| Native TongueThe Koran awards itself high praise because it is written in its 
		hearers' own tongue, a language they can understand, clear and 
		perspicuous, not an unfamiliar and unintelligible foreign tongue: 
                
                   
                     | 
                          
                            
                             | 
                                “We have made it an 
			Arabic Koran that ye may understand. . .”(Koran Sura 43:2).
 
 “Verily we have made this Koran easy and in thine own tongue, that thou mayest announce glad tidings by it to the God-fearing, and that thou mayest warn the contentious by it.”(Koran Sura 19:97).
 
 “Had we made it a Koran in a foreign tongue, 
			they had surely said, 'Unless its signs be made 
		    clear. . .' What! in a foreign tongue? And the 
			people Arabian?”(Koran Sura 41:44).
 |  |  How bizarre indeed it would have been to address the Arabian 
		people in a foreign tongue! How could they have understood?: "So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be 
		known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of 
		languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the 
		meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner 
	      to me. . .What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.  Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 
		'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?" (1 Corinthians 14:9-16). Yet, in spite of the Koran's own concern with its clarity and intelligibility, very many of those who 
		recite this work do not understand the words they are saying. 
		Most of this world's one billion plus Muslims are not native 
		Arabic speakers. Yet, except for the Turks, who thanks to 
		Mustafa Kemal Ataturk can read the Koran (with a 'K') in their 
		own tongue, the world's Muslims pray in what to most of them is 
		a foreign tongue, and recite their sacred scripture in a foreign 
		tongue. In addition to the mandatory prayers which are recited 
		in Arabic, whether the speakers understand it or not, they also 
		offer voluntary prayers in their own language. What is the 
		recitation of unknown, meaningless words but empty ritual? What is the rationale for this practice? Does God not understand 
		English, or Turkish, or Indonesian? Will He not hear prayers which 
		are meaningful to those who speak them, but only those which are 
		not? This demand that non-Arabic speakers speak Arabic began as 
		nothing more than a control mechanism: originally the community of 
		the faithful was co-extensive with the Arab empire. It remains as a 
		way for the clergy to monopolize power over against the people. When Muslims offer formulaic prayers in a recondite 
		foreign language not known to them, does any inward 
		mental act accompany and inform this recitation? Recall that Jesus 
		scolded the people for their belief that repetition pleased God: "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen 
	do. For they think that they will be heard for their many 
	words." (Matthew 6:7). This habit of repeating empty, formal phrases, perhaps even phrases in an 
		unknown foreign tongue which are strictly speaking meaningless to 
		the speaker, is something of which Islam must be cleansed. If 
		tomorrow the Muslims vowed to employ good, 
		i.e. economical, language, how much of their religion would that in 
		and of itself eliminate? Many pagan practices were incorporated 
		wholesale into Islam, for example the circumambulation of the Kabah, a 
		shrine containing a meteorite the pagans revered as a fetish. The 
		heathen worship stones, as for instance is mentioned in Eusebius' 
		commentary: “But he replied, 'I tell you, if these are silent, the 
		stones will cry out.' Again too Eusebius: He is calling the gentiles 
		stones, because they worship the stones as divine.” (Eusebius, 
		Gospel Problems and Solutions, Coptic Fragments, p. 377). When a meteorite fell from the sky, it would not uncommonly 
		  end up gracing a shrine erected on the site to commemorate 
		  this visitation from above: "Avitus’s home city of Emesa was famously home to 
		  the temple of the sun god El Gabal (which, from the Arabic, 
		  still recognizable today, literally means Man of the Mountain) 
		  and Avitus was hereditary chief priest of this cult, a role 
		  which he took very seriously. The temple housed a giant and 
		  peculiar black stone which, it was said, had fallen from the 
		  sky in former times. Its description suggests a meteorite, one 
		  of many that had been, and still are, found in the desert. In 
		  fact it was not the only such stone to be worshipped in the 
		  east; they are collectively known as baetyls."
		  (Pearson, Paul N., Maximinus Thrax: From 
		  Common Soldier to Emperor of Rome (p. 63).) Muslim sources 
		confirm this practice of stone worship by the people in their times of ignorance: "Narrated Abu Raja Al-Utaridi: We used to worship 
		   stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, 
		   we would throw the first one and take the latter, but if we 
		   could not get a stone then we would collect some earth (i.e. 
		   soil) and then bring a sheep and milk that sheep over it, and 
		   perform the Tawaf around it." (Hadith, 
		   Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 661). Meteorites made the people of antiquity marvel. Were they 
	  not communication from a realm beyond? The wise men of the 
	  European 'Enlightenment' discovered that no such thing is 
	  possible: "Eighteenth-century English and French scientists 
	  rejected the ample testimony as to the reality of meteorites, 
	  as we reject stories of alien abduction. On 13 September 1768 
	  a large meteorite, weighing seven and a half pounds, fell at 
	  Luce, Pays de la Loire. Numerous people (all of them peasants) 
	  saw it fall. Three members of the Royal Academy of Sciences 
	  (including the young Lavoisier) were sent to investigate. They 
	  concluded that lightning had struck a lump of sandstone on the 
	  ground; the idea of rocks falling from outer space was simply 
	  ridiculous." (The Invention of Science, 
	  David Wootton, p. 355). Except that, from time to time, 
	  rocks do fall from heaven! They are, however, just rocks. It 
	  was pagan naivete to make them into objects of worship, and 
	  for the Muslims, who claim to be enlightened and post-pagan, 
	  to continue the tradition is laughable. There is more continuity here than might be supposed by a 
	    religion which defines itself in opposition to paganism. 'Vain repetition' is another pagan practice it would be 
		wholesome to abandon, especially vain repetition in a language 
		unknown to the speaker. Some Muslim communities, for example the Somalis, have not been 
		able to achieve universal literacy even in their own tongue. What 
		likelihood is there that they will succeed in teaching the people a 
		difficult foreign tongue, classical Arabic, any time soon? The only 
		solution is to translate the prayers and the Qur'an into the 
		vernacular. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, and within the 
		Catholic communion to a more limited extent prior to Vatican II, 
		Latin was used as a control mechanism similar to the modern use of 
		Arabic. Only some people knew Latin, most did not, and knowledge is 
		power. Translating the Bible into the vernacular turned the people 
		from passive spectators of the religious scene into free men and 
		women. The best thing that ever happened to the German language was Martin Luther's 
		translating the Bible into that barbarous tongue. The welfare of the 
		languages actually spoken by the world's Muslims would be best served by 
		translating the Arabic Qur'an and daily prayers into them. This 
		would benefit both the speakers and these under-valued languages 
		themselves. The speakers would benefit by, at long last, 
		understanding what they are saying to God. Who would sign 
		a contract if he were not sure what it said? So why should we petition 
		God with only a vague, second-hand notion of what we are saying? 
		Plus, the languages would be given a new lease on life. How many 
		languages did Arabic eradicate, when the Muslims conquered ancient 
		civilizations and replaced the native languages with their own? It 
		is the Christian Copts who have kept Coptic alive, not the Muslims, 
		who confuse Arab imperialism with salvation. Latin was long in use as a medium for communication with God, not so 
		much owing to the unique suitability of this one amongst the tongues 
		of men and angels to the task, but only to erect a fence around the 
		clerical establishment. Some people knew Latin, most did not. It was 
		a blow struck for human freedom when the Bible was translated into 
		the vernacular. Opening this book tore that fence down. God did not 
		erect the fence, man did. Arabic functions much 
		the same way as Latin once did. Some want to play 'keep-away' with a book which ought 
		to be open to scrutiny, both from believers and outsiders. Perhaps they are afraid some things cannot stand up to 
		scrutiny. The believers' uncomprehending rote recitation, if it is accompanied by any 
		mental act at all, is not likely accompanied by the same kind of mental act as occurs when a 
		speaker spills out his heart in spontaneous words. 
		Jesus discouraged the one and encouraged the other when he 
		instructed the people in Matthew 6:7. Even a coherent, 
		structured human language might as well be gibberish to one who 
		knows it not. Though Ergun Caner, the President of Liberty Seminary 
		and, some say, make-believe Arabic speaker, was recorded speaking gibberish 
		in place of Arabic, the people who heard 
		him thought he was speaking Arabic; how would they know? Those who 
		pray in Arabic without knowing the language are speaking in 
		gibberish to their own hearing. The way to 
		ensure a hearer will understand is to speak the hearer's own 
		language. Our own language is as transparent as air, we recognize 
		the meaning immediately, not as one painstakingly recalling 
		memorized instructions. The Koran advertises itself as perspicuous 
		because offered in a language the people understand, not in some 
		unknown foreign tongue. But if by chance they don't know Arabic, 
		should it not be translated to conserve that characteristic? "It turns out now that the Arabs were the most successful 
		imperialists of all time, since to be conquered by them (and then to 
		be like them) is still, in the minds of the faithful, to be saved." 
		(V. S. Naipaul, Among the Believers, p. 142). Many third-world inhabitants of the present day complain about English taking over the world, but long 
		before English was in any position to take over anything, Arabic did 
		take over a considerable chunk of the world. People whose ancestors 
		spoke Punic or Coptic forgot those languages, so completely that 
		eventually they would call themselves 'Arabs' and define their 
		politics in terms of 'Arab nationalism.' They forgot what their fathers were. Who can look back 
		without sorrow and shame at the cultures and languages Arabic obliterated? 
		It is the Christian Copts who have conserved Coptic, the Syrian 
		Christians who have conserved Aramaic, not the Arab imperialists, i.e. 
		Muslims. Some people can see, with sharp-eyed clarity, what was wrong with 19th century 
		European imperialism, but their vision 	becomes blurry when they look back at Arab imperialism. Once the 
		Arabs conquered, to speak Arabic was to rule; the imperialists' 
		Arabic religious speech flooded and drowned the indigenous vernacular. Surely if 
		it's a loss today when Coca-Cola culture overspreads the third 
		world, it was also a loss when the conquering Arab armies imposed 
		cultural conformity on a very wide swath of the globe. What business had the King of Morocco with Spain?: "The 
		 King's heart of Morocco 'gainst the Cid was full of rage: 'By 
		 force the man hath entered into my heritage, and giveth thanks 
		 to no one save Jesus Christ therefor.' And the King of Morocco 
		 gathered his hosts of war. With fifty times a thousand under 
		 arms, good men and stark, they put to sea." 
		 (The Poem of the Cid, Chapter LXXVIII, p. 47). 
		 Shouldn't Spain be for the Spaniards? Fortunately the 
		 Spaniards were able to liberate themselves, though not in the 
		 Cid's day. It beggars belief that, in the 1960's, a wave of 
		 anti-colonialism swept through the Third World, rejecting as 
	     inauthentic the things that came from British and French 
		 imperialism, even when these were good things like democracy, 
		 but clinging to everything the foreign Arab hordes had 
		 imposed, by force, on their great-great-grand-parents, as if 
		 any of that had ever been their choice! No power on earth has 
		 ever been as arrogantly and successfully imperialist as the 
		 Muslims; the people whose languages and cultures they swept 
		 away, can't stop singing their praises, ever thanking them for 
		 that original heedless act of civilizational erasure! And just look at 
		 the riches they swept away, and the uniform poverty they put 
		 in its place! The remedy is Reformation. Put power in the hands of the people; 
		translate the Koran into the vernacular, let people talk to God in 
		words which are meaningful to them. Will this be the prelude to collapse? 
		Perhaps freed of incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo, the 
		believers will see the Wizard of Oz for what he is and will recoil 
		from the emptiness and poverty now clearly visible without the 
		trappings of mystification. But surely those who believe in this religion should not be afraid to try. 
 |