after school tutoring session

The Meaning of the Koran　

コーランの解釈　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

Test your religious literacy:　Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God?　

　　　　　　　　

a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran.

​

The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is ①an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.

​

Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list ②the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.

​

I ③highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.

But　④I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.

​

The regrettable parts of the Koran — ⑤the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.

​

This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran —　⑥the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles.

​

As for people who are familiar with both sides of the Koran — people who know the whole story — well, there may not be many of them.　⑦It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people.

​

Thus, there are liberals who say that “jihad” refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say “jihad” refers to military struggle. That’s true, too. But few people get the whole picture, which, actually, can be summarized pretty concisely:

​

⑧The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.

​

Why do people tend to hear only one side of the story? ⑨A common explanation is that the digital age makes it easy to wall yourself off from inconvenient data, to spend your time in ideological “cocoons,” to hang out at blogs where you are part of a choir that gets preached to.

 

Makes sense to me. But, however big a role the Internet plays, it’s just amplifying something human: a tendency to latch onto evidence consistent with your worldview and ignore or downplay contrary evidence.

​

This side of human nature is generally labeled a bad thing, and it’s true that it sponsors a lot of bigotry, strife and war. But　⑩it actually has its upside. It means that the regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.

​

After all, the adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it.

​

So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. ⑪They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.

​

For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)

​

As for the New Testament, there’s that moment when Jesus calls a woman and her daughter “dogs” because they aren’t from Israel.　⑫In a way that’s the opposite of anti-Semitism — but not in a good way. And speaking of anti-Semitism, the New Testament, like the Koran, has some unflattering things to say about Jews.

​

Devoted Bible readers who aren’t hateful ignore or downplay all these passages rather than take them as guidance. ⑬They put to good use the tunnel vision that is part of human nature.

​

All the Abrahamic scriptures have all kinds of meanings — good and bad — and the question is which meanings will be activated and which will be inert. It all depends on what attitude believers bring to the text. So whenever we do things that influence the attitudes of believers, we shape the living meaning of their scriptures. In this sense, ⑭it’s actually within the power of non-Muslim Americans to help determine the meaning of the Koran. If we want its meaning to be as benign as possible, ⑮I recommend that we not talk about burning it. And if we want imams to fill mosques with messages of brotherly love, I recommend that we not tell them where they can and can’t build their mosques.

​

Of course, ⑯the street runs both ways. Muslims can influence the attitudes of Christians and Jews and hence the meanings of their texts. The less threatening that Muslims seem, the more welcoming Christians and Jews will be, and the more benign Christianity and Judaism will be. (　⑰A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening.)

​

You can even imagine ⑱a kind of virtuous circle: the less menacing each side seems, the less menacing the other side becomes — which in turn makes the first side less menacing still, and so on; the meaning of the Abrahamic scriptures would, in a real sense, get better and better and better.

​

Lately, it seems, ⑲things have been moving in the opposite direction; the circle has been getting vicious. And it’s in the nature of vicious circles that they’re hard to stop, much less reverse. On the other hand, if, through the concerted effort of people of good will, you do reverse a vicious circle, the very momentum that sustained it can ⑳build in the other direction — and at that point ⑳the force will be with you.

​

⑳Postscript: The quotations of the Koran come from Sura 4:171 (where Jesus is called God’s word), and Sura 44:32 (where the “children of Israel” are lauded). I’ve used the Rodwell translation, but the only place the choice of translator matters is the part that says God presciently placed the children of Israel above all others. Other translations say “purposefully,” or “knowingly.” By the way, if you’re curious as to the reason for the Koran’s seeming ambivalence toward Christians and Jews:

By my reading, the Koran is to a large extent the record of Muhammad’s attempt to bring all the area’s Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists into his Abrahamic flock, and it reflects, in turns, both his bitter disappointment at failing to do so and the many theological and ritual overtures he had made along the way. (For a time Muslims celebrated Yom Kippur, and they initially prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.) That the suras aren’t ordered chronologically obscures this underlying logic.

 By ROBERT WRIGHT on culture, politics and world affairs.   September 14, 2010, NYTimes 

​

設問　①～⑳まで、字数は必要最低限とする。

①②どういうことか。具体的に説明せよ。

③著者がhighlightする理由を述べよ。④下線部はどういう論理の元に書かれているか。述べよ。

⑤訳せ。⑥下線部と正反対の内容が聖書にあると著者は言う。その内容を簡潔に説明せよ。

⑦下線部を具体的に表現している部分を見つけて、訳せ。

⑧訳せ。⑨訳せ。

⑩itやitsの内容も示しながら訳せ。

⑪なぜ、こう言えるのか。

⑫どういう意味か。説明せよ。

⑬（Theyの内容をあきらかにして）下線部が成立する理由を述べよ。

⑭なぜこう言えるのか。

⑮著者がこう述べる根拠を示せ。

⑯どんなことを意味する比喩か。簡潔に述べよ。⑰wouldに気をつけて訳せ。

⑱簡潔に説明せよ。

⑲この例をニュース等から2つあげよ。

⑳buildという語を使った著者の意図を述べよ。また、the powerではなく、the forceという語を使った理由を述べよ。

さらに、postscriptのなかで、著者はコーランにひとつの定義を与えている。その内容を述べよ。

 

​

Test your religious literacy: Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God?       

a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran. あなたの宗教に関する知識を試させてくれ。：イエスの言葉は「神の言葉」という記述が見られるのは次のどの聖典か。a）ヨハネの福音書； b）イザヤ書； c）コーラン

The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching. 正解はコーランだ。しかし、あなたが「ヨハネの福音書」を選んだのなら、 「初めに言葉ありき、言葉は神とともにあった」というヨハネの福音書の第一章の一節がそれとなく神＝キリストを暗示しているので、間違うのも無理がない。ムハンマドがイエスの言葉を神の言葉と記述したとき、彼は実際、キリストの教えを本当に信じていたのだ。

Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran. よくされる質問：ヘブライ人についての、次の一節はどの聖典に書かれているか。：神は、「予言」の中で、「すべての民のうえに、イスラエルの子供たち・・・」を選ばれた。 あなたはおそらくもう私の意図を分かってくれているだろうから、ここに選ばれし者たちをいちいち挙げることはしない。［答え］；この一節もコーランにある。

 

I highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.

私は（コーランを燃やす計画を実行しかねない）ユダヤ・キリスト教文明の自称守護者たちのために、これらを一部引用してみせている。私は彼らに気づいてほしいのだ、自分たちが事態を何もかもめちゃくちゃにしようとしていることを。

 

But I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages. しかし、そろそろ認めることにしよう。私にはまだ話していないことがある。イエスの言葉を神の言葉、そして「救世主の言葉」と呼んでいてはも、コーランは、イエスが神の息子、また、彼が神聖なる者であることを認めない。そして、コーランは、ユダヤ教徒のことを神が選ばれた人と呼び、モーゼの賛歌を歌い、ユダヤ教徒とイスラム教徒は同じ神を崇拝するとはいいながらも、コーランには、反ユダヤ主義の、そう、はっきり言うと、反キリスト教の行（くだり）が存在する。

 

The regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.

This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran — the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles. コーランのもつ、いくつもの軽蔑に値する側面は　―いやな側面はどの宗教の聖典にもあるから―　問題にする必要はない。コーランの、この暗い側面が、どうもすでに、コーランを焼くと言っている者たちの注意を、もっと範囲を広げると、（ニュート・ギングリッチのような低俗な政治家がこれを材料にしてその数を増やそうとしている）アメリカの反イスラム教徒の多くの注意を、どうも引いてしまっているようだ。コーランの、前者と反対の側面　―すなわち、宗派を超えた平和を唱えていること―　は、リベラル派の人たちなら十分に認識している。

As for people who are familiar with both sides of the Koran — people who know the whole story — well, there may not be many of them. It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people. コーランのもつ、この二面性に精通している人　―コーランのことをよく分かっている人―　についてだが、それほど多くいるとは思えない。物事を深く追求しようとしないのが、現代人の政治的言説にまつわる特徴だ。

 

Thus, there are liberals who say that “jihad” refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say “jihad” refers to military struggle. That’s true, too. But few people get the whole picture, which, actually, can be summarized pretty concisely: かくして、「ジハード」は、善を行おうとする個人の内面の闘争のことを言っていると主張するリベラル派があらわれる。確かにそうだ。「ジハード」は軍事闘争を指すと言う保守派も現れる。それも正しい。しかし、全体像（実際には、かなり簡潔に要約することができる）を把握している人はほとんどいない。

The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul. （意訳）コーランは軍事的な意味でジハードを奨励しており、時にその口調は残忍に聞こえるが、ムハンマドは異端に対しての永久戦争ははっきりと否定しているとか、また、異端との平和共存を認めているとかいう文言（修飾節）のせいで、その主張はかなり大人しいものになっている。（ここに、例として、「剣の歌」―コーランで最も有名な戦士の歌の一節―の私の解釈を置いておく。）軍事的ジハードの正式な教義　―コーランには見られない、それは、ムハンマドの死後、やっと書き加えられた―　は、最初から終わりなき征服を主張しているように見えるが、その後、世界の平和と歩調を合わすべく、数多くの改訂と再解釈を余儀なくされた。一方、ハディース（コーランによらない預言書のことわざ集）から、口伝（くでん）が見つかった。ムハンマドが神聖な戦争を「小ジハード」と呼び、「大ジハード」はそれぞれのイスラム教徒の心に住む動物的な衝動との闘いを意味すると言ったというのだ。

Why do people tend to hear only one side of the story? A common explanation is that the digital age makes it easy to wall yourself off from inconvenient data, to spend your time in ideological “cocoons,” to hang out at blogs where you are part of a choir that gets preached to.　　　　 preach to the choir 改宗者［聖歌隊］に説教する

Makes sense to me. But, however big a role the Internet plays, it’s just amplifying something human: a tendency to latch onto evidence consistent with your worldview and ignore or downplay contrary evidence.なぜ人々は物語の一面しか見ようとしないのだろうか。一般的な説明はこうだ：都合の悪い情報には蓋をし、イデオロギーの（「繭」の）なかに閉じこもり、ブログにたむろしては、そこで新しい信者の一人へと洗脳されるなどの状況がデジタル時代には簡単に起こる（という）。言いたいことはわかる。しかし、いかに大きな影響力をインターネットがもっているとは言え、それはただ人間的なもの（：自分の世界観と矛盾しない考えは重視するが、反対の考えは無視するか、軽視する性向）を敷衍している(延長線上にある)にすぎない。

 

This side of human nature is generally labeled a bad thing, and it’s true that it sponsors a lot of bigotry, strife and war. But it actually has its upside. It means that the regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter. 人間性の、この側面には一般に悪い性向というレッテルが貼られる。そして、この性向が、確かに、多くの偏見や紛争や戦争の原因となっている。しかし、実際、そうした性向にも長所はあるのだ。コーランのもつ、いくつもの軽蔑に値する側面は　―そんな側面はどの宗教の聖典にもあるから―　問題にする必要はないということだ。

After all, the adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it. 結局、特定の宗教の支持者たちは、誰もがそうであるように、自分たちの判断（の正しさ）を保証してくれることには熱心に取り組むが、意に沿わないものは無視する。そして、彼らはその偏狭な世界観を自分たち自身の聖典にあてはめる。だから、彼らの心に憎しみが住んでいるときには、聖典の憎しみに満ちた部分に同期する。しかし、憎しみの心がないときには、それは起きない。だからこそ、善良なイスラム系米国人はイスラム教を真に愛の宗教と言うことができるのだ。彼らは、コーランのよい部分を見て、悪い部分は見ないか、真に受けない術を心得ているのだ。

 

So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture. だから、聖書の中に、慈愛に満ちた限りなく善なる神を見ている人々と同じなのだ。彼らは、聖書の一部を無視したり、控えめに扱うことで、その世界観を維持することができている。

 

For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide ― to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”) たとえば、神が異教徒に死刑判決を宣告する行が存在する。申命（しんめい）記《旧約聖書にある》では、イスラエルの民は大量虐殺を命じられる。　邪悪な神を崇拝する近隣の民を殺し尽くせ、そして、男も女も子供も確実に皆殺しにせよと。（「息する者は何人も生き残らせてはならない。」）

 

As for the New Testament, there’s that moment when Jesus calls a woman and her daughter “dogs” because they aren’t from Israel. In a way that’s the opposite of anti-Semitism ― but not in a good way. And speaking of anti-Semitism, the New Testament, like the Koran, has some unflattering things to say about Jews. 新約聖書についてだが、その中には イエスが、一人の女性とその娘をイスラエルの民ではないという理由で、「犬たち」と呼ぶ、その瞬間が描かれている。そのやり方は、反ユダヤ主義に反している―そればかりか、正義にも反している。また、反ユダヤ主義、つまり新約聖書の語り口は、コーランと同様に、ユダヤ人を露骨に嘲る記述がいくつか見られる。)　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

［（in） the ～，in a ～ （that）；接続詞的に］ …のように（as）∥ She sang the ～ I did． 彼女は私の歌うとおりに歌った．

 

Devoted Bible readers who aren’t hateful ignore or downplay all these passages rather than take them as guidance. They put to good use the tunnel vision that is part of human nature.悪意を持たない熱心な聖書の読者たちは、これらのすべての行(くだり)を無視するか、真に受けないようにしている。人の生き方を指し示すものとは受け取らないようにしている。彼らは人間の本性の一部である視野の狭さをうまく昇華しているのだ。

 

All the Abrahamic scriptures have all kinds of meanings ー good and bad ー and the question is which meanings will be activated and which will be inert. It all depends on what attitude believers bring to the text. So whenever we do things that influence the attitudes of believers, we shape the living meaning of their scriptures. In this sense, it’s actually within the power of non-Muslim Americans to help determine the meaning of the Koran. If we want its meaning to be as benign as possible, I recommend that we not talk about burning it. And if we want imams to fill mosques with messages of brotherly love, I recommend that we not tell them where they can and can’t build their mosques. ですます調ーすべてのユダヤの経典からは、善と悪、あらゆる種類の意味(解釈)を読みとることができます。そして、問題なのはどの意味(解釈)が今後有効なのか無効なのかということです。それは、偏に信者たちがどのような気持ちで、テキスト(聖典)と相（あい）対するかにかかっています。だから、私たちが信者の気持ちに影響を与えるようなことを行うときには、私たちのほうから、彼らの経典の現時点での解釈に合わせねばならないのです。この意味で、コーランの解釈を決めて行くという作業においては、実際に非ムスリムのアメリカ人の力によるところが大きいということです。コーランの解釈に出来うる限り温和なものを望むのなら、コーランを焼こうなどという話をしてはならないのです。そして、我々はイマーム(僧)たちに兄弟愛のメッセージでモスクを埋め尽くしてほしいのなら、我々は、彼らのモスクの建築場所をめぐってあれこれ指図すべきではないのです。

 

Of course, the street runs both ways. Muslims can influence the attitudes of Christians and Jews and hence the meanings of their texts. The less threatening that Muslims seem, the more welcoming Christians and Jews will be, and the more benign Christianity and Judaism will be. (A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening.) そうです。通りは双方向の行き来で成り立っているからです。イスラム教徒は、キリスト教徒とユダヤ人の気持ちに影響を与えることができます。延いては、彼らの聖典の解釈にも。イスラム教徒から、復讐のにおいがしなくなれば、キリスト教徒とユダヤ人は彼らを歓迎するようになるはずです。キリスト教もユダヤ教も今より慈悲深い宗教になるはずです。（正しい一歩があるとすれば、復讐心など実際持たない圧倒的多数のイスラム教徒（の中の数人でいいから）とアメリカ人との交流の機会を増やすことでしょう。 ）

You can even imagine a kind of virtuous circle: the less menacing each side seems, the less menacing the other side becomes ― which in turn makes the first side less menacing still, and so on; the meaning of the Abrahamic scriptures would, in a real sense, get better and better and better. 徳の循環のようなものさえ想像できます。つまり、一方が少しでも脅威を与えないようになれば、他方もそれに応じて威嚇しなくなる―徳の循環によって一方が他方へ交互に反応する内にますます脅威は減っていく。そうして、ユダヤの聖典の解釈も、本当の意味で、さらにすばらしいものに変わっていくでしょう。

 

Lately, it seems, things have been moving in the opposite direction; the circle has been getting vicious. And it’s in the nature of vicious circles that they’re hard to stop, much less reverse. On the other hand, if, through the concerted effort of people of good will, you do reverse a vicious circle, the very momentum that sustained it can build in the other direction ― and at that point the force will be with you. 最近では、事態は逆の方向に進んでいるように見えます。いまは敵意が循環してます。そして、それは自分たちでは止めることの困難な、逆進させることはもっと難しい悪循環のループにを入ってしまったのです。それでも、もし、善良な意思をもった人々が努力を結集できれば、敵意の循環を逆方向に動かすことができる、つまり、敵意を支えてきたモーメントが反対方向の力を生じさせるはずです。そして、そこで、力は何人（なんびと）にとっても一つのものになるのです。

Postscript: The quotations of the Koran come from Sura 4:171 (where Jesus is called God’s word), and Sura 44:32 (where the “children of Israel” are lauded). I’ve used the Rodwell translation, but the only place the choice of translator matters is the part that says God presciently placed the children of Israel above all others. Other translations say “purposefully,” or “knowingly.”  By the way, if you’re curious as to the reason for the Koran’s seeming ambivalence toward Christians and Jews:

                                  A surah is a chapter of the Qur'an ,which has114 surah in the Qur'an.

By my reading, the Koran is to a large extent the record of Muhammad’s attempt to bring all the area’s Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists into his Abrahamic flock, and it reflects, in turns, both his bitter disappointment at failing to do so and the many theological and ritual overtures he had made along the way. (For a time Muslims celebrated Yom Kippur, and they initially prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.) That the suras aren’t ordered chronologically obscures this underlying logic. 私の解釈では、コーランは、広い意味で、ムハンマドの試みの記録である。彼はその地域のすべてのキリスト教徒、ユダヤ教徒とアラブ多神教徒を、彼の初期ユダヤ教的な信者の中に取り込もうとしたのだ。コーランは、そうした試みに失敗したときの苦い落胆ぶりと失敗に至るまでに行った、数多くの神学的・儀式的試行（予備交渉）の両方を色濃く反映している。（イスラム教徒は一時、贖罪の日を祝ったし、最初はメッカではなく、エルサレムに向かって祈ったのだった。 ）コーランの各章は時系列が狂っているために、この当たり前のこと（基本原理）が見えにくいのだ。