CILRAP First Conference on Religion, Hateful Expression and Violence

The conference featured contributions from several prominent experts, including Karim A. A. Khan KC, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The resulting publication includes works by esteemed authors and scholars such as Prof Mohamed Elewa Badar, Rana Moustafa, Dorit Beinisch, Emiliano J. Buis, Vincenzo Buonomo, Ioana Cismas, Mona Elbahtimy, Nazila Ghanea, Madan B. Lokur, David J. Luban, Justice Adel Maged, Kishan Manocha, Ochi Megumi, Svein Mønnesland, and Usha Tandon, offering a comprehensive exploration of the issues surrounding religion and hate speech.

Links:

Project Page: https://www.cilrap.org/events/220408-09-florence 

Project Concept Paper and Conference Programme:  https://www.cilrap.org/fileadmin/220408_09.pdf 

Project Anthology: https://www.toaep.org/ps-pdf/41-bergsmo-manocha/ 

Project Podcast: https://www.cilrap.org/cilrap-podcast

Fathi M. A. Ahmed's Chapter: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f1rms5/ 

Fathi M. A. Ahmed's Presentation: https://www.cilrap.org/cilrap-film/220409-ahmed/ 

Translational and Terminological Sensitizing of Muslim Religious Leaders of Al-Azhar in the Combat Against Hate Speech

Fathi M. A. Ahmed

First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this Conference, particularly Professor Bergsmo.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure to speak to you today.

“To name things wrongly is to add to the misfortune of the world,” said Alber Camu.

It always starts with language.

In preparation for the most notorious genocide in modern history, a Rwandan radio labelled the Tutsi as inyenzi, meaning pests, which must be exterminated.

On the other side, few days ago, I watched the first trial hearing of Ali Abdelrahman -or Ali Kushayb- before the ICC, where the prosecutor of the court quoted the exact wording of some witnesses in English.  The witness statements were in fact given in Fur language or in Arabic language. So, this is a recent manifestation of the vital role translation plays in international criminal justice.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Daesh, the discourse of which is the case study of my paper, has also lured significant numbers of recruits through online propaganda material translated into a variety of languages.

Paradoxically, Daesh translates its material into more languages than those of the United Nations. It even translates it into sign language. Besides, the organization presents its ideology in specific language templates and use certain terminologies.

According to the UNDP Conceptual Framework for Preventing Violent Extremism, strategies to combat Violent Extremism should include, “working with faith-based organizations and religious leaders to counter the abuse of religion by violent extremists.”

Although the root causes of violent extremism are complex, multifaceted and intertwined /ɪntəʳtwaɪn/, strategies to combat hate speech concentrate more on the subject-matter rather than on the language. Language is the means through which hate speech is expressed and is countered.

So, today, I am going to talk about how to combat hate speech as a driver of extremism from a language perspective, using my experience in giving advice to Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Muslim leaders and researchers as a case-study. 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In November 2020, I delivered a lecture at Al-Azhar Observatory for Combating Extremism, a center engaged in combating extremist discourse in thirteen languages,  on how to best use translation and terminology in drafting counter-narratives aiming at helping it fine-tune its remarkable efforts in this critical domain.

Let me begin with saying that listening to and seeking advice from people outside Al-Azhar institutions is a very commendable behaviour per se. In addition to the lecture, giving a full training course to the researchers of the Observatory was discussed on their initiative.

Following are the recommendations given and best practices shared.

They should apply to all situations of diving advice to religious leaders mutatis mutandis.

• Giving preference to writing than to translation, if possible

This is very simple. In order to avoid the problems and pitfalls of translation and not to have something “Lost in Translation”, do not translate, but rather write.  It would be more effective and relevant to write in thirteen different languages, taking into account the specificities of  each culture as reflected by its language than to write a master text in Arabic, for example, and then translate it into those languages.

I am a translator and I admit that translation is an imperfect reflection of any original text.

• Giving preference to affirmative rather than negative language forms

For example, when a religious leader says that “Islam DOES NOT promote hate for non-Muslims”, this simply means that he or she has this idea at the back of his or her mind, and that he or she is now trying to refute it. While this may be the case in some situations, it should not be the general practice in writing or speaking.

Sounding defensive is always a weaker form of expression.

• Conciseness

In addition to clarity and coherence, conciseness should be observed in counter-speech in particular. Conciseness denotes solid ideas and stronger beliefs, whereas rhetorical language denotes weak argument and the speaker’s or writer’s need to cover up his o her weak argument.

A good practice is to delete:

useless adjectives and adverbs and words: that mean little or nothing;  that repeat the meaning of other words; and that are implied by other words; 

• Using challenging rather than self-proclaimed names

Obviously, if we follow names self-proclaimed by terrorist organization, we may  end up  giving Daesh the UN membership simply because we acknowledge that it is the Islamic State!

So, my recommendation was to use the names that best challenge such organizations.

Daesh is the name given to this organization as an Arabic acronym for الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام  that’s, Islamic State in Iraq and Levant. Then, the organization decided to reflect its expansionist ambitions in its name by omitting Iraq and Levant.

In fact, Daesh, a word that sounds unpleasant in Arabic, challenges the legitimacy of the group due to its negative connotation.

It has been decided by many countries, including the UK, to use Daesh instead of ISIS or ISIL. It has also been discussed at the United Nations. Before a final decision has been made as to use Daesh, Arabic Linguists, including myself, voted for Islamic State in Iraq and Levant Organization (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام تنظيم) in Arabic. The reason was to terminologically confirm that it is no more than a terrorist organization. 

• Avoiding political correctness in quoting from and responding to hate speech content

It is a general rule to be politically correct. However, take this example, when a hate speech post on social medial refers to a moderate Muslim leader, such as the Grand Iman of Al-Azhar, offensively as sheep (which is an offensive reference in Arabic), it is recommended to quote the offensive expression as is and expose it openly.

• Using internationally agreed terminologies and possibly gender-inclusive language for a universally harmonized response

Muslim religious  leaders are advised to be aware of and use internationally agreed terminologies, such as hate speech, extremist ideologies, extremist narratives. A universally harmonized response requires a harmonized lexicon.

For Arabic, they are also advised to use Modern Standard Arabic instead of Egyptian Arabic.

In addition, it would also be a good practice to translate these terminologies into Arabic using the functional rather than purely linguistic equivalents.  They are also invited to add to this lexicon.

This also applies to International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law terminologies. Take for example the crime of aggression.  It is mentioned per se in the Qur’an.

وَقَـٰتِلُواْ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَـٰتِلُونَكُمۡ وَلَا تَعۡتَدُوٓاْ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُعۡتَدِينَ

Pickthall’s  English translation is:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Furthermore, Arabic is gender-inclusive language. However, it has a unique system of gender. It uses what seems to be masculine gender when genderlessness is meant.  This is why, it is commonly misunderstood.

Inadequate translations of the Qur’an may promote this wrong understanding, leading to exclusion of and bias against women.

Two Al-Azhar-sponsored commentaries interpret even the word رجال, which literally means Men, as people.

A verse about Paradise is:

وَعَلَى الْأَعْرَافِ رِجَالٌ يَعْرِفُونَ كُلًّا بِسِيمَاهُمْ ۚ

A translation that reflects this understanding, reads:

And on A’raf (the Heights), there shall be people who recognize each group through their signs.   

Most of the existing translation of the Quran literally render what seems to be men as men.

In addition, it was recommended to use universally accepted standards for transliterating Arabic names into English in order to avoid potential incrimination of innocents, including by using the  spelling of names used in the UN List of individuals and entities subject to sanctions, among other credible sources.

Using cautious language for credibility

Even in news stories, until someone is irrevocably  convicted  of a crime, he or she should always be referred to as alleged perpetrator, suspect or accused, as the case may be, but not perpetrator or actor. Showing respect to justice is a value added to counter-speech.

• Using fact-based rather than rhetorical language

Organized language denotes organized thinking. A well-drafted statement will include specific quotations, times, events, numbers and so on. A poorly drafted one will include non of  the items mentioned, and will rely on too general wordings.

An example of a fact-based statement is “Dealing justly with non-Muslims was instructed in the Qur’án twelve times as in the following verses. The contexts of revelation were as follows.”

An example of a rhetorical language statement is, “Those who deny the injunction to deal justly with non-Muslims are just liars.”

• highlighting and correcting wrong translations of Qur’án and or Sharí‘ah terminology

The opening chapter of the Qur’án is recited by a Muslim at least 17 times a day. It is a summary of the teachings of the Qur’án.

The last verses of that chapter say:

ٱهۡدِنَا ٱلصِّرَٲطَ ٱلۡمُسۡتَقِيمَ (٦) صِرَٲطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ غَيۡرِ ٱلۡمَغۡضُوبِ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَ (٧)

According to Yusuf Ali’s widely acceptable translation of the Qur’an, the verses read:

Show us the straight way. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) is not wrath  /ræθ/  and who go not astray.

However, few other translations depart from the common orthodox understanding of Muslims, not to mention the exact wording of the Arabic text.

A translation that is mostly used by extremists and promoters of hate speech reads:

Guide us to the Straight Way. (6) The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians). (7)

This translation  contradicts two Commentaries on the Qur’án by Tantawi, the late Iman of Alazhar, and Eissa,  an Al-Alzhar Scholar. According to these commentaries, those two categories of people are: Those who have ignored the right path and those who are already away from the right path unknowingly and because of unwarranted confusion.

So, responders to hate speech should have in place an informed methodology based on which they select the most credible translation, not to mention taking this point into their consideration when translating the Holy Qur’an themselves.

I have been told that Al-Azhar is currently developing its first-ever translation of the Holy Qur’an. This is a very good news!

Another example is al-kufaar:

In extremist Islamic discourse in  languages other than Arabic, reference is often made to non-Muslims using the word al-kufaar in Arabic. That’s to say, the word is transliterated rather than translated. As such, it only gives a strong impression that it means something that does not have a word in English. So, non-Arabic speaking Muslims understand it as derogatory word. It simply promotes non-acceptance of others.

However, this word simply means unbelievers according to Yusuf Ali’s translation for instance. In a Muslim context, it just means non-Muslims.    

• Cooperating with social media Platforms

The algorithms and human interventions recently used by social media platforms to  identify, review and remove hate speech content have proven to be inadequate. Most recently, social media platforms have been widely criticised for failure to remove offensive hate speech content while removing acceptable everyday content instead.

So, it was recommended to cooperate with social media platforms by providing them with smartly drafted (I say smartly drafted  and I mean it) and updated keywords for alerting their systems.

Training of human reviewers was also highly recommended.

For example, a simple quotation of the Holy Qur’án should not be censored unless it is accompanied with a perversive interpretation or specific hate speech.

Also, Arabic expressions, such as Allahu Akbar, (or God is greater) although unfortunately used by suicide bombers and  extremists sometimes, should not be censored per se, simply because this is a Muslim everyday expression. It does not have any violence-related meaning or connotation.  

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please allow me to conclude my statement by sharing the Lessons Learned from this experience.

For an expert advice to religious leaders to be effective, leaders should be approached very carefully and delicately. In a nutshell, I recommend the following rules:

Trust building and Showing respect for faith should be the first steps to begin with;

Finding a common ground, on countering hate speech in this context, should follow;

Advice should be relevant and problem-centered rather than content-centered;

This means that examples given should reflect the real life challenges. For me, I used examples from the website of the Observatory.

Advice should be given as an experience shared rather than a lesson taught;

Religious leaders should be involved in discussion, giving them the impression that they lead the discussion and are not just listeners or learners; The Advisor should still have some hidden control on the discussion. Also, elicitation, as a presentation technique, can be used for this reason.

Some sensitive advice should be shared as a trend to reflect on or a question to answer.

For example, gender-inclusive language was addressed in the context of showing them a world trend, asking them if this could be accommodated without prejudice to religious rules if not originally rooted in Arabic language. This opened the door for a discussion without any provocation or defensiveness.   They were skeptical  until I showed them examples in the form of questions.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is the end of my statement.

Thank you so much for listening!