Mahboula: a word on language in Algeria

I took this along the beach in Bordj el Kiffan; here you have spraypainted signage in Arabic, one of the three main languages of Algerie. What does it say? It says: "Urinating is forbidden." They didn't see fit to repeat the message in French or Kabyle. I'm assuming they ran out of space.


The most common tongue across the broad northerly swath of Africa called the Maghreb is a dialect of Arabic called Darija. There are many who would argue it is not a dialect of Arabic at all but rather its own language, as it is not very mutually intelligible with other dialects. There is a grocery list of words that are found only in Darija; each regional variant of it also has a customized grocery list. As in the evolution of English, the Darija dialects of the Maghreb are the product of a region swept by successive waves of invaders, each of whom left their indelible lingual mark. The language spoken in the everyday by most Arabized Algerians is a melange of Arabic, Turkish, French, imposed on the indigenous Tamazight (Berber). If one delves deeper, one can probably find words that originated in Latin, from back when the land was Numidia, a client state of the Roman Empire. It is perhaps because of this that most Algerians seem perfectly willing to (and often prefer to) transliterate their everyday languages into characters familiar to Western eyes: the Roman alphabet has been part of the landscape for a very long time.

After the Revolution, despite an attempt to make Modern Standard Arabic the official working language (never quite took since no one speaks MSA), the Romanized spellings of placenames and such were standardized according to French standards: hence, for example, the transcription "Oued" rather than the more standard transcribed Arabic "Wadi."

The word for “crazy” in most spoken and written Arabic dialects is “majnoon”; it can mean mentally ill (pejoratively), deranged, disturbed, eccentric, reckless, feckless, foolish, or lovestruck – just as “crazy” can mean all those things in English, for good or ill. The states so described by the English word “crazy” are so universal to the human condition that it would not surprise me to find that many of the languages on this earth had a similar nuanced corresponding word, as Arabic does. However, “majnoon” is not the word most commonly used in Algeria. The word “mahboul” is the word just about everyone uses – Arab and Imazighen alike. Same meanings, different word.

The word “mahboul” is not found much in the lexicon of other forms of Arabic. However, the word “ahlboula” is found in Kabyle, the most widely-spoken of the Tamazight dialects of the country. I'm no linguist, but that's a cognate if I ever saw one. The Imazighen are definitely not an Arab people, and their languages are not like Arabic, except perhaps on the edges, where the two languages have met.

Where people meet, they exchange, whether either or both parties are willing partners in the exchange. Often the dominant partner in the exchange downright refuses to believe it picked up anything from the subject partner apart from what it wanted to snatch away. This is rarely true, no matter what colonizing cultures prefer to tell themselves. Everyday cultural traditions of subjugated people are the tiny burrs and barbed seeds clinging to the expensive sturdy pants of the invader, ready to quietly drop into his stringently cultivated garden plot and find a way to survive and sprout. Sometimes they straggle, eking out a frail existence in silence, hoping the weeding hand passes them by; sometimes they flourish until the garden scarce resembles what its planner had in mind, but is prettier and more vigorous. Whether its owner likes it or not.

This is as true of language as any other custom. If a word proves useful and particularly adroit, it will slip into common usage, sometimes to the chagrin of those who posit themselves as standard-bearers of the dominant culture. Over time even those people may forget the suspect origins of the word, and it will just be...part of the scenery.

Where all this talk of gardening is leading as far as a point: everyone in Algeria knows that “mahboul” is an Algerian word: its precise origin can be claimed as either Arabic or Kabyle, depending on whom you're talking with. Now it has entered the French lexicon as a synonym for “fou”; the means of this – and the relative status of this synonym in the linguistic section of le Jardin du Francais – should be apparent. In this imagined French garden, anything Algerian is still a dandelion. Tenacious, scrappy, and self-rejuvenating, bouncing back from disaster always. It might have a rough cheerful prettiness (not up to the dominant standards of aesthetics, of course), and it certainly has its charms and uses, it may even make a nice salad, but in the end it's a weed.

The modern Western view of the flower garden – and lawns, as well – is rooted (sorry) in the traditions beginning in the Renaissance and developing through the Age of Reason and through the Victorian era, where a pleasure garden was created and cultivated as a kind of microcosm of an “ideal” and carefully controlled natural world, from the Neoclassical symmetry of the 18th century to the romanticized wishful “wildness” of the 19th century. Seeing the pleasure garden as a symbol of the European and American view of the world makes this...thing I just wrote...a lot less strained as metaphor goes. Inchallah. It goes without saying that the pleasure garden of Islamic tradition is a different kettle of fish in some respects.

I didn't really know the word “mahboul” before I got to Algerie. I learned the meaning pretty quickly; it was the right word for describing my own self.

I've rethought things a bit; I'd gone private with my other blog, and had put this one on hiatus. But I still need a public space for thoughts and writing, especially with the current onus I've got -- imposed by a friend -- for writing up my travelogue.

I also like having an area for religious posts, as well.

So I'm re-constructing this a bit to cover two areas: one, the former "this is what I have to say about matters theological and such," and the other to deal with writing. OK; so we have fiction, and we also have this travelogue...and as I mentioned, there are people demanding I put that somewhere they can see it, as I'm writing it. Or editing it, as basically it's a fleshing-out of the diary and notes I was keeping while hanging out in Algeria. And then Barcelona. Barcelona was a heartbreaker: I wanted to love it so much, I was prepared to love it, but it didn't really love me back. Although the Muslim community in Ciutat Vella almost redeemed it, since everyone there WAS nice.

So: religious noodlings, and writing. The two are interconnected, actually, so it'll work fine. Inchallah. We'll see.

Defining One's Terms: Hijab

OK, so we are clear...I wrote this on the fly, so if there are errors and you can correct me, please do so :). Mostly, I'd like to just give factual information, but where I've inserted opinion, I can only speak for myself, and am no spokesperson for anything.

See that thing on my head in my icon?

This is not a burka. This is more commonly known as a hijab. That of course, is kind of a misnomer as well, as hijab covers all Islamic modest dress, but it's a commonly accepted word. What I am wearing -- a scarf over an underscarf -- is more properly known as a shayla hijab. The one in this icon is actually pretty sloppy-looking; i'm usually a bit better on that.

In south Asia, a similar scarf is known as a dupatta. They are not exclusively Muslim, but are considered a modesty covering.

Then there is the al-amira hijab, which I have two of and need more, as the element of convenience is amazing. An al-amira is a kind of pullover hijab. You can get them as one-piece garments; more commonly, they consist of an underscarf and a pullover. These are what I have.

There is also something called a khimar, which covers and drapes more.

Then there is niqab: niqab is what many people seem to want to misname a "burka" even when they know to use the word hijab for your garden-variety headscarf. Niqab is veiling that covers everything, basically, but the eyes. It is often worn with a garment called an abaya. Niqab is not common among any but the most conservative groups; it is niqab you see on Saudi women. Fun fact: apparently, in at least some other Islamic countries, where niqab is NOT common, women in niqab are sometimes jokingly referred to as "ninjas." Now that I know this, I can't get it out of my head when I think of niqab.

Then there is the burka. First of all, the correct name for it is chadri, but no one seems to want to call it that so we're stuck with burka. Second, it is not commonly worn in the Islamic world outside of Afghanistan. It covers the eyes in a kind of fabric screen. THAT is what is most commonly understood when you use the word burka.

There is also a kind of face-mask, a half-mask like a domino, that is *properly* called a burka as well, but it is somewhat more obscure. That is all it covers, though it is commonly worn with a shayla hijab, or similar.

Just a note, and I had to add this after a clarification by a reader: the word "burka" actually literally translates to "face cover with eye openings." So it applies to the *veil* of niqab, but not the whole thing, and as we've commonly started using "burka" to denote the Afghan garment, I'd avoid its use unless being very specific. Calling everything "hijab" as the generic, I maintain, is your best bet.

There is more, of course, and regional variation. Also, how you wear your hijab -- of whatever kind you wear -- may be different, based on things like practicality, regional or sect practice, fashion (ahem) or whatever. I do not usually cover my ears. This is partly because it's vaguely uncomfortable, partly because I'm a bit hard of hearing anyway, and yes, partly because I like to wear earrings. I also don't stress too much if a little of my hairline shows. That's just me. The mileage of other Muslimahs may and will in fact vary. Everyone has their own definitions or comfort level.

And not all Muslimahs cover, either. It is, as has been made clear in many different fora, not a monolithic thing, and there is room for valid argument that it is not required. I choose to cover for personal -- and very thought-out -- reasons. Some see it as more political or identifying rather than religious.

There has even been the claim that the wearing of hijab is modern. Any perusal of Islamic art through the centuries gives the lie to this; it shows up in imagery in various regional permutations from the advent of Islam onwards.

And then of course comes the argument that not all women CHOOSE to wear it. The Saudis and the Afghans feature most prominently in this discussion. Please be aware that Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are not really politically or culturally representative of any place outside of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. They do not represent the Ummah at large in any kind of policy.

Inchallah if you have any confusion or misconceptions, this defining of terms has been kind of helpful.

And:

The subject of the nature of whether or not hijab/niqab/burka (chadri -- but it's a lost cause, so let's say burka) is oppressive, anti-feminist, whathaveyou...has been discussed ad nauseam. The subject of France's ban on such -- and whether this is a well-meaning but wrongheaded attempt at supporting the rights of women or whether (I expect) it's got a lot more to do with fear and xenophobia...this also has been debated.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone, has an opinion on the subject. Usually a very fervent opinion. Not always a well-informed opinion.

I'd like to point out that very few people seem to listen much to voices of the women who actually wear some form of hijab in all of this, and there's something to be cautioned against in exoticizing (or outright fetishizing: there IS such a thing as a "veil fetish" and it's kind of grotesque and distasteful, in part because of the implications of Westerners ogling the "exotic and submissive other"), speaking for people who have their own voices, knee-jerk reacting, whatever. Discussions of the nature -- oppressive or otherwise -- of hijab happen in the Muslimah community, and they are intelligent discussions, conducted by the people who are affected by this issue, and tied in with LARGER issues.

Also, it should be pointed out that there are many, many issues facing women in the Islamic world, and in particular places like Afghanistan. However, these women themselves have stated in various places that they wish the rest of the world would be less concerned about what they wear, and more concerned with their actual lives, if the effort of well-meaning people is to help improve the lives of Afghan women. In other words, their problems are not encompassed by the burka.

In short, stop staring and telling other people that you know what they should do, and start listening.

Al-Khidr: Re-Post from LJ

From a comment I made on a friend's journal, wherein we were talkin' religion, and she asked about having heard a reference to a Green Man and Sufis:

"Al-Khidr or Al-Khizr, the Green One.Al-Khidr is a Qur'anic figure (Sura 18:66-18:88 -- yep, just checked it; he is referred to not by name, but as "one of Our servants to whom We have vouchsafed Our mercy and whom We had endowed with knowledge of Our own" when he meets up with Moses. He does things that seem highly arbitrary and violent to Moses, while commanding Moses to stop questioning him, then when they are fixing to separate, he explains the reasons behind why he did what he did) and when I say figure, it's because his position is unclear: saint, prophet, undefined servant of God.

There are many things not known about Al-Khizr, but there is no doubt he is an instrument of God. One thing that is known is that he has the ability to suddenly help those chosen to receive it with insight and realization, sometimes rather painful. There are customary du'as where you can ask for help/intercession/guidance through Al-Khizr, but they are never to be used lightly.

Some have said he is associated with the Green Men of Europe, and is basically a pagan figure made Islamic.

I'd say tread *very* lightly on that notion, though. Similar ideas may abound because there is an essential truth with a different interpretation, but Al-Khizr should not be considered pagan or entirely analogous to a Green Man...and it gets into some pretty gray areas to incorporate Islamic beliefs into anything polytheistic :).

Oh! Also: green is the color of Islam. It was the color most favored by the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), and in hadith, he said: "Three things of this world delight the heart [are worthy of the gaze]: water, green things, and a beautiful face." :)"

---

So other than checking the Qur'anic reference, this was an off-the-cuff answer, and may be riddled with half-accuracies. For more on Al-Khidr, there are many sources. One such page is here.

Al-Khidr fascinates non-Muslims as well as Muslims, in part because he is so enigmatic, and yes, there is a sense of wildness, unpredictability, and a kind of elemental nature that maybe does equate him with the European Green Man. I don't really like to speak in terms of archetype, because doing so makes something/someone of infinite complexity and truth into something that is pat and unformed. I think such parallels -- which again, are NOT complete -- indicate something true conducted as light through different cultural prisms. After all, the Prophet (pbuh) himself said that there were prophets sent to all the peoples on earth; each prophet, while a vessel of the Divine, is also a human product of his or her own culture, so the construct of the message he or she brings is going to be delineated by that culture. I don't know how else to put it. Does that make any sense to y'all? (I'm tired, but I still felt compelled to write this).

Y'all can see why Al-Khidr is not spoken of or to lightly. The issue of asking Al-Khidr to intercede or give guidance, and the issue really of saints (wali) in Islam is somewhat controversial. Intercession (tawassul) is a controversial matter, with those of more conservative Sunni bent seeing it as shirk. Shi'ites put firm boundaries on it, as I understand, as do that majority of Sunnis. Sufis? Well, we just love our walis, yes we do.

Recall, Islam is no monolith in belief or in custom, even if we all pray using the same words and at the same time and facing the same direction.

Another site on Islam:

http://www.livingislam.org/index.html

This one will take me quite a while to explore, it's so dense. I am not sure, if you're looking for basic info, that this is your best bet. The stance seems to be more conservative on the whole, although it's evident the maintainers don't much care for Salafis (Wahhabis), which really, I'm not that big on Salafis, either, since I consider it misguided and reactionary (and heaven knows, MY opinion on these matter counts for so much, but I like to make my stance clear). But for deeper readings of texts, it looks very useful, and the articles cover a wide range of things. I'll be foodling around on this one for a while.

Original Sin and an Unkind Heart

Here's something I have difficulty getting my head around...

The notion that the human heart is somehow *inherently* sinful in Christianity. That one never made sense to me, the whole thing with Original Sin leaving a black mark on everyone's heart, etc.

It's always bothered me. Someone (and you know who you are!) not long ago gave me a Chick Tract (in a joking spirit) titled "Heart Trouble" that goes on about this...as Chick tracts do...and I just re-found it in my laptop bag, which is what got me to thinking about this...

Also, at the Urbanna Oyster Festival, there was some frightened-looking young man street preaching, and the first thing I caught him saying was, "The human heart is WICKED!" And I had to check myself from turning around and saying, "I beg your pardon, it is NOT. God did not make us to be wicked." Funny, both my father and I had theological issue with that rather-scared and unhappy-looking guy, from different angles. We both confessed a desire to go argue with the guy. Then we decided that getting tag-teamed by the two of us would probably make the young man give up any kind of religion for good.

In Islam, no one bears the sin of another. We come into this world clean and innocent; it's the crap we latch onto in this world, the illusions and echoes, that leave sooty marks and gives us baggage.

A good explanation of such. The salient kind of summation is the bigger font near the bottom, if you want the short version.

And as for Eve being the problem...


Unfortunately, this concept has penetrated the beliefs of the conventional “Muslim” as well. This theory of “Adam and Eve” is invariably referred to prove the inferiority and wickedness of women.

The Quran has not even feeble affinity with this theory. It declared that men and women exist on their own right, and that both were created out of one single life cell. Both are responsible for their own actions and deeds. A woman is neither weak nor wicked simply because is she a woman. In Surah 2, Verse 36, it is stated that both men and women are equally susceptible to temptation.

It is very important to understand this in the interest of the future of women around the world. As long as the concept of Eve being created for man prevails, women can never be free in true sense of the word.

Word, in every sense of The Word.


n.b.: this is NOT to suggest that "If you're a Christian you're just WRONG!" Most of the Christians I know -- including my dear dogmatic dad -- don't much like this notion either as a literal thing. Christianity being a big arena, there is room for interpretation; i gather the real emphasis on this as being fundamental tends to be taken by the well, fundamentalist Protestants. I'm just explaining why I, personally, don't much get this.

First, an explanation...

Bismillah ir-Rahman, ir-Rahim...
Assalamu alaikum!

I suppose I needed to be on yet another place on the Web like my submarine needs screen doors (Betchall didn't know I have a submarine, right?)

I already have an LJ, and a Facebook. I have a Web site. I'm just all over the place, really. So why bother with a blog?

Well, it's like this: I have a lot of thoughts. I have to keep them compartmentalized, for my own convenience and that of others. Some stuff is appropriate for one place, some for another. The stuff I post on my LJ is not always stuff I would want to post to my FB, and so on.

I post a fair amount of religious rumination on my LJ; because it informs most aspects of my life, it shows up a lot. Shows up in FB, too, but we keep it short and sweet. The format demands it, for one thing.

Not everyone wants to read everything. Nor does everyone want to have to wade through years of stuff (as on my LJ) to find my thoughts on one particular subject. Particularly if they're not wearing hipwaders.

So I am creating this blog specifically for religious/theological thought. Some of this will be crossposted elsewhere, but this will be the essential roundup of my thoughts and feelings spirit and heartwise.

This may include links to other things in my life; I imagine a certain amount of evolution to occur. For now, I may begin transcribing a couple of posts from *there* to *here*, if you get my drift. So if you follow me *there*, you may be having deja vu all over again.

We shall see how this works. Shall we?