Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
It is not good scholarly or academic practice to make such a strong, value-laden claim that something is the most important compilation right on the
cover of the book. If this is mainly for an audience of true believers and
seekers (as opposed to academics) then it is arguably ok. But even here
the claim is arguable. There are other compilations as well which might be
considered as most important. This kind of argument on value is better
left for the scholarly introduction.
The spirit hinted at in the above pervades the entire text. In this vein, there
appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt to lter the readers attitude and approach to al-Kf via the orthodoxy of some of the seminaries of Qum and the
Ul tradition. The translator spends at least ten pages of the Preface seeking to refute the Akhbar approach to dth criticism. Although it is perfectly
respectable for the translator to take sides in the Akhbar-Ul debate, he
appears unduly heavy-handed to the point of subjective bias. For a seminary
audience, where orthodoxy might be expected and/or enforced, such a discussion may be warranted. However, Kulayn lived long before the Akhbar-Ul
debates; from a scholarly/academic perspective his work deserves a presentation not clouded by the lter of that debate. On the other hand, those ten
pages refuting Akhbarism may have been better served by an objective introduction to the science of dth criticism and of the science of Rijl (narrators),
particularly from the point of view of Kulayn himself.
The device of placing a summary of the commentary on each tradition is something useful and laudable in principle, especially in a classroom context. However, the content of these particular summaries seem more suited for Sunday
school than for a college classroom. For example, p. 113: Section 30 of Tradition 1.1.12 teaches the following: If we lack humanity, our devotion to religion
and truth is incomplete. The tone and feel of this kind of language is, at
best, seminarian and, at worst, preachy.
For an ancient text such as Al-Kf context is critical. This is especially important in the case of the traditions of a community that suered immense
persecution as the Sha did, and whose traditions were transmitted under
dicult circumstances. Thus the commentary provided by the translator and
his team is a welcome and very praisworthy addendum to the entire project.
In many places the commentary provides very useful context; Note 1 of Tradition 1.1.1, where Shaykh Arastu provides some context to how chains of narration work in transmitting the text of al-Kf, is a good example where very
useful information is given. But all too often the commentator makes claims
without providing any source or argument. For example, on page 2:
Muslim scholars use the word aql to mean many dierent things. However, the traditions of Prophet Muhammad and the imams [sic]1use it
to mean only four things.
Again, this comes across as preaching in Sunday school. And there is nothing
wrong with that, if that were the intended audience. But from a research
and academic standpoint the translator owes his audience an explanation of
the only part: Why are these four possibilities jointly exhaustive? Is there a
tradition from the Imams () that states this? Is it one of the commentators
from the 17th century (as alluded to on the back cover) being relied upon? Or
is there a logical, linguistic, or etymological argument to restrict the possible
meanings to four?2
1
The translator uses the plural imams as a common noun and hence does not capitalize it.
Yet expressions like the above, Prophet Muhammad and the imams (where P and M are
capitalized, but not i), show how awkward and even distracting that is. It would be much
better English usage to capitalize Imams as the proper name of a specic class.
In the commentary the author makes a point of emphasizing that his use of
intellect as a translation of aql is not meant to endorse the Perennialist
Schools usage of the same translation. This is very weird, since
the translator does not tell his readers anything about the Perennialist
School or its background;
A small quibble: In the second, third, and fourth of the allegedly jointly exhaustive meanings
of aql the translator says that the word is an innitive. This is very loose usage of the word
innitive. More properly, the word aql is not an innitive, but a gerund.
This is a clear teaching of the Qurn and of the Imams (). I would strongly
suggest to the commentator to relook at this. Yes, the commentator does mention the possibility of taking the passage literally. But he spends over a page
trying to argue that one should not do so, and makes no attempt to support
the literalist position (I prefer to say substantive position).
Another example. from Tradition 1.1.2:
Only he is [said to know and fear God] like this whose actions conrm
his words
Then we read in the commentary:
The Arabic of this phrase as it appears in al-Kf is problematic
Then, in Note 4, the commentator goes out of his way to suggest that the transcriber got the phrase wrong, because we normally say that actions must conrm words, not the other way around. But when one reads the next phrase of
the tradition, and whose private [conduct] agrees with his public [conduct],
it becomes clear that the original wording in al-Kf is almost certainly the
correct one. For in each phrase there is clear reality-manifestation distinction
at work. Actions and private conduct are mentioned rst reality of the individual. Words and public conduct are mentioned second manifestation of
the individual.
Too often the commentator reduces the profundity and depths of the teachings
of the Imams () to some dry, scholastic framework. When the words of the
Imam () does not t the box, he struggles to force them into that box. Examples of this abound throughout the commentary, in addition to the two I have
mentioned. As yet one more example, in Note 1 of Tradition 1.1.2 the commentators attempts to explain away the apparent substantiality of the traits
of Adam is very unsatisfactory.
Sometimes the commentator will say, e.g., Tradition X teaches the following: followed by things in the commentary that are not mentioned in Tradition X! For example, see the discussion of the relation of rah to aql after
Tradition 1.1.35. In addition, he claims without evidence that the rah is a
product of aql, which is extremely misleading and which is not attested to in
Tradition 1.1.35 at all.
Even if we accept that distinction and there are important nuances that need
mentioning the above sentence is clearly in the context of the aql of ordinary
mortals, not that of Prophets.
Part of a solution to avoid these kinds of scholastic traps is to nd an alternative translation for aql. Of course, that will have profound consequences
for the rest of the commentary as well. A phenomenological approach of examining the traditions, including a bracketing of presuppositions and other
frameworks, will help in the struggle to nd creative and better translations
for key terms.
The translation of jahl by foolishness is unconventional and quite creative.
Creativity in the struggle for accurate translation is a good thing. However:
In my opinion it is still unsatisfactory. This is one of those rare cases where the
conventional English translation (ignorance), actually gives nearly a one-to-one
mapping to the connotations and vibrations of jahl. As a contrary opposite,
foolishness is arguably the opposite of intellect, but it is not the opposite of
aql which is, as alluded earlier, a faculty of consciousness and awareness. In
both English and Arabic, Ignorance and jahl each carry the connotations
of lack of knowledge (ignorant of calculus), lack of awareness (ignorant of
God), and unwise behavior (acting ignorantly). The same cannot be said of
the word foolishness.
There is no space for a detailed analysis of translation of terminology overall. In general, the translator does a god job and makes respectable eorts to
convey the general sense of the Arabic expressions. However, the practice of
translating against the text is really problematic. For example, the translator insists that the order of the Arabic in Tradition 1.1.14 is a mistake of the
copyist where it says (p. 128, par. 8, and Note 10 following) that ama is one
of the armies of aql whereas yas (hopelessness) is one of the armies of jahl.
So in the translation he renders what he thinks the Arabic should have been.
Occasionally a translator does have to make this kind of judgement. In this
book, however, the translator/commentator is far too liberal with judgements
of copyist errors in the original text, especially when other, simpler solutions
may be found. In this case the translator jumps from the frying pan into the
re by making yas one of the troops of aql. This is because, in general, yas
is considered one of the worst sins in Islam, even a form of kufr.
In the case of ama, it would have been better to look at one of its other meanings instead of resorting to a judgment of copyist error. In this case the solution
is simple: Here the word ama means striving in general. So we should strive
in the Way of God and in our duties to ourselves and those for whom we are
responsible, and not become hopeless when things are dicult. This maintains the integrity of the text, provides an accurate translation, and conveys a
profound meaning as well.
To summarize: The translator has done an acceptable job for the most part.
In my view he has the potential to take this to a higher level. Again, I very
humbly and respectfully urge the translator and commentator to reconsider
his approach to the text. A greater degree of phenomenological sensitivity
is essential to conveying the beauty and profundity of these traditions to a
Western audience. Continuous, dry judgments of copyist errors and explaining
traditions against their explicit content will cheapen the value of the text of
al-Kf, especially to a non-Sh or academic audience.
In conclusion: Volume One of this new attempt to translate al-Kf is a very
praiseworthy project; it is clear that Shaykh Arastu has put an immense eort
into this project, and both he and Taqwa Media deserve our gratitude for their
hard work. Some of the issues raised in this informal review are non-critical.
At the same time the project as it currently stands is, in my view, critically
awed in a number of respects in both the commentary and in the translation
itself. At the moment I cannot recommend it to either non-Sh scholars as a
denitive resource, or to college students (without very signicant care on the
part of the instructor who adopts it).
For believers and seekers (to use the phrase from the back cover), it is very
useful. But even here, the profundity of the teachings of the Imams () is often lost in what appears to be an attempt to present the traditions contained
in al-Kf through the lens of a particular scholastic or seminarian agenda.
The personality and creativity of a translator/commentator can and must always come out in any project of this type. Indeed, creativity is a critical talent
needed in this work, and it is clear that Shaykh Arastu has this talent. What
appears to be missing is a greater phenomenological sensitivity to the text and
a greater independence from those theological frameworks and philosophical
categories that were not explicitly taught by the Imams () who are speaking
through the traditions of al-Kf.
Succinctly: Without a signicantly greater attempt at phenomenological sensitivity to the text on the one hand, and theological-philosophical objectivity
10
and independence on the other, it is very doubtful that this project will fulll
its vision of reecting the content of al-Kf to its intended audience of true
believers, seekers, and academics.
At the same time, this reviewer fully supports and encourages the continuation
of this project. As Al ibn Ab lib () famously said: That which is easy
should not be abandoned on account of that which is dicult. The team is
working hard and doing its best. At this juncture it may be useful to take
a pause and to reect; then move on. Some of the issues mentioned can be
xed or revised in a second edition of this rst volume (of what will be dozens
of volumes, inshaaAllah). Admittedly, revising this volume will take a lot of
work. And we hope there is time to work on these matters before the next
volumes are published. I wish Shaykh Arastu, his team, and Taqwa Media all
the best as they continue on with this noble project.