Language is to ideas what the body is to the soul. It is the physical manifestation of thought. It is the mortar with which we shape our understanding of the world.
But what happens when words are transmuted from one language to another and subjected to preconceived notions or limitations prevalent in the new language? Do they lose some of their original meaning?
If we are interested in gaining a better, more accurate understanding of Islam, its concepts, doctrine, and ideas, we must concede that there needs to be more robust scrutiny of the definitions that shape our discourse on Islam.
So with that in mind, I will be running a special series here, in which I will attempt to analyze definitions and translations of key Islamic terms to test them for authenticity. I am calling the series “language matters,” an intended pun on the importance of language in the understanding of faith constructs.
For this first installment, let us start at the root, the word “Islam” itself.
Islam is commonly translated into English, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, as simply “submission” (or “surrender”).
This is a simplistic translation that fails to convey the full meaning of the Arabic word.
There are namely two problems here.
First, “submission” and “surrender” in English contextualized usage imply a sense of coercion, a usurpation of one’s free will. When we say “surrender!” for example, it’s usually at gun point.
This contradicts a foundational criterion of Islam: freedom of will.
In Arabic, Istislam, not “Islam”, means surrender (noun). Like its English counterpart, “Istislam” implies coercion, and like its English counterpart it can be used to describe the act of one man vis-a-vis another. Conversely, “Islam” is used ONLY in the context of God, and ONLY in a state of free will (there is no single word in the English language that conveys this).
In other words, for a Muslim to be a Muslim, he or she must accept Islam free of force or coercion. God wishes for us to choose him because we want him, and for no other reason but that. This is a key point that is often misunderstood. Since faith is a matter of the heart, it can never be forced. It is technically impossible that Islam could ever be spread by the sword or by coercion, as some suggest, since even if at gun point (or at the sword blade), one could just as well proclaim to be a Muslim to avoid death, but reject Islam in their heart.
That is not to say that an “empire,” whether Islamic or otherwise, cannot be spread by the sword. But faith cannot. Just as no physical force can coerce you to love someone you do not love, none can coerce you to believe something you do not believe.
God understands this; in fact, he ordained that it be so. Since he is a judge of hearts first and foremost, it is logically necessary that he makes faith a matter of free choice, a matter of the heart and mind. Islam can only be spread by invitation (Da’wah) and persuasion (Hujjah), not coercion (Ikrah). The Qur’an explicitly states: “La Ikrah fel Deen” or “Let there be no compulsion in matters of faith.” (Ultimately, Muslims believe that faith is decreed by divine guidance.)
The second problem this translation poses is that there is no linguistically derived relationship between the English “submission” and the English “peace,” unlike the case in Arabic where “Islam” and “Salam” (peace) are derived from the same root word “slm” (to be in peace).
This etymological relationship is critical and cannot be lost in translation. We submit willingly to God in search of peace. As Muslims, we cannot take the peace out of our relationship with God, we cannot be Muslims resigned to anger, trepidation, or bitterness. Human beings are free to choose God’s peace or reject it. The Quran puts generous emphasis on these themes. When we achieve peace with God whom Muslims regard as the ultimate Peace, only then can we be at peace with ourselves. And only when we are at peace with ourselves can we then be at peace with others.
In conclusion, a qualified translation is in order for the real meaning of the Arabic word “Islam” to be fully and faithfully conveyed in the English language. Islam does not mean “submission,” Islam means “to freely submit one’s will to God’s, in pursuit of divine peace.” A simpler version that carries the same meaning is “to enter into God’s peace,” as Professor Tariq Ramadan proposes.
It is ironic that two important characteristics of being a Muslim, in fact the two most basic criteria (freedom and peace), are two of the most misrepresented and conflated when it comes to the West’s conception of Islam. But that is of little surprise when you consider that the building blocks of our discourse and understanding – the language we use – is itself flawed.
Ahmed Rehab is a Chicago-based activist and writer specializing in American Muslim affairs.
Islam Will Dominate
Christopher you infidel, go troll somewhere else
November 10, 2010
Christopher L
A statement from CAIR
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to
any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book
of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on Earth."
November 10, 2010
Christopher L
Rehab says there is no compulsion, but he conveniently leaves out the fact that Islamic law is to be forced on non-Muslims.
Koran verse 009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Islam calls for perpetual war, as proven in the Sahih Bukhari ahadith.
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
Maybe Rehab who has no authority whatsoever in the Islamic world, would like to tell us he knows more about Islam than scholar Bukhari.
November 10, 2010
Christopher L
Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.
http://www.barghouti.com/islam/meaning.html
As for Rehab he is part of CAIR, an organization that wants Islam to dominate America. They are enemies of life as we know it, and they should not be respected.
Rehab fails to mention that Islam condones terrorism, lying, kidnapping, slavery and rape. It also calls for the dominance of non-Muslims.
http://loganswarning.com/2009/12/13/islam-101-the-religion-of-war/
http://loganswarning.com/2009/12/15/islam-101-lying-is-permissible/
http://loganswarning.com/2010/03/20/islam-101-the-religion-of-rape/
http://loganswarning.com/2010/08/26/sharia-law-islamic-law-101-non-muslims-under-sharia/
Rehab, just another game playing Islamic mouthpiece.
November 10, 2010
Roland
As an non-Muslim, i agree with this English translation of Islam and I'm also familiar with it.But I would add that this is also the reason why non-Muslims should actually attempt to refrain from referring to this religion as Islam.Since using this name inadvertently acknowledges the divine nature of the religion, something non-Muslims of course reject.Similairly problematic for non-Muslims is the word Muslim itself. Since it also acknowledges that these individuals are engaged in a divine practice. Making using the word itself blasphemous.It's also why early Christians who came into contact with the followers of the new religion, never used the words Islam or Muslim.But instead used terms like Saracen or Mohammedan and why everyone should be respectful when people use it, as it has legitimate origins and not racist ones as it is often portrayed. One of the earliest Christian scholars who used the term Saracen was a 7th century Christian called Saint John of Damascus (675-749) who is also one of the first to engage in polemics with them.His writings are very interesting to read.It gives a very different view of the early history of the religion and it's followers.Most of the traditional history comes from the hadith collections and those were written much later then the writings of St. John of Damascus.
November 10, 2010
Roland
As a non-Muslim, i agree with this English translation of Islam and I'm also familiar with it.But I would add that this is also the reason why non-Muslims should actually refrain from refering to this religion as Islam.Since using the name inadvertently acknowledges the divine nature of the religion, something non-Muslims of course reject.Similairly problematic for non-Muslims is the word Muslim itself. Since it also acknowledges that these individuals are engaged in a divine practice. Making using the word itself blasphemous and problematic.It's also why early Christians who came into contact with the followers of the new religion, never used the words Islam or Muslim.But instead used terms like Saracen or Mohammedan and why everyone should be respectful when people use it today, as it has legitimate origins and not racist ones as it is often portrayed. One of the earliest Christian scholars who used the term Saracen was a 7th century Christian called Saint John of Damascus (675-749) who is also one of the first to engage in polemics with them.His writings are very interesting to read.It gives a very different view of the early history of the religion and it's followers.Most of the traditional history comes from the hadith collections and those were written much later then the writings of St. John of Damascus.
November 10, 2010
Ahmed Rehab
Abdul Ameer,
Yes, Islam is about internal peace, I agree with you there. But that's about the only thing I agree with you on.
As I said, Islam starts with peace with God first, then peace with the self, then peace with others. So I disagree that it is not about peace with others as well.
The notion of eternal war with non-Muslims is preposterous and has nothing to do with the truth of Islam. Islam teaches us to engage others with the good word, not with the sword.
Islam can only be spread by invitation (Da’wah) and persuasion (Hujjah), not coercion (Ikrah). The Qur’an explicitly states: “La Ikrah fel Deen” or “Let there be no compulsion in matters of faith.” (Ultimately, Muslims believe that faith is decreed by divine guidance.)
November 10, 2010
Abdulameer
Rehab's definition is perfectly acceptable. At the same time, when people say that Islam is a religion of peace, they need to realize that what is meant is the internal feeling of serenity and peace which comes from surrendering one's will to God. This kind of peace has nothing to do with relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Koran and the sayings of Muhammad both call for eternal war on non-Moslems until the religion of Islam reigns supreme in the world. All the Islamic schools of jurisprudence, and the most respected Islamic religious authorities today confirm that there can be no peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.
November 10, 2010
_001.jpg)
