Leggo sempre con piacere Reza Aslan, il cui libro No god but God mi ha chiarito le idee sulla storia della religione musulmana e di quella cristiana. Sul suo sito vi sono link a molti dei suoi articoli. L’ultimo è quello pubblicato ieri sul sito di Slate e dedicato a una nuova traduzione del Corano.
Eccone un assaggio:
The inherent sacredness of the Quran has historically created an unusual problem for many Muslims. Since the end of the seventh century CE, when its verses were collected into a single, authoritative canon, the Quran has remained fixed in Arabic, the language in which it was originally revealed. It was believed that translating the Quran into any other language would violate the divine nature of the text. Translations were done, of course. But to this day, non-Arabic versions of the Quran are considered interpretations of the Quran. Unless the original Arabic verses are embedded on the page, it cannot technically be called a Quran.
The consequences of this belief are obvious. For much of the last 14 centuries, some 90 percent of the world’s Muslims for whom Arabic is not a primary language had to depend on Islam’s clergy—all of them men, as women are not allowed to enter the clergy—to define the meaning and message of the Quran for them, much as pre-Reformation Christians had to rely on priests to read them the Bible, which at the time was available only in Latin. That is now changing. Over the last century, the Quran has been translated into more languages than in the previous 14 centuries combined. A great many of these translations have been done not by Muslim clergy but by scholars and academics, by Muslim laity and non-Muslims, and, perhaps most significantly, by women. (The first English translation of the Quran by an American woman, Laleh Bakhtiar, was published in 2007.)
Arabic is a language whose words can have multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings, so how one chooses to render a particular word from Arabic to English has a lot to do with one’s biases or prejudice. Take the following example from Sura 4:34, which has long been interpreted as allowing husbands to beat their wives: “As for those women who might rebel against you, admonish them, abandon them in their beds, and strike them (adribuhunna).” The problem, as a number of female Quranic scholars have noted, is that adribuhunna can also mean “turn away from them.” It can even mean “have sexual intercourse with them.” Obviously, which definition the translator chooses will be colored by whatever his or her preconceived notions are about a husband’s authority. The new crop of Quran translators are brushing aside centuries of traditionalist, male-dominated, and often misogynistic clerical interpretations in favor of a more contemporary, more individualized, and often more gender-friendly approach to the Quran. In the process, they are not only reshaping the way Islam’s holy book is read; they are reinterpreting the way Islam itself is being understood in the modern world.
A proposito della traduzione di Laleh Baktiar, potete leggere questo post del vecchio Taccuino.
Il Corano nell’illustrazione risale al 1685 e fa parte della collezione della Biblioteca centrale della Regione Siciliana:
Il manoscritto, redatto in caratteri maghrebini, a carta 249 recto reca la sottoscrizione dell’amanuense Abu-l-Qasin, che scrisse il manoscritto nel 1085 dell’Egira (1685 dell’era cristiana). L’inizio delle prime Sure è in quadrato entro cornici policrome di vivace effetto.
Postato da: IM