U.S.: The war of the translations, Amir Rahim vs MEMRI

Here are two translations of "Who is responsible for Islamic Terrorists?" an essay by Khaled Kishtainy which appeared in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Arab daily, 11th April 2004, and which was translated by MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Amir Rahim also offered another translation that he believes will demonstrate that I have misunderstood Kishtainy. So, I'm presenting both translations here for the benefit of the CaribPundit readership, and I will also include my emailed response to Amir.

Amir: There are several roots and causes for what is termed as Islamic terror which many have written about. But I have my personal views on this subject.

MEMRI: "[The phenomenon] called Islamic terrorism has many roots and causes, and much has already been written about this. But I have personal input on this matter.

At this point, the difference is merely stylistic. Where Amir begins with the impersonal "there are", the MEMRI piece begins more directly with a clear and distinct subject "[The phenomenon] called Islamic terrorism." The enclosure of "[The phenomenon]" in square brackets is a scholarly device which informs the reader that the phrase "The phenomenon" is not in the original text but is the writer's insertion into the text to facilitate a smoother reading. Though Amir's may be a more literal translation, the MEMRI text is more direct and easier to read. The syntax of this first paragraph of Amir's translation is somewhat passive, and this is confirmed by a cursory examination of the verbs in the first sentence.

Amir: I put part of the blame on Islamic thinkers and leaders of Islamic organisations. Nearly all of them believe in violence and have repressed anyone who doubts the benefit of violence. Of course they wrote every now and then about love and peace in Islam. But they did that mainly for publicity and for defending Islam. Their main position is that this religion was spread by the sword and will win by the sword and that any doubt about that is regarded as a conspiracy against Islam.

MEMRI: "I place on the Islamic intellectuals and leaders of Islamic organizations part of the responsibility for [this phenomenon] of Islamic terrorism, as nearly all of them advocate violence, and repress anyone who casts doubts upon this. Naturally, every so often they have written about the love and peace of Islam -- but they did so, at best, for purposes of propaganda and defense of Islam. Their basic position is that this religion was established by the sword, acts by the sword, and will triumph by the sword, and that any doubt regarding this constitutes a conspiracy against the Muslims.

Again, the difference is stylistic, of syntax and diction rather than of substantive semantic issues. For instance, with regard to syntax, where Amir has subject + verb + object + adverbial modifier, MEMRI has subject + verb + adverbial modifier + object.

As for diction, Amir employs "thinkers," and MEMRI "intellectuals". He uses "believe in violence," MEMRI "advocate violence." Amir's text reads "Of course," and MEMRI's "Naturally."Amir translates "Their main position," and MEMRI "Their basic position." Where Amir reads "mainly for publicity," MEMRI has "for purposes of propaganda."

In sum, an analysis of diction reveals that MEMRI uses words that are more powerfully loaded in an English context. They rely on words that are well known and sometimes with pejorative connotations,for example "propaganda" rather than "publicity." By employing "propaganda," MEMRI is signalling that the intent of the Islamic leaders was not beneficent. Where "publicity" may be regarded as harmless, in terms of the psychological implications of its usage, "propaganda" is not. For Westerners, one of the entailments of "propaganda" is "disinformation," with the intent to blind the hearer to the truth concerning the thing spoken of. Thus, in this context of "love and peace of Islam," MEMRI's use of "propaganda" is more accurate than Amir's "publicity," with regard to the intent of the Islamic intellectuals and leaders of organizations.

Furthermore, there seems to be a semantic difference between "believe in violence" and "advocate violence." From reading Amir's text, one would conclude that the ideas of Islamic intellectuals and leaders of organizations remain within the realm of the abstract and are not translated into action. That is, if one is of the view that belief is an abstract. I am not. As a Christian, faith is an abstract that is lived out in action. Show me your works, and I'll tell you what you believe, that sort of thing. Therefore, the semantic difference between "believe" and "advocate" is not significant enough to claim a flawed translation since advocacy is the corollary of belief, and since Islamic intellectuals and leaders have been vigorously promoting Islam.

Amir: In 1984 a conference was held in Amman under the title "The non-violent Arab Struggle". It was hypocrisy and nothing more than a public relations act. I participated with a paper which was included in the English version of the conference proceedings but not in the Arabic version! It was an attempt to cheat the Westerners and not to educate the Arabs about the need for peaceful struggle.

MEMRI: "The best proof of what I am saying is the 1984 world congress on 'The Nonviolent Political Arab Struggle' in Amman, that was nothing but hypocrisy and propaganda. In the congress documents in the English [version], they published my speech, but they removed it from the edition in Arabic!!! All this was in an attempt to deceive the Westerners, and not in order to educate the Arabs to peace.

Again, the difference is stylistic, with diction again bearing the brunt of it. However, one particular point of difference leaps out. MEMRI renders the original Arabic merely as "educate the Arabs to peace"; Amir, however, translates "educate the Arabs about the need for peaceful struggle." That is a significant semantic difference. MEMRI's translation indicates an end result, "peace," and Amir's a means/process of continuation, "peaceful struggle." The difference in the prepositions, "to" and "about" further underlines the end-means/process tension.

Amir: I believe that the sword played a minor rule in the victory of Islam on the atheists. Moreover, I believe that Muslims will lose if they keep embracing the violence to achieve their aims. Firstly because others are militarily superior. And secondly because the peaceful struggle is a much more effective mean in our generation. I followed this idea and called it (Civil Jihad).

MEMRI: "In my opinion, the sword played a minor role in Islam's triumph over polytheism. Moreover, the Muslims will [only] lose by their adherence to the perception [advocating] violence. This is due first of all to the military supremacy of others, and second because in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon. I have adopted this perception and called it by the Islamic name 'Civil Jihad.'"

Apart from the stylistic differences, there is a minor one of diction, and a more significant semantic one that is rooted in translation issues. Amir's text is clearer than MEMRI's specifically with regard to this sentence, "Moreover, I believe that Muslims will lose if they keep embracing the violence to achieve their aims" which MEMRI has mangled thus, "Moreover, the Muslims will [only] lose by their adherence to the perception [advocating] violence." Therefore, on this point, clarity is entirely on Amir's side.

The choice of diction brings another aspect of what Kishtainy is saying into perspective. MEMRI's text reads, "in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon," while Amir's is "because the peaceful struggle is a much more effective mean in our generation." In employing "more effective weapon," MEMRI's language is more resonant with an English-speaking audience; however, Amir's text makes it quite clear that Kishtainy's focus is not on an end (peace), but on a means or process to accomplish an end, "peaceful struggle."

Amir: In London I tried to establish an organisation to promote this idea. I contacted some Arab ambassadors and some activists in Islamic organisations. They all turned me down. In fact some sent warnings! I managed to get the support of three persons, one was Ethiopian and two Iraqis. We struggled for two years until we lost hope and gave up.

MEMRI: "I tried to establish in London an organization to disseminate this perception among the Muslims. I contacted some Arab ambassadors and activists in Islamic organizations, and all I got from them was their turning their backs, and even threats. Only three Muslims shared my belief -- one from Ethiopia and two from Iraq. Over the course of two years, we struggled [for the sake of this goal]; then we lost hope and gave up.

MEMRI's language is more specific, and Amir's translation suggests that MEMRI has included words which do not appear in the original Arabic text, for example, "Muslim"; however, the context suggests thatthe insertion, though not indicated, serves to clarify the sense of the text by removing any ambiguity concerning the ideology of those who believed as did Kishtainy. Semantically, the two translations are similar, even though Amir uses "warnings" and MEMRI "threats."

Amir: All those [Muslims] we contacted told us that the Westerners are dogs and can only understand the language of violence and that Muslims have no other option but to carry arms and fight. Some of them would agree with us in private meetings and when the meeting is over, they would tell us don't mention anything about this publicly! It s as if the non-violence and peace are some kind of prostitution which is meant to be kept secret. This is the atmosphere which helped bring to being the terrorist and suicide bomber.

MEMRI:"Most of the people we contacted were of the opinion that the Westerners are sons of dogs who understand only force, and that the Muslims have no choice but to strap on their weapon and fight. Some cooperated with us in private meetings [but] after the meeting was over asked us not to mention anything of it to others -- as if nonviolence and peace were a kind of adultery that must be hidden. This was the atmosphere that helped the emergence of the terrorists, the suicide bombers, and all those who use weapons and explosives."

No noteworthy differences.

Amir: In my personal effort, I spent a long time writing a book about non-violent struggle. It was a unique book in Arabic which promote the idea of (Civil Jihad) and its methods.

MEMRI: "In the framework of this personal effort, I devoted a great deal of time to writing a book about nonviolence. It is the only book that presents in depth, in Arabic, the perceptions and methods of Civil Jihad. A large section of it is devoted to peace and nonviolence in Islam.

There is a significant omission from Amir's text, this sentence which is present in MEMRI's, "A large section of it is devoted to peace and nonviolence in Islam." Since Arabic is not yet one of the languages I can read, I have no way of confirming the presence in or absence of this sentence from the original. If it belongs to the original, then Amir may have excluded it accidentally; such things happen when one is either transcribing or translating another's text.

Amir: My friend Anees Saigh tried in vain to find a publisher. Many of them [the publishers] refused to get involved in such matters in view of the content of the book. At the end, a publisher called Dar Al-Karmel in Amman agreed to publish on condition that certain parts of the book be deleted. The outcome was a rather weak publication with many mistakes.

MEMRI: "In vain did my friend Anis Sayegh try to find a publisher for the book. Some [publishers] refused to even permit the draft of the book to enter their office. Finally, the Dar Al-Karmel [publishers] in Amman put it out (after omitting many paragraphs), and even that was in an abbreviated edition, replete with mistakes.

There is a slight semantic issue here created by the difference between "Many of them [the publishers] refused to get involved in such matters in view of the content of the book" and "Some [publishers] refused to even permit the draft of the book to enter their office"; however, since it is not significant to the issue in contention, I see no reason to address it.

Amir: The publisher was unable to distribute the book widely. May be because Arab governments prevented it. Al-Wahda Establishment in Beirut refused to publish an article for me in its journal about this subject.

MEMRI: "The publisher did not manage to distribute it in a courageous way, perhaps because some Arab governments prevented him from doing so. Even the Institute of Arab Unity refrained from publishing my research on this subject in its journal.

There is a noteworthy semantic distinction between Amir's "unable to distribute the book widely" and MEMRI's "did not manage to distribute it in a courageous way" that is caused by the difference in diction. Amir's employment of the adverb "widely" is more consistent with standard English usage in a benign sense; MEMRI's choice of "courageous way," however, is suggestive of risks to the publisher resulting from the publication of the book. Thus, though MEMRI's term is more psychologically loaded than Amir's more innocuous vocabulary, the context would argue for MEMRI's being the better translation.

Amir: I go back to repeat that intellectuals and media people in the Arab and Islamic world take the blame for the state in which the Muslim world reached today and are responsible for the state of violence. Of course they would deny what I say. But the draft of my book [on non-violence struggle] is still on my shelve awaiting a publisher without any charge for me and without any resentment.

MEMRI: "I reiterate that the Arab and Islamic ideologues and media leaders bear much of the responsibility for the involvement in terrorism and violence of the Muslims of the world. Of course, they will reject my statement arrogantly. But my statement can be tested: The draft of my book is still in my office in two languages, Arabic and English, waiting for someone to come along and publish it. I offer it for free, without asking a fee for my work."

No significant differences here.

In assessing the two translations, Amir's use of the definite article suggests that English may be his second language. This is significant only in that it might explain some of the lexical choices he makes which may contribute to the difference between his text and MEMRI's.

With regard to the key passage:

Amir: I believe that the sword played a minor rule in the victory of Islam on the atheists. Moreover, I believe that Muslims will lose if they keep embracing the violence to achieve their aims. Firstly because others are militarily superior. And secondly because the peaceful struggle is a much more effective mean in our generation. I followed this idea and called it (Civil Jihad).

MEMRI: "In my opinion, the sword played a minor role in Islam's triumph over polytheism. Moreover, the Muslims will [only] lose by their adherence to the perception [advocating] violence. This is due first of all to the military supremacy of others, and second because in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon. I have adopted this perception and called it by the Islamic name 'Civil Jihad.'"

the analysis of which Amir finds erroneous:

I would argue that there is not much difference between Kishtainy and the rest of the Islamic intellectuals and organizations. The difference between the two is one of degree of aggressiveness of the tactic employed to spread Islam; for, both hold to the common strategy of global domination of Islam. This is apparent when Kishtainy writes: "Muslims will [only] lose by their adherence to the perception [advocating] violence. This is due first of all to the military supremacy of others, and second because in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon. I have adopted this perception and called it by the Islamic name 'Civil Jihad'." By these words, Kishtainy is not abandoning the militaristic jihad of terrorism. Rather, "in this generation," given the military supremacy of Israel and the West, he is merely selecting another type of "weapon" that he considers "more effective."

In another generation, if the circumstances are more proptitious, Kishtainy will likely advocate for the same position as the Islamist intellectuals and organizations. For, in his view, the conditions today do not permit victory by employing violent measures. Therefore, Kishtainy is merely a pragmatist who is awaiting the increase in military might, or even nuclear arming, of Islamic countries. He considers the reality that Islamists are outgunned, and determines that the wisest course is not armed struggled but rather "civil jihad."

I contend that Amir's translation has served to further clarify of Kishtainy's text. Furthermore, his clarification unwittingly bolsters my contention that the difference between Kishtainy and the rest is one of degree rather than kind.

Therefore, to Amir, I replied thus:

Amir:

I see nothing in your translation that persuades me that my analysis of Kishtainy is erroneous. What aim does Kishtainy intend to achieve by his "peaceful struggle"? If Kishtainy is intending the improvement of Arab civil society, then I have no quarrel with him. However, Kishtainy is speaking of the advance of Islam,which has an extremely adversarial stance towards Judaism and Christianity. Where some are advocating jihad by the sword, Kishtainy merely is choosing another course. The difference is one of degree of "struggle" in which "peaceful struggle" might be a 5 and jihad by the sword a 10. What happens when the proselytized reject the "peaceful struggle" to advance Islam? What does the Koran demand? It demands jihad by the sword.

In the absence of a reformation in Islam, which would necessitate a deletion from the Koran and a renunciation of all those passages inimical to Jews, Christians, and all those who have no interest in Islam, what Kishtainy says is nonsense. I don't anticipate any reformation in Islam in the absence of a total crushing of jihadists and the societies that support them. Thus, Kishtainy's "peaceful struggle" amounts to no more than a pause in jihad by the sword until the jihadis achieve military parity with the "infidels." The true difference between Kishtainy and the rest may be that he is ahead of his time in his recognition that Islamists will not win this war they have begun. Interestingly enough, this is something that Osama bin Laden, or whoever is speaking in his name, has also recognized hence the offer of a "truce." Readers of history have been there before.

I appreciate the time you took to do a translation, Amir, but the problem essentially lies with Islam and its Koran which teaches that Kishtainy's "peaceful struggle" is the way to go until jihad by the sword can resume.