Bafflegab!

I guess I got all obscure and shit on this post. It was talking about Ziauddin Sardar's explanation of 2:2. It's a perfect example of why I usually don't go with the muslim version of things. Every damn time the secular, or even christian, people give me logic and facts, up against Koranists who give me muddle headed, gibbering bafflegab (I like that word; too bad it's not obscene so I could use it more) like this.

In reading the opening verses of al-Baqara, we immediately come to a cautionary note. English translations of the Qur'an differ, each giving slightly different shades of meaning and implication - as pointed out by a number of correspondents, including Richard Kimber.

OK. Like some say “the furthest mosque” and others say “Jerusalem”. Pretty damn obvious what they're trying to 'imply'* with that. Cautionary, no shit. [* 'imply': v. to lie about].

It seems to me it is not a matter of picking one translation over another; it is more a case of seeing the various constructions of English words offered by different translators as highlighting the many implications and layered meanings of the text.

Woo, Bafflegab! LOL. It seems to ME a case of seeing which one of those translation is accurate, and which ones are trying to whitewash things.

The arabic is ----

So, our reading of the chapter begins with the self-assertion that this is the Book, the Sacred Text, or Divine Writ; a guidance from God -

Bullshit; it doesn't say any of that crap. All it says is: it's a book, and, there's no doubt in it.

(2:2) This is The Book free of doubt and involution, [Ahmed Ali]
[2:2] This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, [Yusuf Ali]
[2:2] This Book, there is no doubt in it, [Shakir]>

So half a sentence in he's claiming “that is the book” means “this is the Sacred Text of God”. Why not claim it means “Here's a taco” or “unicorns give good head”?

----snip----

OT, but this got me wondering why everybody translates “that” as “this”. Here's an explanation, sorta.

"Like as a person held in mean estimation is indicated by hadha which denotes a thing that is near, so, on account of its high degree of estimation a thing that is approved is indicated by dhalika, whereby one indicates a thing that is remote."

See? 'This' means something you don't like, and 'that' means something good. Oh those goddammed nuns. They told me 'this' for close, 'that' for far away, and I've been saying it that way all my life. What a sap I've been! Then there's this:

“Palmer translates the word dhalika as that, and thinks that its rendering as this is an error”.

He went ahead and wrote it even when he knew it was wrong? WTF? Granted, if you don't change it it sounds pretty stupid, but if that's what a bear shits, dude, you write “bear shit”, not “Teen Spirit”.

----snip------

Getting back to Sardar, he was all ... the chapter begins with the self-assertion that this is ... a guidance from God–of this we should have no doubt. Therefore, this is "the book in which there is no doubt". I cannot parse this. Unless he actually means 'the book claims it's from god, therefore we can't doubt it.' Can he mean that? Please say no.

The straightforward declaration that this is God's word [which it didn't declare; why not talk about those unicorns?] recognises the human capacity to doubt. Throughout, the Qur'an takes doubt seriously. Damn straight. You doubt Mo and your skin will burn off, you drink pus, ...pretty serious, all right. It is presented as a continuum which stretches from being an essential aid to belief Huh? Guess I haven't gotten to those chapters yet. So far it's just: doubt → burn in hell; ask questions → burn in hell. Rinse. Repeat. all the way to a blinkered determination not to believe under any circumstances. Doubt is a function of our free will; we are free to accept or reject belief in God who speaks to us through the Qur'an. If everything is preordained, and written in the big book in the sky, any free will we have is pretty much useless, but when just questioning it gets you hung by your tits, this is your idea of taking doubts seriously?

Repeatedly, the Qur'an engages with various kinds of doubt.[huh?] Oh, “engaged with” means “condemn to everlasting torment.” I get it. The CIA “engaged with” Sheik Mohammed.It offers arguments to test our doubts and arrive, by a rational process,ROFLMAO. “rational”. hee hee.at conviction in the uniqueness of the Qur'an, the truth of its origin and the guidance it contains.Giggle. 'rational conviction” Bwa ha ha. Snort.

For example, a little later in al-Baqara we read: "If you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to our servant, then produce a single surah like it." (23)Now see right there I have doubts that just about anybody couldn't write a surah like it. No matter how shitty they were, a bunch of lines written on paper would be "like it". Voila. Harry Potter. Moby Dick. Facebook.

The distinctive use of Arabic language in the Qur'an, unlike any other Arabic text, makes it inimitable and is testimony to its authorship, to its being a work that in structure and scope is beyond human capability.Hey, this bit is so stupid I wrote a whole post about it; if you have doubts that I was right, then produce a single post like it. So there, smarty-pants; see, you're not the only one who can toss out meaningless little third grade taunts.

The text itself, when examined, questioned by a doubting mind, leads to the conclusion its origin is not human but a revelation of the divine. This thought entered my cortex, routed through the logic circuits, shorted them out, and emerged as “compressed blue unicorns weightlessly cavort in traffic buns of hopscotch”. Best I could do, sorry; but does it make any less sense than the original?