3.3.4
An acquaintance of mine from the Syrian lands once wrote a book in English about conditions there and the ways of their people. After first describing a wedding he had attended in Damascus, he stated that they had concluded the celebrations with a song he could still remember word for word and which he had kindly decided to translate into the aforementioned language. In fact, it was a funeral lament for a woman, of which I recall two verses, as follows:40
By God, O grave, have her charms been quite expunged,
Her verdant features all undone?
O grave, you are no garden or celestial sphere,
So how can flower and moon in you be gathered as one?
Despite this, the English put his account down to exoticism and none of them held him to account by asking, “How can the people of Damascus, who are described as being of sound taste and upright nature, conclude their nuptials with laments that make one weep?” Had he, however, given this version of his in Arabic and had it reached the ears of Arabic speakers, they would have convened two assemblies, one for the common people and another for the elite.41
3.3.5
At the one for the common people, someone would have said, “My my, a lament at the end of a wedding, brother? Listen, everyone, and wonder at what a clever transmitter of poetry42 he is!” The next would have said, “Yes, indeed! A lament instead of a song! Did you ever hear such a thing, good people?” Then someone else would have said, “Heavens to Betsy! Couldn’t the simpleton find anything better than a lament to put at the end of the wedding?” and another, “I find myself quite gobsmacked! Could anything be sillier than the wedding guests finishing off their party with a lament and not seeing any ill omen in that?” and a third, “God bless this transmitter’s pointy little head! Is he a fool or a madman to tell such lies to those people and fill his book with stuff and nonsense?” and yet another, “Good Lord! I swear this is the strangest thing I ever heard — people using lamentation in place of singing, weeping in place of laughter, and smacks to the back of the neck43 in place of handshakes.” Then, though, someone else would say, “But the ones who read his book must have been asses or lunatics! Wasn’t there anyone among them to tell him (if he was a Christian), ‘Khawājā!’ or (if he was a Muslim, or passing himself off as one), ‘Effendi! The people of your country follow omens and are quick to see evil portents. It’s not possible they’d use a lament at a wedding,’” and another, “Glory be! He’s a donkey and he’s made a fool of other donkeys. Brother, let’s forget about him,” and another, “Amazing! We’d love to know the whole story. Was he serious or joking?” To this another would respond, “How could he have been joking? What he’d printed as a book was going to be sold in shops, with a picture of him on it holding a sword with tassels and buttons,” and another, “Which leads us to ask, ‘How could the English swallow everything vomited down their throats by a stranger holding a sword with tassels and buttons?’” and another, “I suspect that all Franks believe cock-and-bull stories,” and another, “Brother, that’s another story entirely! What all this business comes down to is a bit of foolishness from the transmitter and a bit of stupidity from his listeners”—and so on and so forth by way of criticism and faultfinding.
3.3.6
In the elite assembly, however, the matter would have taken a more portentous and dangerous turn. They would have looked at it from the perspective of the scholarly fatwa and the jurisprudential responsum. The most important man of letters at the gathering would have been asked to issue a ruling with the words, “What says the leader of the literati and crown of the illuminati of an author who has claimed that the people of Syria employ laments to conclude their nuptials? Should such a man be considered a credible witness, or not?” Responsum: “In our opinion, such a man shouldn’t be considered a credible witness regarding the tail of a hinny, even if every copy of his book were sold among the Franks for a golden guinea.” Another Form of Request for a Ruling: “What says the compilers’ resource and authors’ recourse of a man who claims that he heard with his own two ears a lament being sung at the conclusion of a wedding in Noble Syria? Are his words to be believed and is his book to be licensed for perusal or not?” Responsum: “He is not to be believed nor is anything he may have seen with his two eyes, by day or by night, nor may aught he has heard with his two ears, be they long as a donkey’s, be considered right.” Another Request for a Ruling: “What says he whose words banish delusion and bring clarity to confusion of a writer who has put into a book he has written numerous accounts that he claims are his own(1) and stories of bastard origins that he claims are authentic, and asserts, in everything he’s written, that the people of Syria chant laments at the conclusion of their nuptials? Should his entire book be judged on the basis of this lie, or not?” Responsum: “Anyone who lies about a matter as well-known as this is likely to lie about everything else, so it would be more appropriate to judge his whole book on the basis of that one lie.”
3.3.7
Another Request for a Ruling: “What says the critic most eminent, of people of good sense the referent, of a man who has written a book in which he states that he knows many emirs and ministers, judges and scholars, and says they are his friends and intimates, in-laws and brothers, and then states somewhere in the same book that he attended a wedding in Protected Damascus that was adorned with flowers and sweet-smelling bowers, songstresses and songsters, and that the last thing they sang there was a lament for a woman? Supposing this to be a lie, should the fact that he is acquainted with ministers argue for our believing him on other matters?” Responsum: “He is truthful in neither that nor other matters, and his acquaintance with emirs cannot be allowed to argue on his behalf for anything, as witness the verses that state
No claim of acquaintance with notable or prince
Can save the mendacious transmitter.”
3.3.8
Another Request for a Ruling: “What says he over whose words no other words can claim superiority and without whom no matter can be settled with authority of a man of aspect refined and pantaloons that are big both in front and behind who has written a book in which he included what he saw and heard in his own land, including his statement that he’s seen a bride being promenaded while a lament for a woman was chanted before her? Does his refinement of aspect provide a basis for the acceptance of his report?” Responsum: “Reporting has nothing to do with refinement of aspect and his clothing cannot be taken as a basis for information on either the dead or the living, as witness the verse that states: