Travis Zadeh: Can the Qur'an be Translated? Debates in Early Islam and Today
In this episode, I am joined by Dr. Travis Zadeh of Yale University. We discuss his book, "The Vernacular Qur'an" and explore the world of translation, especially into Persian, and vernacular prayer within the context of the early Islamic period as well as Hanafi jurisprudence.
Travis Zadeh writes and teaches on the connected histories of science, magic, and religion, as well as on law, literature, and philosophy. His areas of interest include: encyclopedism, cosmography, mythology, descriptive and sacred geography, divine writing and scripture, Arabic, Persian, and Urdu intellectual cultures, medicine and the body, the occult sciences, ethics and philosophies of wonderment, codicology and the history of the book, and comparative theories of translation, secularism, and colonialism. He obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard in comparative literature.
Travis's Books"
Wonders and Rarities: www.hup.harvard.edu/books/978...
The Vernacular Qur'an: global.oup.com/academic/produ...
Mapping Frontiers Across Medieval Islam: www.bloomsbury.com/us/mapping...
You can find more info about Dr. Zadeh here: religiousstudies.yale.edu/peo...
Thank you for creating this channel, Professor Reynolds. I studied Arabic in the late 80s, but due to illness and disability I can read academic publications anymore. But your excellent videos allow me to still access the wealth of knowledge in this field and keep learning. 🙏
One thing that's fascinating about the Quran is that it uses translation. We have numerous stories from all kinds of times and geographic areas and the characters' speech (or paraphrased speech) is of course translation. Language issue/translation is mentioned in the story of Zul Qarnayn who meets the people whose speech he has a hard time understanding so their entire conversation is a translation into clear Arabic. Then I suppose one can think of the Quran as a translation of Divine speech into the language (in this case Arabic) that people can understand. In addition, as a writer whose work is sometimes translated into other languages, for instance the ones I know, it is fascinating to engage in translation as I myself have a hard time giving good suggestions.
Another thing that bothers me with these conversations is their incredible reliance on orientalist sources as authorities on explaining early Islamic schools of thought, when the Schools of thought themselves are not only just still alive and available for consultation on such matters, but also they have an unparalleled categorization of their own history and development of their thought. It feels like they're watching a movie on their phone when. they're standing next to the movie theater 🤷🏻♂️
Having done translation from French into English, I can say that translation is a complex and interpretive art. Languages (even ones closely related either through culture or structure) represent different world views and conceptual frameworks. Something is always "lost in translation," yet close approximations can be achieved, and perhaps that is the best we can do. Especially when "translating" the Word of God, the stakes are high and the results crucial, however, translation is more an art than a science, as inconvenient as that may be.
Loving the channel! Great talk. thank you for sharing.
Best wishes.
I feel like both of these guys are missing the mark with the initial Hanafi position ... They seem to assume that the rule in understanding what constitutes as Quran is "If it was accepted before then it's universally Qur'an". When in reality the hanafi position and tracing back to Ibn Masoud is not a function of what is considered actually "Qur'an", but what is permissable to be used in practice for a non-Arabic speaker ... neither nor Abu Hanifa Ibn Masoud ever gave a blank check on paraphrasing the Quran, while still qualifying it as the sacred text. It was always circumstantial. I think it's academically dishonest to perpetuate this notion using a false premise as a call to originality...
The question is not wether it is translate le or not. The question is wether the arabs really understand it or not.
To be untranslatable is, in other words, to be meaningless.
This question is like a mix of theology and linguistics about the origin of language in connection with the Quran. The idea that if the Quran has always been with God, then the Arabic language it's written in might have a unique status. It raises the question of whether Arabic was created by God in a perfect form or if it evolved over time from proto-arabic to match the linguistic structure in the divine tablet. This inquiry draws parallels to the chicken and egg dilemma.
The question is why God should not have communicated his words since the beginning of creation in such manner to be understandable and acceptable by all creatures alike, and moreover most nations believe their own language to be perfect and most Nations might not like the sound and the grammar of Arabic and therefore do not wish to learn nor hear it , all people on the other hand , innately have universal a-priori knowledge e.g geometrical axioms are universally accepted by all
@@aristosoxanshenas2050In Islamic theology God did communicate to mankind at least from the beginning.
@aristosoxanshenas2050 He did. But for whatever reason, Human with their limited senses and understanding kept changing his words throughout generations. Life experience is also part of understanding god. Because we need more dimensions to communicate with god outside of our basic communication senses (audio/visual observation). Maybe he could add electromagnetism as part of communication dimension if we can experience it like birds for example.
timestamp 21:45
Then written in many languages at once
[attempted humour
That is a point thereby one can refute the argument that( as if ) a book were the word of God, for God's volition is to be universal i.e. cannot be partial , If he intended to communicate with his creation, his intention ( words ) would universally be understood by all creatures immediately / a priori, considering that God's ( omnipotent , omniscient ) intention / words do not need to be written down , compiled in a book , printed , published , sold , translated and be partially understood and accepted by some people and not accepted at all by the others If so , It implies that either God's power and knowledge is limited and impotent or he cannot be true God.
2:50 I would correct and say pre-industrial' and post-slavery'. Pre-slavery societies barely have gender norms.
The fact that it needed translation indicates that it was not a common language among the people of that time. Those variant readings are mostly impacted by false translations of the scribe. Just a tiny twist can change the story. Example, the story of Jesus is twisted.
Translation isn't a problem when your revelation is written in body language as a person named Jesus.
THE SAME CLAIM IS MADE BY THE HINDUS ABOUT THE VEDAS.
There's difference between claim and reality
I'm sorry, but their categorization of the Ash'ari school's position on the topic of God's speech and how it becomes the Arabic Quran through the angel Gabriel is Categorically incorrect. I don't know where they find their sources, but to hold an academic discussion while getting such a basic piece of information wrong is shameful.