Apparently, the easiest way to sound pious these days is to replace in one’s everyday conversation ‘Thank you’ by ‘JazakAllah’. In that sense, ‘Inshallah’ has lost much of its charm since everybody has started repeating it all the time. On this count at least, ‘Jazkallah’ very much retains its utility and is likely to hold its own in the foreseeable future.
Most people use everyday expressions like these without knowing what they mean; and even when they know the meanings in an abstract sort of way, they usually lack the consciousness of using them in that sense. No wonder ranked atheists are routinely heard saying ‘Inshallah’. Many theists too, for their part, habitually repeat it without any appreciation of its true meaning.
A common misunderstanding about ‘Jazakallah’ is that it is considered the ‘Islamic’ way of expressing gratitude, and is therefore that much better as an expression. Reason, on the other hand, demands that if one expression is better than another, it must only be so because it expresses a superior sentiment; and not because it is couched in Arabic vocabulary, as many seem to believe. ‘Jazakallah’ is a supplication to God, a prayer for Divine reward in favour of the recipient for some virtuous act of his. In Islam, the very act of entreating God is a form of worship, and is therefore an immediate boon for the person doing it; whatever benefit the recipient ends up deriving from it. Provided, of course, that the man knows what his prayer means. There is just no escaping from what words mean, is there?
Using words without knowing what they meaning is an old human failing. It is the source of much misunderstanding and confusion. ‘Assalamu alikum’ is a case in point; not in its everyday usage but when it is addressed to those resting in their graves. There are those who argue that since there is this Islamic tradition of greeting the dead upon entering a cemetery, we can also ‘donate’ our good deeds to the dear departed. It is conveniently overlooked that ‘Assalamu alikum’ is simply a prayer, an act of wishing others well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with praying for the well-being of others in this life and the next – in fact, it is a sign of a Muslim to wish for others what he wishes for himself. On the contrary, the Quran explicitly rules out ‘transference’ of good deeds by making it clear that each man will be responsible for and the beneficiary of his own initiatives and actions and nobody else’s.
Flimsy theological arguments have similarly been built on the premise that Muslims are encouraged to recite the Durood for the Prophet (pace be upon him). The fact of the matter is that the Durood (or its synonym, the ‘Salam’) is also a supplication. This is all the information that is needed to know that the premise by no means leads to the elaborate conclusions usually drawn and presented. Merely knowing what a word means often saves man from putting forward, or accepting, silly arguments that do absolutely no favour to anybody.
Most people use everyday expressions like these without knowing what they mean; and even when they know the meanings in an abstract sort of way, they usually lack the consciousness of using them in that sense.
By far the most unfortunate manifestation of using language without knowing what it means occurs when the Quran is recited or heard by Muslims live, on TV/radio, or on some digital device. Since much of it is done for ‘blessings’ (whatever those are), it is deemed unnecessary to know what any of it means. The average Muslim is therefore spectacularly unaware of the contents of the Quran. He has all sorts of preposterous ideas about what is in it and what is not.
Any wonder so many Muslims find their daily prayers so ‘mechanical’ and therefore so lacking in vitality? Having memorized some of the shorter chapters of the Quran, they simply repeat them after reciting the Fatiha. For the other portions of their prayers as well, they have learned by heart certain formulas without knowing what any of them means. No wonder the daily prayers fail to have a rejuvenating effect on most.
A further complication regarding the daily prayers is the almost universal failure to tell apart its mandatory phrases (which are limited) from the comparatively much broader portions in which there is freedom to choose one’s own words, enabling one to thereby effectively talk to God. This means that a man neither expresses what is relevant to his situation on any given day, nor does he have any idea about the meanings of phrases he repeats from memory. Any wonder the daily prayers are a far cry from heart-to-heart talks where one shares all one’s thoughts and feelings with God, and asks for His help and support.
The raison d’être of language is that it has the capacity to convey ideas through its words and turns of the phrase. Nothing abstract, nothing even slightly more complicated than the most primitive of sensations and impressions can be contemplated without the aid of language, let alone expressed. One does absolutely no favour to oneself when one uses words and phrases without knowing what they mean, effectively dispensing with most of the benefit they have to offer.
