Shah Valiullah Dehlvi - Hojatullahi Ballagah
A value system to be islamic is primarily moral, ethical, in accord with the an understanding of such values rooted in morality and ethic - over and over Quran and Sunnat affirm no difference between Arab and Ajam -- among Pakistanis and their new imported and created (in India by the way) Islamism, Arabic is not just a language, its the language of God, (as if God himself were an Arab?) - but why this line? because it gives Mullah who has training in that language and the adherent who does not, some differentiation
I do agree that is exactly how the Mullah has used his power over people in Pakistan...but
Herein lies the problem in that argument..
At no point has it been promoted as the language of god(at least in the scripture.. since if god had Arabic as his own language.. how did he communicate to Moses or Jesus or David or Adam.. would god even need a language in the latter's case?)... other than it was the language god chose to reveal his verses.
Hence, to understand the word of god(as exactly as it was sent) you need the language.
The difference is academic rather than anything else... Would you be able to quote Goethe .. EXACTLY.. and I mean EXACTLY.. without an iota lost in translation, verb, prose..etc.. in anything other than German? Perhaps..
But even then, you will not be quoting him.. in essence.
You dont have to learn Arabic.. nor do you have to teach in Arabic.
But you do need something to revert back to.. when you teach the Arab, or the Malay.. or the American.. that this is what I have taught you.. and that is where I got that from..
So if he does not think that is correct.. he can go back and search around for other translations or meanings of the same and not be misled by just one.
The Arabic form only ensures a compliance to the original.. and nothing more. The idea is to quote God.. and not paraphrase him..
After all, the Sufi's who migrated and spread Islam in India.. did not use Arabic to convert the different caste's and creed.
That's the defense?? that it could be much worse -- Listen, not every thing has to be defended, "let an occasional chalice fall" - defend that which is worthy of defending - the actions of historical persons is not worthy of defense, because it cannot be, we will be placing ourselves in a position where in we will have to JUDGE the past through our present day moral and ethical values
I agree, which is why I had made the argument earlier that the actions of 4 wives and the other subject were judge-able through the social norms of those times and conditions. To try and target them through our times makes little sense.
For eg.. to the Qurayish then..the idea of simply not over-burdening the Camels seemed aghast.. and today we cannot expect anything less.