Does this mean headchoping will translate into "A close shave?"

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 3:45 PM

Once one word is 're-interpreted', others can follow. If she is allowed this interpretation, the entire Quran can be re-written in a short time. Change a word here and a comma there, and soon you have a new Quran. I dont think Allah will like this.
Maybe he will let a woman slide with this transgression...but I doubt it...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 23, 2007 4:03 PM

The true death knell for Islam has arrived!!! A 'PC' version of Islam, woohoo!! The PCification of Islam has begun. You give us holy war, we give you monkey for your back!!

Posted by: Penfold at March 23, 2007 4:03 PM

Isnt the word of Allah absolute? Can the Qur'an be changed or not? Its good that she is trying but is it actually allowed in the Islamic death cult?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 4:18 PM

How long before this is haram? We should start a pool (in hours). My bet... 36 hours.

Posted by: MP at March 23, 2007 4:19 PM

Good on ya Penfold. Now if we could only get a Danish cartoonist to illustrate Mo with a monkey riding him like a cheap suit.

Posted by: MP at March 23, 2007 4:22 PM

Haram indeed!! The last time the gates were open for reinterpreting the Qur'an was back around 1196, no? As they say in Japan, rotsa ruck!
Spinoneone

Posted by: spinoneone at March 23, 2007 4:28 PM

While I have advocated to our leaders programs to make Islam a feminist cause of Islamic women to reform it, my first thought about this Dr. Bakhtiar as she has now just given Islam the right to murder one's wife.

To change for "to beat" to "to go away", what do you think Islam will take that to mean, but make your wife go permanently away as in death since she has voided the marriage contract, ridiculed God's laws in "to go away" and brought shame upon her family.

This is the same group involved in ritual killing of young women in unproven rape cases.

Conclusion, this doc picked the wrong fuel as all she has done is given license to Islam for a greater brutality and the excuse now of "beating is not so bad" as my imam says I should just kill the ole gal.

Does she even realize how many women are going to be backhanded tonight when they bring this up to their husbands? These are the same Philistine, Afghani and Iraqi immigrants whose husbands work all day and the women are not allowed to go outside, so they sit in apartments all day in captivity.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 23, 2007 4:30 PM

I DONT wish her well with her wishful thinking. Islam has enough fuzzy-heads. These fancies and whimsicalities might amuse her but it will be one more means of denial for NON Muslims to put themselves back to sleep. It will certainly never mean a damn thing to the bearded old 'wisemen' at Al Azhar or any average Muslim young man with a 'sassy' wife who needs a good dose of 'Dat Ole Time Religion' where it hurts.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 23, 2007 4:38 PM

Speaking of re-interpretation and reforms, I hope that it's not true what is said at Lawrence Auster's site, that Robert Spencer has allegedly said on William Bennett’s radio program that he’s "optimistic" that Islam can be reformed. It would be a huge disappointment if this represents what Spencer has said, as it would mean that Spencer is himself an Islam apologist.

Posted by: anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:41 PM

Anonymous:

After being vilified on a regular basis as an "Islamophobe" (a spurious, politically manipulative recent coinage), I find it rather bizarre that Lawrence Auster would, if what you say is true, be trying to portray me as an Islamic apologist -- but it would hardly be the first time he has spread falsehoods about my positions.

It is not so much that he misrepresents them intentionally, although he has refused my requests to publish retractions or even clarifications; what happens is that he reads something I write, interprets it in a particular way, and assumes that his interpretation is correct, no matter what. I have seen him do this with others, such that he even claimed -- repeatedly -- that Hirsi Ali has no problem with Sharia if it is instituted peacefully. This, of course, contradicts much of what she has said elsewhere, and it was all based on his forced misreading of one sentence fragment in one interview.

I did not say on the Bennett Show or anywhere else that I was "optimistic" about the prospects for Islamic reform. I have written otherwise quite extensively many times at Jihad Watch and in my books. In fact, on the show this morning I explained why Islamic reform faced monumental obstacles. Anyone listening with any attention would have realized that I was just the opposite of optimistic.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 23, 2007 4:46 PM

I am glad to hear from Robert Spencer himself that he has not said what has been stated on Lawrence Auster's site (although I must object to Spencer's general characterization of Auster, but that, I suppose, is another discussion).

For those of us who have not heard the radio program in question and who are therefore curious to learn about Spencer's position on the issue, it would be interesting to get Spencer to elaborate on his position regarding the potential for reform in Islam.

Posted by: anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:54 PM

Anonymous:

You might be interested in referring to Auster's recent outlandish misreading of the passages on Islam from the documents of the Second Vatican Council. It was sent to me by a friend who noted that even his readers have caught his misreadings in this case. It was the same thing he has done to me, Hirsi Ali, and others.

As for reform in Islam, my position on it is no secret. I have written about it quite extensively here. I invite you to search the archives.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 23, 2007 4:58 PM

I've just checked on this. The Arabic says 'iDribuhunna' (اضربوهن). 'Beat them.' According to my Hans Wehr dictionary Daraba in the sense 'leave, depart from' requires the preposition 3an (عن). This would give 'iDribuu 3anhunna' (اضربو عنهن), I presume. Perhaps Daraba can take a direct object in the sense 'leave, depart from.' If so it is rare and not recorded in what is considered the best Arabic-English dictionary. So I think this is unlikely. Still death threats, even when the expedient of simply pointing out the grammatical impossibility of this interpretation is available, would fit in well with some muslims feel they can win an argument.
Incidentally, my parallel text Arabic German Qur'an adds the 'helpful' note that this beating is only to be carried out 'auf symbolische Weise' - 'symbolically,' in order to save a seriously threatened marriage. I don't see this in the text. Perhaps Allah forgot to mention it. Or are there ahadeeth that support this, in addition to ahadeeth which discourage wife beating? That is a different thing. That is saying it is allowed, but discouraged, like one may own slaves, but freeing them is a righteous act.

Posted by: kevin at March 23, 2007 5:00 PM

Tart it up,re-interpret,re-invent etc-nothing can change the wicked,unsavory character of its founder 'Murderous Mo.'My opinion for what's it worth-is SCRAP ISLAM ALTOGETHER AND SAVE THE WORLD[ESPECIALLY WOMEN & GIRLS] MUCH MISERY.

Posted by: Morgane at March 23, 2007 5:03 PM

Whoa, at last I can be proud, that some Polish journalists are going to consult Mr.Spencer on Islamic matters.

But "Dziennik" is not the biggest newspaper in Poland. The biggest one is "Gazeta Wyborcza", owned by "Agora S.A." (apprx. 600.000 copies in circulation), newspaper known for liberal/left bias (but at least they are denoucing Islamists from time to time): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazeta_Wyborcza

"Dziennik" has only a quater of million copies in circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dziennik), and is subsidiary of Axel Springer Corporation.

Posted by: DoktorNo at March 23, 2007 5:03 PM

I think any attempt at reform of Islam is to be admired for the brave act that it is, but like most here I also hold little hope for such ever being successful short of at the point of a gun.

I want to make a brief announcement here for all my fellow JW commentators, old and new -- I've finally put together a Forum and I invite all to make use of it, if and when you wish. Feel free to contribute ideas there for appropriate expansion of the forum groups themselves as things are just in their infancy.

Foehammer Network Forum Now Open

Who knows -- perhaps one new forum should be "Islamic Reformation".

Posted by: Foehammer at March 23, 2007 5:04 PM

DoktorNo:

They told me they were biggest. I didn't check up on them.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 23, 2007 5:05 PM

While I am happy that somebody is working hard to moderate the excesses of this passage of the Qur'an, it is still depressing when one realizes that it is a change in degree, not substance. The woman is still treated unequally, if in fact she can unilaterally be told to "go away" instead of beaten. This is not how one adult deals with another. And then one can expect that even this rather pathetic moderation will be bitterly contested by some scowling authority, sporting a beard most likely, who will make some pronouncement on the un-Islamic nature of such an interpretation. Un-Islamic given that the age of Qur'anic interpretation has long passed away.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 23, 2007 5:07 PM

State ballot initiatives could be used to direct what the state will teach children about Islam, 9-11, immigration, or other issues.

These could specify it or specify who would approve it or develop the materials.

The same could apply at state colleges.

Virgil Goode Right: Stop Muslim Immigration

Posted by: Old Atlantic at March 23, 2007 5:10 PM

Qualifications of a Mujtahid
A Mujtahid is an Islamic scholar, competent independently to interpret divine law in practical situations using Ijtihad, or independent thought. In some, but not all, Islamic traditions, a Mujtahid can specialise in a branch of Sharia - economic or family law for example.

The qualifications for a mujtahid were set out by Abu’l Husayn al-Basri (died 467 AH / 1083 CE ) in “al Mu’tamad fi Usul al-Fiqh” and accepted by later Sunni scholars, including al-Ghazali. These qualifications can be summed up as (i) an understanding of the objectives of the Sharia and (ii) a knowledge of its sources and methods of deduction. They include:

a competence in the Arabic language which allows him to have a correct understanding of the Koran . That is, he must appreciate the subtleties of the language so as to be able to draw accurate deductions from the “clear and un-crooked Arabic” of this infallible source, and that of the Sunnah .

an adequate knowledge of the Meccan and Medinese contents of the Koran, the events surrounding their revelation and the incidences of abrogation (suspending or repealing a ruling) revealed therein. He must be fully acquainted with its legal contents (the “ayat al-ahkam”) - some 500 verses, according to al-Ghazali. He need not have a detailed knowledge the narratives and parables, nor of the sections relating to the hereafter, but he must be able to use these to infer a legal rule. He needs to acquainted with all the classical commentaries on the “ayat al-ahkam”, especially the views of the Companions of the Prophet .

an adequate knowledge of the Sunnah, especially those related to his specialisation. He needs to know the relative reliability of the narrators of the Hadith, and be able to distinguish between the reliable from the weak. He needs to have a thorough knowledge of incidences of abrogation, distinguish between the general and specific, the absolute and the qualified. One estimate (by Ahmad ibn Hanbal ) suggests that 1,200 hadith need to be known.

he should be able to verifiy the consensus ijma of the Companions of the Prophet, the Successors and the leading Imams and Mujtahidim of the past, especially with regard to his specialisation. Complementary to this, he should be familiar with the issues on which there is no consensus.

he should have a thorough knowledge of the the rules and procedures for reasoning by analogy (qiyas) so he can apply revealed law to an unprecedented case.

he should understand the revealed purposes of Sharia, which relate to considerations of public interest, including the Five Pillars protection of life, religion, intellect, lineage and property. He should also understand the general maxims for the interpretation of Sharia, which include the removal of hardship, that certainty must prevail over doubt, and the achievement of a balance between unnecessary rigidity and a too free an interpretation.

he must practice what he preaches, that is he must be an upright person whose judgement people can trust.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 23, 2007 5:43 PM

How long before this is haram? We should start a pool (in hours). My bet... 36 hours.

It'll be a cold day in halal before...

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 23, 2007 6:07 PM

good luck laleh. You need it.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at March 23, 2007 6:40 PM

Reminds me of the interpretation of "White grapes" not "virgins". Apparently the Aramaeic for both is "hur", differentiated by a dash above one of the letters. That fact, combined with the fact that the Quran was only written after Muhammaeds death, compiled from notes made and chinese whispers, suggests to me that the book isn't the word of God but a humanly fallible book just like any other.

Posted by: confusedinpreston at March 23, 2007 7:13 PM

I have a problem with this ... not with this remarkable lady, of course ... but with the tack she's taking.

It's not going to work. Retranslating the Qur'an and choosing your words carefully is not the same thing as overturning the thinking that says a man can rule and punish a woman as he pleases.

The very concept is unacceptable. Either human beings are of equal value and equal autonomy or they are not.

The Qur'an is chock full of 7th century thinking, with all its repressive bigotry, and toying a verse or two is meaningly.

The only meaningful reform is Islam will come when all of the verses of the Qur'an are examined and rejected if they are lacking in equality at all. That would mean:

Half the Qur'an and all the hadith would be invalidated. What would remain would be the Transcendental Qur'an -- only those verses which talk about universal spiritual truth. And there's enough there -- and frankly most moderates are living by that part now.

But there would be a huge fight. And it would a schism, not a reform. But that's what is needed.

Meanwhile, these efforts do bear some fruit, which is why I support them. There are two concepts in the Qur'an that have been used to overturn zina death sentences in darkest Islamist Africa already, and that is a powerful notion. These cases have been won in shari'a court against shari'a judges. So there are some powerful arguments for women to make using Qur'anic verses, and frankly it's the only thing being allowed in shari'a courts, so ... more power to them.

But the real solution that will bring humanity peace will be schism, and it it will not be easy. In fact, it may be one of the hardest times the world has ever seen.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 23, 2007 7:34 PM

Q: What do you call a female Qu’ran reformer with two black eyes?

A: Hard of hearing and lucky to still have a head.

Pakistan ain’t the University of Chicago.

Posted by: pez at March 23, 2007 7:47 PM

"In it, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, formerly of the University of Chicago, offers an alternative translation of Qur'an 4:34, the notorious "wife-beating verse."

Sounds like a noble effort, but delusional. Does she think all she has to do is change a few verses in the Qur'an to make Islam more user friendly.

Does she plan on rewriting the hadieth, purging it of all references to the dysfunctional lifestyle of the "Prophet?"

How is she going to deal with Mohammad's looting and murders?

Revising the meaning of wife-beating is kids stuff compared to all the other revisions she'll have to make.

Posted by: rational at March 23, 2007 7:56 PM

I don't hold a candle for Islam, but dishonest scholarship is still dishonest scholarship. Dr. Bakhtiar seems to be one of these figures who can flourish only when the study of history is a form of creative forgetfulness and literary study is a matter of making things say the opposite of what they plainly mean.

Posted by: Kepha at March 23, 2007 9:29 PM

NEW TRANSLATION OF QUR'AAN

We welcome the additional knowledge Laleh Bakhtiar would be adding to the understanding of Qur'aan. Indeed, over the last 5 years, we have a total of 15 translations now.

Hope this will give the reader, a range of understanding of each verse. It will be on our website within a month.

An article on wife-beating, never explained well is coming up.

Mike Ghouse
www.FoundationforPluralism.com
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com
www.MikeGhouse.blogspot.com

Posted by: Mike Ghouse at March 24, 2007 12:46 AM

Mike Ghouse

Why is wife beating so common in all Islamic countries? Is it because Pickthall or Hilali-Khan did such a lousy job in the translation? What about in Pakistan and Islamic bustees in India - has the Quran been that badly translated into Urdu (since most Muslims in the sub-continent don't speak Angrezi)? What about in Iran, just as Zoroastrians were converted to Islam, the original Persian script was replaced by Arabic - did they have so much trouble translating from Arabic to Persian? And what about in the Arab countries themselves, where these things take place - do the Saudis, for instance, make the mistake of using Hilali-Khan instead of Yusuf Ali?

At least Haidon and his group is contemplating new tafsirs, which would re-interpret the whole thing. You are trying to re-spin what it means in English (and probably other Infidel languages), while doing squat in the languages where it does the most damage, namely Arabic (in the 20+ Arabic speaking countries), Urdu (Pakistan and India), Pashtu, Farsi...

Instead of explaining these verses to us, who don't live them daily, explain them to the wife-beating members of the ummah (in their languages - Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Pashtu, et al), who practice that regularly, and point out how unIslamic their behavior is. No point preaching that to us here.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 24, 2007 1:47 AM

Rewrite part of the Qur'an?Formidable obstacle indeed.
"in 1400 years of Qur'anic exegesis by Muslims, no one of any significance has ever disputed that Qur'an 4:34 sanctioned wife-beating."
This appears to apply to the sanctioned violent jihad as well.
As the extremist views continue spreading within Islam without dispute among many Muslims, more infidels will understand that these views are the true representation of Islamic texts.
It is quite obvious that any person choosing to follow true Islam faithfully cannot possibly melt into the populace of a freedom-loving country.
I believe Thomas Jefferson knew this, and find it troubling that a Muslim took the oath of office in the House of Representatives using the very Qur'an Jefferson studied.
We need to declare this unwanted ideology incompatible with US law and act accordingly.No dispute with the Qur'an can be won.I cannot see any possibility of a "Western type of Islam" movement. By it's very nature it would be subject to apostasy charges, so such an effort could not succeed.
We need to force this issue right to the front of every news avenue and confront the menace head-on.

Posted by: HawkWatcher at March 24, 2007 7:52 AM

They can change the words around, redefine them,
pretty them up for the PC liberals.
However islam is a turd and we all know that you can't polish a turd !

Posted by: apostate_islam at March 24, 2007 2:13 PM