It is worth noting how several translators render the key word in the Qur'an's notorious verse sanctioning the beating of disobedient women (4:34), وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.
Pickthall: "and scourge them"
Yusuf Ali: "(And last) beat them (lightly)"
Al-Hilali/Khan: "(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"
Shakir: "and beat them"
Sher Ali: "and chastise them"
Khalifa: "then you may (as a last alternative) beat them"
Arberry: "and beat them"
Rodwell: "and scourge them"
Sale: "and chastise them"
Asad: "then beat them"
Dawood: "and beat them."
Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates it as "go away from them." However, in light of this unanimity among the translators, both Muslim and non-Muslim, this seems difficult to sustain - all of these authorities got the passage wrong until Bakhtiar? But her impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment. Muhammad Asad adduces numerous traditions in which Muhammad "forbade the beating of any woman," concluding that wife-beating is "barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided."
Unfortunately, however, this is not a unanimous view. Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his Qur'an commentary Ruhul Ma'ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: "if she refuses to beautify herself for him," if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and "if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse." Also, Muhammad's example is normative for Muslims, since he is an "excellent example of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21) - and Aisha reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?"
And now a questioner at Yahoo Answers asks a question that most don't know to ask and that few among those who do know dare to ask:
Why do non Arabic speaking Muslims try to delude themselves & others that 4:34 means 'leave" not beat?Quran 4:34 has historically been translated as hit, strike or beat, until modernity when Muslims became ashamed of Allah's perfect marital problem solving principles, so Yusuf Ali first added "lightly" after beat, then others went further & started claiming that it means "leave".
As the majority of Muslims globally are non Arabic speakers, and as most converts to Islam are keen to swallow all lies to save their faith, they managed to fool quite a few.
Here are examples of the word:
Verse: 8.50 Object: Human Faces
If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying): "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-Transliteration: Walaw tara ith yatawaffa allatheena kafaroo almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum waadbarahum wathooqoo AAathaba alhareeqi
Qur'an 8:50
yadriboona wujoohahum literally meaning "hit their faces," which is translated by Muslims as "beat their faces."Verse: 47.27 Object: Human Faces
But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs? Fakayfa itha tawaffat-humu almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum waadbarahumQur'an 47:27
yadriboona wujoohahum literally meaning "hit their faces." Also translated correctly by MuslimsComparing the two terms
Beat them and leave them are different phrases in Arabic. The arabic word idribohunna driven from the root word Darab does not have any other meaning than Beat when it comes to mean "Yadreb Ahadan" = Hit someone. Idriboohunna (أضربوهن) means beat them (for female plural). Adriboo Anhunna (اضربوا عنهن) is the one that means abandon or leave them. According to the Arabic lexiconArabic Transliteration Meaning
ضرب Zarb Beat
أضربوهن (used in 4:34) Idriboohunna Beat them
اضربوا عنهن Adriboo Anhunna abandon them, leave themQuran 4:34 says Idriboohunna أضربوهن, not Adribu Anhunna اضربوا عنهن. These two phrases have different meanings.
The vast majority of Muslims in the world don't speak Arabic, many converts to Islam don't learn sufficient Arabic first.
Why try to fool themselves that a circle is a square because this verse jeopardizes their faith?
Why not examine this verse & other unpleasant verses & then decide to take a courageous step of quitting?
I've always maintained that in a sane world, we infidels would have a political and educational infrastructure to facilitate apostasy from Islam as part of the global battle for "hearts and minds". But of course, it's not a sane world.
They have to lie about not just this verse but many others because they have no other answers. Islam cannot stand to be debated or criticized in the open and free forum of ideas.
It would seem to me that Quran translators must be very careful not to alter any of Allah's word, to add anything or to take anything away...To do so would be an insult to Allah.
It is an admission that Allah was wrong and needed to be corrected...
For a Mahoundian translator expecting to go to Allah's paradise, it is risky to insert his own ideas and change what Allah meant into what he means...The translator may think he can get away with adding words like 'lightly', but Allah is watching...
This is hardly the only embarrassing crap in the Quran. How about the go-ahead-and-rape texts from Allah that say Muslims are forbidden adultery unless the women/girl is your slave!? Or a female captive of battle? This is a religion of rape - probably one of the attractive selling points at the time.
And what about all the downright errors in the Koran? For example, in Sura 18 where Alexander the Great is said to have lived to an old age, which we know was not the case. He was born in 356 B.C. and died in Babylon in 323 B.C. when he was thirty-two or thirty-three. Or Ezra being described in Sura 9 as the Messiah and Son of God as Jews understood things, which again is just not so. And in Sura 5 where the Trinity is said to be looked upon by Christians as the Father, Mother and Son. These are just plain, flat-out errors that one would think would completely discredit the Koran as the infallible word of Allah. How do Muslims explain this nonsense, let alone all the vile things in the Koran like the hitting of women, as mentioned in this thread?
As Laleh Bakhtiar has decided to alter the original meaning of this text, it would be interesting to know if she has done this to any other part of the Qur'an.
In fact, it would be interesting to know if there is an emerging pattern in Islamic translations of religious texts over the years that reveals an attempt to play down the overwhelmingly violent aspect of this 'religion'.
Sanatising Islam would show an awareness in the Islamic world that it is under the spotlight and can no longer make false statements with impunity.
Islam apologists often like to tell us that we need to look to the "context" of a verse to determine its most accurate meaning. The alleged contexts of the Quran's verses are found in the Hadith and the Sira. The Hadith, in connection with verse 4:34, indicate that the man is permitted to beat his wives "lightly," though this seems to be a relative and subjective term. Yet, as Robert notes above, Muhammad hit Ayesha, the child-bride, hard enough to cause her pain. This gives us some idea of what is meant by "lightly," i.e., the hit can be hard enough to cause pain. The Hadith further elaborate that the man is not allowed to hit the woman hard enough to cause bruising and is not allowed to hit her on the face. But this same source adds that Muhammad said that "A man will not be asked why he beat his wife."
If any Islamic apologists are reading this and can provide any instances where a Muslim man has been punished according to sharia for using excessive force in beating his wife, that would be appreciated.
According to the Hadith and Sira, slave girls under the possession of a Muslim master can be subjected to violent beatings and floggings. (In the Sira, Ali, in Muhammad's presence, reportedly gave a "violent beating" to a slave girl, and there was no word of protest from Muhammad or "Allah"). One hadith (in Sahih Bukhari) orders the Muslim man to whip his slave girl repeatedly if she has engaged in sexual behavior that is contrary to the rules and regulations of Islam. If she persists in the misconduct even after the floggings, Muhammad said then to "Sell her even for a hair rope."
One commenter at the Yahoo! question says the word "...means Hit, it does not mean Beat. Just hit lightely, not hard."
So, I guess to that muslim "hitting" is okay, while "beating" is wrong...?
Hopefully someone will post RS's other examples where the same word is translated as "beat" when it refers to "Unbelievers" as opposed to "wives".
Re: last, I should have typed "Hopefully someone will *point out* the other examples...' not post, as they were a part of the question posed.
Sorry!
Anyone who reads Arabic and follows the Arabic media knows that the verb DARABA used in 4:34 is a very commonly used word. Following are some examples:
Israeli helicopter gunships DARABA the house of a Hamas militant, leveling it and killing everyone inside.
American F18 fighter aircraft DARABA an Al-Qaidah safehouse by dropping a 500 ton bomb on it.
"Lightly tap" or "turn away" just won't quite do.
Taqiyya. If we eliminate, abrogate or reinterpret the toxic verses in the Muham source material we still have spiritual turds with little or no social value. It would be interesting to see all this deception, aggression and dedication devoted to peace, love, tolerance and harmony with all.
See, this is the great thing about sites like Faith Freedom International, Islam Watch, Jihad Watch. Formerly uninformed people now learn in great numbers of this and other faults, flaws, shortcomings or controversial teachings/ sayings in the Quran and Hadith.
And some Muslims can, in response, in part or even totally reject the Hadith, but they are supposed to believe in the Quran as "perfect", the "unalterable word from God".
I believe Quran 4;34 sticks in the throat of many Muslims who are aware how this looks to outsiders, potential converts and even young Muslima's when they hear it in this day and age. I believe this text is a great embarrassment for Muslima's, especially those that converted into Islam.
In the past, many Muslima's may have heard this verse as a justification of their husbands beating them, this probably still happens in backward places. But, knowing they are monitored, Muslims now try to behave better, and wiggle out from under this problematic perfect holy text.
Maybe Laleh Bakhtiar can't read Arabic. Of course, Muhammed couldn't either.
How do Muslims explain this nonsense
By saying they are not errors. Islam is the original, which the unbelievers perverted.
I believe Quran 4;34 sticks in the throat of many Muslims who are aware how this looks to outsiders, potential converts and even young Muslima's when they hear it in this day and age.
Why would it stick in their throat? Isn't the Quran the word of Allah, and therefore perfect? Doesn't obeying Allah make them the best of people? It seems to me Muslims should be proud to obey Quran 4:34, the same way they obey 9:5. If they are not, that suggests they feel guilty about it. Odd, since guilt is something that Muslims often externalize onto others.
Buraq makes an interesting comment to possible changes to original meanings of the Arabic into other languages to hide the true meanings.
Firstly, the Koran is only Allah's word in Arabic - there is no restriction on changing meanings in translations as they are only "interpretations".
Secondly, it is a common practice to hide clear statements that may be embarrassing to Islam's image or teachings:
1."daraba" which clearly means "beat" and is in common usage as such. As an Arabic speaker it is ridiculous to suggest daraba means anything else.
2. Surah 3:55 states emphatically that Allah says to Jesus "inni mutawaffika" ie "certainly I put you to death" yet many of their translators use the expression "moved you out of the way" to hide the fact that Jesus actually died (see also Surah 5:117).
Such perversions in their translations is part of the propaganda to bring a false image of a false religion to a humanity more willing to believe the false than the truth!
Demsci wrote:
In the past, many Muslima's may have heard this verse as a justification of their husbands beating them, this probably still happens in backward places. But, knowing they are monitored, Muslims now try to behave better, and wiggle out from under this problematic perfect holy text.
.................................
Oh, Demsci—would that that was true! If I truly believed that a "revised" Qu'ran was likely to improve the behavior of Muslims, then—even though I am a stickler for scholarly and historical accuracy, as a rule—I would be all for it!
But I have seen no indication that Muslims are leaving behind the uglier aspects of their religion. In fact, far from it. Many countries and regions that used to be more "moderate"—that is, *less Islamic* in their Islam—are now embracing the unadulterated version—with unfettered violence against non-Muslims, against women, and against children.
more, from above:
Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates it as "go away from them." However, in light of this unanimity among the translators, both Muslim and non-Muslim, this seems difficult to sustain - all of these authorities got the passage wrong until Bakhtiar? But her impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment.
.................................
Perhaps Laleh Baktiar is "embarrassed" by this verse—I'm sure many more decent Muslims are. But for many, I imagine the only discomfort with this line is that it will upset *non-Muslims*—meaning fewer may convert to Islam, and that critics of Islam have another thing to be—well—critical of.
It behooves Muslims, at this stage of the game, at least in the West—to present Islam in as non-threatening a manner as possible. Later, when they—as they hope—have gained a majority, or have imposed Shari'ah on the populace, the time for such subterfuge will be over.
This does not mean that I assume this is the intention of Laleh Baktiar—but her work will likely be useful for this nonetheless. Her work specifically "seeks to bridge understanding between non-Muslims and Muslims".
And one way she does this is through bowlderdized translations. For instance, she translates kāfirūn as "those who are ungrateful" instead of the common translations "unbelievers" or "infidels." The English words "God" and "Mary" are used instead of the Arabic Allāh and Maryam. Bakhtiar believes these translations *will not push non-Muslims away from Islam*. In other words, her "translations" are a form of Da'wa.
She has also stopped wearing the hijab—but not because it is a symbol of oppression. She thinks that in America it does not promote the goal of 'modesty' but attracts too much negative attention.
By the way, Laleh Baktiar, even though she is Iranian-American, was not born a Muslim, but converted when she married her Muslim husband.
Laleh Baktiar is all about making Islam palatable for Westerners.
This doesn't mean she is appreciated by all of her co-religionists, though—she is criticized for her poor knowledge of Arabic (she often relies on Arabic-English dictionaries). In addition, many Muslims are upset that an American woman has undertaken the translation of the Qu'ran at all.
Abcedere said: "Maybe Laleh Bakhtiar can't read Arabic. Of course, Muhammed couldn't either"
Her name looked Persian to me so I looked it up. Her biography is here
http://www.sublimequran.org/index.php/bio/
Raised by a single mother (American), absent Father (never met him), didn't know Farsi at all and sent to Catholic school growing up.
She traveled to Iran when she was an adult and finally met her father. Ah heck, she's a psychological study - missing father, tries to connect with him and finds the beauty (gag)of Islam.
BTW, I'm really sure that Muslim men all over the world will now stop beating their wives. /sarc
Muslims could simply claim that those Qur'anic verses were inserted by the joooooooooooooooooooooooz.
But if 'beating' is not aiming to make someone feel pain so, why to exist? Why to mention it? For doing some ritualistic reminding of guilt, taking a rope and pretending beating? As much you further go to such interpratations on this passage so more you slip to laughable conditions... The only spontainous, simple and logical understanding of such a passage is just what is says at is face value... 'Beat them', it is so simple. And, beside, in such a context as the one of Islamic worldview where there are "just" wars, conquests, slaveries, so harsh punishments etc why to confront such a 'detail' with such astonishment...
This new translation of the Qur'an appears to be a case of "Qur'an-Lite". Useful for attracting the gullible and for convincing the apologists of the "religion of peace" that it is benign.
Presumably, and only when they are considered ready, adherents are then given access to the Qur'an in its full-strength version?
Unfortunately, the Jihadists are already fully immersed in the latter.
The book is already available in the UK, although the publisher's name (Kazi Publications) is somewhat unfortunate. "Kazi" is a slang term for "toilet" which is, perhaps, an indication of the appropriate usage of the book.
Too true. This and the same kind bullshit you find in the Bible are why we need to get rid of all religion. All that voodoo hocus-pocus about ghosts and gods shackles the human spirit. Case in point: all those retards in Haiti who are saying it was Jesus or God's will for this or that survivor to be pulled form the rubble alive after however many days, while ignoring the fact that under their view it was God's will for the earthquake to happen in the first place, which means that anyone who survived did so in spite of God's best efforts to kill them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr-vt2DTCFw&feature=related
Too true. This and the same kind bullshit you find in the Bible are why we need to get rid of all religion. All that voodoo hocus-pocus about ghosts and gods shackles the human spirit. Case in point: all those retards in Haiti who are saying it was Jesus or God's will for this or that survivor to be pulled form the rubble alive after however many days, while ignoring the fact that under their view it was God's will for the earthquake to happen in the first place, which means that anyone who survived did so in spite of God's best efforts to kill them.
Economicus:
Nietzche: 'God is Dead'
God: 'Nietzche is Dead'
You said: "This and the same kind bullshit you find in the Bible are why we need to get rid of all religion".
Actually, the Bible - unlike the Qur'an - *doesn't* tell men that they can beat their wives.
I am familiar with the entirety of the Old Testament, or Hebrew scriptures, and with the New, or Christian scriptures.
Nowhere, not even in the most archaic and ancient portions of the Hebrew scriptures, is there *anything* equivalent to Quran 4: 34; nowhere in the Bible are husbands commanded or encouraged or permitted to beat their wives, and although we are told that Sarah beat her handmaid Hagar, Abraham did not lay violent hands on either Sarah *or* Hagar; nowhere in the historical portions of scripture do we see husbands beating or hitting wives.
Whereas, as Mr Spencer, above, has told us, according to the canonical Muslim accounts of Mohammed, Mohammed hit his child-wife Aisha on at least one occasion.
No it's worse than that!
You are urged to kill your wife on your wedding night if she is not a virgin!
"
"that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you,"
Must marry your rapist!:
" If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Ahh yes, the bible sure does exalt and respect women, doesn't it? ;)
Stublore
you are citing the most archaic portion of the Hebrew Scriptures. Can you give an example of even the most devotedly Orthodox Jewish community, today, literally carrying out those laws or stating an intention of so doing?
Two points.
1. Gentile Christians are *not required* to become Jews, that is, to observe to the letter all the civil and ceremonial laws of the ancient Hebrew polity. The first followers of Yeshua, who were all Jews by birth and upbringing, formally decided and stated as much - see the Book of Acts. Gentile Christians were simply advised to refrain from 'fornication' - that is, from indiscriminate, lawless, self-destructive and other-destructive sexual misbehaviour. No specifics were gone into, and NO punishments prescribed or even suggested (possibly, something like what the Amish call 'shunning' might be resorted to, for inveterate and defiant wrongdoers within the community). Nowhere in the teaching of Jesus nor in the pastoral letters of Paul, James, Peter or John are Christians told to kill non-virgin wives nor to force women to marry the man who has raped them.
2. Please cite, from the historical portions of the Hebrew scriptures, specific examples of these laws being put into operation.
The only two Biblically-described rape cases I know of - one of which, the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah by the non-Hebrew prince of Shechem, *precedes* in time the giving of the Law, in any case - are not resolved by resorting to the rules you cited.
Dinah's brothers treat her as an innocent victim and exact vengeance upon the rapist and his society. One may not like what they did...but it should be noted that, over a millennium before Mohammed, unlike many a modern Mohammedan Muslim Simeon and Levi *do not blame their sister* and they *do not carry out an 'honor' murder*. Dinah is seen as the injured party, and avenged.
In the other case, Tamar David's daughter is raped by her half-brother *in the royal palace*. Her full brother, to whom she confides the story, takes it for granted that she is the innocent and injured party (as does the narrator recording the story), and kills the rapist, his half-brother. Tamar goes unpunished and is looked after by her full brother. The whole thing never comes before the priests or the king.
All very barbaric and primitive, doubtless; but much less barbaric than those Mohammedans today who *blame the rape victim and stone her to death, or honor murder her*.
More homework: do some research and find out when and where there is any documented historic record - between, say BC 300 and AD 1600 - of a Jewish community having carried out these laws to the letter.
You have not disproven my own stated point: that neither the Hebrew nor the Christian scriptures command or approve nor even *record a historic example* of wife-beating.
The one Danish translation I have - I could find no on-line translation, it is a minor language - is a new one and translates the verb in 4:34 to mean nothing other than "hit" or "beat".
This is also the Quran referred to by several Danish Muslim sites.