What have the different religions been
but pretexts to wrangle, quarrel and to sin,
and set as target a mark to shoot at?
Does love of country make for friendly fiat,
or serve another bearing the same bend?
Does virtue make us see and our faults thus mend?
"No."
Hate makes adherence to our own vices,
and most intolerant of others' frailties.
Love of hate--a most universal fact.
It as well extends to good as evil:
makes us snipe folly and to shun merit;
inclines to resent the wrongs of others--
impels impatience their prosperity.
"Revenge injuries! Repay the ingrate."
Even partialities and likings
take this turn: What was luscious we now expel.
Love and friendship melt in their own fires.
We hate old friends, old books, old opinions.
And at last we are right here hating ourselves.
"Hatred devours from the inside, but Defiance
defeats and kindles truth-seeking's flames--Thus,
Resolution sufficient to move on and beyond.
__________
* Adapted from but closely adheres to Walter Hazlett's "Pleasure of Hating" (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Pleasure_of_Hating). Interlocutor is another's voice.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
You are welcome
Retirement or part-time status was immanent a few years ago, and so after a lifetime of writing and otherwise fiddling with words for others (students, customers, etc.), I began writing for me. I have placed the words I have wanted to preserve on five blogs and in a couple of e-books. The variety of interests and explorations seems to have dictated the different places to put stuff. Have I had many readers? The logs and occasional comments and email messages show that I have had less than ten people who have bothered. Which is quite all right. As Paul Auster has said, no one owes you anything if you choose to write. It is a thankless and sometimes lonely and dark undertaking. But if you must, that is if you have some passion about writing or a subject, go ahead.
I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.
Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).
However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.
1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.
3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."
4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.
Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).
5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)
Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.
I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.
Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).
However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.
1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.
Two people re-create an experience in mind from the same set of words, each from his own perspective. The resulting perceptions differ: Two spirals of interpretation drilling down and sedimenting into separate conclusions, that is as it is to understanding. Woe to the world.2. People respond with their heart or emotion or self-interest first, and then--if convenient, needed, or appropriate--they might respond with their head, but only if it serves their heart or emotion or self interest. "It's about me."
3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."
4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.
Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).
5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)
Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Language in culture
[Précis. Language is embedded in culture also. Serious students of a language need to dig deeper to get it, or have the benefit of some help.]
I have taught English as a foreign language for over twenty years. This has been both a secondary occupation and sometimes a first. In any event there are two teaching/learning opportunities I do not practice, which in fact weakens my effectiveness. I don't play games and I don't (often) listen to music. Thus, my efforts to help students learn are reduced, for both of these ways of learning a language are proven techniques.
Recently I asked a student who is passionate about music about the song "Knockin' on Heaven's Door." He said, "Oh, we all know that. It is the first song I learned to play on the guitar." I then asked him what the song was about. He said he didn't know, but that it was something about being dead. I asked dead or dying. He didn't know. I repeated this exercise with other Italian students of English and then a few Czech students. (I travel in these two cultures.) The results were the same.
I puzzled over this situation and immediately saw the problem. Well, I say the problem; whereas, I should say one problem. The one problem is that the key words of badge and momma eluded immediate recognition. For the native speaker, I mean specifically the American English speaker or one who is familiar with the cultural contexts for some of that language. Here is the email conversation around this matter. It begins with my correspondent's question (>>) and my reply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjR7_U2u3sM
So, the first lesson is that a song such as "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" needs to be seen in context, its cultural context. Second and most important lesson, the student of language needs to dig deeper and not just accept melody over sense.
The final illustration of these points came up in an email to the same correspondent.
Now, what was all that about John? You know your homework.
I have taught English as a foreign language for over twenty years. This has been both a secondary occupation and sometimes a first. In any event there are two teaching/learning opportunities I do not practice, which in fact weakens my effectiveness. I don't play games and I don't (often) listen to music. Thus, my efforts to help students learn are reduced, for both of these ways of learning a language are proven techniques.
Recently I asked a student who is passionate about music about the song "Knockin' on Heaven's Door." He said, "Oh, we all know that. It is the first song I learned to play on the guitar." I then asked him what the song was about. He said he didn't know, but that it was something about being dead. I asked dead or dying. He didn't know. I repeated this exercise with other Italian students of English and then a few Czech students. (I travel in these two cultures.) The results were the same.
I puzzled over this situation and immediately saw the problem. Well, I say the problem; whereas, I should say one problem. The one problem is that the key words of badge and momma eluded immediate recognition. For the native speaker, I mean specifically the American English speaker or one who is familiar with the cultural contexts for some of that language. Here is the email conversation around this matter. It begins with my correspondent's question (>>) and my reply.
>>Badge – I wonder what it feels like for you as a native speaker when listening to this song. Do you get the connection between the badge and Slim's [Slim Pickins] job immediately?
Connection was immediate. The only people who wear badges in the public consciousness in the US are officials of the law. Of course, other people wear badges (e.g., military, scouts, etc.). But what the song-speaker's job is is obvious. The immediate association is marshal or sheriff in the Olde West. For fun look up the expression, "We don't need no stinkin' badges." Place this word with guns that are no longer needed--to bury them in the ground--well, that seals the deal. Context is the frontier and the law and outlaws and gun fights . . . and he is dying. He has been shot, probably.
>>Momma – how come it is used even for a wife? Sounds like mommy or red-hot momma or lady of the night to me.
I can't say exactly, but this native speaker immediately associates this expression with rural folks, maybe farmers or at least ordinary and traditional American family people, perhaps central and southern US. The father of the family and kids call the mother of the children momma (or moma, mama, etc.). Then there is also black English, Ebonics, where young dudes call their girlfriends momma. But this doesn't work with the Olde West context.
Now if you try to look this one up, you will have difficulty finding this usage. But if you go to say, Hays, Kansas and have "supper" (evening meal) with a family that has lived there for several generations, you might encounter this expression--used by the father to address his wife. I suspect this is regional American English, although this comes close (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mama).
Someone needs to write an article about this usage . . . long story short, you just have to know the language very, very well, or have met lots of different American English speakers.
The final illustration of these points came up in an email to the same correspondent.
Language and culture. Yes, we need to have cultural knowledge and locational usage conventions in order to understand something like this,
We got some John getting off a limo.
Dumped her in the Alphabets.
Why did he have to cut me so bad? - They get him? - No.
Be on the lookout for Vincent Van Gogh in a Zegna fuckin' suit.
But in terms of what a Central European needs who uses English as a second language for travel and just getting along in the world, the cultural baggage is generally not necessary. Thus, my argument again for not teaching idioms and the uses of the definite article (in hospital (B-EN) vs. in the hospital (A-EN)).
Now if one really wants to dive into sitcoms or read literature or talk with a people from a specific native speaking place, then there is an argument for learning more and more cultural stuff, as well as looking stuff up almost constantly.
Now, what was all that about John? You know your homework.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
A more detailed lesson
[Précis. Knowing how to use the verbs borrow and lend is sometimes difficult. Here are some reasons and examples for advanced students to consider and practice.]
"What seems to be the problem?"
What seems to be the problem? The second speaker must mean what are some of the problems. So your difficulty is not your fault. The explanation in the image above is good as far as it goes; however, it does not go far enough.
First things first, here are the principal parts of the verbs most often used plus a few other key words that may confuse you when you are speaking with a more proficient user of the language of requests-to-have and promises-to-return.
Verbs (infinitive, past, past participle, 3rd person singular present, present participle/gerund)
to lend, lent, lent, lends, lending
to loan, loaned, loaned, loans, loaning
to borrow, borrowed, borrowed, borrows, borrowingNouns (a partial list)
loan, noun, what is given to be returned
loaner, noun, informal, same as the noun loan, the thing loaned
borrower, noun, recipient of loan
lender, noun, giver of loanNow do two things. First compare the verbs with the image above. Yes, loan is also a word used in the borrow-lend situation. Two, memorize the above nouns and verb forms.
Here is your short study guide.
borrow = take
lend or loan = giveThese verbs can be used in the active and passive voices as well as in their participial forms.
The car was borrowed by his daughter.Don't let word order confuse you, or a change in verbs, or the use of words meaning the same thing.
The money, loaned by my father, he gave reluctantly.
You might have done your own web search and found the standard definitions, explanations and examples given for the uses of these important words. They go something like this.
We use borrow to say that we take something temporarily with the intention of returning it.Or
Can I borrow your car? She borrowed $100 from her father.
We use lend to say that we give something temporarily with the intention of having it returned.
Can you lend me your car? Her father lent her $100. Her father lent $100 to his daughter.
borrow: to take and use sth. that belongs to sb. else I'd like to borrow your umbrella.Now here is where using these words correctly gets confusing. Imagine I am the one you are talking with, and I am asking if I understand you correctly by asking a question or by re-stating what you have said.
lend: to give sth. to sb. that belongs to you I can lend you my umbrella.
YOU: Can I borrow your car?
ME: You're asking me if I will lend you my car?
YOU: She borrowed 100 euros from her father.
ME: Her father gave his daughter a 100 euro loan.
YOU: Can you loan me your car?
ME: Could you borrow my car?
YOU: Her father lent her 100 euros.Sometimes the listener will avoid the anticipated verbs of lend or loan and borrow.
ME: Her father let her borrow 100 euros.
YOU: Her father lent 100 euros to his daughter.Sometimes the listener will change verbs.
ME: Her father gave his daughter 100 euros as a loan.
YOU: He lent her the car.Sometimes the listener will use a common expression to convey the idea.
ME: He loaned her his car?
YOU: Can I have your umbrella.Or
ME: Here you go. Don't get wet.
Here take my umbrella. It's a loaner.And don't forget the imperative.
YOU: Borrow my umbrella.These do not exhaust the possibilities, but the above is a larger sample of language than the usual textbook or dictionary discussions.
ME: Great. That's nice of you. I'll return it tomorrow.
It is no wonder people get twiddled up with borrow and lend and loan. Any variations from what is expected in a speaking situation is a challenge for the second language speaker to manage. Why is all this not simpler? Easy answer. The language and users and words are flexible and varied.
Here is a short video which can get you started if all this reading isn't your style. You can start with this and then come back here to review and expand your knowledge of
Once you have all the above in your head and you have practiced the variations, test yourself by decoding this and giving me your answer.
ME: Can you spot me a fiver?Will you spot me? I warn you. I'm a notorious deadbeat.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Taboo mistake no. 1
[Précis. The word _informations_ does not exist in English. This is a rule you can count on unless you are facing criminal proceedings.]
I apologize to all those students I defenestrated because they made one of two taboo mistakes when speaking English in my presence. A quick tour today through Czech web sites shows that this error is finally being made at low and remote levels. That is banks, government offices, large businesses--they have all rooted out and destroyed the blight. Only a site from Humpolec, or the Czech American Akita (dog breed) Club, or an obscure pension somewhere near the Polish border keep the virus alive. I hope the illness won't rise again and infect the admirable Czech accomplishments in multilingualism. So the medicine I and others have tried to apply to the infection seems to have worked, mostly.
What is that mistake? that blight, virus, illness, infection? Why, I am surprised you are asking. One word: _informations_. Yes, it drove me to distraction, and for some students they suffered a fall from my grace, if not the second floor window. _Information_ is non-count. You can't have an information and you can't have informations. Not even the Brits with their collective nouns with plural form verbs make this mistake.
"The team play well" does not mean you can say "The information are enlightening" and be counted correct. (In British and American English "The team play well" is correct. In the case of American English, you must mean by saying this that the team is a number of individuals considered as such, not a singular group. In American English the almost universal form is, "The team plays well.")
The clever and ever-skeptical Czech will object with the touchstone sentence in answer to a direct or authoritative statement: "It depends." Okay, _informations_ does exist. I confess it does. But no one except lawyers and judges might use this form of the word "for issuing indictments for certain types of crimes or for certain types of anti-corruption investigations". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_%28formal_criminal_charge.) By no means is _informations_ in common use. I dare say you should and I will never use this form.
All clear? We are still on the correct path? No more use of the word _information_ in the (almost) non-existent plural. I still threaten defenestration if I hear it.
Oh, am I not going to tell you the second taboo to avoid my wrath? No, I have done with preaching and teaching . . . unless, of course, I hear you say . . .
What is that mistake? that blight, virus, illness, infection? Why, I am surprised you are asking. One word: _informations_. Yes, it drove me to distraction, and for some students they suffered a fall from my grace, if not the second floor window. _Information_ is non-count. You can't have an information and you can't have informations. Not even the Brits with their collective nouns with plural form verbs make this mistake.
"The team play well" does not mean you can say "The information are enlightening" and be counted correct. (In British and American English "The team play well" is correct. In the case of American English, you must mean by saying this that the team is a number of individuals considered as such, not a singular group. In American English the almost universal form is, "The team plays well.")
The clever and ever-skeptical Czech will object with the touchstone sentence in answer to a direct or authoritative statement: "It depends." Okay, _informations_ does exist. I confess it does. But no one except lawyers and judges might use this form of the word "for issuing indictments for certain types of crimes or for certain types of anti-corruption investigations". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_%28formal_criminal_charge.) By no means is _informations_ in common use. I dare say you should and I will never use this form.
All clear? We are still on the correct path? No more use of the word _information_ in the (almost) non-existent plural. I still threaten defenestration if I hear it.
Oh, am I not going to tell you the second taboo to avoid my wrath? No, I have done with preaching and teaching . . . unless, of course, I hear you say . . .
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Have a nice time.
[Précis. "Mijte se hezky!" does not translate into English as "Have a nice/good time," but you can use this sentence in your leave-taking if you know what the other person will be doing. "Have a nice time" always has a reference to something specific you know about the other person's plans because s/he told you. The English equivalent of "Mijte se hezky!" is probably something like "Enjoy life."]
A. Something specific about what the other person will do next or sometime later.The correct answer is A, Something. The one who says "Have a nice time" knows what the other person will do next, or where s/he is going, or what his or her plans are. In other words, "Have a nice time" has a reference to something known by both people. Always.
B. Nothing, just saying goodbye and wishing the other person well.
So when you want to say goodbye to someone, do not say "Have a nice time" unless you know something specific about what will happen with the other person. "Have a nice time" is not a substitute for "Have a nice day" or "See you later," etc. It is a substitute for goodbye only if you both know something about what's next for one person.
Can one say "You too!" in reply? Sure, if the other person knows something specific about your near-future activity.
The misuse of this farewell is so common in the Czech Republic that foreigners who have lived here for some time probably just ignore its misuse, which doesn't make it correct.
How can one learn this fine point of English usage? First, the Internet will not help you except that you will not find "Have a nice day" as a farewell or leave-taking expression. Examples of different expressions of this type appear here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parting_phrase#Generic_ways_to_say_goodbyeAnd here.
http://www.fluentu.com/english/blog/say-goodbye-english/If you do find "Have a nice day" as a recommended way of saying goodbye, you are probably looking at a web site or forum where non-native speakers are giving other non-native speakers advice, or their guesses as to what is proper English usage and what is not. (Example, https://dewisudjia.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/expressions-of-leave-taking/.)
But, you object, even Radio Prague (http://old.radio.cz/en/html/living_pozdravy.html), a trusted source for cultural and linguistic bits, says "many Czechs say 'Mijte se!', or its informal equivalent 'Mij se!', which means 'take care'. An nicer way of saying this is 'Mijte se hezky!', which means 'have a good time!'" And the resident interpreter in my house says there is no referent, just a general "enjoy whatever."
So here is the answer for the prevalence of the misuse of "Have a nice time." It is likely a matter of translating a language and culture directly into English without knowing how English speakers would say the same thing Czechs want to when using Czech.
Now you know your homework: Find a way in English to say the same thing you do in Czech. Have a nice time (doing that!).
Postscript. Here is a two-word scramble answer, one of many possible answers.
Eefijlnoy
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Best seller a tough sell
How am I to understand these lines from the Quran, especially in light of events today reported round the world? For example, from the beginning.
1. Surah Al-Fatihah
1. In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
2. All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). 3. The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
4. The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)
5. You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).
6. Guide us to the Straight Way
7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
This is from Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Quran published by Dar-us-Salam Publications (http://www.noblequran.com/translation/).
I get stuck on verses 1, 3, 6, and 7. The world is divided into
A. Those to whom an all grace-giving and merciful (compassionate?) Allah would show the Straight Way and
B. All others, those not graced or chosen, whose way is not straight.
If one believes, he (and she?) is shown the Straight Way. But belief is given (by Allah). There are only those that believe and all others. Kind of an exclusive club with arbitrary membership based on a god who gets offended if you make a mistake or for some reason irritates you.
On to the next section.
2. Surah Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
1. Alif-Lam-Mim. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'an and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings].
2. This is the Book (the Qur'an), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].
3. Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend out of what we have provided for them [i.e. give Zakat , spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, etc., and also give charity to the poor and also in Allah's Cause - Jihad, etc.].
4. And who believe in (the Qur'an and the Sunnah) which has been sent down (revealed) to you (Muhammad Peace be upon him ) and in [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter. (Resurrection, recompense of their good and bad deeds, Paradise and Hell, etc.).
5. They are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are the successful.
6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.
7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.
8. And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not.
9. They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not!
10. In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.
11. And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers."
12. Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.
13. And when it is said to them (hypocrites): "Believe as the people (followers of Muhammad Peace be upon him , Al-Ansar and Al-Muhajirun) have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" Verily, they are the fools, but they know not.
14. And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayatin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking."
15. Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.
16. These are they who have purchased error for guidance, so their commerce was profitless. And they were not guided.
17. Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindled a fire; then, when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness. (So) they could not see.
18. They are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not (to the Right Path).
19. Or like a rainstorm from the sky, wherein is darkness, thunder, and lightning. They thrust their fingers in their ears to keep out the stunning thunderclap for fear of death. But Allah ever encompasses the disbelievers (i.e. Allah will gather them all together).
20. The lightning almost snatches away their sight, whenever it flashes for them, they walk therein, and when darkness covers them, they stand still. And if Allah willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight. Certainly, Allah has power over all things.
21. O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
22. Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).
23. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.
24. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
25. And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise). Every time they will be provided with a fruit therefrom, they will say: "This is what we were provided with before," and they will be given things in resemblance (i.e. in the same form but different in taste) and they shall have therein Azwajun Mutahharatun (purified mates or wives), (having no menses, stools, urine, etc.) and they will abide therein forever.
26. Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say: "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby only those who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah).
There are several parts in the above I find enlightening. One is that "Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly." So the grace-giving, and merciful, Allah withholds from some, insults them, and increases their ignorance. Again we have believers and non-believers, the difference being "an Allah who has set a seal on the non-believers' hearts and hearings."
According to verse 26, if anyone interprets, as I am doing, we are misled. Is the whole of this interpreted Quran, the above, the artifact of a de facto non-believer or apostate? Isn't this authoritative translation--with interpretation--in error?
Yet the text (Quran/revelation) is clear enough without interpretation: grace is not guaranteed, mercy is not mercy, belief is belief, non-belief is non-belief, and Allah decides all.
If someone of this faith wishes to clarify to me where I err in my understanding here without using other words than are in the text itself, well, they jeopardize their own status, I guess.
All this we-they rhetoric is familiar to us: Christian and non-Christian, Jew and Gentile, those for and those against.
The following verses from the above are also enlightening.
23. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.
24. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
Those not Arab, Jew, or Christian seem to have been excluded from the injunction against coming up with an alternative to Islam, or the Quran. I think it rather easy, contrary to the assertion of impossibility expressed in verse 24, to produce a chapter with an alternate or no-belief system, and witnesses are aplenty in a world where Allah is lord of all that exists. And by the way, why would Allah create or rule over such a divided world? Sorry. Not supposed to ask.
I give all due respect to the contributions of Islam as well as the sincerity and goodness of its followers; however, Allah's book, without going into other problematic matters, is difficult to reconcile with itself. How then could it possibly resolve the dilemmas faced by humankind in human much less eternal affairs?
The evidence again from the events of the day reveal it can't and it doesn't. No wonder Islam is being attacked from outside. Attackers from the inside--presumably because of different interpretations, interpretations forbidden by the holy book--also don't give the faith a clear example or recommendation for belief and adherence.
A small example of this discord both within and between the they and the we, consider this question: Does the Quran really promise Islamic martyrs 72 virgins? This site (http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=216) says,
The simple answer is NO! There is no promise of 72 virgins for martyrs, terrorists or suicide bombers anywhere in the Quran.
The section many people claim promises this is Chapter (78) surat l-naba (The Great News). The controversy is due to the poor translation of ONE verse from verses 29 to 34.
Other than cited examples of mistranslation on this page, we also have from http://www.clearquran.com/: "And full-breasted [companions] of equal age," as well as "And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age" (http://www.noblequran.com/translation/).
Gosh, and I do mean Gosh, the non-believer and would-be believer and believer and no-beliefer must get confused as to what the good book is trying to tell . . . me.
In the face not of the events of the day but from primary sources both raw and translated and interpreted, Islam is a tough sell. I wonder what the attraction is. Certainty, but based on these words of (a capricious) Allah?
1. Surah Al-Fatihah
1. In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
2. All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). 3. The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
4. The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)
5. You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).
6. Guide us to the Straight Way
7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
This is from Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Quran published by Dar-us-Salam Publications (http://www.noblequran.com/translation/).
I get stuck on verses 1, 3, 6, and 7. The world is divided into
A. Those to whom an all grace-giving and merciful (compassionate?) Allah would show the Straight Way and
B. All others, those not graced or chosen, whose way is not straight.
If one believes, he (and she?) is shown the Straight Way. But belief is given (by Allah). There are only those that believe and all others. Kind of an exclusive club with arbitrary membership based on a god who gets offended if you make a mistake or for some reason irritates you.
On to the next section.
2. Surah Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
1. Alif-Lam-Mim. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'an and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings].
2. This is the Book (the Qur'an), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].
3. Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend out of what we have provided for them [i.e. give Zakat , spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, etc., and also give charity to the poor and also in Allah's Cause - Jihad, etc.].
4. And who believe in (the Qur'an and the Sunnah) which has been sent down (revealed) to you (Muhammad Peace be upon him ) and in [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter. (Resurrection, recompense of their good and bad deeds, Paradise and Hell, etc.).
5. They are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are the successful.
6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.
7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.
8. And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not.
9. They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not!
10. In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.
11. And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers."
12. Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.
13. And when it is said to them (hypocrites): "Believe as the people (followers of Muhammad Peace be upon him , Al-Ansar and Al-Muhajirun) have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" Verily, they are the fools, but they know not.
14. And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayatin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking."
15. Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.
16. These are they who have purchased error for guidance, so their commerce was profitless. And they were not guided.
17. Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindled a fire; then, when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness. (So) they could not see.
18. They are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not (to the Right Path).
19. Or like a rainstorm from the sky, wherein is darkness, thunder, and lightning. They thrust their fingers in their ears to keep out the stunning thunderclap for fear of death. But Allah ever encompasses the disbelievers (i.e. Allah will gather them all together).
20. The lightning almost snatches away their sight, whenever it flashes for them, they walk therein, and when darkness covers them, they stand still. And if Allah willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight. Certainly, Allah has power over all things.
21. O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
22. Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).
23. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.
24. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
25. And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise). Every time they will be provided with a fruit therefrom, they will say: "This is what we were provided with before," and they will be given things in resemblance (i.e. in the same form but different in taste) and they shall have therein Azwajun Mutahharatun (purified mates or wives), (having no menses, stools, urine, etc.) and they will abide therein forever.
26. Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say: "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby only those who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah).
There are several parts in the above I find enlightening. One is that "Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly." So the grace-giving, and merciful, Allah withholds from some, insults them, and increases their ignorance. Again we have believers and non-believers, the difference being "an Allah who has set a seal on the non-believers' hearts and hearings."
According to verse 26, if anyone interprets, as I am doing, we are misled. Is the whole of this interpreted Quran, the above, the artifact of a de facto non-believer or apostate? Isn't this authoritative translation--with interpretation--in error?
Yet the text (Quran/revelation) is clear enough without interpretation: grace is not guaranteed, mercy is not mercy, belief is belief, non-belief is non-belief, and Allah decides all.
If someone of this faith wishes to clarify to me where I err in my understanding here without using other words than are in the text itself, well, they jeopardize their own status, I guess.
All this we-they rhetoric is familiar to us: Christian and non-Christian, Jew and Gentile, those for and those against.
The following verses from the above are also enlightening.
23. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.
24. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
Those not Arab, Jew, or Christian seem to have been excluded from the injunction against coming up with an alternative to Islam, or the Quran. I think it rather easy, contrary to the assertion of impossibility expressed in verse 24, to produce a chapter with an alternate or no-belief system, and witnesses are aplenty in a world where Allah is lord of all that exists. And by the way, why would Allah create or rule over such a divided world? Sorry. Not supposed to ask.
I give all due respect to the contributions of Islam as well as the sincerity and goodness of its followers; however, Allah's book, without going into other problematic matters, is difficult to reconcile with itself. How then could it possibly resolve the dilemmas faced by humankind in human much less eternal affairs?
The evidence again from the events of the day reveal it can't and it doesn't. No wonder Islam is being attacked from outside. Attackers from the inside--presumably because of different interpretations, interpretations forbidden by the holy book--also don't give the faith a clear example or recommendation for belief and adherence.
A small example of this discord both within and between the they and the we, consider this question: Does the Quran really promise Islamic martyrs 72 virgins? This site (http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=216) says,
The simple answer is NO! There is no promise of 72 virgins for martyrs, terrorists or suicide bombers anywhere in the Quran.
The section many people claim promises this is Chapter (78) surat l-naba (The Great News). The controversy is due to the poor translation of ONE verse from verses 29 to 34.
Other than cited examples of mistranslation on this page, we also have from http://www.clearquran.com/: "And full-breasted [companions] of equal age," as well as "And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age" (http://www.noblequran.com/translation/).
Gosh, and I do mean Gosh, the non-believer and would-be believer and believer and no-beliefer must get confused as to what the good book is trying to tell . . . me.
In the face not of the events of the day but from primary sources both raw and translated and interpreted, Islam is a tough sell. I wonder what the attraction is. Certainty, but based on these words of (a capricious) Allah?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)