A Small Exploration of the Effects of Language on Interpretation
Wolfgang Gaidis
Daß die Welt meine Welt ist[,] das zeigt sich
darin[,] daß die Grenzen der Sprache (der Sprache[,] die
allein [allein] ich verstehe) die Grenzen meiner
Welt bedeuten. (Wittgenstein, 186)
darin[,] daß die Grenzen der Sprache (der Sprache[,] die
allein [allein] ich verstehe) die Grenzen meiner
Welt bedeuten. (Wittgenstein, 186)
In English: “The world is my world: this is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language which alone I understand) mean the limits of my world,” (Wittgenstein, 187). This excerpt written by the nineteenth century German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein takes on the seemingly insurmountable task of defining the “limits”, so to speak, of the language that one uses in order to communicate their ideas. If reduced to layman’s terms, the excerpt basically states that “the borders of my language are the borders of my world”. So... what does that mean? How is it that something as rudimentary as the language that we speak has the ability to limit our world as a whole? It’s due to the fact that individuals alone are able to decide what meaning they will attribute to the words that construct the language in which they choose to communicate. As an example, take the English word “wicked”. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines it as:
1. wick-ed
: morally bad
: having or showing slightly bad thoughts in a way that is funny or not serious
: very bad or unpleasant
By this definition – and it is the one widely accepted in the English language – wicked is a way in which one describes something negatively, be it an action or an entity. If this and only this definition is true, then why is it that “wicked” is also used to describe actions and entities that produce a sense of awe or amazement in their audiences?1 Here, the hard, scientific practice of language is morphed into a softer, more philosophical tool that allows for colloquial handlings and interpretations of the word. “Wicked” – and any other word, for that matter, should someone wish to use it in an innovative manner – now has a possible multiplicity of definitions and uses not specified in the dictionary.
Now, what does that have to do with anything? Well, someone decided to bend the definition of a word so that it would better fit his or her intended message, and that has everything to do with everything. When messages in the form of texts and speeches are analyzed and interpreted, especially with regards to ancient and religious texts, the intent is what’s most essential to the understanding of the work. The Bible, for instance, states that one should “love his neighbor as himself,” (King James Bible Online, Mark 12:33). Nobody took that to mean that one should give all of his own things – possessions or earnings or what have you – to his neighbor. No, the intent was that one should realize that humans are all here as subjects of God, and that God expects his subjects to treat each other with the love, respect, and awe that all of His creations deserve. Here, in essence, the Bible communicates the golden rule – that one should treat others as they in turn wish to be treated. The interpreted message reads quite a bit differently than the actual, scriptural text, but they both retain a synonymous intent, and therefore are able to communicate the same message. However, here also lies the possibility for misinterpretation. If the reader is so inclined, he or she could bend the intended meaning of the text in order to satisfy his or her own goals for the excerpt. They could, for example, have read into the fact that the pronouns used in the scripture are male, and used that as a reason for only males to treat one another with respect and love as opposed to both men and women alike. This provides a foundation stone for a structure for a patriarchal society that is supported by seemingly irrefutable scripture, and results in the long-term oppression of women.
The above analysis serves only as a small window into the global condition that results from misinterpreted scripture. The remaining entirety of this essay will be dedicated to exploring how not only differing definitions of Arabic words in the Qur’an supply the basis for a falsely patriarchal interpretation of the scripture, but also the way in which the actual verses supplied by Allah could (and have been) bent and malformed in order to support a resulting male-dominant Muslim society and cultural identity.
For Muslims throughout history, Islam has been defined as din al-haqq, or “the religion of truth”. As put by Rabia Terri Harris in her piece, “Reading the signs Unfolding Truth and the Transformation of Authority”, “Truth is the way things are, as opposed to the way we pretend them to be,” (Windows of Faith, 172). In light of this, it would be natural to suppose that societies and cultures based on the Islamic faith would follow Islamic scripture’s intended truths. However, Muslim societies and governments are arguably the most heavily scrutinized in the world. So why, if Islam truly is din al-haqq, is there so much confusion and controversy over the exegesis of the Qur’an? It’s the only religious scripture that still exists in the same language as it did at its time of origin, so one would think that interpretations would be pretty solidified after thousands of years of readings. The most basic answer to the question of varying interpretations is that those who have been considered qualified to interpret the text haven’t agreed upon singular truths that are acceptable to all generations of Muslims. In particular, the definitions of Arabic words and Qur’anic verses, or ayat. By definition, “An ayah (pl. ayat) is ‘a sign’ which indicates something beyond itself,” (Wadud, 17).2 Already, Islamic scripture is lending itself to varied interpretations by virtue of the text being qualified as symbolic, and this obviously creates discord.
First, take a look at this verse of the Qur’an that relates to the Islamic story of the origins of humankind:
Wa min ayathi an khalaqa-kum min nafsin wahidatin was
khalaqa min-ha zawjaha wa baththa minhuma rijalan
kathiran wa nisa’an (4:1)
Basically it says that Allah created humankind from (min) a single self (nafs) and from (min) that self (nafs) He created its corresponding part of the pair (zawj) and from those two spread countless men and women throughout the earth. In this ayah alone there are three words that require exploration in order to completely understand the symbolic meaning of the verse: min, nafs, and zawj.
Nafs is defined as “self, soul, person, cell” (Wadud, xxvi). This is significant because if both men and women are created of the same self, soul, person, or cell, then they are inherently the same at their core. Interestingly, nafs is grammatically feminine, even though it’s used to describe both males and females. If anything, that should give a “gender advantage” to the woman, seeing as the basis for all humankind is linguistically related to their sex. However, with the following discussion of min, it becomes obvious that neither males nor females have any claim to the self from which all humans were born.
Min is arguably the most important of the three terms. In the biblical representation of Adam and Eve, Eve was created from a piece of Adam – that allows for the interpretation that suggests that women are lesser than men by virtue of the fact that without Adam, Eve could not have existed, but Adam would have existed regardless. In the Qur’anic representation, neither Adam nor Eve is created from the other. They are both created of the same “stuff”, or nafs, that is the basis for all humans, men and women alike. This suggests that man and woman were created equal and without gender related favor.
Wadud provides another insightful interpretation of the word min. Not only can it mean “from”, as was discussed above, but also “of the same nature as,” (Wadud, 18). In the story of the fall from grace, the biblical version states that it was Eve who tempted Adam, and therefore Eve who incurred original sin and caused humanity’s fall from grace. However, in the Qur’an, both Adam and Eve were tempted equally – blame wasn’t piled on either gender. This further exposes the innately gender-equal nature of Islamic scripture, and helps to strengthen the notion that Adam and Eve – and therefore men and women – are “of the same nature”, as they were both guilty of the same sin for the same reason.
Zawj is the final term to be discussed. Unlike nafs, which carries a feminine association, zawj is masculine. This is interesting because, unlike in the bible where Eve is created second, the Qur’an lists the masculine creation second. However, just like nafs, zawj is conceptually non-gendered.
The three terms above are crucial in defining how humankind came into being in Islamic scripture. They are significant though because none of them have a truly clear definition. They serve to show that interpretation is where gender arises, as opposed to the actual scriptural intention that’s supposed to make up the truth behind Islam. They also support the idea that the Qur’an and its ayat are sometimes intentionally unclear in order to remain symbolic in nature.
Wadud also supplies a verse of the Qur’an that really lends itself to misinterpretation. Verse 4:34 basically says that men are in a position to care for and guide women because God has preferred some of them over others and because the man spends his money and property to take care of the woman. Some exegesis take this to mean that man is in charge of woman because God prefers man, and because man is the breadwinner. If one follows this line of thought, the verse basically says that men are given the position of guide and disciplinarian over the woman. However, it’s important to realize that man is only given this position if he fulfills the conditions that follow his instatement – that he is preferred because of his faith, and that he provides for the woman monetarily. If this is taken into account, the verse more aptly describes a situation in which the labor is divided in the family. Scholar Riffat Hassan says that the verse is a way to show that the woman doesn’t have to be the breadwinner because she is already the mother and has to deal with that entire set of obligations. Basically, the meaning of the verse is turned on its head. It changes from a depiction of men as dominant over women because they are the breadwinners to a delegation of responsibilities in order to assure that neither the man nor woman is overworked.
This verse is perhaps the Qur’anic scripture most easily related to the topic at hand. The intent of the verse, as argued by Hassan, is to delegate labors in order to keep a stable household. However, over the years it has been interpreted as a form of justification for patriarchy in Muslim societies that has provided the structure for an oppressed female population. It’s easy to see where the analysis stemmed from, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an acceptable interpretation, or more importantly an interpretation that aligns itself with the religion of truth. What made it an acceptable understanding was the society and culture at the time of the analysis, and the fact that it supported preexisting patriarchal structures and powers.
The most important takeaway from this piece should be that misinterpretations are what cause gender issues in Islamic culture, not the Qur’anic scripture itself. One of the five basic Islamic principles required for an autonomous individual to make intellectual and moral choices in a just society is “The individual right and obligation to learn and be educated in the teaching/legislation,” (Barazangi, 32). This principle is extremely significant because without education, one cannot be expected to interpret the scripture for its intent. Now, one might interpret other scriptural excerpts – such as Surah Nahl, 76 that discusses passivity by ignorance and passivity by oppression (Harris 186) – to read that women are not fit for education. In response to that, it is known that the prophet’s wife ‘A’isha stated that “Modesty did not prevent the women of Ansar...from learning,” (Barazangi, 32). The point is, all scripture must be examined in relation to all other scripture and given guidance. To be narrow-minded is a way to deny Islam, not focus upon it.
Islam is the religion of truth, and it’s important that all Muslims – and all people on this earth, for that matter, regardless of religion – strive to acquire the most pure truth that they can in order to grasp the most wholesome and accurate view of the surrounding world available. Only when that wide perspective becomes the collective goal will exegesis center on the most truthful intentions behind the scripture.
Notes
1. i.e. when a professional surfer carves down a seemingly suicide-sized wave, spectators might be know to comment, exclaiming “Whoa, dude! That was totally wicked!”
2. As far as I could find, the definition of ayat is not one of controversy.
Bibliography
Wadud, Amina. Qurʼan and woman: rereading the sacred text from a woman's perspective. [2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Webb, Gisela, and Nimat Hafez Barazangi. Windows of faith Muslim women scholar-activists in North America. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Print.
Riffat Hassan, “Feminism in Islam,” in Feminism and World Religion, ed. Arvind, Sharma and Katherine K. Young (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1999, 264.)
Webb, Gisela, and Rabia Terri Harris. Windows of faith Muslim women scholar-activists in North America. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Print.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus logico-philosophicus The German text Logisch-philosophische abhandlung,. New York: Humanities Press, 1961. Print.
"." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/>.
"King James Bible Online." OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV). N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/>.
"The Noble Qur'an - نﻥآﺁرﺭقﻕلﻝاﺍ مﻡيﻱرﺭكﻙلﻝاﺍ." The Noble Qur'an - . N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://quran.com/>.
1. wick-ed
: morally bad
: having or showing slightly bad thoughts in a way that is funny or not serious
: very bad or unpleasant
By this definition – and it is the one widely accepted in the English language – wicked is a way in which one describes something negatively, be it an action or an entity. If this and only this definition is true, then why is it that “wicked” is also used to describe actions and entities that produce a sense of awe or amazement in their audiences?1 Here, the hard, scientific practice of language is morphed into a softer, more philosophical tool that allows for colloquial handlings and interpretations of the word. “Wicked” – and any other word, for that matter, should someone wish to use it in an innovative manner – now has a possible multiplicity of definitions and uses not specified in the dictionary.
Now, what does that have to do with anything? Well, someone decided to bend the definition of a word so that it would better fit his or her intended message, and that has everything to do with everything. When messages in the form of texts and speeches are analyzed and interpreted, especially with regards to ancient and religious texts, the intent is what’s most essential to the understanding of the work. The Bible, for instance, states that one should “love his neighbor as himself,” (King James Bible Online, Mark 12:33). Nobody took that to mean that one should give all of his own things – possessions or earnings or what have you – to his neighbor. No, the intent was that one should realize that humans are all here as subjects of God, and that God expects his subjects to treat each other with the love, respect, and awe that all of His creations deserve. Here, in essence, the Bible communicates the golden rule – that one should treat others as they in turn wish to be treated. The interpreted message reads quite a bit differently than the actual, scriptural text, but they both retain a synonymous intent, and therefore are able to communicate the same message. However, here also lies the possibility for misinterpretation. If the reader is so inclined, he or she could bend the intended meaning of the text in order to satisfy his or her own goals for the excerpt. They could, for example, have read into the fact that the pronouns used in the scripture are male, and used that as a reason for only males to treat one another with respect and love as opposed to both men and women alike. This provides a foundation stone for a structure for a patriarchal society that is supported by seemingly irrefutable scripture, and results in the long-term oppression of women.
The above analysis serves only as a small window into the global condition that results from misinterpreted scripture. The remaining entirety of this essay will be dedicated to exploring how not only differing definitions of Arabic words in the Qur’an supply the basis for a falsely patriarchal interpretation of the scripture, but also the way in which the actual verses supplied by Allah could (and have been) bent and malformed in order to support a resulting male-dominant Muslim society and cultural identity.
For Muslims throughout history, Islam has been defined as din al-haqq, or “the religion of truth”. As put by Rabia Terri Harris in her piece, “Reading the signs Unfolding Truth and the Transformation of Authority”, “Truth is the way things are, as opposed to the way we pretend them to be,” (Windows of Faith, 172). In light of this, it would be natural to suppose that societies and cultures based on the Islamic faith would follow Islamic scripture’s intended truths. However, Muslim societies and governments are arguably the most heavily scrutinized in the world. So why, if Islam truly is din al-haqq, is there so much confusion and controversy over the exegesis of the Qur’an? It’s the only religious scripture that still exists in the same language as it did at its time of origin, so one would think that interpretations would be pretty solidified after thousands of years of readings. The most basic answer to the question of varying interpretations is that those who have been considered qualified to interpret the text haven’t agreed upon singular truths that are acceptable to all generations of Muslims. In particular, the definitions of Arabic words and Qur’anic verses, or ayat. By definition, “An ayah (pl. ayat) is ‘a sign’ which indicates something beyond itself,” (Wadud, 17).2 Already, Islamic scripture is lending itself to varied interpretations by virtue of the text being qualified as symbolic, and this obviously creates discord.
First, take a look at this verse of the Qur’an that relates to the Islamic story of the origins of humankind:
Wa min ayathi an khalaqa-kum min nafsin wahidatin was
khalaqa min-ha zawjaha wa baththa minhuma rijalan
kathiran wa nisa’an (4:1)
Basically it says that Allah created humankind from (min) a single self (nafs) and from (min) that self (nafs) He created its corresponding part of the pair (zawj) and from those two spread countless men and women throughout the earth. In this ayah alone there are three words that require exploration in order to completely understand the symbolic meaning of the verse: min, nafs, and zawj.
Nafs is defined as “self, soul, person, cell” (Wadud, xxvi). This is significant because if both men and women are created of the same self, soul, person, or cell, then they are inherently the same at their core. Interestingly, nafs is grammatically feminine, even though it’s used to describe both males and females. If anything, that should give a “gender advantage” to the woman, seeing as the basis for all humankind is linguistically related to their sex. However, with the following discussion of min, it becomes obvious that neither males nor females have any claim to the self from which all humans were born.
Min is arguably the most important of the three terms. In the biblical representation of Adam and Eve, Eve was created from a piece of Adam – that allows for the interpretation that suggests that women are lesser than men by virtue of the fact that without Adam, Eve could not have existed, but Adam would have existed regardless. In the Qur’anic representation, neither Adam nor Eve is created from the other. They are both created of the same “stuff”, or nafs, that is the basis for all humans, men and women alike. This suggests that man and woman were created equal and without gender related favor.
Wadud provides another insightful interpretation of the word min. Not only can it mean “from”, as was discussed above, but also “of the same nature as,” (Wadud, 18). In the story of the fall from grace, the biblical version states that it was Eve who tempted Adam, and therefore Eve who incurred original sin and caused humanity’s fall from grace. However, in the Qur’an, both Adam and Eve were tempted equally – blame wasn’t piled on either gender. This further exposes the innately gender-equal nature of Islamic scripture, and helps to strengthen the notion that Adam and Eve – and therefore men and women – are “of the same nature”, as they were both guilty of the same sin for the same reason.
Zawj is the final term to be discussed. Unlike nafs, which carries a feminine association, zawj is masculine. This is interesting because, unlike in the bible where Eve is created second, the Qur’an lists the masculine creation second. However, just like nafs, zawj is conceptually non-gendered.
The three terms above are crucial in defining how humankind came into being in Islamic scripture. They are significant though because none of them have a truly clear definition. They serve to show that interpretation is where gender arises, as opposed to the actual scriptural intention that’s supposed to make up the truth behind Islam. They also support the idea that the Qur’an and its ayat are sometimes intentionally unclear in order to remain symbolic in nature.
Wadud also supplies a verse of the Qur’an that really lends itself to misinterpretation. Verse 4:34 basically says that men are in a position to care for and guide women because God has preferred some of them over others and because the man spends his money and property to take care of the woman. Some exegesis take this to mean that man is in charge of woman because God prefers man, and because man is the breadwinner. If one follows this line of thought, the verse basically says that men are given the position of guide and disciplinarian over the woman. However, it’s important to realize that man is only given this position if he fulfills the conditions that follow his instatement – that he is preferred because of his faith, and that he provides for the woman monetarily. If this is taken into account, the verse more aptly describes a situation in which the labor is divided in the family. Scholar Riffat Hassan says that the verse is a way to show that the woman doesn’t have to be the breadwinner because she is already the mother and has to deal with that entire set of obligations. Basically, the meaning of the verse is turned on its head. It changes from a depiction of men as dominant over women because they are the breadwinners to a delegation of responsibilities in order to assure that neither the man nor woman is overworked.
This verse is perhaps the Qur’anic scripture most easily related to the topic at hand. The intent of the verse, as argued by Hassan, is to delegate labors in order to keep a stable household. However, over the years it has been interpreted as a form of justification for patriarchy in Muslim societies that has provided the structure for an oppressed female population. It’s easy to see where the analysis stemmed from, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an acceptable interpretation, or more importantly an interpretation that aligns itself with the religion of truth. What made it an acceptable understanding was the society and culture at the time of the analysis, and the fact that it supported preexisting patriarchal structures and powers.
The most important takeaway from this piece should be that misinterpretations are what cause gender issues in Islamic culture, not the Qur’anic scripture itself. One of the five basic Islamic principles required for an autonomous individual to make intellectual and moral choices in a just society is “The individual right and obligation to learn and be educated in the teaching/legislation,” (Barazangi, 32). This principle is extremely significant because without education, one cannot be expected to interpret the scripture for its intent. Now, one might interpret other scriptural excerpts – such as Surah Nahl, 76 that discusses passivity by ignorance and passivity by oppression (Harris 186) – to read that women are not fit for education. In response to that, it is known that the prophet’s wife ‘A’isha stated that “Modesty did not prevent the women of Ansar...from learning,” (Barazangi, 32). The point is, all scripture must be examined in relation to all other scripture and given guidance. To be narrow-minded is a way to deny Islam, not focus upon it.
Islam is the religion of truth, and it’s important that all Muslims – and all people on this earth, for that matter, regardless of religion – strive to acquire the most pure truth that they can in order to grasp the most wholesome and accurate view of the surrounding world available. Only when that wide perspective becomes the collective goal will exegesis center on the most truthful intentions behind the scripture.
Notes
1. i.e. when a professional surfer carves down a seemingly suicide-sized wave, spectators might be know to comment, exclaiming “Whoa, dude! That was totally wicked!”
2. As far as I could find, the definition of ayat is not one of controversy.
Bibliography
Wadud, Amina. Qurʼan and woman: rereading the sacred text from a woman's perspective. [2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Webb, Gisela, and Nimat Hafez Barazangi. Windows of faith Muslim women scholar-activists in North America. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Print.
Riffat Hassan, “Feminism in Islam,” in Feminism and World Religion, ed. Arvind, Sharma and Katherine K. Young (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1999, 264.)
Webb, Gisela, and Rabia Terri Harris. Windows of faith Muslim women scholar-activists in North America. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Print.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus logico-philosophicus The German text Logisch-philosophische abhandlung,. New York: Humanities Press, 1961. Print.
"." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/>.
"King James Bible Online." OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV). N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/>.
"The Noble Qur'an - نﻥآﺁرﺭقﻕلﻝاﺍ مﻡيﻱرﺭكﻙلﻝاﺍ." The Noble Qur'an - . N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://quran.com/>.