Ed Dawkins on Allahu Akhbar

ddt said:
When you mention Nazis, Paris and murder, my first association is the massacre of 1961, a demonstration in favour of Algerian independence that was intentionally turned into a bloodbath by the Paris police prefect Maurice Papon who had been a war criminal during WW2.

Just sayin',
Click to expand...

As Noel Coward said, in a parody of one of his own songs "There's Something Vichy About The French".
 
theprestige said:
The Wehrmacht generally? I'm suggesting that soldiers of the Wehrmacht did not drive halftracks into civilians on the streets of Paris, shouting "Gott mit uns!" - at least, not enough for the phrase to be associated with terrorism and murder in the French popular culture.

"Allah akbar!", on the other hand... A guy walking by the Charlie Hebdo offices hears that, I'm pretty sure his first thought won't be "oh, just another peaceful Muslim rejoicing in the will of his deity". And I'm pretty sure his second thought won't be, "this reminds me of how German troops in the 1940s used to run around shouting 'Gott mit uns!' while they murdered people".

As pleasant sounds go, the bells of Notre Dame versus "Allah akbar" on the streets of Paris? No contest, I think.
Click to expand...

Someone's bigotry is showing.
 
Zivan said:
Yes, Arabic is an abjad language like Hebrew. Transliterations of both languages into English interchange "k" and "q" for the same letter/sound sometimes, but "k/q" is a completely different sound than "kh" (back of the throat). So "k" and "kh" should never be used interchangeably.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Even if 'Allahu Akbar' were exclusively used by Islamic terrorists to announce an imminent attack... And even if you think comparing one religion's call to prayer with another's call to murder is an apt comparison because you believe that one religion is objectively more evil than the other one... that still doesn't make Dawkins' tweet as much of a droll witticism or 'sick burn' as he thought.

Just a weird non sequitur. And I think that's kind of embarrassing for a man of his intellectual stature.
Then again, tweets are brain farts so I don't really care. Being smart doesn't mean everything you think of is clever.
Click to expand...


Fair enough comment and I would add that we sometimes expect too much of those we regard as intellectual leaders. They must be allowed to falter at times.

Interesting that Dawkins came to atheism, (as I have read), as a result of his study of science and acceptance of evolution, and consequent rejection of creation. This maybe in contrast to the experience of many of us here, (certainly myself), who may have feelings of distaste towards the religion of their youth. Dawkins may even now feel quite warmly about the religious trappings he grew up with.
 
Last edited:
Zivan said:
Yes, Arabic is an abjad language like Hebrew. Transliterations of both languages into English interchange "k" and "q" for the same letter/sound sometimes, but "k/q" is a completely different sound than "kh" (back of the throat). So "k" and "kh" should never be used interchangeably.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure natural languages do not work that way.
 
I have good news and bad news about the Internet. Bad news first.

The bad news is there is now such a thing as a stupid question.

The good news is that you never have to ask a stupid question.
 
metacristi said:
Truth is truth (we can talk at least about arguments having strong justification) no matter if he wept or not. Some seem to never realize that. And yes one can be very well an atheist-Christian (in the sense of recognizing the role of played by Christianity, be it largely via being much more benign than islam, in the making of Modernity).
Click to expand...

Cough. Absolutism in any guise stinks as badly. Remarks by Vice President Pence at the Hillsdale College 166th Commencement Ceremony, direct from the White House website:

You know, it seems, at times, that we live in an age of grim relativism. But here, this class has seen the power of unchanging truth to change lives. You’ve learned that character is destiny, that it’s essential for self-government, and that right conduct is its own reward. And it seems we live in a time where too many disregard that wisdom of the past that Dr. Arnn spoke about so eloquently. But here, you’ve been grounded in the traditions and teachings that are our greatest inheritance in America, and the teachings and traditions that will always be the surest foundation of a boundless American future. In a word, your education at Hillsdale has taught you not what to do, but what to be. And today, you will receive a diploma that has been minted in independence and tempered with truth. So for all you have done to reach this moment, Class of 2018, give yourselves a round of applause. We are proud of each and every one of you.
Click to expand...

WTF?? Scary combo, that. The boundaries to proper thought and the sole origin of authority are almost as obvious as the ones in the Cairo Declaration. Times of "grim relativism," or of strutting myths posing as an answer to all things?
 
theprestige said:
I have good news and bad news about the Internet. Bad news first.

The bad news is there is now such a thing as a stupid question.

The good news is that you never have to ask a stupid question.
Click to expand...
I have good news and bad news, too.

The good news is that I went ahead and googled the term.

The bad news is that your statement about "how natural languages work" is in this context complete gibberish.
 
Babbylonian said:
What the **** is a "natural" language?
Click to expand...

Natural languages are the types of languages that people use to communicate such as English, Chinese, Spanish, German, Swahili, Hebrew etc... Essentially everyone, except in a small number of pathological cases, has a natural language as their L1.

These are distinguished from formal languages that are used for specific purposes such as logic or computer languages.
 
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure natural languages do not work that way.
Click to expand...

What way, exactly? It's not clear what point you're making. Also, the comment isn't about how natural languages work, but how transliterations from one alphabet to another are conventionally done. You may have a point that a particular convention gets wider approval than another, to the extent that some people think one is right and another wrong, but it's not at all clear that that's what you are saying.

(For example, when I was young, 'Moslem' was the standard English spelling of the word for a follower of Islam, whereas now it is 'Muslim'. It's possible to get into trouble for using the spelling one grew up with, without necessarily intending any offence.)
 
zooterkin said:
(For example, when I was young, 'Moslem' was the standard English spelling of the word for a follower of Islam, whereas now it is 'Muslim'. It's possible to get into trouble for using the spelling one grew up with, without necessarily intending any offence.)
Click to expand...

Jeez. Arabic has only three vowels - a, o/u, and e/i. They're modulated based on the properties of preceding consonants. "Moslem" is probably closer to the average English pronunciation. I use it from time to time since "Muslim" is pronounced very differently in my native Swedish.

Anyway: kh is used to transcribe a sound close to ch in German Ich or Scottish Loch. This is done pretty consistently over Arabic, Persian, Hebrew [which has a slightly different but similar sound] and Yiddish (ch is sometimes used for the last two). Nowhere is "kh" used for a consonant that isn't at the very least aspirated.
 
theprestige said:
The distinction between k and kh in one language doesn't necessarily have to be maintained when writing into a language that does not make that distinction.
Click to expand...

While true... 'Allahu akbar' is stil Arabic, even when written in the Latin alphabet. It doesn't suddenly turn ino English (which would be God/Allah is greater/the greatest). So, while English doesn't (generally) have the guttural 'kh' sound, and in English 'k' and 'kh' would both be pronounced as 'k'... we're talking about Arabic here, and there are rules/guidelines for transliteration.

So no, even though Dawkins speaks English, and English is written in the Latin alphabet, and it's possible to write Arabic with the same alphabet as English, akbar is not the same as akhbar.
 
And yet everyone reading his tweet knew what he meant when he wrote it.

I don't think there's an important or meaningful point to be made with respect to spelling here.
 
Thor 2 said:
I was about to ask the same question. The language of the Bushmen of Africa comes to mind. Are all those tongue clicks a natural manifestation? Perhaps theprestige can enlighten us.
Click to expand...

"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

- Charles Babbage, probably
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom