is considered secondary to the oral transmission of it.

 

Traditional Islamic scholarship as well as academic will align in agreement that the Qur’an is primarily an oral recitation as opposed to a written book. However “book” would be a better tern than scripture simply because book has a more broad meaning than scripture. The Qur’an uses the term “book” in multiple senses. There is for example the Heavenly Tablet which exists in God’s domain and has a purpose in fulfilling God’s will in creation. We humans do not have access to “that book.”  Dr. Khalil Andani points to academic scholarship to show how the Qur’an uses kitab in certain contexts to mean proscribed laws  and also revelation as such. In this case a possible meaning would be that God is referring to a totality of revelations in Surah 2:1.

 

Some academic scholars, Andani included, would go further than Islamic scholarship to understand kitab in even more interesting ways that traditional folks would like. Andani makes a case that “dhalikal kitab” of 2:1  is referring to the heavenly book and not the Qur’an itself.  From this perspective the Qur’an is a secondary item which elucidates the “book” which exists on a metaphysical level outside of our earthly domain but near God’s power.  Dr. Andani makes his argument using a pan-textual approach and a good translation of the Qur’an would tackle such an approach rather than ignore it.

 

Infallible

 The worst part of Surah 2:1’s translation by Dr. Khalifa is the rendering of “la rayba fee” as “infallible.” This translation makes Dr. Khalifa unique but unfortunately not good.  Most translations state that in reference to the kitab that it “has no doubt.” There is no doubt in the Qur’an.  By saying there is “no doubt” in the book, God is challenging people to ponder the Kitab. Is there something that can be doubted in the divine writ?  If so what is it?  If the literal meaning was kept then the reader would have to ponder the meaning obviously.

 

Why does Dr. Khalifa choose to use the word “infallible”? The word infallible implies some type of perfection in which there are no errors. Martin Luther taught that the bible was infallible (but whether he taught scripture inerrancy is perhaps debatable.)  Many people believe that certain saints are infallible which implies they are not prone to sin.  Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of God and would not have mistakes because of it’s divine origin. But “infallible” is not a term Muslims often use to describe the Qur’an interesting enough.

If the Quran says “There is no doubt” there in, then it can follow that the text is thus infallible.  There may be other conclusions we can draw from the phrase “there is no doubt.”   Assuming that “infallibility” is the best conclusion we can draw from “There is no doubt” we still must ask :why does Rashad Khalifa not use the actual language of the Qur’an?  Dr. Khalfia not only sacrificed the literal meaning (which may have to be sacrificed in some cases) but the general purport as well.   We see Dr. Khalifa jumping to conclusions in the same way as we saw earlier.

 

By sacrificing the meaning of the plain text, Dr. Khalifa sacrificed the intention that God placed in the Qur’an to have mankind ponder the text. The Qur’an says many times “does man not ponder?” (14:52 as one example among others.)  Pondering the Qur’an is one of the basic messages of the Divine and is one of the ways in which the servant obtains the felicity of her Lord. Dr. Khalifa’s translation however deprives the servant of pondering the God because Rashad wanted to place the “conclusion” of the argument into translation as opposed to the actual argument itself. What Dr. Khalifa did to the translation is analogous to translating the phrase “Are you sure?” into another language as “I know for a fact.” 

 

a beacon for the righteous

 

Dr. Khalifa’s rendering of the last part of 2:1 is acceptable. Dr.  Khalifa chose to translate “guidance” as “beacon.” He picked a non-literal translation of guidance in other words.  Using the word “beacon” is unique to Dr. Khalifa and this is good in the sense of originality. A beacon is a bright light that is used to guide airplanes to land and boats to the shore from the light house.  But the fact that I am explaining the meaning implies that beacon is a word that is almost archaic in the English language. In any case it is safe to say that the Kitab serves as a beacon for righteous people because it guides the sincere men and women toward divine acceptance.

 

The Qur’an is primary a book about guidance in reality is embedded guidance. The importance of guidance cannot be overlooked.  Because guidance is so important it can be argued that translating literal guidance “hudan” as beacon may be unacceptable. The reader many forget the basic fact that the Qur’an is guidance if even an accurate metaphor like “beacon” is used.

 

We can see from Dr. Khalifa’s rendering of 2:1 that the verse is translated in a very non-literal manner.  It is granted that literalism is not always justified but in this case the plain meaning of the text is also sacrificed. The first word is changed to mean it’s opposite just so the text could be more “easily “read. In other cases, the meaning was interpreted in a way to take out the necessity of the seeker of Qur’an to ponder it’s message.  Dr. Khalifa’s translation may have certain benefits for someone knew to Qur’an but it is definitely not a final step in understanding the holy writ.  The problems in Dr. Khalifa’s translation of Surah 2:1 serve as a warning for other problems expected throughout the “Final testament”