Wednesday, March 06, 2013
The Linguistic Literalism of Four-Year Olds
The Linguistic Literalism of Four-Year Olds
(Part Three of a Three-part series)
By Pamela Taylor
Have you ever given directions to a four-year old?
“Go to the end of the hall and turn
left,” you say.
“Is this left?” he asks, holding up
his left hand.
“Right!” you say cheerily.
He then lowers his left hand and
puts up his right hand.
“Oh,” he says, “Then I have to turn
this way.”
“No, no. That’s your right hand,” you say. “The other one was your left hand.”
The poor kid is now totally confused. His mind, focused on left and right, didn’t
grasp the changed context of your initial response; he missed that you had
switched from right/left to correct/incorrect, or, in other words, right/wrong.
I experienced a similar e-mail exchange the other day on a
news groups I belong to. One poster
forwarded several hadith (thank God their source were at least cited!):
1) The
Prophet (SAW) said: “The hanging of clothes below the ankles in pride is
forbidden.” (Bukhari)
2)
Hazrat Abu Hurairah (RA) relates that Rasulullah
(SAW) said: “On the Day of Judgement Allah will not look at the one who lets
his trousers down out of pride.” (Bukhari, Muslim)
3) Hazrat
Abu Zarr (RA) said: “Such persons as are doomed, who are they Oh Messenger of
Allah?”
Nabi (SAW) replied: “One who lets out his apparels
out of arrogance, one who reminds or makes a show of favors done by him to
another, and one who sells his (inferior) wares with false oaths.” Another
version of Muslim adds: “One who lets down his pyjama or loin cloth.”
He concluded with the pronouncement that “The covering of
ankles (for men) is Haraam and a major sin.
The Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) clearly stresses the
importance of keeping the trousers above the ankles! Let us Pray Allah gives us strength to enact
His Commands!”
Like the four-year old, this poster neglected to notice that
the context has changed since the time of the Prophet. Wearing trousers that extend past one’s
ankles is no longer a sign of arrogance.
Wearing Armani suits or platinum rings with four-karat diamonds is. Indeed, a man wearing pants that didn’t reach
the ankle would likely be considered slightly odd, or perhaps effeminate, since
his pants would closely approximate the Capri pants that are so popular with
women these days. When I pointed this
out, and that the purpose of the hadiths was to remind us not to be arrogant,
even in our dress, a protracted storm of debate arose about how long the pants
could be, whether grazing the tops of the ankle bones was ok, or if the hem
needed to be several inches over the ankle, whether socks and snow boots
violated this command, and so on.
And, of course, several people lectured me about how even if
you understand the metaphorical meaning you can’t throw out the literal one,
which struck me as a really odd response since saying these hadiths are about
arrogance, not inches of cloth, has nothing to do with metaphor. It’s a rather direct interpretation of the
hadiths, just not one that insists on maintaining the old context. (Indeed, I’m not sure what metaphorical
meaning one might make out of these hadith…hmm… Pants are a metaphor for legs,
so we all have to shorten our legs… Yowza!
Tall people are doomed!)
This kind of wrong-context interpretation, this myopic focus
on literalism as opposed to concern for the intent, for the wisdom behind a
given hadith or Qur’anic statement, has become the norm for our ummah. That old adage that we can’t see the forest
for the trees is all too fitting. As a
result we have entrenched ourselves in an ossified version of Islam that is
rigid, inflexible, unfit for the current context, and all in all rather
unappealing. Small wonder that we are
perceived as backwards, and different, unable to fit into modern society. In reality, we are choosing by the busload
not to fit into modern society.
In doing so, we not only make Islam difficult for ourselves
(It is not easy being a social outcast, nor to straightjacket one’s life with a
thousand picayune and demanding rules!) but we are apt to miss the point of the
religion altogether. Islam according to
the Qur’an is supposed to easy. It is
designed to help a person reach their full potential as a good creature, as a
blessing to this world and to his or her own self. Focusing the literal meaning as opposed to
the general principle more often than not works opposite to those
inclinations. It focuses us upon details
rather than the spirit of the law and, taken to the extreme that is has been in
recent years, results in spiritual decay rather than spiritual
development. It focuses us in upon our
own deeds, rather than outward upon making the world a better place. It wastes unimaginable volumes of energy and
time as we try to discern each and every rule to follow, debating back and
forth with our co-religionists as to which interpretation is the most valid.
Furthermore, an Islam based upon literalism fails to meet
some of the most basic spiritual needs of humanity. It leaves no room for a
personal relationship with God, demanding that everyone be a cookie-cutter copy
of The Model – a detailed and exacting model.
It leaves us confused and with inappropriate responses to our situation,
just as the four-year old remains confused about whether this hand or that is
the left one and unsure of which direction he should turn. Small wonder, yet again, that we are not the
moral and spiritual leaders of the world.
What is astonishing is that we think, with the ummah by and large
practicing such a literal level of interpretation, that we should be such
leaders!
One can’t help but wonder how it came to be that the ummah
got stuck at the linguistic and interpretive level of a four-year old. How and when we did we allow ourselves to
slip into intellectual imprecision and moral immaturity? And how and when we are going to grow up, how
we will learn to think like adults and take the place in the world that we
should.
¶ 9:14 AM
