On Translation and Interpretation: Siyasah and Politics

Before my reversion to Islam, I spent many years engaged in the task of translating some of the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Homer and Sappho from the Ancient Greek - indeed, I laboured for nearly a year to translate just one work, The Agamemnon of Aeschylus. Two decades or so before that I had spent many happy hours - in the peaceful confines of a Nazarene monastery - discussing the works of Homer in particular, and translation in general, with a Greek scholar who would later publish his own translation of an Ancient Greek text.

Thus, I have a certain familiarity with the difficulties and problems which translators face. Since my reversion to Islam, I have become increasingly aware of how certain key Arabic words or terms - important for a understanding of Al-Islam - have been translated in such a way that they seem to be re-interpretations, rather than accurate translations. That is, there is a projection of Western ideas and concepts into these terms so that the original meaning becomes either obscured or misunderstood. A classic example here is the Arabic word Siyasah which it has become common to mis-translate as "politics". Even many well-intentioned Muslim scholars seem to make this fundamental error. Thus, there has arisen, in this particular instance, an identification of the subject Siyasah with the "politics" of the West so that a classic work such as Siyasatush-Shar’iah by Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah are referred to as a treatise dealing with "Islamic politics". Siyasah is siyasah - and refers to the application of Quran and Sunnah: that is, commanding the good, and forbidding the bad, defined as these are by Quran and Sunnah. One means of Siyasah is Shariah. Another is bayah. This is not "politics" - and to use the term politics in relation to Siyasah is, in my view, mistaken and leads to a mis-understanding of Siyasah, and a mis-understanding of Al-Islam itself. It can also lead to - and often is - an imitation of the kuffar.

What I believe it is important to understand is that we Muslims should use the Arabic term whenever possible so that, for example, we talk and write about Siyasah and not about "Islamic politics". For the term "Islamic politics" is a mistake compounded upon a mistake, since (1) Islam correctly is obedience and loyalty to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) rather than some "entity" or "thing" or idea or abstraction, as, for example, nationalism is an entity, a thing, an idea (in Western terms); and (2) the term politics refers to a Western idea, a concept, an abstraction, which has no place in relation to obedience and loyalty to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). If we use the term politics, we are projecting onto Al-Islam what the kaffir term politics means and implies.

An example from Ancient Greek will illustrate the problems here. I quote from the Introduction to my translation of The Agamemnon (written many years before my reversion):

"Aeschylus, along with many other ancient classical authors, has suffered at the hands of those who have tried to translate Greek into English. Perhaps the greatest disservice done to him - and the others - is the rendering of certain concepts, mostly described by a particular Greek word, in what is fundamentally an un-Hellenic, abstract and moral way - albeit that this seems to be mostly unconsciously done. What results from this thoughtlessness is more often than not a sort of 'Christianizing' of Greek culture in retrospect - and thus a lack of insight into and understanding of the Hellenic way of living.

One thinks here of verses like 1654-1656 from the 'Agamemnon'. This is always mis-translated to give something like: "No more violence. Here is a monstrous harvest and a bitter reaping time. There is pain enough already. Let us not be bloody now." The effect of such a 'translation' - not withstanding the abstract and modem concepts like "time" - is a moral one: the speaker (here, Clytaemnestra) apparently says, after killing Agamemnon and Cassandra, that she does not want any more "violence" and describes her killings as "monstrous".

However, what Aeschylus actually has Clytaemnestra say is: "Let us not do any more harm for to reap these many would make it an unlucky harvest: injure them just enough, but do not stain us with their blood." The whole tone is different - she is being practical and does not want to bring misfortune upon herself (or Aegisthus) by killing to excess. The killings she has done are quite acceptable to her - she has vigorously defended them claiming it was her duty to avenge her daughter and the insult done to her by Agamemnon bringing his mistress, Cassandra, into her home. Clytaemnestra shows no pity for the Elders whom Aegisthus wishes to kill: "if you must", she says, "you can injure them. But do not kill them - that would be unlucky for us."

Another example will make clear how moral abstractions are projected onto the text by the mistranslation of certain words. Consider lines 369-373 from the 'Agamemnon'. Conventionally: "A man thought the gods deigned not to punish mortals who trampled down the delicacy of things inviolable. That man was wicked."

A correct rendering would be along the following lines: "Someone denied that the gods deem it worthy to concern themselves with mortals who trample upon what, being untouchable, brings delight. But such persons have [or 'show'] no proper respect."

The difference here is startling and obvious..."

In the same way, if we use modern, Western terms - often deriving from Western philosophy - to try and understand our obedience and loyalty to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and how this obedience should be manifest in the world in practical ways, then we are allowing the West, the kuffar, their philosophy, their Taghut, to re-interpret and often distort Al-Islam. That is, we are allowing our very way of thinking to be influenced by the kuffar. That this is not, it seems, widely understood among Muslims today does tend to indicate that the kuffar have had some success with the plan to alter how Al-Islam is perceived and how Muslims perceive and understand Al-Islam.

Let us be quite clear about what this involves; let us understand the error and the danger here. The kuffar have the intention, the aim, of changing our Way of Life - changing Al-Islam. Part of their intention is that they want us to understand Al-Islam, to perceive it, as a "religion", as just one "religion" among many - as an entity, a thing, which can be fitted into their kaffir scheme, their kaffir way of living and which thus becomes for them, and for us (may Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forbid it) an "-ology" among other Western "-ologies" to be studied academically, and accepted, or rejected, according to one's hawaah. That is, they want to take the sacredness, the divine, out of Al-Islam.

Is this important? Is this merely some minor, some pedantic, quibble about words? Yes, I believe this is very important for Muslims, just as it is not some minor quibble about words. It is fundamental for us, for it is about thinking as a Muslim - referring everything back to Quran and Sunnah - rather than thinking like a kaffir, and referring everything back to some kaffir idea, some kaffir philosophy, some kaffir concept.

Let us be honest - we do not need kaffir ideas, kaffir terms, kaffir concepts. Al-Islam is complete; perfect, and superior to the kaffir way of life, past and present.

May Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

10 Rabi Awal 1427