Asra Nomani responded to my article with the following message:
Dear Friends,
Thanks for the time that you spent discussing the ideas that I’ve presented in my writings. I see that there are many differences of opinion with readers of this site, but, nonetheless, I appreciate the conversation.
It’s interesting to me how often readers of this site use the term “whore” to describe me, and I’m sorry that so many of you feel such anger. I understand that many of these issues from religion to intimacy are sensitive ones.
I would gently say to you that many of the assumptions that are made here are, I understand, an effort by some folks to make sense of ideas with which you don’t agree. Sometimes the truth is a lot less sensational. I’m not self-hating. I’m not gaining riches, and, as a journalist, I can tell you that the “fame” of a TV appearance here or there is most certainly fleeting.
I sincerely care about how Islam expresses itself in the world, and I care about our world. We may differ in opinion, but I would also gently suggest to you that, while anger and insults may be an authentic expression of your frustration, I do wish for all of us a day when we can be in more civil conversation.
If anyone would like to personally write to me, I invite you to do so at asra(a)asranomani.com.
Otherwise, I wish all of you well.
Warmly, Asra
My response is follows:
Dear Ms. Nomani,
You are certainly correct in stating that “civil conversation” is important. However, I’d like to raise a few points with regard to this:
1) It should be understood that this is the internet, and people tend to “say” things with less inhibitions than they would in the “real” world. I myself have been called horrendous things on the internet. Hence, the “colorful” language in the comments section needs to be understood in this context and as a product of this phenomenon. I did not–and neither did any LoonWatch writer–refer to you as a “whore”. Neither do we endorse such language. As a progressive, I cannot condone the use of such a misogynistic word that is often hurled at women. As for the few Muslim users who used this term, they ought to be reminded that in their faith the levying of such a charge is considered strictly prohibited (see Quran, 24:23).
2) At the same time, I suspect that you will transform this into another piece of evidence against “the Muslims”, as if Muslims alone hurl such insults. Yet, female personalities of all creeds are routinely called “whores” by random people (ever seen the comments on YouTube!?). This is very unfortunate, but it is not a Muslim-specific issue. But I’m sure you will make this all part of your anti-Muslim paradigm. You might also feel the urge to boast about the insults you have received here, as you did with the “Uncle Tom” label in your article on profiling, and as Robert Spencer (your fan and loyal supporter) does with the e-death threat he supposedly received on some random forum (he put the quote on the cover of his book, just as the Uncle Tom quote was highlighted in your article).
3) My own article was not nearly as “courteous” as your reply was. But let’s be real for a second: my reply was at least more honest. Your reply, on the other hand, is disingenuous (and as lame as Mr. Rogers). “Dear Friends.” Are we really your friends? “Thanks for the time you spent discussing the ideas that I’ve presented in my writings.” Am I to believe you are actually thankful for the article we wrote about/against you? C’mon, can’t we be real for a second? We’ve accused you in our article of being a fake, not the real thing…and here you reply exactly that way: in a fake way. You certainly could have responded in a courteous manner without being so blatantly fake, but I guess fake comes easier to some people than others.
4) You said: “Sometimes the truth is a lot less sensational.” Ahhh, if only you yourself understood this point. You (and the right-wing loons who agree with you) sensationalize everything about Muslims and Islam. Instead of having serious and nuanced discussion about Muslims and Islam, you engage in sensationalism and fear-mongering.
5) While it may be commendable to respond with courtesy (although in your case I think it is simply an act), it should be noted that some very vile people make sure to respond to critics courteously. For example, David Duke oftentimes sounds like an absolute gentleman, but his ideas are vile. Even Robert Spencer attempts to portray himself in this way. It is not simply the way in which a person responds that matters, but more importantly what they believe and say. In your case, your ideas are horrendous, not the manner in which you deliver them. You are not the “liberal and progressive” you pretend to be; you are a right-winger just like the people who you admire and/or who admire you, including Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, etc.
6) On that note, you should be proud that the anti-Muslim website BareNakedIslam has come to your swift defense. That vitriolic website responded with a post entitled LEFT WING LOONIES hating on a Muslim woman who most Americans would love. They praise you as “a one in a billion Muslim author.” On the very same page, they are selling shirts saying “War on Terror Islam” and “Infidel” and links saying stuff like “Islam’s Rules for Having Sex with Animals”, etc. The site boasts a logo that reads “Proud Right Wing Extremist.” If you are really a “liberal and progressive” Muslim as you pretend, then why is a “proud right wing extremist” infatuated with you? You are in fact honored on their page entitled Pro-America Muslims, with such ex-Muslim luminaries as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc. Why care what we at LoonWatch think about you when you have such a great fan base at BareNakedIslam and JihadWatch?
7) You have offered the opportunity for readers to write personally to you via email. This makes it appear as though you are one who is willing to discuss your views. Yet, your response is completely devoid of substance. You have not responded to a single one of my arguments. If you think that my article is not worthy of response, then why go through the charade of offering to respond to people privately? Surely if you have the time to respond to people individually, you then should have the time to respond to our site. Once again, this is all mere posturing.
You seem to enjoy being interviewed on the “Fair and Balanced” Fox “News” channel. Why not speak with us and actually field some critical questions for once?
Warmly, Lovingly, and Cherishingly,
Danios.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:50 am
I may also point out to Ms. Nomani that she was called a “media whore”, not a “whore”. While I would not use such and expression, the connotation is vastly different.
It may not be the kindest thing to say, but t is disingenuous to suggest that people were attacking you as a person who is employed in the sex trade. It was quite clear what people we’re attacking you for: your craven thirst for media attention, even if it means selling your own people down the river.
Of course, you knew that, but it doesn’t fit well with the image you’re trying to build as being a poor little victim of mean, nasty opponents.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:56 am
My bad…Ms. Nomani was also called an “attention whore”… but that’s the same thing. It isn’t an attack on her sexuality, but on her selling out for attention.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:59 am
Well, she offered to debate so why not do it? If not due to time constraints or whatever, I’ll step up and do it.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:10 am
Dear Miss Nomani:
Atleast loonwatch is honest.
They don’t team up with individuals who want to put YOUR family and friends in concentration camps, Ms. Nomani.
Unlike you, Loonwatch doesn’t support people who would take your son and take away his rights for being a muslim.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:22 am
I’m the one that referred to her as an attention whore, since as Daniel stated, she is desperate for attention.
There are plenty of other “liberal Muslims” who won’t sell out to Islamophobes so she’s a unique case obviously.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:50 am
The term media whore equally applies to men as I’m sure Nomani knows. Weak strawman is weak.
December 9th, 2010 at 3:29 am
Well said.
There are a lot of scholars and media personalities who might not be fans of traditional Islam(although the religous tradition is hardly monolithic), nor of the Muslim community(although again, it’s not monolithic)…but atleast they’re SINCERE. Ms. Nomani is THOROUGHLY disingenuous.
For example, she portrays a ceremony for young children in South Asian Muslim cultures as a manifestation of Islamic brainwashing to indocrinate little girls into subservient marriages within the Muslim community.
Please spare me. I’m not even South Asian, I’m Afghan, but I have enough South Asian friends to know she was talking about the very common “Bismillah” ceremony South Asian Muslims hold to commemorate the first time their children read the Qoran. Something young boys also celebrate. A ceremony on par with Catholic First Communion or a Bar Mitzvah… ceremonies no one who is sincere or sane would equate with marital indoctrination simply because the kids involved wear their best clothes on the given day.
Equating that to and using it as an introduction to brainwashing and cultural constraints in regards to Muslim marriage is highly ignorant of her own culture at best, or a completely disingenuous lie to appeal to gullible non-South Asians or Westerners at worst…or simply pandering to the worst bigoted or racist elements worse still.
In either case, if she can’t even get something like that right or present it accurately, how am I supposed to believe in her sincerity to speak about a much more complex topic such as Islam or Muslims?
Keep up the good work Loonwatch!
December 9th, 2010 at 5:11 am
Heh, funny, because somebody (forgot who) on LW just did this… taking the word “whore” from “media/attention whore” and saying we were calling them a prostitute. And she just pulled that card. Oh well.
I’m sure Nomani must have noticed this, but we at LW are relatively more progressive than the “uncles” we see at mosques. Reza Aslan is one of our favorite people out there right now, and glossing over the fact that we’re not against “progressive interpretations” (or whatever the proper term would be) is very convenient for her because she can then lump us in with “old, traditional Muslims who hate women”.
So what is the difference between Reza Aslan and Nomani? Well, foremost is that Reza Aslan actually fights for what he preaches about– speaking out for the Park 51 project. Nomani is all for a moderate/progressive version of Islam, which Park 51 advocated, yet she is still against it. This hypocrisy is an issue.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:23 am
Dainos’ reply was perfect. Notice that Nomani completely avoids addressing any of the points raised against her, she most certainly will not respond to this article. The jig is up, Asra.
BTW it was I who posted an article last year calling her a media whore, and that was after years of reading her garbage that I came to the conclusion that she is bought and paid for. I stand behind that label 100% :
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2009/07/five-years-later-asar-nomani-is-still.html
I got a considerate amount of crap for it, but turned out many others came to agree with this assessment after watching Nomani’s mendacious antics on FOX. Here’s a satirical interview from over five years ago, and look how close it is to reality :
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2005/03/honest-interviews-asra-nomani.html
Let me make it clear to you Asra that I have no interest in your personal life. I don’t care what you have for breakfast, lunch or dinner. I don’t care who and how many people you’ve slept with. What I DO care about is you putting vivid details of your sex life in the public arena and blaming Islam for your personal failures. You never could separate desi culture from Islam. Instead of learning from your mistakes and reforming yourself into a better and more responsible person, you tried to “reform” Islam to fit your corrupt nafs. Zina is nothing to be proud of, and you carry it on your sleeve like a high school graduate. Your teen rebellion against your cultural heritage has now extended into your mid 40s. It’s time to stop LYING to make a living, it’s time to dump the Islamophobes who you stump for and for whom you’re a uself token colored mascot, it’s time to stop misrespresenting the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
It’s time to grow up.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:56 am
Maybe Ms Nomani is simply ignorant? Both Yemen and Somalia are being attacked by U.S. drones and missiles—and unless U.S. terrorism stops—there is really no answer to this problem……no amount of profiling or TSA or FBI entrapments are going to make Americans safe as long as the U.S. goes along killing innocent civilians in more and more countries.
Instead of lazily bashing Islam, she should spend more time in research (on the other hand since she refers to herself as a journalist—maybe that’s expecting a bit too much) I might suggest starting with Robert Pape—who has looked at actual facts.
December 9th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Dear asra,
When the likes of spencer and other islamophobes start to praise you then you must know you are on the wrong track. As for making money and fame then maybe you should use the moniker of “ex-muslim” before your name. That will get you your silver coins and the celebrity you crave.
Ask yourself this question “what good will my wealth and celebrity be on the day of judgement?”
regards
anj
December 9th, 2010 at 8:09 am
[snipped]…C’mon, lets keep it civilized guys. — Admin
December 9th, 2010 at 8:11 am
She’s full of BS! So that’s it? that’s all she has to say?? She’d rather pick on the word “whore” instead of defending herself against the criticim on the REAL ISSUES. Maybe she didn’t have anything else to say because there really isn’t much to defend.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Brother aziz!
There Is no need to be like that! Hang the islamophobes with their own rope, they are not very smart . Their bigotry and lies are self evident!
December 9th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Warmingly, lovingly, cherishingly … LOL Danios! I always appreciated your wit
December 9th, 2010 at 9:25 am
fake?
Perhaps she’s practicing deception, Danios?
December 9th, 2010 at 9:34 am
I agree with JihadBob who said, “Perhaps she’s practicing deception, Danios?”
December 9th, 2010 at 9:41 am
She is practicing deception by pandering to Islamophobes like you, Mr. Spencer, who deliberately distort Islam and the issue of terrorism. DHS argues that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective, but Nomani seems to think it is OK but only if it is directed at Muslims (not Jews or blacks).
December 9th, 2010 at 9:51 am
DHS argues that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective
Really? What is that based off of?
Israel’s El Al track record speaks volumes for me.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:58 am
no amount of profiling or TSA or FBI entrapments are going to make Americans safe as long as the U.S. goes along killing innocent civilians in more and more countries.
That’s not exactly a shining endorsement for Muslim communities living in the West.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:18 am
JihadBob said, “Israel’s El Al track record speaks volumes for me.”
Go live in Israel then – better yet try finding a place to rent there first … LOL
December 9th, 2010 at 10:31 am
I encourage people to stay topical and not to get into over the top pejoratives at Asra. Other then that carry on.
Danios, perfect piece.
Dear Asra,
When are you going to realize that your faux liberalism is a thin veneer employed to browbeat the Muslim community to accept your pretentious condescension? Your limited and unserious engagement with Islamic text, history and thought belies your purported attempts at “reform.” Colonial liberalist fits you perfectly! You should be ashamed of yourself for such a silly response to Danios’ thorough article. Are you a person of ideas? Can you defend your arguments? If so please respond seriously and drop the holier-then-thou blah!
Warmly, Lovingly, and Cherishingly,
Garibaldi
December 9th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Since Nomani is so keenly observing the comments sections, why doesn’t she post a comment if she truly objects to something. Or is she above leaving a comment, and can only offer an email filled with overtly kind words and devoid of any substance. I’d put money on the latter.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am
“Israel’s El Al track record speaks volumes for me.”
Are you talking about the El Al flights hijacked by the PFLP, founded by George Habash, a Greek Orthodox Christian?
“That’s not exactly a shining endorsement for Muslim communities living in the West.”
Are you going to do deny that America is involved in the killing of civilians in the Muslim World. The point that was being made is that racial profiling isn’t going to work, but stopping the wars will.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:04 am
It’s time Asra Nomani took a look around to see why Muslims are not on her side but Muslim haters are.
How silly of her to dismiss a great article because someone in the comments described her as a “media whore”. Reminds me of how Spencer is refusing to debate Danios because he chooses to remain anonymous.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Dear Asra,
So I herd u leik Zaqqum fruit.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:26 am
“It’s time Asra Nomani took a look around to see why Muslims are not on her side but Muslim haters are.”
Co-signed.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Danios,
Wonderful response! though it may go without achieving its objective, it sure is worded in truth. I hope that she at least admits reading it.
Did you notice…
how many times she used the word “gently”… “I would like to gently response.” I found it quiet ironic.
Evil disguised in a “gentle” response?
Ms. Nomani, though you may hold the silver spoon and eat from the plate of roasted medium-well lamb with a touch of parsley, there’s nothing gentle or civilized about your ideology and the hate you promote.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
what!!! i only called her a w***e?!! thats pretty mild btw… compared to the stuff u read on the sites that endorse her.. and id rather have her call me a whore than support the idea of me getting profiled and have my rear probed in an airport….
December 9th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
True but as Danios pointed out in the article, calling someone a whore and questioning a woman’s chastity is a serious offence. Also, we are commanded by Allah to debate and argue in the best way possible and that means not resorting to insults or death threats.
December 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I love how both Spencer and Nomani scour Loonwath’s threads for comments they can misinterpret.
December 9th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Love how she didn’t answer any of the questions that were challenged to her.
December 9th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Great response Danios.
“It’s time Asra Nomani took a look around to see why Muslims are not on her side but Muslim haters are.”
Truth comes out in mysterious ways.
Man, there are so many of these attention/money grabbers in the media. A ‘gentle’ response doesn’t hide the fact that she puts Islam down on the hate sites, but for how long are you going to live a life of lies.
She is not a progressive Muslim, she is milking money at the expense of Muslims. No different to Irshad Manji,another so called liberal/progressive ‘Muslim’.
Again, kudos to you Danios!
December 9th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“Perhaps she’s practicing deception, Danios?”
Jihadbob just acknowledged Danios. Does that mean hes going to debate him now?
December 9th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
OMG!!!! Thanks for the laugh Asra, “dear friends”, and “warmly” LOL
even more funny “Warmly, Lovingly, and Cherishingly,” what a genius response from Danios,
Well! First I have to laud Ms Nomanai for responding, though it would have been better if she had been more truthful rather than to try to be more diplomatic than the diplomats!
I have to admit I was the one that called her a “media whore” but it doesn’t mean “whore”.
I also think Haram Pork had a hand in this. If readers recall, he set up a straw man, by pretending that I had said “whore”, when in fact he was lying as usual. Maybe he was the one who alerted Ms Nomani that she was being featured here and she was being called “whore”. I wouldn’t put it past him.
Jihad Bob, Ms Nomani does better you in one way, in that she is brave enough to respond, even if a tad insincerely. Neither you nor Hugh Fitzgerald took up the offer to debate Danios.
Ms Nomani, nobody called you a “whore”, check out the website, and learn about the people whom you consider allies. Many are rejected even by their own people.Spencer has a website dedicated to him spencerwatch.com Hopefully, you will learn and change your stance. There is nothing wrong with “fixing” your society or country, but you’re going about it the wrong way and doing it with people who can’t help, heck they can’t even help their own country they certainly won’t help you.
December 9th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
@BMD,
I was the one who originally called her a media whore. But I’m still glad to see that many of you saw through her horse manure. Don’t worry about Kosher Pig or Geehad bobby, boys and girls, they’d misconstrue our words any way.
@Asra,
Remember years ago when I was raised questions about you on AltMuslim? I still remember how chimed in under your “arwen” handle and responded with hate, even against a Christian who was neutral but felt you were being less then honest.
December 9th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
whore (hôr, hr)
n.
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores
1. To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.
2. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.
3. To compromise one’s principles for personal gain.
This is the full definition of the word ‘whore’ from the dictionary. I find that when we see someone compromising thier principles for personal gain (ie, selling books, getting camera time, getting paid to make speeches telling lies, promoting or legitimising propaganda…etc) then that person would be a whore.
December 9th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I find it laughable that JihadBobbySpencer likes to accuse the scary Mooslims of taqiyya when he on a daily basis, every blog post, comment, word that comes out of his vile and atrocious mouth is a lie. HA-LLA-RI-OUS!
December 9th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
DrM
That may well be, but i was talking about yesterday’s article where Danios wrote about her. “media whore” was deliberately switched to “whore” by Haram Pork, who by the way, hasn’t made an appearance yet,
and Danios,
aren’t you going to add the “Brass and Crescent” awards badge on your page? You can display it at the site. It would be good for publicity, get you more readers,
December 9th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Dearest beautiful Asra,
You have compromised your principles for personal gain. Therefore, I will gently say, that many of us have lost all respect for you. You can’t be taken seriously, my dear friend, because you have condemned your own fellow Muslims instead of hate/fearmongers. With all due respect, it’s not fair to say that only Muslims should be profiled and not the Muslim haters who have lately been terrorizing Muslims, which I’m sure you’ve heard of in the news but decide not to say anything against them. Do you not condemn them? Do these loons not deserve to be profiled? Surely you thought this through and thought about your lovely self. I look forward to hearing from you.
Your beloved friend,
Khushboo
December 9th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Many Muslims are refraining from declaring her to be a Kaffir or Munafiq. Some of the stuff she says definitely pushes it:
“We, as Muslims, need to tear a few pages out of the Quran—symbolically, at least, by rejecting literal adherence to certain problematic verses.”
This was in an article about the Quran burning. How can she refuse to deal with the bigots who are burning the Quran and instead make a suggestion that certain parts of the Quran might need to be removed or ignored. She also claims that we, as Muslims, are to blame for the Quran burning because we’re reading it wrong and that makes Americans mad.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-08/get-over-the-quran-burning/
December 9th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
@JihadBob
Security experts say that racial profiling is ineffective, and Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has called it “misleading and, arguably, dangerous.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011190045
December 9th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
@MoSizzle
I saw that too. That’s why the Islamophobes love her so much; because she wants to tear out pages of the Holy Quran.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
@Asra
Security experts say that racial profiling is ineffective, and Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has called it “misleading and, arguably, dangerous.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011190045
December 9th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Here’s some psychology 101:
1. We can’t look into someone’s brain to see what’s going on.
2. What we imagine is going on, are therefore our own projections (based on past experiences and our own motivations).
3. Since we can only guess, we’ll have to deduce what is going on from the signals someone is giving off.
4. People’s reactions are much more primal than we give them credit for.
5. What Asra seems to be communicating basically comes down to the following:
a) It matters to me what you guys (and girls) think about me;
b) I don’t recognize myself in the picture of the ‘enemy’ you paint of me;
c) I don’t want you to see me as the enemy;
d) I don’t recognize myself in the motives you attribute to me;
e) I appreciate your anger as stemming from sincere care about Islam, Muslims and the world around us;
f) In my mind, I do what I do out of the same care for Islam and the world as you;
e) I don’t mind you disagreeing with me on the issues;
g) But hurling insults and coming at me with the idea I’m the enemy is a real conversation stopper;
h) That’s a pity, because I’d really like that conversation (and to show you I’m serious about this, I’ll give you my email address);
Now, if one deciphers the Asra’s message this way – as I, coming to it with an open mind, does – it figures the worst thing one could do is to reaffirm you regard her as the enemy. Because that just establishes you’re not willing to reconsider that point of view, which makes any further discussion pointless (unless you enjoy verbal trench warfare in it’s own right.)
Even if she isn’t sincere (which you can’t possibly know at this time), it’s a big pr-mistake because to further attack her because it makes you look bad. To any unbiased outsider, it makes you look like the aggressor and Asra like an innocent, friendly lady. She just extended an open hand with an invitation for a conversation about the issues, and you slapped it in her face.
‘Yeah, well but she didn’t address the issues’. No, of course she didn’t. Have you ever written for an unfriendly Internet forum? I have, multiple times, and whatever the venue, group psychology makes people behave like a pack of hungry piranha’s having a piece of duck waved in front of their noses. So of course you’re going to test the waters first to see if people are willing to abstain from treating you as the enemy. If they’re not, then it’s just a waste of effort.
By the way, doesn’t Islam admonish speaking to people in a soft tone to get their ear? It seems Asra has learned that lesson. Maybe some of the Loonwatchers would be well-advised to heed it as well.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Loonwatch is always honest. And doing a remarkable work.
Loonwatch should be given noble peace prize for exposing the war-mongers extremist.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:20 am
i don’t know Jack, it’s not so much that we view her as an enemy, but as someone with no right to set her self up as a spokesperson for all Muslims.
Take it from someone who knows Islam. Even though i reserve judgment an won’t practice takfir on her, let’s look at what she says in the article Mosizzle is referring to.
“These include verses—when literally read—that say that disobedient wives can be beaten “lightly,” that Muslims can’t be friends with the Jews and the Christians, and that it’s OK to kill converts from Islam.”
i don’t know about how well you know Islam, but verse 4:34 doesn’t give3 license to “beat” wives for simple disobedience, for any kind of disobedience. The Qur’an doesn’t actually say that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews and Christians, that’s an outright lie. It’s not supported by the Arabic text. And finally, there is absolutely no verse in the Qur’an that says it’s ok to kill apostates. Someone with those interpretations obviously acquired this understanding of Quranic verses from Islam-haters. These type of statements make Muslims doubt her”Muslimness”, her authenticity and her authority as a Muslim and Muslim spokesperson. Refusing to address the issues related to her stance and covering this avoidance with a sweet, friendly response seems disingenuous to me.
On a somewhat unrelated note, if Robert Spencer wasn’t the popular Islamophobe that he is, seeing that Melkite Catholic Church Members are primarily of Middle Eastern origin, wouldn’t he also be profiled? Wonder how he feels about that? Aren’t his family origins Turkish? Even he looks kinda Mooslim. Time to shave that beard.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 2:29 am
no Jack, we certainly can’t look into her brains. All we have to do is listen to what she has said and read what she has written to know what she wants. She has talked about reforming Islam and tearing out pages from our Quran instead of condemning what Terry Jones and other loons have said and done. She is certainly no scholar and she hasn’t read the whole Quran, otherwise she wouldn’t have picked on some verses without knowing its true meaning which is what Robert Spencer and his ilk have done. Any sane person can deduce that she’s a fake and certainly no innocent lady.
December 10th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Danios for President! Great reply.
I find her response hilarious, yet emblematic of the methods that these loons use to try to demonize Muslims. She offers no rebuttal of the substance of the article, but merely points to some random comment by some random poster who isn’t affiliated with this blog, to make it appear that she has been victimized by a group unworthy of her full attention. Needless to say she also misinterprets and takes said comment completely out of context.
Of course these are the sorts of insults and reactions they hope for to sustain their discourse. They attack us in every which way in hopes of getting a rise out of someone, then try to shine the light on that individual/small faction so they can say “aha, you see how these Muslims are!”
We go around the Muslim world invading these countries, usurping their natural resources, implanting corrupt puppet regimes in the guise of democracy. Then when there is resistance, typically by some fanatics who are desperate and have been driven to a point of no return, we jump on our high horse and paint them as the “terrorists” and “evil doers” and animals that have to be tamed by us, the more civilized group.
Naturally, it only advances our cause and justifies our invasion the broader we can paint that brush. We do this by using words like “islamist” and “fundamentalist” so the general public confuses a practicing Muslim with these radical elements. Somehow “fundamentalist” and “extremist” become one and the same, when they are antithetical concepts. In the end we try to stay away from debating the substance of Islam, because we don’t have the adequate knowledge nor is there enough there to build a solid case. So we go back to square one. A very handy tactic employed here by Ms. Nomani, sensationalize an isolated case and demonize the entire group based on said case. Rinse, Repeat and Recycle…..
December 10th, 2010 at 2:51 am
@muhammad ‘abd-al haqq; so where exactly did she set herself up to be a spokesperson for all Muslims? Is coming on television, declaring yourself to be a Muslim and voicing your opinion “setting yourself up to be a spokesperson for all Muslims”? You tell me.
“I don’t know about how well you know Islam, but verse 4:34 doesn’t give3 license to “beat” wives for simple disobedience, for any kind of disobedience.”
You could have fooled me. It certainly seems to say that, and guess what: a lot of Muslim men in the world also seem to read it that way.
So anyway, suppose I did convert to Islam and I’d marry your younger sister, what – according to your reading of the Quran – could I beat her for, and how lightly should it be exactly? If she refused to change diapers while I’m at work, can I like tap her lightly against the wrist with a toothbrush; and what good would that do, by the way? It seems a bit silly, if you ask me… But then again, Allah knows best…
“The Qur’an doesn’t actually say that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews and Christians, that’s an outright lie.”
You’d think that an Almighty deity would have produced his Eternal Message in a language that everybody could understand readily and unequivocally; let’s say by making sure everybody spoke Arabic for starters?
Anyway most translations of the Quran render Surah 5:51a similar to Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other.”
Zinggggg!
Muhammad Assad has: “O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another; and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.”
But then he adds, in his commentary: “According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two
communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents – i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and the Christians to the Christians – and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur’an.”
Now, that verse might be quite understandable given the circumstances with warring factions and tribes in the Arabian peninsula of the early seventh century, but in the global community the world is becoming, it does sound a bit sectarian.
Even if you’re right and the Quran never meant to convey you shouldn’t be friends with Christians and Jews on a personal level; there’s a lot of material out there saying exactly that, and if I’m not mistaken, some of that material is dispensed by the Saudis in American mosques. So shouldn’t you be railing against that, rather than against Nomani?
“Someone with those interpretations obviously acquired this understanding of Quranic verses from Islam-haters.”
Right… because Muslims who interpret the Quran and the Sunnah that way hardly exist… I guess that’s why the law of current Afghanistan prescribes the death penalty for apostasy and why Yusuf al Qaradawi says that secularists ought to be killed. Maybe they got those ideas from reading Spencer too?
“These type of statements make Muslims doubt her ”Muslimness”, her authenticity and her authority as a Muslim and Muslim spokesperson.”
I can’t speak on authority… as for the rest: who are you to judge?
But even if you do sit in judgment (as people do) and think or even say: “I don’t believe she’s really a Muslim” and “I don’t believe she’s really in it for the right kind of motives”, hurling insults at someone who doesn’t hurl them at you isn’t exactly helping your case. As an argument, it’s basically an ad hominem attack, and therefore irrelevant.
Even if she’s not a Muslim, and even if she’s in it for fame and fortune; she still might be right it’s justifiable and the smart thing to do to pick out and scrutinize adolescent Muslim men before they board planes.
Now, as far as the crazies who go frothing at the mouth are concerned, such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel, it’s okay to point out they’re bonkers and hateful. Because there is enough evidence to go around that they are indeed. I mean, you could make fun of them all day.
With Nomani, I don’t think you’re going to win people over for your argument that way. Because looking at some of her videos I see the same woman as the one speaking to me in her writing above: soft, kind, caring, thoughtful, etcetera. You can’t bash that without looking bad.
So that leaves two possibilities: either you’re wrong about her, in which case bashing her is just plain wrong AND makes you look bad; or you’re right about her, in which case bashing her still makes you look bad.
December 10th, 2010 at 3:12 am
“She has talked about reforming Islam and tearing out pages from our Quran instead of condemning what Terry Jones and other loons have said and done. She is certainly no scholar and she hasn’t read the whole Quran, otherwise she wouldn’t have picked on some verses without knowing its true meaning which is what Robert Spencer and his ilk have done.”
Tearing it out symbolically, by not interpreting certain texts at face value. Which she call the literal interpretation of the text. Now, you may disagree with her that taking verses at face value is actually a literal rendition of the text, but even if you do: shouldn’t you be going after wahhabi’s?
The difference with Spencer and his ilk, is that they say taking the Quran at face value leads to true Islam, whereas Nomani doesn’t say that at all. Rather she says certain interpretations of Islam are awful and must be met head on by the Muslim community. Furthermore Spencer and his ilk choose the most negative interpretation of Muhammad’s actions, whereas Nomani doesn’t.
“Any sane person can deduce that she’s a fake and certainly no innocent lady.”
Well, I consider myself to be sane, and I think I could probably get a statement from a psychiatrist declaring me mentally capable of rational thought, and having seen a couple of her appearances offering her argument (and her experiences) I’m leaning towards her being authentic about her concerns and ideas.
Now she might still be mistaken about a lot of things; but that’s another matter altogether. If that’s the point you want get across, you could say:
1. Look, I think her ideas about racial profiling are bad, and morally reprehensible at that.
2. I think she misunderstands the verses in the Quran she adresses.
3. I think she should study it a little bit better before writing about it.
But if you fix on calling her a fake, a loon, a media whore, a sell-out, a traitor, or whatever, you just might lose the attention of a lot of good-willing people. You’re already losing mine, and I’m not a big fan of racial profiling.
December 10th, 2010 at 7:36 am
During the Prophet ( SAW ) time, there are hypocrites who goes around inciting the Muslims. Then the chief of the hypocrite died and the Prophet (SAW) visits his grave. Allah SWT reveals the Quran passage forbidding the Prophet (SAW) from visiting his grave.
That hypocrite ( Munafiqqin ) is Abdullah Ibn Ubay ( May Allah SWT remove His Mercy )
And Ms Normani is Abdullah Ibn Ubay
December 10th, 2010 at 8:00 am
uh, no Jack people are smart enough to know that Nomani is wrong. Don’t just take my word from it. Here’s a link of Non-Muslims who don’t agree with her and you’ll see how rude Asra is constantly interrupting this guy.
December 10th, 2010 at 8:25 am
since Muhammad isn’t around to reply to you yet Jack, I must say you are a bit naive. I hate to keep reiterating but to us, there is only one GOD who speaks all languages. How condescending of you to say that God should’ve put it in a language that we can all understand? The original language of the Bible is Hebrew, Armaic, and Greek, not English.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was Arabic so ofcourse our sacred Quran will be in Arabic. Now there are many translations in different languages and I do gently suggest you read them going to the direct source. Don’t just read the verses that you mentioned above, but also, what’s before and after it to get the real meaning. Only a minority of Fundamentalist Muslims “misinterpret” it to gain power over others (i.e. the gov’t.).
Atleast the Quran mentions domestic abuse and says that the maximum a man can go with a woman is hitting w/o bruising and “only if must”. It’s certainly not encouraged. If your spouse committed adultery, you would want to punch them wouldn’t you?? Be honest now! well, that’s not allowed in the Quran. Domestic abuse happens among non-Muslims too so are we going to blame their religion for it b/c it did not specifically say that bruising is not allowed? Let’s not nitpick now and get real!
Many people are using these verses as an excuse to demonize us simply because they hate us and/or they’re irrationally scared of us taking over.
December 10th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“How condescending of you to say that God should’ve put it in a language that we can all understand?”
Well, if the argument is going to be that the Quran (or any other holy scripture for that matter) says something entirely different from what you would take from it at face value, because the original language is so nuanced… Hey, if this is Gods Eternal Message, don’t you think it would important enough for everybody to understand? I’d expect an Omnipotent Creator to take into account most of the world doesn’t speak Arabic.
It doesn’t exactly hurt my case the same applies to the Bible, because I don’t stack any faith in that either. As far as I’m concerned, it was made strictly by men, who jotted down their beliefs and convictions about their national deity and his relations with their tribe, nation or whatever you want to call it, trying to make sense of the world around them and why it was falling apart even though their god had said he’d be there to protect them.
“Only a minority of Fundamentalist Muslims “misinterpret” it to gain power over others (i.e. the gov’t.”
I think you’re downplaying/underestimating the influence of fundamentalist Islam.
“At least the Quran mentions domestic abuse and says that the maximum a man can go with a woman is hitting w/o bruising and “only if must”.”
I don’t find the ‘but you can’t bruise her/ hit her in the face’ provision in the Quran. Furthermore, if God had wanted to stamp it out, he should’ve simply banned it: a real man doesn’t hit his wife, period. That’s something I, as a simple mortal, can understand.
“If your spouse committed adultery, you would want to punch them wouldn’t you??”
Ehhrrrm… no. I’d want to punch something to drown out the emotional pain, but not my spouse. I’d just want her to stay the hell away from me for a couple of weeks.
“Domestic abuse happens among non-Muslims too so are we going to blame their religion for it b/c it did not specifically say that bruising is not allowed?”
Tell me: do you really don’t see the difference between a Holy Book that says: “You know, in some instances, you’re allowed to beat your wife, as long as you don’t put her in the hospital.” and a Holy Book that just says you have to treat your wife like chinaware (1 Peter 3:7) and doesn’t address the issue of beating further.
The bible has got some pretty objectionable stuff in it, such as that it’s okay to keep slaves, that all unbelievers are wretches who are going to be tormented in hell forever, that the world and it’s inhabitants are under the domain of the devil, that the Jews killed Christ and so on and so forth. But I do think it’s a plus it doesn’t say one is allowed to beat his spouse.
That doesn’t mean no Christian or Jew therefore beats their spouse; but it does mean there is simply no way they could use their Holy Book as a justification for doing so. And I think that’s a good thing.
“Many people are using these verses as an excuse to demonize us simply because they hate us and/or they’re irrationally scared of us taking over.”
I am acutely aware of that. I’ve duked it out with many an islamophobe. I’ve often even defended Islam against accusations that were unfair, gross exaggerations, etc. because I understood the so called ‘criticism’ of Islam to be a guise just delegitimize Muslims and the Muslims presence in the Western world. I find that just as odious as I find antisemitism odious.
But that doesn’t mean all of these criticisms are wholly unjustified. The best way for Muslims to counter the criticism is to address these issues amongst themselves (and give a little bit of rumor about doing so). Sometimes the best defense of your character is showing you’re willing to take a hard look in the mirror. I think that is part of what Asra Nomani is trying to do.
December 10th, 2010 at 11:54 am
“Here’s a link of Non-Muslims who don’t agree with her and you’ll see how rude Asra is constantly interrupting this guy.”
Actually, in that video, she’s only interrupting him once, when he has answered one question, and then wants to expound on his answer over and over, where she wants to make a point by refining her question.
For the rest of the segment, she tries to get in, and then when she notices he hasn’t finished his argument, she keeps quiet until he’s finished. So does he.
It’s funny how preconceived ideas about somebody (Oh, she’s just this; and she’s just in it for that) shape our judgment of their behavior. Now, before reading these reports on Loonwatch about Nomani, I didn’t know her, so I’m entering into it with an open mind. And I don’t see someone who’s out to bait Muslims to make a quick buck.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Danios describes her as a self hating loon..So i asked myself really! Is she what he said?..Lets analyze ..First she says that it OK to religious profile muslims because terrorists are muslims then she also points out their religion which is islam ..Then she goes on to say that she is also a muslim..She does’nt talk about terrorists with different identities ,be a jew or a christian.etc..{May be she is avoiding it deliberately or is it because it is irrelevant to talk coz she is a muslim and she is supposed to talk on muslim terrorists}..In my opinion she is the biggest threat coz she finds islam guilty of terrorism and then affirms herself as a muslim..I wonder why she didn’t call herself a terrorist coz nowhere she differentiates between good and bad muslims.Why do you defend a person who is so damn confused?Now as we all know that Muslim terrorism is exagerrated to the extent that terorism from other communities are sidelined.So why is this partiality .When the innocent muslims are subject to religious profiling why not people from other religions considering the fact that terorrists come in all shapes and sizes.For arguments sake i can say yes muslim terrorism is much more than christian terrorism or jewish terrorism but the fact remains there is terrorism from these communities as well.So just because there is more terrorism from muslims and less from jews or christians doesn’t exempt these communities from religious profiling.So why doesn’t she endorse religious profiling for other people based on their faith and why only muslims?This explains why she is a self hating loon and a media whore ..
December 10th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@ Jack
Quran mentions “strike gently if you must” as the last option and this was against “rebellious” women which is open to interpretation. Could this “rebellious” woman be after you and you’re simply defending yourself by “striking her lightly”?
We look to Hadith to get clarification. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was against hitting women and in fact, according to the Sahih Hadith he was angry with a man for hitting his wife. We are suppose to follow his ways.
You can’t blame the whole religion for extremists not following what’s in the Quran and the Hadith. I would stand by Nomani if she said let’s hold hands and condemn terrorists but for her to blame Quranic verses for causing terrorism is wrong. I’m glad that you spoke against Islamophobes but honestly, I don’t know why you can’t see our pov since you claim to be open-minded.
We certainly have some Muslim extremists but for her to say to profile Muslims only and not other non-Muslims who could also be potentially dangerous doesn’t put her in a good light.
December 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Actually Aamir, she doesn’t say Islam inspires terrorism. She says certain interpretations of Islam facilitate terrorism. And she sees those kind of interpretations taking root in American mosques.
Secondly, you’re making it seem that as far as airline hijackings and subway bombings are concerned, Jews and Christians are in a large degree engaged in that kind of thing. But as my recollection goes, they don’t since it’s simply not in their interest to do so.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t profile right-wing Christians or anti-government militias, but you should profile them for the acts of terror they engage in, which is to say violence against abortion clinics and doctors, and violence against government facilities and personnel.
Likewise, there’s no point in profiling middle-ages women for wearing a headscarf, since middle-aged women wearing headscarves aren’t the one perpetrating in plane hijackings or blowing up buildings.
December 10th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Khushboo: “Quran mentions “strike gently if you must” as the last option”
Really? Could you take me to the grammar of the Arabic step by step, because I’m afraid I’m dependent on translations, and I don’t find that particular interpretation in there.
“Could this “rebellious” woman be after you and you’re simply defending yourself by “striking her lightly”
I suppose. But it could also mean you told her to go out and fetch some coffee, and she refused because she had other things to do and it was your day off, and you didn’t like her tone. Who’s to say?
It’s a good thing Muhammad didn’t like men beating women, but there are also many hadiths which seem to suggest he allowed it or did nothing about it. That’s why I’m not to enthusiastic about the whole hadith business. There are just too many of them, and a lot of them contradict each other, and then you have to get into the details of their authenticity.
You’d think an Omnipotent Creator would have come up with a better idea for communicating with mortals. Like getting one guy to set up an empire and another guy for laying down Gods words in a systematic way, and yet another guy for preaching.
“You can’t blame the whole religion for extremists not following what’s in the Quran and the Hadith.”
I’m not blaming the whole religion: I blame God for not speaking more clearly. Of course, I don’t actually believe there’s a God behind so called divine scriptures at all, but that is exactly my point: if there were, He would have, and should have done a better job. It’s like living in a house that turns out to be poorly isolated, and is starting to show all kinds of cracks and leakages, and then saying: oh, thank our perfect contractor for giving us a roof over our heads.
No, no, no. That just won’t do. If Islam really was the perfect religion, it would have abolished slavery right from the beginning. It didn’t, and for more than a thousand years, millions of people lived in misery because of it. And that’s just one example.
“honestly, I don’t know why you can’t see our pov since you claim to be open-minded.”
Oh, I can certainly appreciate your point of view. I just don’t happen to agree with it where Nomani’s character is concerned, AND even if you’re right about her character, I still don’t think it’s the smart thing to do to attack her, because you’ll come out looking like mean goons, and people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller will use that against you. Do you see my point?
December 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
You know what’s the problem with you Jack, you want all the answers now and because God happens not to give all the answers you want now you refuse to believe He exists. If God wanted too, He would have made us all believe in Him and all of us pass the test of this world life without any effort, But, instead God has opted in not giving man all the answers they want instantly because this would result in man learning nothing from their mistakes and not learning on their own. Man is capable, with some guidance of learning on their own and becoming good and abolishing unethical practices(such as slavery) but this worldly life must still be a test. Think of it as Teacher who can give you all the answers you want for a test and you pass the test but you learn nothing. So you must go out and search for the answers and you will find God exists and there are reasons for anything that happens but your are a spiritually lazy.
December 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I agree with Jack. I think Asra (and others like Irshad Manji and Raheel Raza) is getting a bum rap. Yes she can be annoying (which distracts from her points when she occasionally stumbles upon the truth). And yes she is wrong about the Quran and a lot of other things. But I believe she is not an Islamophobe, but a genuine Muslim. I disagree with his attempted interpretation of the Quran, however.
“You could have fooled me. It certainly seems to say that, and guess what: a lot of Muslim men in the world also seem to read it that way.”
It may “seem” to say that to some, but it doesn’t. And what “a lot of Muslim men” believe is immaterial (argumentum ad populum). Edip Yuksel explains it succinctly in his footnote to 4:34:
As I discussed extensively, in Türkçe Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar (Errors in Turkish Translation of the Quran, Istanbul, 1992-1998) and in English article, Beating Women or Beating Around the Bush (Unorthodox Articles, Internet, 1998), four key words or phrases have been mistranslated by traditional translators. To justify the misogynistic and patriarchal practices, deliberately or unknowingly, a majority of translators render the phrase kawamuna ala al-nisa as “in charge of women” rather than “providers for women” or “observant of women.” Interestingly, the same translators translate the same verb mentioned in 4:135; 5:8; 4:127; 2:229; 20:14; 55:9 as “observe/maintain.” When the same verb is used to depict a relationship between man and woman, it somehow magically transforms into a prescription of hierarchy and authority. The second key word that is commonly mistranslated is iDRiBuhunna. In almost all translations, you will see it translated as “scourge,” or “beat” or “beat (lightly)”. The verb DaRaBa is a multiple-meaning verb akin to English ‘strike’ or ‘get.’ The Quran uses the same verb with various meanings, such as, to travel, to get out (3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273), to strike (2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4), to beat (8:50), to beat or regret (47:27), to set up (43:58; 57:13), to give (examples) (14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11), to take away, to ignore (43:5), to condemn (2:61), to seal, to draw over (18:11), to cover (24:31), and to explain (13:17). It is again interesting that the scholars pick the meaning BEAT, among the many other alternatives, when the relationship between man and woman is involved, a relationship that is defined by the Quran with mutual love and care (30:21). The third word that has been traditionally mistranslated is the word NuSHuZ as “rebellion” or “disobedience” or “opposition” to men. If we study 4:34 carefully we will find a clue that leads us to translate that word as embracing a range of related ideas, from “flirting” to “engaging in an extramarital affair” – indeed, any word or words that reflects the range of disloyalty in marriage. The clue is the phrase before nushuz, which reads: “. . . they honor them according to God’s commandments, even when alone in their privacy.” This phrase emphasizes the importance of loyalty in marital life, and helps us to make better sense of what follows. Interestingly, the same word, nushuz, is used later in the same chapter, in 4:128 – but it is used to describe the misbehavior of husbands, not wives, as it was in 4:34. In our view, the traditional translation of nushuz, that is, “opposition,” will not fit in both contexts. However, the understanding of nushuz as marital disloyalty, in a variety of forms, is clearly appropriate for both 4:34 and 4:128. The fourth word is the word QaNiTat, which means “devoted to God,” and in some verses it describes both man and woman (2:116,238; 3:17,43; 16:120; 30:26; 33:31,35; 39:9; 66:5,12). Though this word is mostly translated correctly as “obedient,” when read in the context of the above-mentioned distortion it conveys a false message as if to imply that women must be “obedient” to their husbands as their inferior, while the word refers to obedience to God’s law. The word is mentioned as a general description of Muslim women (66:12), and more interestingly the description of Mary who, according to the Quran, did not even have a husband! (66:12). The traditional distortion of this verse was first questioned by Edip Yuksel in his book, “Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar” (Errors in Turkish Translations) (1992, Istanbul). For a detailed discussion on verse 4:34, see the Sample Comparisons section in the Introduction.
“You’d think that an Almighty deity would have produced his Eternal Message in a language that everybody could understand readily and unequivocally; let’s say by making sure everybody spoke Arabic for starters?”
An Almighty deity could do a lot of things. He could make it so that all the M&Ms in the world were green, so I don’t have to go through all those other colors. But he didn’t. So let’s not get into hypotheticals. Besides, if all the people of the world spoke Arabic, there would still be misinterpretations. Because all language is “nuanced”, and some people just have poor reading comprehension.
“Anyway most translations of the Quran render Surah 5:51a similar to Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other.”
“Zinggggg!”
Actually, most translators, including Khalifa and Yuksel, translate it like Asad. Not the it matters (argumentum ad populum, remember?). The word for friend in Quranic Arabic is khalil, not awliya’. A better translation of the word might be patron or sponsor. 60:9 clarifies/qualifies 5:51:
60:9 But God does forbid you regarding those who fought you because of your system, and drove you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out. You shall not ally with them. Those who ally with them, then such are the transgressors.
“Now, that verse might be quite understandable given the circumstances with warring factions and tribes in the Arabian peninsula of the early seventh century, but in the global community the world is becoming, it does sound a bit sectarian.”
Actually, it makes perfect sense in the 21st century, too. Those pathetic “Muslim” countries that have non-Muslims as sponsors put themselves in a position to be financially blackmailed.
“Even if you’re right and the Quran never meant to convey you shouldn’t be friends with Christians and Jews on a personal level; there’s a lot of material out there saying exactly that, and if I’m not mistaken, some of that material is dispensed by the Saudis in American mosques. So shouldn’t you be railing against that, rather than against Nomani?”
There’s that “a lot” again.
I agree, however, that Muslims should speak out more against Saudi influence.
December 10th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Jack, I’m not going to argue with you b/c you’re free to believe what you believe and I’ll believe what I believe. There are scientific facts mentioned in the Quran that no one knew about back then. This is why we believe in it. Pollination, earth, sun, planets, etc. so much was mentioned that makes you wonder how could you not believe in God. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I’ll just leave you with this:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_104.html
December 10th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Jack: the Arabic term “nushuz” used in the verse in question (4:34) literally means rebellion, and is used elsewhere in the Qur’an (4:128) to also refer to the husband (i.e. if the wife fears “nushuz” regarding her husband). The following verses in both sections (e.g. 4:35, 4:130) refer to the breakup of marriage, so it would make sense that “nushuz” doesn’t mean simply someone answering back or what have you, but something so serious that it can lead to the breakdown of a marriage.
Khaled Abou El Fadl, in his text The Search for Beauty in Islam (“On the Beating of Wives”) discusses this, and also various hadith related to the topic. He notes that Muhammad said in his farewell pilgrimage to treat women well unless they commit “fahisha mubina”, in which case, the man should admonish them, abandon their beds and strike them lightly etc. In other words, the same as this particular verse prescribes. In the terminology of Islamic jurisprudence, “fahisha mubina” means a very grave sin, and is understood to relate to lewd sexual conduct, usually that short of actual adultery or adultery which cannot be proven to the level of the strict evidential requirements in Islamic law. In other words, it’s a very serious issue that can affect the marriage. It makes sense to understand “nushuz” in light of Muhammad’s saying to mean something so grave. Therefore, someone using the verse to justify spousal abuse because of “coffee” or what have you is simply not justified.
The issue of striking the wife (not beating – “daraba” means to strike, and is not plural) is a separate issue entirely, and complex because it necessitates going deeply into the exegetical and juristic traditions, and also discussing secondary sources such as hadith contextually. And to do the Islamic religio-legal tradition justice – it is a complex hermeneutical tradition just like other religio-legal traditions found in Judaism etc. – I think one cannot simply simply say that things should have been revealed differently, or something else entirely should have been revealed. The fact of the matter is, the text is there to see, it has been preserved and recorded, so the issue now is to see how Muslims have understood this historically and today, how they have interpreted and integrated this text into their identity and consciousness.
And I do agree with you on your last statement regarding Nomani.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
And as for the issue of Jewish and Christian “friends”, I made some more detailed comments on this issue here at Spencerwatch. I’ve linked to my comment directly, but the entire main article is also well worth a read.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Thanks Dawood! I certainly couldn’t have explained it better myself. I learned much when I was a kid but have forgotten some of the details. Thanks for filling in the blanks.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Wow Michael Elwood, great and enlightening post!
As for Jack, I’d have to say that your criticism is great. A lot of people criticize all religions, but their criticisms are often riddled with strawman arguments, loaded questions, racism (the big one), etc. And when people call them out on it, they claim they’re being silenced for criticizing Islam. I may not agree with you, but I’d like to give a tip of my hat to you. It’s this serious, mature debate that I find lacking on most websites regarding religion.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Some German Jews to prove their loyalty also joined Hitlers Nazis and some took an active part in the murder of Jews. So one must not be suprised of such ‘terrorists’
December 10th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I agree with Abdullah–Jack has rationality and maturity that is missing from many critics of Islam.
December 10th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Jack,
“so where exactly did she set herself up to be a spokesperson for all Muslims? Is coming on television, declaring yourself to be a Muslim and voicing your opinion “setting yourself up to be a spokesperson for all Muslims”? You tell me.”
With all due respect i think you are being a bit naive here. Do you really think, in this political post 9/11 climate, someone who prefaces every public comment she makes and every piece of writing with “i am a Muslim” is not seeking some type of legitimacy, respect and acceptance from the Muslim and non Muslim community? You think this is not the behavior of someone desiring to be a spokesperson for all Muslims? You think someone PUBLICLY calling for reform of Islam and advocating pages of the Qur’an(“symbolically”) being torn out or going up in smoke, in addition, is not trying to be a spokesperson for Muslims? If you had seen the documentary “A Mosque in Morgantown” and had read about her life, as i have, you could only conclude that she is trying to be a spokesperson for our Ummah.
You said that you had not heard of her until Loonwatch did an article on her? Well, i have a secondary interest in the phenomenon of the former Muslim cum reformer, and people like Asra Nomani pop up as a result of this, so i can tell you, take it from someone who has read her works and watched almost all her television appearances and has watched her documentary, she is definitely trying to set herself up as a spokesperson for Muslims.
“You could have fooled me. It certainly seems to say that, and guess what: a lot of Muslim men in the world also seem to read it that way.”
What about a license to beat wives for any infraction don’t you get? Without admitting that the Qur’an allows for wife-beating under specific circumstances, you totally missed my point. The Qur’an does not say that a man can beat his wife for anything he wants. Verse 4:34 doesn’t give license to “beat” wives for simple disobedience, for any kind of disobedience. Asra Nomani says it does, therefore she is lying, plain and simple.
Do alot of Muslim men interpret the verse as a license or permission to beat their wives? Sure. But is this based on what the Qur’an actually says or is this based on traditionalist(read salafi or wahhabi) opinion? Note that i said traditionalist rather than traditional opinion. Traditional opinion does not advocate wife beating so we must conclude that, yes, although the Qur’an is clear, people still bring their own operating assumptions and biases to the text. And when no interpretation of the text satisfies them, they ignore it or seek to change the text itself(like Asra Nomani). Of course men coming from a patriarchal and misogynistic culture will believe that the Qur’an advocates wife-beating. Nomani ignores this and pretends that it’s Islam and the Qur’an that’s the problem, even though there a many,many Muslims who follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet(as) yet don’t believe it does. In mainstream Islam, which is by no means monolithic, we find three trends in thought:traditional, traditionalist,and modernist(the so-called moderate Muslims). Only one group,the traditionalists advocate wife-beating, in an exceptional case, on the basis of the Qur’an.
To explain the traditional and moderate position on wife-beating,let’s go into a brief exposition of the verse:
There is interpretation that a (questionable) condition where Allah Almighty seems to allow the husband to beat his wife, and that is after he gives her two warnings to stop showing ill-conduct and disloyalty. Arabic is a complex language, and because Allah Almighty purposely and carefully chose certain words to be placed in certain verse,i strongly believe that Allah allowed for the interpretation of NOT beating wives to be valid.
Qur’an 4:34-36 “(34).
Maulana Muhammad Ali: Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allah has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and chastise them. So if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely Allah is ever Exalted, Great.
Muhammad Ahmed-Samira :Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.
Sher Ali: Men are guardians over women because ALLAH has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with ALLAH’s protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, ALLAH is High and Great.
Muhammad Asad: MEN SHALL take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
M. M. Pickthall: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Yusuf Ali: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Shabbir Ahmed: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth. Allah has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men must see to it that women are provided for, and that they are able to stand on their feet in the society. So, righteous women are obedient to Allah’s Ordinances and guard their moral values even in privacy, the Values that Allah Commands to be guarded. If you experience rebellion from women, and they stand up against you, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in their resting places apart from you. And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them. Allah is Most High, Great.
Arthur John Arberry: Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.
Edward Henry Palmer: Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth: and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands’) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.
George Sale: Men shall have the pre-eminence above women, because of those advantages wherein God hath caused the one of them to excel the other, and for that which they expend of their substance in maintaining their wives. The honest women are obedient, careful in the absence of their husbands, for that God preserveth them, by committing them to the care and protection of the men. But those, whose perverseness ye shall be apprehensive of, rebuke; and remove them into separate apartments, and chastise them. But if they shall be obedient unto you, seek not an occasion of quarrel against them; for God is high and great.
John Medows Rodwell: Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband’s absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourage them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran
The Arabic word used in the vers(4:34) above is “idribuhunna”, which is derived from “daraba” in which one of the meanings “beat”. All of the Arabic words that are derived from the word “daraba” don’t necessarily mean “hit”, so we have to examine whether or not the derivation here means to “beat/hit”.
The traditional response: hit lightly, with something insignificant, so as to never bruise or cause severe harm, and never hit in the face. But it should be as a last resort in situations involving acute, severe, marital discord, because the Prophet(as)ordered us NOT to beat our wives, to NEVER hit them in the face, and to ALWAYS treat them kindly
The traditionalist response: yes beating is allowed but only in the case of marital discord that involves a wife’s outright rebellion, lewdness or immorality that brings shame upon the family and threatens to dissolve it or adultery. Beating that causes harm or bruising, uses extreme violence, or hitting on the face is strictly forbidden.
The modern mainstream orthodox(moderate)response: It vacillates:
1.Beating lightly is allowed in extreme, exceptional circumstances,only as a last resort. Again, harm or bruising, extreme violence, or hitting on the face is strictly forbidden.
2.The Qur’an does not advocate beating at all, only chastising and recommends desertion after all options are exhausted.
As you can see there is a reason for each translator’s preference for or choice of the translation as “beat”, “beat(lightly)”,”scourge”, or “chastise”.Maulana Muhammad Ali uses “desertion” for “nushuz” and “chastise” for “idribuhunna”.Muhammad Ahmed-Samiraa uses “averse” for the “nushuz” and makes no mention of beating. Sher Ali uses “disobedience” for “nushuz” and “chastise”. Muhammad Asad uses “ill-will” and “beat them” in his translation. Yusuf Ali translates “nushuz” as “disloyalty and ill-conduct” and beat them with the interpolation “lightly”.Shabbir Ahmed rebellion also does not mention beating. i have also included translations from non Muslims as well. Neither can they agree on the translation of “nushuz” and “idribuhunna”. Is it the Arabic or the translator?
Our preconceptions that we bring to the text determines how we understand it. But in the end a complete understanding can only be obtained through a contextual, historical, linguistic analysis of the verse.The Qur’an does not allow for wife beating, in my view, and i am sure that many Muslims will agree with me. In addition, there is not a single Saying or verse from the Qur’an about striking the wife lightly on her hand with a siwak.
A legitimate form of hermeneutics and exegesis in Islam also involves an approach that includes the principle that “the Qur’an explains the Qur’an” and ” the Sunnah further elaborates what might be unclear in the Qur’an”. For many this is the only legitimate way to understand the Qur’an. Suffice it to say,combining these approaches leads to the conclusion that wife beating is not allowed in Islam. Understanding these approaches will allow one to see why and how translators chose their particular translations beyond linguistic and historical considerations.
That Asra Nomani does not tell her listeners, viewers, and readers that differing interpretations exist brings into question her authenticity and sincerity. All interpretation mentioned are in fact “literal”, face-value interpretations of the text.by The traditional and traditionalist responses are very similar. And that many traditional and modern interpretations do not allow for wife beating is significant That she chooses to articulate an extremist, traditionalist, or Islamophobic interpretation every time gives me the impression that she believes literal interpretation of the texts leads to awful views. And it leads non Muslims to believe that these are the only valid understandings of Islam.
Continuing, the word in question,”idribuhunna” could very well mean to “leave” them, depending on the context.
Allah used the word “daraba” in verse 14:24
“Seest thou not how Allah sets(daraba) forth a parable? — A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens”.
“Daraba” here meant “give an example”.
Allah also used the word “darabtum”, which is derived from the word “daraba” in verse 4:94, which means to “go abroad”:
“O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: ‘Thou art none of a Believer!’ Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do.
So “daraba” literally can mean “beat/strike/hit”, or “go abroad/leave”, or “give” but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example. That He used derivations of the word in the same surah tells me that “daraba” in 4:34 means to desert or leave because that is its meaning in 4:94. The key issue in the mistranslation of this verse is the problem of the mistranslation of the two key words “nushuz” and “idribuhuna”. Some of the possible meanings for both the words, according to the lexicons are:
Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.
idriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.
In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is ‘marital discord’(ill-will/hostility/rebellion in a marital situation) and for idriboo is ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’.Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur’anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:
(4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.
The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur’an (see Qur’an 8:5. The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.
(4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.
Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as ‘ill-treatment’ as against ‘rebellion’ in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34.
(4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[...]
This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of idriboo as: ‘to separate’ or to ‘part’.
The translation of idribu as ‘to strike’ in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than: The authority of hadiths (Abu Daud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) and the prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur’an which led them to assume that ‘to strike’, given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of idribu.
From other Qur’anic verses:
“…Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them. [Qur'an, 2:231]
“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though mens’ souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practice self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.[Qur'an, 4:128]
“O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.[Qur'an, 4:19]
“And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect.[Qur'an 30:21]
Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: “Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good.[Qur'an, 3:134]
From Tradtions:
Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri: “I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.(Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)”
Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.(Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)”
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: “He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women.(Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)
Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.(Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)
Narrated Abu Huraira: “A man said to the Prophet , ‘Advise me! ‘The Prophet said, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, ‘Do not become angry and furious.(Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)
Abu Huraira reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: One is not strong because of one’s wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah’s Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa’l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)
Narrated Salim: “….Umar said: ‘The Prophet forbade beating on the face.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Hunting, Slaughtering, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 449)
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
As i said:“The Qur’an doesn’t actually say that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews and Christians, that’s an outright lie.”
“You’d think that an Almighty deity would have produced his Eternal Message in a language that everybody could understand readily and unequivocally; let’s say by making sure everybody spoke Arabic for starters?”
This is a very common criticism from atheist critics of Islam and i find it very unconvincing. Did Allah make it impossible for you,or any other human being at the time or all time, to understand and learn Arabic? Language is inherent to mankind in the sense that we are not born speaking any language but with the ability to learn any and every human language. Refusal to refer to the source is laziness in my opinion. The Qur’an talks about munafiqs(hypocrites) and disbelievers who make up excuses as to why they will not accept Islam. I find this argument also to be an excuse. Why? Because the answer to the question “why didn’t the Almighty produce his Eternal Message in a language that everybody could understand readily and unequivocally” is “He did!”. In addition,the Qur’an says that Allah has sent His Prophets(as),to EVERY nation, with the same message.
“Anyway most translations of the Quran render Surah 5:51a similar to Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other.””
Again all legitimate translations include the Arabic text and/or the Arabic transliteration. Yusuf Ali’s translation does this and as we can see, not only does the context not support the conclusion that the word used for friends, “awliya”, means friends in this case, but is a result of translator choice. This word refers to a specific type of friendship,an unequal friendship, and is more rightly translated as “allies”,”patrons”,”protectors”,even “saint”, “holy person” or “friend of Allah”. The context determines the correct translation.
If your friend who speaks Chinese recites Shakespeare to you in Chinese and asks “wasn’t that beautiful?”, you, who doesn’t speak Chinese will say will say “what was that?” He will say “Shakespeare!” You will say “No that wasn’t!” In the same way Translations of the Meaning of the Qur’an are just that, they are not the Qur’an per se. So when i ask have you read the Qur’an you will understand what i mean. To fully understand something, one must go to the source. If the source is in Arabic, either learn Arabic or be at the mercy of the translator. In any event isn’t the fact that the Qur’an does not actually use the common word for friends in that verse an argument in favor of knowing the Arabic Qur’an?
“Muhammad Assad has: “O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another; and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.””
Indeed the context of the verse suggests that Asad’s translations as “allies” is one of the better translations here, so i do not see how you could reasonably conclude that the Qur’an says not to be friends with Jews and Christians. Even you admit “that verse might be quite understandable given the circumstances with warring factions and tribes in the Arabian peninsula of the early seventh century”.
“But then he adds, in his commentary: “According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two
communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents – i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and the Christians to the Christians – and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur’an.””
Why did you not show the full commentary of that verse by Asad?:
(51) O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another [According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents - i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and the Christians to the Christians - and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Quran. See also 8: 73, and the corresponding note.] – and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers. [Lit., "the evildoing folk": i.e., those who deliberately sin in this respect. As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or - in Quranic terminology -"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wali has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a combination of two terms - is always dependent on the context]
As you can see even he doesn’t agree that the term is properly translated as friends. Numerous times the Qur’an mentions how we are to treat the people of the Book with friendlieness and kindness. In addition, would it make sense that we are allowed to eat from the People of the Book, and marry from among them, yet not be allowed friendship with them? Also, if you have read the major commentaries, which i have, you will see that Asad is wrong about most commentators believing that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews and Christians.
The word awliya’ has been commonly translated into English as “friends.” Given this translation, the verse appears to be a very clear statement opposing normative or kind relations between Muslims and Jews and Christians. however, when we look at the traditional Quranic commentaries which discuss the events surrounding the revelation of this verse,the modern translation becomes suspect. Within its proper historical context, the word awliya’ here does not mean “friends” at all. While it is true that one of the meanings of awliya’ is “friends,” it also has additional meanings such as “guardians,” “protectors” and even “legal guardians.” Interestingly enough, we find that when we consult the traditional commentaries on the Quran we are told that this verse was revealed at a particularly delicate moment in the life of the early Muslim community, and here it is necessary to explain, to a certain extent, what was the existential situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia so as to situate verse 5:51 within its proper circumstances.
Before 5:51 was revealed, the Prophet of Islam and the Muslims had only recently migrated as a community from Mecca to Medina. According to the commentary tradition in Islam, it was not long after this migration to Medina that verse 5:51 was revealed. Specifically, we are told that this verse came down around the time of the battle of Badr (2 A.H. / 623 A.D.) or perhaps after the battle of Uhud (3 A.H. / 625 A.D.). In these early days, even though the Muslim community constituted no more than perhaps a few hundred people and had already left the city of Mecca,the Meccan pagans continued to confront them militarily.Given the small numbers of the Muslims, the Prophet(as) and his fledgling community faced the real possibility of utter annihilation should they lose any of these early conflicts. Within this highly charged environment some members of the Muslim community wanted to make individual alliances with other non-Muslim tribes in the region. Within the city of Medina there were Jewish tribes who constituted a powerful presence in the town and who were on good terms with the Meccans, and to the north of the city there were also numerous Christian Arab tribes. Some Muslims saw the possibility of taking alliances with one or more of these groups as a way of guaranteeing their own survival This was the stark reality of Arabia at that time, it was only through the protection of one’s tribe or one’s alliances with other tribes or clans that one’s own individual security was insured.
From the perspective of Islam, however, the Prophet realized that a young community, faced with great peril, could not allow such “dissension” in the ranks of the faithful as would be created by various individuals taking bonds of loyalty with other groups not committed to the Islamic message. Indeed, from the Islamic point of view such actions, had they been allowed, would have been a kind of communal suicide that would have seriously undermined Muslim unity, broken the morale of the community and perhaps caused the many individuals taking such alliances to lack fortitude in the face of the clear and present danger.
Keeping all these historical issues in mind, it becomes obvious that the translation of awliya’ as “friends” is wrong and that it should be rendered as “protectors” or “guardians” in the strict military sense of these terms. The verse should be read as, “Do not take Christians and Jews as your protectors. They are protectors to one another….” This is the message of the verse, and the appropriateness of this understanding is supported not only by the historical context for its revelation and linguistic understanding, but also by the fact that nowhere does the Quran oppose simple kindness between peoples, as is clear from other Quranic verses:
God does not forbid that you should deal kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for the sake of [your] religion or drive you out of your homes. Truly, God loves those who are just. [Qur'an 60:8]
The good deed and the evil deed are not equal. Repel [the evil deed] with one that is better. Then truly the one, between you and he is enmity, shall become as a bosom friend. [Qur'an 41:34]
“Even if you’re right and the Quran never meant to convey you shouldn’t be friends with Christians and Jews on a personal level; there’s a lot of material out there saying exactly that, and if I’m not mistaken, some of that material is dispensed by the Saudis in American mosques. So shouldn’t you be railing against that, rather than against Nomani?”
Yes, in many salafi-oriented masjids or wahhabi-funded masjids this material is dispensed and i have been in mosques like that. But even then it is qualified as not a blanket prohibition of friendship with non Muslims. i am not railing against Nomani specifically, and you will find me criticizing salafis, wahbbis, other extremist Muslims, terrorists, and liberal and secular Muslims alike. i don’t know why you are under the impression that i am picking on Asra Nomani. In fact, i do believe that i reserved judgement on her and have not declared her an outright apostate, munafiq or otherwise. i have merely pointed out why many Muslims are not on her side. And here i am merely pointing out that she is not telling the truth about this verse. There is a difference between criticizing interpretations of verses and criticizing the actual verses. Nomani wants to remove the verses under the guise of “reinterpretation” and removal of “literal interpretations”.
I said: “Someone with those interpretations obviously acquired this understanding of Quranic verses from Islam-haters.”
“Right… because Muslims who interpret the Quran and the Sunnah that way hardly exist… I guess that’s why the law of current Afghanistan prescribes the death penalty for apostasy and why Yusuf al Qaradawi says that secularists ought to be killed. Maybe they got those ideas from reading Spencer too?”
First of all i said Islam haters, not specifically Robert Spencer. In my view, the greatest enemies of Islam fall into four major categories: munafiqs(hypocrites),apostate haters of Islam(ex.Ali Sina),extremists(Osama bin Laden),and Islamophobes(ex. Robert Spencer). It is only individuals from these groups who say the things she says. Just because there are Muslims who say these things does not negate my statement. But,with respect to what i was specifically referring to,Asra Nomani says that the QUR’AN says its ok to kill apostates. That is a blatant lie,and laws in Afghanistan or opinions of scholars like Yusuf al Qaradawi, if he holds that opinion, would come from interpretations of Sunnah as found in hadith , not the Qur’an.
Anyway the original claim was “These include verses—when literally read—that say that disobedient wives can be beaten “lightly,” that Muslims can’t be friends with the Jews and the Christians, and that it’s OK to kill converts from Islam.”
She may have a point about “literal” interpretations of verse 4:34 leading to a belief in the allowance of wife-beating in Islam. However, her statement makes it seem that so-called traditional/orthodox/ultraconservative Muslims believe that Allah gives them license to beat their wives for any reason,yet even they don’t believe this.Some extremists do which only affirms my contention that she got this from Islam haters. Also, since The Qur’an doesn’t actually say that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews and Christians and there is absolutely no verse in the Qur’an that says it’s ok to kill apostates, my point still stands. She has presented three untruths as truths.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“I can’t speak on authority… as for the rest: who are you to judge?”
Again i am not actually judging her. You seem to miss where i reserved judgment. i am merely pointing out why Muslims doubt her authenticity. And, just so you know, Muslims reject someone’s authority based on their rejection of that person’s authenticity. If you can’t speak on authority then, with all due respect, you cannot claim to understand why we doubt her authenticity as a Muslim. If you actually want my opinion, she sounds like a non Muslim. The kind of munafiq, who i mentioned in another post, that does not like a part of Islam and attempts to change it to conform to her own views. However i am still reserving judgement since Allah cautions us against declaring someone who professes Islam a kafir. However, we can look at her activities and opinions to get an idea of what she is about, since, as you say, we cannot read her mind:
1. She disagrees that zina is a sin in Islam. In her “Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Bedroom,” she asserts, “Women have an Islamic right to exemption from criminalization or punishment for consensual adult sex.” Yet, in Islam a woman would only be punished for sex outside the marriage.What type of consensual adult sex is she talking about here?
2. She has tried to change Islam so that women can lead mixed gender prayers, where men and women pray side by side.
Although Nomani uses the hadith of Umm Waraqa as proof for her position, there is no other evidence from the vast hadith literature or Sunna of the Prophet(as) that it was common practice to have female prayer leaders. In fact, in Umm Waraqa’s case, all that is evident from the hadith is that the Prophet9as) permitted Umm Waraqa to lead the “people of her house” in prayer, and he appointed a muezzin for her. It is not clear if the people she led were males or females or both. Furthermore, there is no other hadith to support women as imams over men in prayer.
3.She advocates a reform of Islam, based not on her own scholarship and education from a legitimate Islamic institution of learning, but from her own opinion.
4. She talks about tearing up pages of the Qur’an or passages going up in spoke in a blithe, nonchalant manner; as if burning or tearing up the Qur’an is not something sensitive to Muslims. Her choice of language makes her suspect.
5.She thinks hijab and polygyny are part of a list of manmade rules,customs and tribal traditions masquerading as divine law, that deny women rights.
6.She says “It is not Islam that requires women to wear a headscarf, but rather the scholars in the contemporary schools.”
7. She uses terms like “peace jihad”, implying that jihad normally and normatively refers to violence.
It is significant that Amina Wadud. who calls herself “a pro-faith feminist,” has distanced herself from Nomani. Michael Muhammad Knight in his his book Blue-Eyed Devil (p. 209)writes:
“Inside the chapel there might have been as many reporters and camera crews as there were praying Muslims. The imam of the day, Amina Wadud, was so distracted by the long rows of popping flash-bulbs that in the middle of the prayer she forgot her ayats. At PMU’s first board meeting, Ahmed Nassef would read to us an email from Dr. Wadud that completely washed her hands of the event. Though she still believed in woman-led prayer, she wanted nothing to do with PMU or Asra Nomani. … Wadud had drawn a clear line between the Truth and the media whores, and we knew that PMU was on the wrong side. To avoid public criticism, PMU’s website made no mention of Asra’s role in organizing the prayer. Asra complained of PMU shutting her out.”
These, among many other things, are the activities and opinions of someone dissatisfied with Islam. People like her eventually apostasize when they find they cannot change Islam. Publicly maintaining that she is a Muslim, seems to be a disclaimer based on her own realization that what she will say does not sound like something a Muslim would say.i still reserve judgment but it is hard not to believe that she is not just using the media and her Muslim status for personal gain; especially in light of the fake ex-muslim/former terrorist phenomenon. She seems to be using the new gimmick, Islamophobe in Muslim disguise.
“..hurling insults at someone who doesn’t hurl them at you isn’t exactly helping your case. As an argument, it’s basically an ad hominem attack, and therefore irrelevant.”
You can’t be referring to me, since i did not hurl any personal insults at her.
“pick out and scrutinize adolescent Muslim men before they board planes.”
She can’t possibly justify this morally and neither can you. Not only that, but it’s just not feasible to profile a group of people that fit into every conceivable ethnicity and walk of life on Earth. And terrorists do their utmost to blend in, so any sort of profiling will not stop at scrutiny of Mooslim-looking individuals, it will extend to all Middle Eastern looking people.
“With Nomani, I don’t think you’re going to win people over for your argument that way.”
It’s really up to non-Muslims to see her for what she is. Muslims immediately see beyond her soft,kind,caring,thoughtful exterior and listen to what she is actually saying. And what she says makes her sound like a non Muslim.i think she is using this soft approach to make her detractors appear as the bad ones. i don’t think i am wrong about her and i’m not bashing her, just telling the truth as i see it. If disagreeing with her makes me look bad to non Muslims, so be it.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Jack,
“Tearing it out symbolically, by not interpreting certain texts at face value. Which she call the literal interpretation of the text. Now, you may disagree with her that taking verses at face value is actually a literal rendition of the text, but even if you do: shouldn’t you be going after wahhabi’s?”
Symbolically or not, that type of language will not lend her any credibility with the Muslim community. can she not see the relevant hypocrisy of Islamophobes who laud her as one of the “few sensible Muslims”, and refer to Anjem Choudhary as ” one of the few honest, treu Muslims”?
As far a wahhabis are concerned, i give equal criticism to salafis, wahhabis,liberal and progressives Muslims, apostate islam-haters, and Islamophobes alike.As i said the greatest enemies of Islam fall into four major categories: munafiqs(hypocrites),apostate haters of Islam(ex.Ali Sina),extremists(Osama bin Laden),and Islamophobes(ex. Robert Spencer).
“The difference with Spencer and his ilk, is that they say taking the Quran at face value leads to true Islam, whereas Nomani doesn’t say that at all. Rather she says certain interpretations of Islam are awful and must be met head on by the Muslim community.”
Indeed there are interpretation of Islam that are awful, but they don’t have a solid Qur’anic basis. Someone who thinks removing pages from the Qur’an will yield the real Islam is as dangerous as the one saying that the awful interpretations represent the real Islam. And i have said:
1.her ideas about racial profiling are bad, and morally reprehensible at that.
2.she misunderstands the verses in the Qur’an she addresses.
3.she should study it a little bit better before writing about it, since she isn’t an Islamic scholar.
“But if you fix on calling her a fake, a loon, a media whore, a sell-out, a traitor, or whatever, you just might lose the attention of a lot of good-willing people. You’re already losing mine, and I’m not a big fan of racial profiling.”
If we are losing your attention then i have to seriously doubt you are against racial profiling. You can disagree with our assessment of her character, and i agree with you that hurling insults makes one look bad. But if you are sincerely against racial and religious profiling and agree that Nomani’s views on the subject are morally reprehensible, we should still have your attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io5hwlFIhbE
“I think you’re downplaying/underestimating the influence of fundamentalist Islam.”
And i think you are overemphasizing the influence of the so-called fundamentalists. That “fundamentalist Islam is a distortive misnomer, aside,this and “The best way for Muslims to counter the criticism is to address these issues amongst themselves (and give a little bit of rumor about doing so)” looks remarkably like the “where are the Moderate Muslims?” accusatory query.
Keep in mind that the US, with more than 200,000 troops spread out in three Muslim-majority countries cannot defeat several dozen thousand fanatics. This is not including other troops, intelligence agents, and mercenaries and independent contractors stationed in parts of the Muslim world such as Saudi Arabia, Somali, Yemen. And if we take Glenn Becks assumption of “10% of Muslims are terrrorists” seriously. a 157 million strong army of fanatics are on the loose. Can you see my point.
The Mainstream Muslim majority continuously exercises the most influence among Muslims and has exercised the most influence in the Muslim world for centuries.Even the Wahhabis and other Saudis are recognizing their own mistakes. Saudi clerics are issuing fatwas that sound very moderate.Not only that, Muslims have also been reinterpreting their tradition for centuries.
“Actually, in that video, she’s only interrupting him once, when he has answered one question, and then wants to expound on his answer over and over, where she wants to make a point by refining her question.”
Were we watching the same video? Nomani continously interrupts him, and becomes quiet only when she recognizes how she must look to her audience. The proof is in her facial expression. This is another reason why people think of her as a “media whore”, a “fake”.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Michael Elwood and Dawood,
i really appreciate your comments.
Michael Elwood i understand that you think Nomani and others like her are getting a bum rap, but can’t you see that what they say makes the Muslim community suspicious of them?
“It may “seem” to say that to some, but it doesn’t. And what “a lot of Muslim men” believe is immaterial (argumentum ad populum).”
That statement of yours is just classic!
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah both sound alot like Asra Nomani with respect to the Park 51/ Cordoba House project. Perhaps Loonwatch could do a piece on this; Muslims who oppose the Islamic Center near Ground Zero. Muslim opposition to the center doesn’t necessarily make them loons, but there definitely are loony Muslims who oppose the center. And their arguments closely resemble those of the Islamophobes.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
LOL wow, she got owned. Proper response Danios! I love it when hypocrites are put in their place.
December 10th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
@muhammad ‘abd-al haqq; did you just write four postings especially for me. I appreciate it, but damn! that’s some home work assignment.
December 10th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
LOL Jack,
i have a little bit of time on my hands now, and believe that your rational responses deserve a more exhaustive treatment and explanation than the usual loony postings we get here from our resident loonies. That’s my way of saying i appreciate your comments and criticisms.
Allahu A’lam
December 10th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
“Michael Elwood i understand that you think Nomani and others like her are getting a bum rap, but can’t you see that what they say makes the Muslim community suspicious of them?”
I can definitely see how that could be the case. I have my own suspicions sometimes. But I’m giving them the benefit of a doubt. I’ve been particularly impressed with the growth of Irshad lately, and to a lesser extant, Raheel. Irshad started her public career as a tool for Islamaphobes, but she has become more independent in her thinking (which has earned her much criticism from Islamaphobes). I think Raheel and Asra will go the same way.
December 10th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Quite an interesting series of posts here.
One thing that caught my attention in the interview with Joy Baher was when she talked about the length of beard. First, by calling it like a “gang sign”, she was being needlessly pejorative. Gang members = criminals, so people that sport “gang signs” are criminals. If she wanted to continue her “gentle” facade, she could have chosen a less pejorative analogy.
Second, this was utterly irrelevant, as even the 9/11 hijackers shaved themselves clean before they committed their crimes. So it is remarkably clueless to bring up “length of beard” in a discussion of profiling potential hijackers. Bring up a REAL example of some kind of “profiling” that would have caught REAL hijackers…like, oh, I don’t know, the fact that someone’s already on a “do not fly” list like the Christmas bomber.
But of course, it was his beard length that should have tipped of TSA agents. [/SARCASM]
December 11th, 2010 at 1:35 am
Michael Elwood
“I can definitely see how that could be the case. I have my own suspicions sometimes. But I’m giving them the benefit of a doubt.”
Yes, this is why i am resrving judgement myself and not calling her a kafir outright.
” I’ve been particularly impressed with the growth of Irshad lately, and to a lesser extant, Raheel. Irshad started her public career as a tool for Islamaphobes, but she has become more independent in her thinking (which has earned her much criticism from Islamaphobes). I think Raheel and Asra will go the same way.”
Hopefully Nomani will realize, like Irshad, exactly what support from Islamophobes entails.
Daniel,
“One thing that caught my attention in the interview with Joy Baher was when she talked about the length of beard. First, by calling it like a “gang sign”, she was being needlessly pejorative. Gang members = criminals, so people that sport “gang signs” are criminals. If she wanted to continue her “gentle” facade, she could have chosen a less pejorative analogy.”
Exactly, her underlying tone betrays a degree of contempt for traditional Muslims.
“But of course, it was his beard length that should have tipped of TSA agents. [/SARCASM]”
On point once again. Profiling is ineffective.
Allahu A’lam
December 11th, 2010 at 8:07 am
You should see the comments made about Asra on you tube. Most of the bigots don’t like her no matter what she says simply because she’s a Muslim. Ofcourse there are some bigots who agree with what she says but it seems like people like Spencer and Geller are only using her as a tool to get the message across: oh look an unhappy Muslim who probably can’t convert cuz she’s scared blah blah blah….
I hope Asra sees what they’re really about and understands where we are coming from.
December 11th, 2010 at 10:48 am
She looks like shaitan.
December 11th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Please no references to the demonic…just my two cents.
December 11th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
And then we wonder why people call us barbarians– we need to improve our own condition and be civil.
December 11th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Arman, that’s a bit harsh. Not cool.
December 12th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
@ Asra Nomani: Dear lady;you can never be honest and a Muslim at the same time.Honesty and Islam can never mix.Quran is actually autobiography of Mohammad.It is a political Ideology,representing the Arab supremacy being supported by brainwashed non-Arabs acting as apologists for Mohammad and Islam.Quran is the Incoherent outbursts of an ambitious man,who claimed to be a prophet.Without that claim,there was no difference between Mohammad and Hitler except Hitler did not go through so many women and did not promise renewable virgins and young pearl like boys in heavenly Whore House of Allah.Mohammad offered his Arabian bandits what they desired most like cold water,food,wine and sex which they lacked in harsh condioned of Arabia.Then the threat of death for apostate has helped the Muslims remain in the fold of Islam which can never give them peace in this world and the next.Strife and terrorism are the other substitute names for Islam.
December 12th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
LOL … Halal Pork is back and off his meds again
December 12th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Oh crap! I thought he was banned. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…
December 12th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
haram pork,
You should be thanking Allah for not being banned from Loonwatch. i for one cannot believe you are still here! But watch this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
and after you have watched that please find yourself a good psychiatrist. You are a very sick person.
Allahu A’lam
December 12th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
@halal dork
Hey pork boy, I don’t think they allow internet access to patients in a mental hospital. You better get off or else they might put you in a straight jacket for a week… Again.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Michael Elwood: “And what “a lot of Muslim men” believe is immaterial (argumentum ad populum).”
That would be true if my argument had been: X is the right interpretation of the Quran because there are a lot of Muslims out there who believe X to be the right interpretation.
But that’s not what I’m saying. My argument is rather that if a Holy Book, taken at face value seems to be saying X and a significant amount of readers interpret it that way, this would still raise some serious skepticism about it’s divine origins, even if that interpretation is incorrect. After all, one would expect an all-knowing and foreseeing Entity to anticipate the later confusion and act on it beforehand.
Secondly, even if you don’t agree with that argument, the fact a significant amount of believers get it wrong on a range of issues and are able to justify their actions by quoting the Quran and the Sunnah without others jumping in and correcting them, should still be a reason for alarm. Something is obviously going wrong there.
Suppose you had a manual for a technical appliance. And suppose, taken at face value, the manual seems to read “do X”. Naturally, a substantial amount of readers would take the advise, and as a consequence the apparatus would break down, accidents would happen to people, etcetera.
Now, would it be much helpful if the company distributing the manual would say: ‘Well, it’s not our fault people misinterpret the manual. They should pay better attention. Besides, it’s a translation from Taiwanese, and you know, the meaning of the original is so much more layered. Can’t people just take the effort to learn Taiwanese?’
December 13th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Jack, the Muslims who’ve actually read the Quran know what’s in the Quran. There are no misinterpretations. The translations are not perfect, however, due to limited English (i.e. beat instead of strike lightly) or limited Arabic knowledge but majority of Scholars have been on the same page regarding the Tafsirs of the Quran. The only ones who are getting it wrong are people who have been brainwashed by terrorists who purposely misinterpret the Quran to gain power over others or by Islamophobes who are going by Robert Spencer’s misinterpretations on purpose to drive Muslims out. Quran doesn’t need to be fixed, only people with evil intentions need help. May they come to their senses!
December 13th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
“Jack, the Muslims who’ve actually read the Quran know what’s in the Quran. There are no misinterpretations.”
Really? So Wahhabi scholars read the Quran the same way you do, for instance about having friendship with Jews and Christians?
And I guess the Syrian and Jemeni clerics calling Jews “apes and pigs” because the Quran uses those epithets, aren’t Muslims at all but evil terrorists?
Did you know there was a time when Islamic scholars almost universally believed it was the religious duty of the Ummah to expand the Islamic empire by force? Read Majid Khadduri’s chapter on the doctrine of Jihad in his War and Peace in the Law of Islam, or check out what the Shafi’i handbook of fiqh ‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik says about the matter.
So where does all that leave your “the Muslims who’ve actually read the Quran know what’s in the Quran. There are no misinterpretations”? The reality is that there were and are very learned Muslims out there pushing interpretations of the Quran which would make your skin crawl.
December 13th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Jack: I recommend looking at this excellent academic article on the topic for further information on this area of Islamic thought. It’s well worth reading, and gives a detailed discussion of the topic. JihadBob obviously disagrees with its contents, but it was accepted through peer review for publication in a major academic journal discussing Islamic law, so is worth a look.
Khadduri’s text is an important early academic source, no doubt about it, but reading the section on “the law of war” without also reading the section on “the law of peace” does not do his work justice. His work on al-SHaybani’s Siyar is also important. The latter and Reliance of the Traveller are both pre-modern in nature and valuable translations of early Islamic thought. They are among a handful of classical sources available to us today, though their exact relevance to a discussion about contemporary Islamic belief and thought remains to be seen. Attempting to understand contemporary Muslim beliefs and thought by referring to medieval sources does not do modern Muslim thinkers or the generality of Muslims alive today justice. They have their own voice, and publishing/thought has not simply stopped in the intervening years.
In my view, and I think it is a reasonable position, it is better to look at what contemporary Muslim thinkers and scholars are saying in regards to this doctrine, as Jackson did in the latter part of his article. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for interpreting their own religious tradition in the contemporary world, after all. The problem in your (and JihadBob’s) case, is that none of the mainstream scholars agree with your assertions regarding the doctrine, as Jackson also noted.
December 13th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq: “Did Allah make it impossible for you,or any other human being at the time or all time, to understand and learn Arabic? Language is inherent to mankind in the sense that we are not born speaking any language but with the ability to learn any and every human language. Refusal to refer to the source is laziness in my opinion.”
Actually for billions of people who struggle to survive everyday, yes, it is impossible. A lot of people around the world don’t know how to read and write anyway. And just consider the amount of training it takes just to learn a foreign language. It takes resources too, on textbooks, dictionaries, tutoring and the like. Resources a lot of people across time and space simply don’t have.
That’s probably why a great deal of Muslims actually never bother to learn to understand Arabic. Besides, it’s not like they’re stimulated to do so either. Instead, they’re taught to parrot the words. After all, it’s the divine speech that counts. Who needs to understand what the book is saying exactly.
Secondly: it’s not that practical altogether to learn classical Arabic, considering the language has diversified over time into different dialects. It’s like learning old English. Nobody speaks that way anymore. I read the story about an immigrant to Egypt who spoke in classical Arabic, and no-one understood what he said.
Thirdly: it’s not just the language that has changed. To understand Shakespeare’s plays for instance, you’d need to have knowledge of different political settings in his time, forgotten values and customs, literary conventions, economic and political geography, allusions to classical literature, etcetera. But somehow, the Quran doesn’t come with any footnotes, explaining these obscure customs and references. You need a library to understand it, just like any other ancient human artifact.
Fourthly: considering the Quran is often explained by using the Hadith, you’d need knowledge of that too, including a degree in how to decide whether a certain tradition could be considered authentic or not.
Now, does that strike you as a very efficient way of communicating your Eternal Message to mankind? You’d think that an Eternal Creator would come up with a better way, ensuring his revelation couldn’t get blurred with misunderstandings.
And while we’re at it: how come all of these prophets are in one way or another dependent on one another? It’s not as if from the native Americans to the Germanic tribes, from the kingdoms of China to the peoples of South America, every human civilization had their priests and holy men saying the same thing.
It’s more like: a rag-tag set of tribes in ancient Canaan picked up a deity from desert tribes, endowed it with features of pagan fertility gods, gave it primacy over all other deities and when their little kingdom was destroyed, morphed it into the one and only God, the supreme being, picking up motifs and elements from Babylonian and Persian religion along the way.
Of course their ‘revelation’ would be in the languages these tribes happened to be speaking: Hebrew and Aramaic.
Then it got transposed into Graeco-Roman culture, mixing ideas about a messianic entity with pagan ideas about a god-man, basically establishing a mystery cult around a divine savior, with ideas about death, divine sacrifice and resurrection, initiation rites (baptism), secret knowledge, and sacrificial meals re-enacting the mythos.
Striking out the competition of the other cults, Christianity became sanitized and intellectualized over time, making it more of a philosophical religion, using ancient speculative theories and concepts to square the idea of a savior-god with monotheism.
The languages these exercises happened to be made in were Greek and Roman. Gee, I guess that explains why theology students still have to learn those languages.
Echoes of Judaism and Christianity reverberated down the empire and even down the Arabian peninsula via caravan routes and Jewish communities in the area, where a young trader picked up these stories and precepts and fused them with local rites and traditions, such as the festival surrounding the Kaaba and the holy month.
Arabic simply happened to be the language that particular caravan trader and the people around him communicated in. But I’m not so impressed with the claims Islam makes for itself so as to learn Arabic. It’s just that in discussions about the Quran and Islam, it’s a handicap not to be able to read the source material or certain commentaries for myself, and see what they say.
December 13th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Dawood, you’re just the man I need. Did you read Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition by Nasr by any chance? I contacted Loonwatch and told them about Robert Spencer’s pathetic review of the book.Here was their response:
“Thank you for your suggestion Nassir. Can you provide us with the points that you think are most relevant from Nasr’s book, or better yet a review?”
Unfortunately, I didn’t purchase the book (and thus haven’t read it). So yeah, if anyone did read it, and they have some free time, they should send in their review or relevant points to Loonwatch.
December 13th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Jack: The reality is that there were and are very learned Muslims out there pushing interpretations of the Quran which would make your skin crawl.
Tell me about it! Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji…
Although I wouldn’t exactly call them ‘learned’.
December 13th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
* Sorry, the link to Spencer’s book review wasn’t working.
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Fundamentalism-Betrayal-Tradition-Philosophy/product-reviews/0941532607/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
December 13th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Dawood: “They are among a handful of classical sources available to us today, though their exact relevance to a discussion about contemporary Islamic belief and thought remains to be seen. Attempting to understand contemporary Muslim beliefs and thought by referring to medieval sources does not do modern Muslim thinkers or the generality of Muslims alive today justice.”
That’s a great point you’re making, and I couldn’t agree with you more. Christian theology hasn’t stopped in twelve hundred A.D. and it’s a bit silly to think that Muslim fiqh would have stopped developing in the Middle Ages. I’ll be sure to read that article you pointed at.
But I wasn’t referring to the doctrine of offensive jihad in Medieval Islamic theology to make a point about contemporary Muslim thinking. I simply wanted to give an example of how Muslim scholars in past times (maybe even: forgotten times) read the more bellicose portions of the Quran in a very different light than most Muslims would today.
Now, that’s mostly a matter of hermeneutics: how you think the Quran applies today, and hermeneutics is shaped to a large degree by how one experiences the world.
But I think it’s an important case in point, since Khushboo here seems to think any genuine Muslim who reads the Quran simply knows what it says, and misinterpretations, if they ever occur, are a rarity. Well…
December 13th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
* Oh, and sorry again. My link to Irshad Manji’s bizarre mug led to a Loonwatch article about Robert Spencer (hmmm…curious).
December 14th, 2010 at 12:26 am
Oh, before we get into more stuff, I wanted to say I really appreciate all the exegetical comments and pointers about Surah 4:34.
The arguments presented by Dawood among others have me lean towards the position that the issue there is infidelity, considering the phrase about fearing disloyalty is preceded by “The righteous women (…) guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard.” and the same verb is in 4:128 of particular conduct men are suspected of by their spouses.
What’s holding me back though, is the stress on obedience in verse 4:34. It starts with “The righteous women are obedient” and it ends with “But if they obey you, then do not seek a way against them”. So unless obedience only pertains to “Now, honey, like I’ve told you, no hanky panky with Abdul, Jafar, Nassir and Jamal.”, you’d think there’s more to it, especially considering the views people had on women in patriarchal societies.
The argument that wa-iḍ’ribūhunna could mean anything from striking to setting forth something, to traveling isn’t very convincing to me. Setting forth what exactly? That meaning would render an incomplete thought in 4:34. And if leaving her is the issue, the root wāw dhāl rā seems more in place, such as in 4:129, fatadharūhā.
If it’s not leaving, then what could be the progressive culmination of admonishing and letting her sleep by herself? It seems to me, beating her is a logical next step and given the fact the verb actually means ‘to strike’ in a great many instances, I would take it to mean that here as well.
Anyway, Khushboo still hasn’t answered my question how one would arrive grammatically from wa-iḍ’ribūhunna to “strike gently – if you must”.
Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq’s overview of the different positions by different schools of thought was insightful though. I greatly enjoyed it. It shows quite convincingly no school of Islamic thought takes from this verse a man is justified in actually causing bodily harm to his spouse; although I wouldn’t quite know what the point in beating her would be unless there’s some infliction of pain involved.
What are you going to do to get your spouse to stop from doing whatever it is she most definitively needs to stop doing: spank her behind?
December 14th, 2010 at 1:36 am
Jack: Thanks for your posts, it is definitely an interesting discussion and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
I simply wanted to give an example of how Muslim scholars in past times (maybe even: forgotten times) read the more bellicose portions of the Quran in a very different light than most Muslims would today.
Oh there is no doubt that this is the case, as is the case with all great religious traditions that have spanned centuries/millennia. The issue is that scholars always interpret closed texts (i.e. texts with a limited number of words, phrases and variables) through the context they inhabit and situations their societies find themselves in. I don’t really see how this could be any other way in reality. Jackson’s article discusses this thoroughly regarding the underlying socio-political situation and its relation to warfare.
Ultimately, this is to be expected, and is also found in modern law. I am quite sure that none of the “Founding Fathers” would have had any notion of some of the debates that take place these days regarding the US Constitution, for example, though they did their best to pre-empt such troubles and provide provisions to deal with new situations simply not existent in their time. Yet even those with radically divergent positions can cite them as authoritative figures to support their own positions in debate. Islamic and modern (Western) law, and I would suppose Chinese and other legal systems all exhibit the same characteristic: they project an image of a legal system which necessarily appears monolithic and generally supports the status quo, even if under the surface there is much disagreement and debate. This is so because law has to be seen to be encompassing and authoritative in order for it to function in society. At least in my experience, the Islamic tradition also works like this. Scholars always refer to previous authorities and precedents, even if radically departing from them in the end. This is to show a continuation of authority, and also as an act of legitimisation for their position. Later scholars within even a single juristic school (madhhab) may radically depart from early authorities, yet still cite early positions as precedent before coming to their own position! For example, al-Shatibi’s famous medieval exposition of the ultimate objectives of the law (maqasid al-shari’a) was in reality a radically new approach to viewing the totality of Islamic jurisprudence, yet he still traced precedents all the way to the eponymous founder of his school, Malik ibn Anas (who died 600 years earlier)!
Your comments on hermeneutics is most definitely true as well, in my opinion. As an example that I can think of from the top of my head, I recommend checking this link to a talk given by the Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa when he was in the UK. Specifically, Question 2. His discussion on that issue should highlight a principle well-known in exegesis – that understandings and indeed legal rulings based on them develop and change with a change in circumstance. It’s actually one of the key legal maxims found in Islamic jurisprudence across all of the schools of law: “Rulings change with a change in circumstances/time” (تغير الأحكام بتغير الأحوال/الزمان) and is even found in the codified Ottoman Majalla. It is a pragmatic legal principle.
But I think it’s an important case in point, since Khushboo here seems to think any genuine Muslim who reads the Quran simply knows what it says, and misinterpretations, if they ever occur, are a rarity.
Well, I would have to respectfully disagree with this position. It’s clear to me from my experience that verses discussing the general points of belief etc. are not as difficult to understand and can be understood by most believers, but verses dealing with the intricacies of juristic law, especially when it necessitates dealing with various verses from multiple sections of the Qur’an, complementary (or conflicting) hadith and so forth, is simply complex. But that’s just my own experience, and other Muslims are free to believe and do as they wish (such as the “Qur’an only” crowd, who I respectfully disagree with also).
As for 4:34, I will have to continue at a later date.
December 14th, 2010 at 1:37 am
Oh crap, my bold didn’t close.
Apologies everyone!
December 14th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Haha lol Dawood no probs.
December 14th, 2010 at 3:45 am
On a side note here (and I am enjoying the debate) we really need a forum. Do you want to use mine?
December 14th, 2010 at 4:52 am
Jack, I responded to your post yesterday, but for some reason it doesn’t seem visible to anyone but me (it says, “your comment is awaiting moderation). Admin, wassup?
December 14th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Michael, if:
- you’ve never posted here before using the details you have now (e-mail address etc)
- your post has two links or more
then you have to wait for the admin to confirm it. It’s annoying but it will come through eventually…
December 14th, 2010 at 8:25 am
jack, Wadribuhunn has the root word “daraba” which means either beat or strike but we went with the word strike since beat is not the appropriate word,logically speaking and we know that God doesn’t allow domestic abuse and it’s been mentioned in the Hadith as well. I’m no expert but Islam has been the most logical religion to me. Here’s a link that will help you:
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/vogon-britain/80435-discussion-quran.html
I did mention that people purposefully “misinterpret” the Quran to gain power over others i.e. subjugate women. They might not necessarily be terrorists though. One must do their own research to find the truth and not just rely on others to tell you what’s in the Quran.
December 14th, 2010 at 9:07 am
more on daraba:
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/women_treatment.htm
December 14th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Thanks Jack. I thought it was a technical problem on my side or their side or something.
December 14th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Khushboo; my question was how the Arabic grammar would lead one to translate wa-iḍ’ribūhunna as: “and strike her gently – if you must”.
Let’s break down your answer:
1. “Wadribuhunn has the root word “daraba” which means either beat or strike…” (That’s a semantic argument).
2. “..but we went with the word strike since beat is not the appropriate word, logically speaking” (That would be a logical argument, even though I must say I don’t understand the logic at all).
3. “and we know that God doesn’t allow domestic abuse” (That would be a dogmatic argument: we *know* God doesn’t allow domestic abuse and since the Quran is Gods word, it can’t promote domestic abuse: in exegesis, this is a lazy argument).
4. “and it’s been mentioned in the Hadith as well.” (This is an exegetical argument, although it’s riddled with presuppositions about the authenticity of the Hadith, it’s relation to certain Quranic verses, historical development of the Quran, etc.)
But I was asking for grammatical arguments why ‘wa-iḍ’ribūhunna’ should be stranslated as: “then strike her gently – if you must”. And from your answer I gather there really aren’t any grammatical arguments to translate it that way.
Now, in matters of translation of holy writ, I’m somewhat of a purist. I take the position that for study-purposes, one should simply translate as literally as possible without importing all sorts of meanings from other places. Because importing all sorts of other stuff just makes it harder to distinguish what the text itself says from considerations about the text. It’s just one verb: “and strike her” (assuming one agrees on the meaning of the word). The text doesn’t say you should do it gently, or only “if you must”. That’s commentary on the bare text.
December 14th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Hi Jack, I’m just adding to our discussion further regarding 4:34, and hopefully the tags work now! (apologies again if they don’t, but it’s useful to split up sections of long posts).
The arguments presented by Dawood among others have me lean towards the position that the issue there is infidelity, considering the phrase about fearing disloyalty is preceded by “The righteous women (…) guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard.” and the same verb is in 4:128 of particular conduct men are suspected of by their spouses.
When we look into other tafsir, we find clarification. Using pre-modern tafsir as an example (and I am selecting two which are also published in English so those with no Arabic can verify what I’ve said and translated below if they wish), the Jalalayn, (although I find the views contained within regarding women to be less than conducive towards modern marital relationships, though normal for the time), connects “guarding the unseen” (حَٰفِظَٰتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ) to “namely, their private parts and other than this” (لفروجهن وغيرها). Looking at al-Fayruzabadi’s Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas it also confirms this. It glosses this section of the verse with: “their own persons and the wealth of their husbands when their husbands are not present” (لأنفسهن ومال أزواجهن {لِّلْغَيْبِ} لغيب أزواجهن). Ibn Kathir, unfortunately not in complete English translation, explains that this refers to “slander (غيبة) regarding herself, or his wealth”. The former obviously relating to her fidelity.
What’s holding me back though, is the stress on obedience in verse 4:34. It starts with “The righteous women are obedient” and it ends with “But if they obey you, then do not seek a way against them”.
Indeed, and that is a point worth looking into more. The Jalalayn simply glosses “the righteous women are obedient” (فَٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتُ قَٰنِتَٰتٌ) as “obedient to their husbands” (مطيعات لأزواجهن), without giving further detail on exactly what that entails. Fayruzabadi explains it thus: “(so righteous women), namely, those beneficent to their husbands” (المحسنات إلى أزواجهن), “are obedient to God regarding their husbands” (مطيعات لله في أزواجهن). Now, that doesn’t give us terribly more information, except that it clarifies that at least this exegete believes obedience is to God regarding the duties between husband and wife. The details of exactly what these are considered to be are not discussed there, however.
When it comes to the “But, if they obey you” section of the verse, Fayruzabadi simply glosses this as “in bed” (في المضاجع), so it seems to be connected directly to the issue of marital fidelity. Ibn Kathir explains it as follows: “i.e. if the woman obeys her husband in everything he requires from her, as permitted to him by God, there is no recourse for him towards her after that. He cannot strike her, nor desert her.” (أي: إذا أطاعت المرأة زوجها في جميع ما يريده منها؛ مما أباحه الله له منها، فلا سبيل له عليها بعد ذلك، وليس له ضربها ولا هجرانها.) Now, this definitely remains undefined, so I would understand this as connecting to cultural practice; the limits of such requirements and duties are defined through that. And because of that, they can also change, although connecting it to fidelity and looking after the family wealth etc., seems reasonable even today, although more may have been assumed than what is simply stated within the verse itself during the pre-modern period.
The argument that wa-iḍ’ribūhunna could mean anything from striking to setting forth something, to traveling isn’t very convincing to me.
Agreed on that. I admire those who look to the Qur’an and the Arabic language to try and find nuance regarding this issue, but from what I have been taught, the structure simply does not allow it to mean anything other than strike, as far as my linguistic experience tells me (which is not that much, in reality). It can mean “set forth” or “separate from” (ضرب عن – which is found in Hava’s classical Arabic dictionary Al-Fara’id, p. 408), and even “turn towards them [with clemency, for example]” (ضرب عنهن صفحا – this example is found in Hans Wehr p. 539), but the structure found in the verse (واضربوهن) is missing vital prepositions which need to be there to change the meaning in these cases. It is also in the imperative mood, which will be discussed below.
In this case, we need to look further afield to how both early and later Muslims interpreted this part of the verse, and also how they either supported or mitigated its apparent command for husbands to strike their wives.
That meaning would render an incomplete thought in 4:34. And if leaving her is the issue, the root wāw dhāl rā seems more in place, such as in 4:129, fatadharūhā. If it’s not leaving, then what could be the progressive culmination of admonishing and letting her sleep by herself?
That’s an interesting observation! Where did you get this point from, or was it from your own reading of the texts? The verb you cite does mean to leave something behind, which Lane and Wehr (p. 1059) clarifies. And the culmination actually rests in the next verses (4:35-36), which discusses arbitration and either reconciliation or divorce.
It seems to me, beating her is a logical next step and given the fact the verb actually means ‘to strike’ in a great many instances, I would take it to mean that here as well.
Agreed, and I would have to respectfully disagree with those who posit otherwise. It is definitely a multi-layered gradation of seriousness, and I think that is what is important to consider.
Anyway, Khushboo still hasn’t answered my question how one would arrive grammatically from wa-iḍ’ribūhunna to “strike gently – if you must”.
It is not that it is something inherent linguistically, but due to other existing evidence in the sources which qualify and counteract this apparent command. This alone belies the arguments of the “Qur’an alone” crowd because even with other verses mentioning treating spouses well, not harming them etc., taking this particular interpretation of this verse necessitates looking to extra-Qur’anic sources. At least in my opinion.
Looking at the Jalalayn and Fayruzabadi’s work again, both qualify the “strike them” with the clarification that: “Strike without violence/intensity if unable to return from separation” (ضرباً غير مبرِّح إن لم يرجعن بالهجران), and “Strike without violence/intensity and without disgrace.” (ضرباً غير مبرح ولا شائن), in the latter. Interestingly, the last word there that I translated as “disgrace” comes from a root (شان) meaning to disfigure or mar something, so its implication is implied.
Most tafsirs I have checked qualify “strike” as such, either alone or with further discussion and evidence to support their position. Al-Qurtubi’s famous Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an mentions that “The strike mentioned in this verse is a strike relating to behaviour/etiquette, not one which is violent/severe” (والضرب في هذه الآية هو ضرب الأدب غير المُبَرِّح). Now, this still does not go into the detail we today would like looking back on this practice, but that is what the preserved texts tell us so we have to take it as we find it. For me as a historian, I see clearly that the strike in this verse has always been seen as something different to domestic violence in exegesis, and perhaps in its socio-historical context it had a specific relevance and meaning for a pre-modern, non-Western society.
Many of the tafsirs cite proofs from primary sources, including such famous ahadith which state things as “How can a person strike his wife like a slave (or camel in some variants) and then share the same bed with her at night?”; “The best of you are those who are best to their wives”; and simply, perhaps more importantly “Do not strike them or revile them.” The modern tafsir of Ibn ‘Ashur (d. 1974) gives further interesting discussion. He notes that the most famous student of Ibn ‘Abbas (who is considered the exegete among the sahaba), ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah (d. 733) explained that “A man must not strike his wife; instead he shows her his anger.” (لا يضرب الزوج امرأته ولكن يغضب عليها) He then cites the famous exegete Ibn al-‘Arabi (not the Sufi Ibn ‘Arabi) who said: “This is from ‘Ata’s juristic insight, his understanding of the Shari’a, and his ability in deduction and inference. He comprehended that the command to strike here was one of permissibility [i.e. not an obligation], and he also comprehended the disdain for doing so found in other sources such as the hadith ‘Never will the best of you strike.’”
Ibn ‘Ashur then goes on to discuss numerous issues, including intervention by the state or other authorities (mediation etc.). Ultimately, he mentions that if the man is incapable of administering this “strike” without violence, disdain etc., then he can be punished by the state for transgressing! He notes that the “strike” is to be seen as a deterrent, and ultimately not something to be appropriated for violence, and is a dangerous issue which needs to be regulated by the authorities if transgressed.
Ibn ‘Ashur’s conclusion is that “It is not permissible to leave or strike in the mere suspicious of nushuz before an agreement occurs.” (والحاصل أنّه لا يجوز الهجر والضرب بمجرّد توقّع النشوز قبل حصوله اتّفاقاً) He then discusses the fact that if it was a “licence” (a ‘carte blanche’ to use JihadBob’s terminology from previous discussions) “to treat their rebellious spouses” (كان إذنا لهم بمعاملة أزواجهم النواش) in such a way, then the second stage (i.e. abandoning them in and of itself) would not alleviate the hardship the woman faces. [I need to double-check my understanding of this last sentence, but it definitely implies undue hardship on the woman involved]. I think it is alluding to the fact that it is a multi-step procedure to be followed, and if it was misused as a carte blanche, then men would strike at any opportunity – separation before returning would not solve the problem of abuse!
Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq’s overview of the different positions by different schools of thought was insightful though. I greatly enjoyed it. It shows quite convincingly no school of Islamic thought takes from this verse a man is justified in actually causing bodily harm to his spouse; although I wouldn’t quite know what the point in beating her would be unless there’s some infliction of pain involved.
Indeed! The hadith that mention “those of you who strike are not the best”, and so forth, imply that the problem existed at the time; women were hit by their husbands for a variety of reasons. Perhaps this procedure was to limit the propensity towards violence? It seems to me that from every tafsir I have checked, they have limited its apparent command to something merely permissible in the case of nushuz and not something performed with violence or malice towards the partner. With Muhammad also speaking out strongly against violence towards partners in so many recorded sayings, I personally see it as something historically contextual, that Muslims should strive towards following Muhammad’s behaviour and exhortations regarding how to treat spouses and families in general.
Anyway, that’s my long 2 cents.
December 14th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Oops, the link should be to Altafsir.com, where the Arabic of many classical and modern tafsirs from various Muslim sects, and a few English can be accessed.
December 14th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Dawood: “That’s an interesting observation! Where did you get this point from, or was it from your own reading of the texts?”
I used an online concordance for “leave” (in English) and then checked out what it meant in several instances.
These two sites provide some great tools:
http://www.openburhan.com/
http://corpus.quran.com/
December 14th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Looking over my post, I see there are some areas I could have tidied up, especially regarding Ibn ‘Ashur’s work. It should perhaps be understood better than in the case of ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, he understood the Qur’anic verse to show mere permissibility [again stressing not an obligation], with the hadith evidence acting as a specification and clarification to its general import. This is known as specification (takhsis) in the terminology of tafsir, and limits something which has an apparent general meaning.
I also misunderstood the last part, as I was unsure of its exact ramifications and some of the vocabulary involved, which related to previous discussion. It can be better rendered as follows, with square brackets being my own:
“The upshot of this is that it is not permissible to absent [oneself] nor strike merely on the expectation of discord (nushuz) before its [actual] occurence by agreement [I think here referring to the agreement of previous scholars]. (والحاصل أنّه لا يجوز الهجر والضرب بمجرّد توقّع النشوز قبل حصوله اتّفاقاً)
And as for the issue of absentation, it is on the condition that it does not exceed limits, causing harm and distress to the woman. Some [scholars] have estimated this to me a maximum of one month duration.” (وأمّا الهجر فشرطه أن لا يخرج إلى حدّ الإضرار بما تجده المرأة من الكمد، وقد قدّر بعضهم أقصاه بشهر.)
December 15th, 2010 at 5:50 am
Awesome Jack, wow, I wish I had known about these great resources before! Thanks for the links!
December 15th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@Jack
“Michael Elwood: “And what “a lot of Muslim men” believe is immaterial (argumentum ad populum).”
“That would be true if my argument had been: X is the right interpretation of the Quran because there are a lot of Muslims out there who believe X to be the right interpretation.”
Isn’t that basically what you’re saying in a roundabout way in the paragraphs below?
“But that’s not what I’m saying. My argument is rather that if a Holy Book, taken at face value seems to be saying X and a significant amount of readers interpret it that way, this would still raise some serious skepticism about it’s divine origins, even if that interpretation is incorrect. After all, one would expect an all-knowing and foreseeing Entity to anticipate the later confusion and act on it beforehand.”
We’ve been over this before, Jack. An all-[insert attribute here] Entity did anticipate that some would be, or pretend to be, confused (witness the cringe inducing debate in the other section with JB). What should this all-[insert attribute here] Entity do? Force JB and others who don’t want to understand, to understand? In the universe that this all-[insert attribute here] Entity created, humans are endowed with free will.
The Quran uses the same word, ayat, for it’s verses and natural phenomena (which Muslims believe compliment each other). Although Islamic philosophy/science disagrees with your Naturalist metaphysics, I bet you agree with its evolutionary view of nature. I bet you also agree with me that the evidence for evolution is pretty obvious:
http://19.org/350/blind-watch-watchers-or-smell-the-cheese/
Yet, the majority of Americans don’t “see” any convincing evidence for it. Does that mean that the evidence for evolution isn’t clear/convincing, or that some just refuse to see it? Would you have scientists force them to see it the same way you expect an all-[insert attribute here] Entity to force people to see the obvious meaning of the Quran? It seems like atheists are playing both sides of the argument. If God imposes himself on man, some atheists (of the Existentialist variety) claim such a God is unworthy of worship. If He doesn’t, other atheists (like Jack) fault him for it. God is damned if He does. and damned if He doesn’t.
By the way, I still don’t know how you got from point A (a significant amount of readers misinterpret the Quran) to point B (therefore, the Quran’s divinity is dubious). The two seem totally unrelated.
“Secondly, even if you don’t agree with that argument, the fact a significant amount of believers get it wrong on a range of issues and are able to justify their actions by quoting the Quran and the Sunnah without others jumping in and correcting them, should still be a reason for alarm. Something is obviously going wrong there.”
You’ve gone from “a lot of Muslim men” to “a significant amount of believers”. But is the something “going wrong” the Quran or people’s interpretation of it?
“Suppose you had a manual for a technical appliance. And suppose, taken at face value, the manual seems to read “do X”. Naturally, a substantial amount of readers would take the advise, and as a consequence the apparatus would break down, accidents would happen to people, etcetera.”
“Now, would it be much helpful if the company distributing the manual would say: ‘Well, it’s not our fault people misinterpret the manual. They should pay better attention. Besides, it’s a translation from Taiwanese, and you know, the meaning of the original is so much more layered. Can’t people just take the effort to learn Taiwanese?’”
Actually, that’s pretty much what most manuals say: “WARNING: failure to operate this product according to instructions can lead to all kinds of unpleasant $#!&”. In other words, if you use this product in a way it’s not intended, don’t blame or sue us!
But, let’s suppose the manual was a paragon of clarity with no “layers”. Let’s also suppose that everyone spoke the Taiwanese dialect. Do you really think no one will misunderstand the manual? Not everyone is geek/hacker/tinker who is adept at reading manuals or even getting by without them. Some people just aren’t good at reading manuals, or insist on using the product in a way it wasn’t intended.
The same holds for the Quran. If it was even clearer than what it is, and everyone spoke Arabic, people would still misunderstand/misinterpret it. Let me give you some examples to illustrate this point. The Quran clearly doesn’t prescribe stoning to death for adulterers. But traditional exegetes insists that the punishment is Quranic. They claim that a goat walked into the prophet’s home and ate the page where it was written. Traditional exegetes also claimed that the Quran wasn’t “clear” (it doesn’t mention married or unmarried adulterers) even though the verse that deals with it is preceded by one which asserts the clarity of the Quran (24:1 سورة انزلنها وفرضنها وانزلنا فيها ءايت بينت لعلكم تذكرون ).
Another example is what traditional exegetes call the “tribute verse”. But the “tribute verse” doesn’t mention tribute (which in Arabic is kharj), it mentions jiziyah (which means reparations in the context of the battle of Hunayn referred to in 9:25). When a people wanted to pay tribute to Dhul Qarnayn, he rejected it saying, “What my Lord has given me is far better” (18:94-95). Despite the clear anti-tribute nature of this verse, traditional exegetes teased a pro-tribute interpretation out of 9:29.
I respectfully disagree with traditional exegetes who say that 4:34 can only be read as wife beating (for reasons already outlined by Edip, Layth, and other exegetes). That interpretation contradicts the reoccurring Quranic theme about non-coercion (in religion لا اكراه فى الدين and in relationships ولا تكرهوا فتيتكم على البغاء). It contradicts the Quran’s description of marriage relationship as loving (30:21). It contradicts the Quran’s repeated description of God as The Merciful. And it forces us to believe that traditional exegetes are more merciful than The Merciful.
December 15th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Here’s a poll of American views of evolution:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/third-americans-say-evidence-has-supported-darwins-evolution-theory.aspx
December 17th, 2010 at 2:31 am
Jack,
“Secondly, even if you don’t agree with that argument, the fact a significant amount of believers get it wrong on a range of issues and are able to justify their actions by quoting the Quran and the Sunnah without others jumping in and correcting them, should still be a reason for alarm. Something is obviously going wrong there.”
You seriously believe that Muslims are not correcting misinterpretations of the Qur’an? You honestly believe Muslims aren’t challenging the extremists who have hijacked our religion? Why does this sound alot like the “where are the Moderate Muslims?” accusation?
Khushboo said:
“Jack, the Muslims who’ve actually read the Quran know what’s in the Quran. There are no misinterpretations. The only ones who are getting it wrong are people who have been brainwashed by terrorists who purposely misinterpret the Quran to gain power over others…”
i agree with that statement to a limited extent. Jack, are you familiar with the principle of idtirar and legal maxims(qa’idah)? In Islam there is principle of Shari’ah that states “necessity renders the forbidden permissible” and Ibn Nujaym says “Cases of need are restricted to the actual need.”(Ibn Nujaym, al-Ashbah wa al-Naza’ir, p. 86).
So it can be argued that even extremists and terrorists like Al-Qa’ida have not misunderstood the Qur’an. They are constantly trying to justify things they know are forbidden in Islam, such as suicide bombing and terrorism, by using this principle. Interestingly, this principle(idtirar) and the legal maxim it is based on is related to the concept of taqiyya.Yes there are and have been genuine Muslims who misinterpret the Qur’an, but it also seems that the brainwashed and the non Muslims are the ones who do this the most.It is not insignificant that Al-Qa’ida chose the name they did for themselves.
“Really? So Wahhabi scholars read the Quran the same way you do, for instance about having friendship with Jews and Christians?”
You really should read up on the Salafis and the idea of the Wahhabi myth. Islamophobes constantly link all things that they find odious in Islam under the monolithic rubric of “Wahhabism”, yet most terrorists and extremists are not Wahhabis at all. You should read up on the problems Saudi Arabia is having with its own terrorists. And many “Wahhabi” scholars are saying things that sound very “moderate”. Not that i am calling you an Islamophobe or that i subscribe to Salafi ideology, but you should take note of that.
“And I guess the Syrian and Jemeni clerics calling Jews “apes and pigs” because the Quran uses those epithets, aren’t Muslims at all but evil terrorists?”
Yet the Qur’an doesn’t say ALL Jews are apes and pigs. Even extremists know this. It is obvious that they are twisting the Qur’an to serve their own agenda.
“Did you know there was a time when Islamic scholars almost universally believed it was the religious duty of the Ummah to expand the Islamic empire by force?”
This is actually a myth. Islamic scholars, the majority of them, medeival and contemporary, did not believe that Islam should be spread by force. In fact, in the early Arab conquests forced conversions were avoided because they were seen as non beneficial to the financial progress of the expanding empire. You are also discounting the effect of the ‘ulama being co-opted by the State. Many scholars under compulsion wrote things conciliatory towards the rulers. The Spread of Empire and the spread of Faith are not the same.
“Read Majid Khadduri’s chapter on the doctrine of Jihad in his War and Peace in the Law of Islam, or check out what the Shafi’i handbook of fiqh ‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik says about the matter.”
Where is Majid Khadduri’s evidence for his claim that “Islamic scholars almost universally believed it was the religious duty of the Ummah to expand the Islamic empire by force?” The Reliance of the Traveler is another matter that other Loonwatch writers have discussed before.
Dawood Says:
“Attempting to understand contemporary Muslim beliefs and thought by referring to medieval sources does not do modern Muslim thinkers or the generality of Muslims alive today justice. They have their own voice, and publishing/thought has not simply stopped in the intervening years.”
My immediate question becomes, where does that leave us with respect to who understands Islam properly?; Those closest to the time of the Prophet(as),or modern Muslims? i think we have to contextualize the things found in the ancient texts without assuming that these scholars were more firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, therefore more correct, than modern Muslims.
Jack Says:
“Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq: “Did Allah make it impossible for you,or any other human being at the time or all time, to understand and learn Arabic? Language is inherent to mankind in the sense that we are not born speaking any language but with the ability to learn any and every human language. Refusal to refer to the source is laziness in my opinion.””
“Actually for billions of people who struggle to survive everyday, yes, it is impossible. A lot of people around the world don’t know how to read and write anyway. And just consider the amount of training it takes just to learn a foreign language. It takes resources too, on textbooks, dictionaries, tutoring and the like. Resources a lot of people across time and space simply don’t have.”
It seems that we are talking about two different things here. i was referring to the inherent human ability to learn any human language and you are talking about social conditions that present as obstacles to learning Arabic. How did the native Arabic speakers learn their language? We both know it wasn’t through textbooks and dictionaries. i am still unconvinced by this argument that Arabic is impossible to learn. Impossible is a very strong word to use.
This related to how Muslims learned Islam. Those who Khaled Abou el-Fadl calls puritans and many non-Muslims view Islam as primarily legalistic, yet Islam is really a living tradition. We are constantly told that the Qur’an is a reminder and that Islam is the natural religion of mankind. A reminder of what? These two ideas are not unrelated.
“That’s probably why a great deal of Muslims actually never bother to learn to understand Arabic. Besides, it’s not like they’re stimulated to do so either. Instead, they’re taught to parrot the words. After all, it’s the divine speech that counts. Who needs to understand what the book is saying exactly.”
Again you are talking about social conditions. There is nothing inherent in a human being without mental disabilities preventing them from learning Arabic. Besides, the social prestige associated with learning the liturgical language considered the very speech of Allah is great. So i would argue that the reasons you give for the inability of many Muslims to speak Arabic is not due to lack of desire.
And Muslims very much want to know exactly what the Book says. As far as Classical Arabic is concerned i don’t understand how you can conclude that it is not practical to learn a liturgical language with so much prestige and spiritual significance attached to it. Especially a language that is recited everyday by the devout, whether they actually understand it or not.
Yes the the language that has changed and i understand your point about having knowledge of different political settings of the time,forgotten values and customs, literary conventions, economic and political geography, allusions and how the Qur’an doesn’t come with any footnotes. However i do not think we need a library to understand it. the Qur’an uses it’s references to convey a timeless message. Scholars may want to know everything about historical context, politics, ancient customs and so forth, but the average person does not need to know these things to understand the actual message of the Qur’an. That is the beauty of the Qur’an. If you want to know what the scholars know you should at least learn Arabic though.
The idea that the Quran is often “explained” by using the Hadith is not entirely accurate. As i was alluding to when i referred to the Islam being a living tradition, we know early Muslims did not need Hadith books to understand the Qur’an as they had the Prophet(as) living among them. And the hadith record for religious posterity his saying and actions, so in a sense we need them to see his Sunnah and to see Islam in action,Islam practiced. Yet we believe that Adam, Nuh,Ibrahim< Musa, 'Isa,(as), were all Muslims as well. How many Muslims do you know of who learned to pray by cracking open Sahih Bukhari, for example?
"Now, does that strike you as a very efficient way of communicating your Eternal Message to mankind? You’d think that an Eternal Creator would come up with a better way, ensuring his revelation couldn’t get blurred with misunderstandings"
This argument isn't very convincing to me simply because, as Michael Elwood said,you are eliminating mankind as a moral agent and blaming misunderstandings on Allah.
"And while we’re at it: how come all of these prophets are in one way or another dependent on one another? It’s not as if from the native Americans to the Germanic tribes, from the kingdoms of China to the peoples of South America, every human civilization had their priests and holy men saying the same thing."
We believe Allah sent prophets(as)to every nation and they all preached the same essential message.
"It’s more like: a rag-tag set of tribes in ancient Canaan picked up a deity from desert tribes, endowed it with features of pagan fertility gods, gave it primacy over all other deities and when their little kingdom was destroyed, morphed it into the one and only God, the supreme being, picking up motifs and elements from Babylonian and Persian religion along the way."
This is an interesting assessment of the origins and history of Jewish belief but doesn't disprove the notion that Islam was the original religion, or that Allah sent the ancestors of the Jews the Torah, which they later corrupted by endowing the Deity with features of pagan fertility gods, giving it primacy over all other deities and when their little kingdom was destroyed, morphed it into the one and only God, the Supreme Being, picking up motifs and elements from, Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian religion along the way and editing and redacting Torah to reflect this.
"Echoes of Judaism and Christianity reverberated down the empire and even down the Arabian peninsula via caravan routes and Jewish communities in the area, where a young trader picked up these stories and precepts and fused them with local rites and traditions, such as the festival surrounding the Kaaba and the holy month."
This is bible borrowing theory for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It is merely conjecture that tries to explain similarities between religions while discounting the Islamic notion that all religions have the same Divine Source. Who exactly did Muhammad(saws)hear these Jewish and Christian stories from?
"It’s just that in discussions about the Quran and Islam, it’s a handicap not to be able to read the source material or certain commentaries for myself, and see what they say."
If it's a handicap, then isn't that an argument FOR learning the language?
"Now, that’s mostly a matter of hermeneutics: how you think the Quran applies today, and hermeneutics is shaped to a large degree by how one experiences the world."
You should take this into account when Muslims tell you that misinterpretations are the result not of a fault in the Qur'an, but are the fault of the interpreter.
"What’s holding me back though, is the stress on obedience in verse 4:34. It starts with “The righteous women are obedient” and it ends with “But if they obey you, then do not seek a way against them”. So unless obedience only pertains to “Now, honey, like I’ve told you, no hanky panky with Abdul, Jafar, Nassir and Jamal.”, you’d think there’s more to it, especially considering the views people had on women in patriarchal societies."
The stress on obedience is obedience to Allah, not obedience to husbands.
"The argument that wa-iḍ’ribūhunna could mean anything from striking to setting forth something, to traveling isn’t very convincing to me. Setting forth what exactly? That meaning would render an incomplete thought in 4:34. And if leaving her is the issue, the root wāw dhāl rā seems more in place, such as in 4:129, fatadharūhā."
You make a good point about the root waw dhal ra seeming to be more appropriate, but in light of other verses of the Qur'an and the commands of the Prophet(as) i would have to respectfully disagree with you and Dawood and conclude that leaving is in fact the intended meaning. The progressive culmination of admonishing and separate marital beds, in light of the following verse, which shows that eventual reconciliation was the aim, makes the translation as leaving/desertion the best translation.
i understand Dawood's argument about prepositions necessary to render a certain meaning of derivatives of 'daraba', but why were scholars unable to use the verse a license to beat their wives without twisting the meanings? Why would Allah recommend reconciliation to a woman who has been beaten by her husband? Why did the Prophet(as), the one to whom the Qur'an was given, prohibit wife-beating?
"Anyway, Khushboo still hasn’t answered my question how one would arrive grammatically from wa-iḍ’ribūhunna to “strike gently – if you must”."
You should read Yusuf Ali's commentary on the verse to understand where Khushboo might have gotten this idea, although i cannot speak on her(?)behalf.
"Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq’s overview of the different positions by different schools of thought was insightful though. I greatly enjoyed it. It shows quite convincingly no school of Islamic thought takes from this verse a man is justified in actually causing bodily harm to his spouse; although I wouldn’t quite know what the point in beating her would be unless there’s some infliction of pain involved."
In light of the statements of the Prophet(as) it would seem ridiculous to conclude that Islam could allow wife beating on the basis of that verse. But even without these hadith i do not think there should confusion as to what the proper translation of "idribuhunna" should be in the context of the verse and other verses of the Qur'an. More on this in another post, but i think you should read the link Khushboo gave.
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/women_treatment.htm
"1. “Wadribuhunn has the root word “daraba” which means either beat or strike…” (That’s a semantic argument)."
The way the argument was approached makes it a non semantic argument as "strike" and "beat" can mean vastly different things.
"3. “and we know that God doesn’t allow domestic abuse” (That would be a dogmatic argument: we *know* God doesn’t allow domestic abuse and since the Quran is Gods word, it can’t promote domestic abuse: in exegesis, this is a lazy argument)."
Depends on whether you exegesis is intended to harmonize the verses of the Qur'an or find some sort of contradiction and a way to discredit the belief in the Divine origin of the Qur'an. In other words, it depends on what beliefs and operating assumptions you bring to the text when reading it.
"4. “and it’s been mentioned in the Hadith as well.” (This is an exegetical argument, although it’s riddled with presuppositions about the authenticity of the Hadith, it’s relation to certain Quranic verses, historical development of the Quran, etc.)"
You should discuss here why these so called presuppositions are invalid since it is relevant to the exegesis of the verse in question.
Allahu A'lam
December 17th, 2010 at 3:09 am
Muhammad: I’m not a mufassir or a faqih, so what I believe doesn’t really matter anyway as I can in no way affect the generality of understanding on this particular issue.
But my point in posting all of the tafasir with translation was to show that, at least from my own survey of their works, even the classical mufassirs did not believe that the verse condoned domestic violence of any sort even though they understood ضرب as “strike”. And that, in actual fact, they went to great lengths to try and mitigate this possibility, which I would argue was based on the Prophet’s own example and teachings. Who knows, it may even be a case of naskh al-qur’an bi’l-sunna… for those who believe it is even possible.
(just lightening the mood a little)
To me, the fact that ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah understood the verse in such a way, is definitely a very strong indication that a) ضرب was taken by the early Muslims to mean strike, and b) ‘Ata saw that it should not be applied literally in this case, and attempted to mitigate as the Prophet had done, perhaps even relying on the Prophet’s own example. To me, if it had meant any of the other possibilities, ‘Ata would not have needed to state what is reported and recorded from him.
But if others disagree, that’s cool, it’s just my 2 cents no more and no less. My point is that whether one believes the term used literally means “strike” or not is irrelevant, because ultimately there are avenues from within the religious tradition with which to argue the case successfully that even if it did, it does not sanction or allow domestic violence of any sort. And I think on that all of us can agree.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Michael Elwood: “Isn’t that [Muslims think the Quran says X, therefore the Quran does say X] basically what you’re saying in a roundabout way in the paragraphs below?”
No.
“What should this all-[insert attribute here] Entity do? Force JB and others who don’t want to understand, to understand?”
For starters, it should speak more clearly. You’d think that if God was serious about not wanting men to beat their spouses, he’d state so plain and clear in his revelation: ‘Beating your wife is a sin, it will make you go to hell, and if you do so, then you’re going to get spend some time in jail and pay for injuries’ instead of saying: ‘You know, in some instances, if all else fails, I guess it’s okay to beat your wife.’
What the f.., Man! You can just bet your life wife-beaters will latch on to that and justify their actions using it. Besides, I don’t think that wife-beating is justified in any circumstance anyhow. So what were You thinking?
You yourself note three major issues where you think the Islamic exegetes have been wrong for ages about what the Quran says. But if the Quran isn’t able to overcome human shortcomings when it comes to interpretation, is it really a likely candidate for Divine Revelation?
“the majority of Americans don’t “see” any convincing evidence for it. Does that mean that the evidence for evolution isn’t clear/convincing, or that some just refuse to see it?”
The difference between the relationship between God and his revelation on the one hand, and scientists and the natural world on the other, is that scientist didn’t create the natural world, nor did it emanate from their perfect essence.
Therefore, looking at it from a non-theist perspective, there is no reason to think the natural world should be perfect or perspicuous. But with revelation, it’s quite a different story, isn’t it?
“Would you have scientists force them to see it the same way you expect an all-[insert attribute here] Entity to force people to see the obvious meaning of the Quran?”
So speaking plainly and clearly and preventing rather obvious misunderstandings is ‘forcing’ people to see things a certain way? Wow, so I guess great science writers and popularizers are just being coercive instead of just illuminating. Or that science teacher in high school, who made you grasp really hard to understand material, I guess he was forcing you too, right?
Utter nonsense of course. Clear communication and preventing misunderstandings is not ‘forcing’ anybody, it’s being clear, plain and precise about what you’re trying to convey. I’d expect nothing less from Allah, who is after all, All-Knowing, All-Wise.
“God is damned if He does. and damned if He doesn’t.”
Even if that were true, that would only mean, logically speaking, that God therefore cannot exist.
I would add that I don’t exclude the possibility that the constraints of human reality preclude a divine revelation from being issued. But that’s a whole different matter altogether.
“Actually, that’s pretty much what most manuals say: “WARNING: failure to operate this product according to instructions can lead to all kinds of unpleasant $#!&”. In other words, if you use this product in a way it’s not intended, don’t blame or sue us!”
And don’t you think manufacturers suck for writing obtuse manuals and then blaming the customer if the appliance breaks down for improper use? So if we apply the same logic to Holy Books and their shortcomings… well, you get the picture.
“By the way, I still don’t know how you got from point A (a significant amount of readers misinterpret the Quran) to point B (therefore, the Quran’s divinity is dubious). The two seem totally unrelated.”
No, it’s just that you happen to disagree with my presupposition – This one: “After all, one would expect an all-knowing and foreseeing Entity to anticipate the later confusion and act on it beforehand” – and then forget how you tried to rebut it with an array of arguments.
“You’ve gone from “a lot of Muslim men” to “a significant amount of believers”. But is the something “going wrong” the Quran or people’s interpretation of it?”
To the victims of injustices, oppression, cruelties, subjugation, intolerance, and feelings of superiority being justified by faith, that probably isn’t the main issue.
What I don’t get – or rather, what I find somewhat disappointing – is that Muslims do get all riled up with righteous indignation about Palestine, and the right to wear hijab and disparaging pictures of the prophet Muhammad, with demonstrations and petitions and Internet discussions and all that, but I hardly see the same amount of zeal when it comes to wrongs within the fold of Islam.
That’s what I like about Nomani. She gets worked up on the things I think Muslims ought to get worked up about.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
“You seriously believe that Muslims are not correcting misinterpretations of the Qur’an? You honestly believe Muslims aren’t challenging the extremists who have hijacked our religion? Why does this sound a lot like the “where are the Moderate Muslims?” accusation?”
The world “believe” suggests a certain amount of conviction about a matter, whereas me having a mere impression is more in order.
The question where the Moderate Muslims are seems to imply that there are no moderate Muslims. Alternatively, it could mean: I’m sure there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but what’s keeping them from speak up on these issues?
Again, I can refer back to all sorts of demonstrations, petitions, action by CAIR, etc, discussions about Palestine, civil and religious rights for Muslims and Muhammad cartoons; but somehow taking a stance against putting people in the back row and denying women leadership positions isn’t quite as popular. How many Muslims rallied to support Tariq Ramadan when he called for a moratorium on the hudud? I see all sorts of video’s and articles praising the virtues of hijab, and stressing it’s obligatory character; but scarcely any video where Muslims take a stance about peer pressuring women into wearing hijab.
Now why would that be? Either there’s a lot going on under the radar, or most Muslims simply set their priorities differently (or it’s a combination of both).
December 18th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
@Jack
“No.”
I don’t know how else to interpret you’re repeated references to what “significant amount of believers” and “a lot of Muslim men” believe. As if to suggest that the number of people who adhere to a particular belief renders it valid.
“For starters, it should speak more clearly. You’d think that if God was serious about not wanting men to beat their spouses, he’d state so plain and clear in his revelation: ‘Beating your wife is a sin, it will make you go to hell, and if you do so, then you’re going to get spend some time in jail and pay for injuries’ instead of saying: ‘You know, in some instances, if all else fails, I guess it’s okay to beat your wife.’”
You’re killing me with these coulda-woulda-shouldas, Jack. I tried to convey that with my admittedly smartalecky comment about M&Ms. Even if God spoke clearly to the exacting standards of persnickety atheists, provided glasses for people with seeing problems, and paid for tutors for the people with reading comprehension problems (or whatever other hypothetical you can think of), I doubt that it would eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation. You really underestimate the ability of some people to engage in eisegesis instead of exegesis. I gave examples in the previous post of the way some exegetes got around the clear meaning of the Quran. The only way to eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation is for God to rob humanity of their free will and make it so that they can only perceive things the way He does. As previously noted, a lot of atheists would object to such an arrangement.
I also suspect that the same atheists who play both sides of the free will debate, will play both sides of the clarity debate. If the hypothetical verse that you suggested existed in the Quran, I suspect some atheist will ask:
“Why do those barbaric Muslims need a ‘holy’ book to tell them not to beat their wives? We civilized non-Muslims don’t need a ‘holy’ book to state the obvious! Is that verse the only thing preventing those big, bad, Muslim men from beating their wives?”
Note that a similar ridiculous argument has been made by some critics about the Quran’s moral injunctions, including it’s repeated prohibition of murder.
“What the f.., Man! You can just bet your life wife-beaters will latch on to that and justify their actions using it. Besides, I don’t think that wife-beating is justified in any circumstance anyhow. So what were You thinking?”
I don’t agree with the interpretation that advocates wife-beating (for reasons I gave in a previous post). So I don’t think there is anything for wife-beaters to latch on to and justify their actions. I also suspect most people make moral decisions independent of scriptures using, or not using, their God-given reason, aql (note that because people are capable of making moral decisions independent of revelation, Muslim moral philosophers believe that they were still responsible for their decisions absent revelation). Those who are inclined to beat their wives, had that inclination independent of the Quran. Those who are inclined not to beat their wives, had that inclination independent of the Quran. When both read the Quran, these inclinations leads them to interpret the Quran differently (via eisegesis in the case of the former, and via exegesis in the case of the latter). The Quran even mentions this dubious method of interpreting scripture:
5:13 It was a consequence of their violating the covenant that we condemned them, and we caused their hearts to become hardened. Consequently, they took the words out of context, and disregarded some of the commandments given to them. You will continue to witness betrayal from them, excepting a few of them. You shall pardon them, and disregard them. GOD loves those who are benevolent.
By the way, I’m not sure how you thought I believed wife-beating was justified in any circumstance. Perhaps you’ve confused me with another poster. Or perhaps I wasn’t “clear” enough.
“You yourself note three major issues where you think the Islamic exegetes have been wrong for ages about what the Quran says. But if the Quran isn’t able to overcome human shortcomings when it comes to interpretation, is it really a likely candidate for Divine Revelation?”
The Quran can’t overcome human shortcomings when it comes to interpretation, or do anything else for that matter, because it’s an inanimate object. Humans can overcome their shortcomings when it comes to interpretation, however. They can do this by applying themselves and not putting the onus of their moral and exegetical shortcomings on God, the Quran, the dude down the street, etc. That was the point I was making about traditional exegetes, and why I believe the Quran is still an excellent candidate for Divine Revelation.
“The difference between the relationship between God and his revelation on the one hand, and scientists and the natural world on the other, is that scientist didn’t create the natural world, nor did it emanate from their perfect essence.”
“Therefore, looking at it from a non-theist perspective, there is no reason to think the natural world should be perfect or perspicuous. But with revelation, it’s quite a different story, isn’t it?”
You’re right. I was trying to give an example using ayat in the Quran and in nature. I meant to say God in both instances.
“So speaking plainly and clearly and preventing rather obvious misunderstandings is ‘forcing’ people to see things a certain way? Wow, so I guess great science writers and popularizers are just being coercive instead of just illuminating. Or that science teacher in high school, who made you grasp really hard to understand material, I guess he was forcing you too, right?”
“Utter nonsense of course. Clear communication and preventing misunderstandings is not ‘forcing’ anybody, it’s being clear, plain and precise about what you’re trying to convey. I’d expect nothing less from Allah, who is after all, All-Knowing, All-Wise.”
No, clearly communicating, which is what the Quran does, isn’t forcing people to see things a certain way. However, the only way to eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding/misinterpretations is to somehow force them see things a certain way.
“Even if that were true, that would only mean, logically speaking, that God therefore cannot exist.”
Uh, no. It means that some individuals and groups are playing both sides of the debate and that, logically, it’s an incoherent argument.
“And don’t you think manufacturers suck for writing obtuse manuals and then blaming the customer if the appliance breaks down for improper use? So if we apply the same logic to Holy Books and their shortcomings… well, you get the picture.”
I think the customers who blame the manufactures for their reading and technological shortcomings are the ones who suck. But hey, that’s just me.
“No, it’s just that you happen to disagree with my presupposition – This one: “After all, one would expect an all-knowing and foreseeing Entity to anticipate the later confusion and act on it beforehand” – and then forget how you tried to rebut it with an array of arguments.”
That’s true.
“To the victims of injustices, oppression, cruelties, subjugation, intolerance, and feelings of superiority being justified by faith, that probably isn’t the main issue.”
That’s partially true. The Quran doesn’t advocate those things, but some traditional exegetes and some secular critics claim a causal relationship (based on the supposed ambiguity of the Quran and its non-divine origins). So it’s partially relevant. That criticism is more commonly made of Quran than it is of other scriptures. Despite the Mongol hordes, Japanese kamikazes, and violently oppressive governments in Sri Lanka and Thailand, I’ve never heard critics attribute the problem to ambiguity in Buddhist scriptures. Such a courtesy isn’t afforded Islamic scripture, however.
“What I don’t get – or rather, what I find somewhat disappointing – is that Muslims do get all riled up with righteous indignation about Palestine, and the right to wear hijab and disparaging pictures of the prophet Muhammad, with demonstrations and petitions and Internet discussions and all that, but I hardly see the same amount of zeal when it comes to wrongs within the fold of Islam.”
Join the club! A lot of Muslims, including yours truly, don’t get it either. What’s happening in Palestine is objectionable, but no more objectionable than what’s happening Darfur, Kurdistan, and elsewhere. Every time the Quran uses the word hijab it means barrier, not headscarf (see 7:46, 17:45, 19:17, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5 and 42:51). However, women should dress how they want without secular and religious extremist dictating to them. God tells Muslims in the Quran (in clear language, of course) to ignore those who mock Islam, not make a spectacle (see 4:140 and 6:68). The Quran also mentioned (in clear language) that the prophet Solomon had statues made (see 34:13). From whence this thin skin and iconoclasm, no one knows.
“That’s what I like about Nomani. She gets worked up on the things I think Muslims ought to get worked up about.”
I think Muslims should decide what they get worked up over, and non-Muslims should decide what they get worked up over. But I defended Asra because some of the points she makes are valid. However, she makes them in a self-defeating way. For example, you’re not going to endear yourself to brown skin Muslims like me by advocating profiling and suggesting that your pasty non-Muslim husband understands Islam more. I think Irshad Manji and others are more effective in communicating the criticisms that Asra is trying to make.
December 21st, 2010 at 5:46 am
A Must Read for all Muslims: “Trends and Flaws in Some Anti-Muslim Writing as Exemplified by Ibn Warraq” by Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D.
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
December 21st, 2010 at 8:19 am
Nice article well argued
December 21st, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Dawood,
“Muhammad: I’m not a mufassir or a faqih, so what I believe doesn’t really matter anyway as I can in no way affect the generality of understanding on this particular issue.”
You shouldn’t downplay your knowledge or your effect on readers.
“But my point in posting all of the tafasir with translation was to show that, at least from my own survey of their works, even the classical mufassirs did not believe that the verse condoned domestic violence of any sort even though they understood ضرب as “strike”.”
My point is in fact similar. Even though i take the moderate position that i mentioned, which states that the Qur’an doesn’t state that it is permissible to “strike” a woman for any reason, i still mention that even the traditionalists and traditional orthodox Muslims who believe that the word is translated as “strike/beat” still do not believe it condones actions that would today be defined as domestic violence.
“And that, in actual fact, they went to great lengths to try and mitigate this possibility, which I would argue was based on the Prophet’s own example and teachings.”
i argue that because the traditions report that the Prophet(as)commanded the men never to beat their wives, never to strike her face, or hit her in a way that would cause harm, the word is not properly translated as “beat/strike”.
Otherwise we are left with a contradiction and the idea that 1)these are not the actual words of the Prophet(as)and the hadith are false as they contradict the Qur’an or 2)Muhammad(as) commanded something contrary to the Qur’an and he was given free reign to interpret the Qur’an. Note: Many Muslims erroneously believe that the Prophet(as) interpreted the Qur’an.But the correct view is that he faithfully reported what was given to him and his “explanation” of the Qur’an was really a demonstration of the application of it’s principles.
“Who knows, it may even be a case of naskh al-qur’an bi’l-sunna… for those who believe it is even possible.
(just lightening the mood a little)”
“To me, the fact that ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah understood the verse in such a way, is definitely a very strong indication that a) ضرب was taken by the early Muslims to mean strike, and b) ‘Ata saw that it should not be applied literally in this case, and attempted to mitigate as the Prophet had done, perhaps even relying on the Prophet’s own example.”
i agree except that i would say alot of early Muslims. i do not think that a consensus of early Muslim scholars or Muslim “laity” believe the word should be translated as such. i could be wrong so i am researching it.
“To me, if it had meant any of the other possibilities, ‘Ata would not have needed to state what is reported and recorded from him.”
i disagree
“But if others disagree, that’s cool, it’s just my 2 cents no more and no less. My point is that whether one believes the term used literally means “strike” or not is irrelevant, because ultimately there are avenues from within the religious tradition with which to argue the case successfully that even if it did, it does not sanction or allow domestic violence of any sort. And I think on that all of us can agree.”
This i can completely agree with.
Allahu A’lam
December 21st, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Jack,
i think the idea that Allah should have been clearer in his Qur’an or in any holy book is based on the assumption that “clear” is not subjective. How do we account for the ones who do understand it clearly? The Qur’an explains why outsiders and even those calling themselves Muslims cannot understand the Qur’an clearly:
[Qur'an 2:269} He grants wisdom to whom he pleases. And whoever is granted wisdom, he indeed is given a great good. And none mind but men of understanding.
[Qur'an 41:44] And if We had made it a Qur’an in a foreign tongue, they would have said: Why have not its messages been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arab! Say: It is to those who believe a guidance and a healing, and those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears and it is obscure to them. These are called to from a place afar.
[Qur'an 17:45-46] When you recite the Qur’an, we place an invisible barrier between you and those who do not believe in the life to come. We have put covers on their hearts that prevents them from understanding it, and heaviness in their ears.
[Qur'an 3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.
or alternatively: He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves – and these are the essence of the divine writ – as well as others that are allegorical. Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer – albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
Another critical mistake that anti-Islam critics or just general critics of Islam make is that they fail to understand that the Qur’an must be taken as a whole, holistically. This is why scholars who understood “idribuhunna” to mean “strike/beat” still believed that the Qur’an does not advocate domestic violence. This is why, even among traditionalists, those who beat their wives and try to use the Qur’an as a support of their behaviour, only do so because they are predisposed to wife-beating.
“…the Quran isn’t able to overcome human shortcomings when it comes to interpretation, is it really a likely candidate for Divine Revelation?”
As stated before the Qur’an is not a living being that needs to overcome anything. Rather it a text, a revealed divine text for Muslims, that is interpreted by humans. Any shortcomings or deficiencies in understanding fall to the moral agent reading the text, the human being. Yes we should expect a divine revelation to be perfect, but to argue that because people do not understand it, it is imperfect and therefore not to be considered of divine origin, is fallacious. One does not effect the other. One’s apprehension of truth does not affect it’s truth.
“What I don’t get – or rather, what I find somewhat disappointing – is that Muslims do get all riled up with righteous indignation about Palestine, and the right to wear hijab and disparaging pictures of the prophet Muhammad, with demonstrations and petitions and Internet discussions and all that, but I hardly see the same amount of zeal when it comes to wrongs within the fold of Islam.”
What are considered wrongs within the fold of Islam by outsiders are not necessarily seen as wrongs by Muslims themselves. The Palestine/Israeli conflict, hijab, disparaging the Prophet(as), and the right to practice Islam are real issues to Muslims. Non-Muslims may not see these issues as important and indeed go so far as to say “assimilate!”, “give me a break!”, or “it’s not that big a deal!”
“That’s what I like about Nomani. She gets worked up on the things I think Muslims ought to get worked up about.”
We are trying to show you that Asra Nomani is getting worked about things that only non-Muslims care about or that only Muslims dissatisfied with Islam care about. Her legitimate concerns and criticisms of Muslims are few and far between. When she equates wrongful actions committed by Muslims with “things wrong with Islam”, she looks like other police blotter reporters/”scholars”. When she tries to deceitfully hide her intention to change Islam under the guise of reform, she loses all credibility among Muslims.
“Again, I can refer back to all sorts of demonstrations, petitions, action by CAIR, etc, discussions about Palestine, civil and religious rights for Muslims and Muhammad cartoons;”
These are legitimate concerns among Muslims that’s why we demonstrate, petition and take action.
“…but somehow taking a stance against putting people in the back row and denying women leadership positions isn’t quite as popular.”
You fail to realize that although female leadership is an important issue among Muslims, women leading mixed prayers, or praying side by side with men in a masjid, or praying on the other side of the room are all forms of bid’ah, innovation in religion. Criticizing women praying in the back row only becomes legitimate if the criticism is framed in the context of justice and precedence in the practice of the Prophet(as)rather than the context of leadership and “equality”. Praying behind someone doe not make one inferior.
A woman trying to agitate for this type of change is really trying to appropriate power for herself by being like men. Her view of “equality” is rooted in her westernized worldview and her view of equality is “identical to men equals equality”, even though women are not identical to men. In doing so she is violating Islamic understandings of equity, fairness and justice.
“How many Muslims rallied to support Tariq Ramadan when he called for a moratorium on the hudud?”
That is only because mainstream Muslims fear that Ramadan is trying to do away with hudud, by suggesting that punishments stipulated by Allah are somehow subject to the approval and abrogation of men simply because the “modern” world may have adopted views against certain hudud punishments. Again, issues seen as crucial to non-Muslims may be viewed differently by Muslims.
“I see all sorts of video’s and articles praising the virtues of hijab, and stressing it’s obligatory character; but scarcely any video where Muslims take a stance about peer pressuring women into wearing hijab.”
i believe you answered yourself here. If something is seen as obligatory by mainstream Muslims, it’s easy to see how many would see taking a stance against peer-pressuring women into hijab as condoning being “uncovered”. Of course more should be done to expound on the idea of “no compulsion in religion”, so i agree with you there; hijab is made obligatory by Allah, not by men, so women should wear it out of religious conviction(ie voluntarily), not because of coercion from fellow Muslims. Often you will find women pressuring, ostracizing, and criticizing women behind the issue of hijab more than men! Especially in Western sociocultural contexts
Allahu A’lam
December 21st, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Michael Elwood,
“What’s happening in Palestine is objectionable, but no more objectionable than what’s happening Darfur, Kurdistan, and elsewhere.”
i don’t understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that Muslims don’t care about these issues as well? Or that we overemphasize the Palestine issue?
“Every time the Quran uses the word hijab it means barrier, not headscarf (see 7:46, 17:45, 19:17, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5 and 42:51). However, women should dress how they want without secular and religious extremist dictating to them.”
While i agree that women should be able to dress how they want regardless of secular or religious pressure, i hope your are not suggesting that the headcovering that is mistakenly referred to as hijab(for reasons i won’t go into here), is somehow not religiously obligatory?
There is an article here on the teaching but the author somehow draws the wrong conclusion from his analysis
http://quranicteachings.co.uk/khimar.htm
The Quranic verse, Say to believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them drape their headcoverings over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment . . . (Quran 24:31) is a specific requirement for Muslim women to cover their hair.
The word headcoverings(Ar. singular khimar, plural khumur), more familiar in our times as the hijab, is a word of well-known signification among scholars of Arabic, at their forefront the authors of the classical lexical reference dictionaries like Zabidi’s encyclopedic Taj al-arus or Mutarrizi’s al-Mughrib, both of which define khimar as a woman’s headcovering; or Fayumi’s al-Misbah or Fayruzabadi’s al-Qamus, which both define it as a cloth with which a woman covers her head. The Taj al-�arus also notes that a man’s turban is sometimes referred to as a khimar because a man covers his head with it in like manner as a woman covers her head with her khimar when he disposes it in the Arab manner, turning part of it under the jaws nearly in the same manner in which a woman disposes her khimar. These authorities are cited in the eight-volume Arabic-English Lexicon of Edward William Lane, who describes the khimar as a woman’s muffler or veil with which she covers her head and the lower part of her face.
There is no other lexical sense in which the word khimar may be construed. The wording of the command, however, and let them drape their headcoverings over their bosoms, sometimes confuses nonspecialists in the sciences of the Qur’an, and in truth, interpreting the Qur’an does sometimes require in-depth knowledge of the historical circumstances in which the various verses were revealed. In this instance, the elliptical form of the divine command is because women at the time of the revelation wore their headcovers tied back behind their necks, as some village women still do in Muslim countries, leaving the front of the neck bare, as well as the opening (Ar. singular jayb, plural juyub, translated as bosoms in the above verse) at the top of the dress. The Islamic revelation confirmed the practice of covering the head, understood from the use of the word khimar in the verse, but also explained that the custom of the time was not sufficient and that women were henceforth to tie the headcover in front and let it drape down to conceal the throat and the dress’s opening at the top.
This is why Muslim women cover their heads: because the Qur’an unambiguously orders them to, and there is no qualifying text or hadith or even other lexical possibility to show that the Quranic order might mean anything besides obligation. Rather, the hadiths all bear this meaning out, Muslim scholars are in unanimous agreement about it and have been from the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) down to our own day, and it is even known by all non-Muslim peoples about them.
“The Quran also mentioned (in clear language) that the prophet Solomon had statues made (see 34:13). From whence this thin skin and iconoclasm, no one knows.”
i will have to research iconoclasm in Islam further and get back to you
“But I defended Asra because some of the points she makes are valid.”
What valid points has she made?
“I think Irshad Manji and others are more effective in communicating the criticisms that Asra is trying to make.”
How so?
Allahu A’lam
December 24th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“i don’t understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that Muslims don’t care about these issues as well? Or that we overemphasize the Palestine issue?”
I think it’s that we overemphasize the issue. With all that’s wrong with “Islamic World”, can it really be said that Palestine is the most important issue? I think there’s some Arabcentrism at play here as well. People in America, Iran, Turkey and elsewhere have their own issues.
“While i agree that women should be able to dress how they want regardless of secular or religious pressure, i hope your are not suggesting that the headcovering that is mistakenly referred to as hijab(for reasons i won’t go into here), is somehow not religiously obligatory?”
Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. Edip Yuksel explains the meaning of khimar as follows:
“After a brief period of freedom and progress women enjoyed during the revelation of the Quran and several decades afterwards, they lost many of their human rights because of the fabricated misogynistic teachings introduced under the title of hadith, sunna, and sharia of various sects (3:195; 4:19,32; 9:71; 2:228).”
“The word “KHuMuR” in 24:31 is a plural noun that comes from the root word of “KHaMaRa” which means, “to cover.” It is used for any cover, not exclusively for headscarves. An extensive Arabic dictionary, Lisan-ul Arab, informs us that the word was even used for rugs and carpets, since they cover the floor. The singular form of the same word “KHaMR,” has been used for intoxicants, which “cover” the mind (5:90). In verse 24:31, God advises female Muslims to maintain their chastity and put their covers on their chests, not their heads! Additionally, the word “fel yedribne = they shall put, they shall cover” is significant in that verse. If KHuMuR meant head cover, the verb, “fel yudnine = they shall lengthen,” (like in 33:59) would be more appropriate.”
“Another distortion involves the word “ZiYNa” of verse 24:31. Muslim clergymen have abused this word to cover women from head to toe. They considered almost all parts of female body as ZiYNa. Reflecting on the rituals of ablution for the daily prayers, one can easily infer that women can publicly open their faces, hair, arms, and feet as an act of worship (5:6). Therefore, opening their faces and arms is indeed an act of worship; and they are not required to worship in secret or segregated places (17:110). If a man stares at a woman who is taking ablution and is sexually aroused it is not her fault, but it is either a symptom of his psychological problems or an indication of the deep-rooted problems in that society. By requiring women to cover any of these parts of their body, religious scholars have turned a religious ritual into a matter of sexual expression.”
“It is up to women to cover themselves for their own protection. It is not up to men or moral police to mandate or impose this divine instruction on women, since the instruction is personal and specific to women. Besides, the language of the instruction is deliberately designed to accommodate different cultures, norms, conditions, and individual comfort level. A divine recommendation to protect women from the harassment of unrighteous men should not be abused to justify the harassment and oppression of self-righteous misogynistic men.”
The Turkish scholar Caner Taslaman gives a more detailed treatment below:
http://quranic.org/quran_article/22/headscarf_and_veiling.htm
Seeing how traditional lexicographers tacked the headscarf definition on the word hijab (despite its consistent Quranic usage), it’s not hard to imagine that they could’ve done the same thing with the word khimar. The guy who wrote the article tacitly admits that his interpretation might be an interpolation when he said that the verse was “elliptical”. According to the “Quran alone” method of interpretation, if something is absent from the Quran, it’s not because God forgot but intentionally left it out. And it’s not for us to fill in the blanks or dictate God’s word choice (like some atheists believe).
“This is why Muslim women cover their heads: because the Qur’an unambiguously orders them to, and there is no qualifying text or hadith or even other lexical possibility to show that the Quranic order might mean anything besides obligation. Rather, the hadiths all bear this meaning out, Muslim scholars are in unanimous agreement about it and have been from the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) down to our own day, and it is even known by all non-Muslim peoples about them.”
For reasons I gave to Jack, I don’t take the “unanimous agreement” of scholars in to consideration. You know my steelo, Muhammad.
Regarding non-Muslims, many agree with Edip and Caner:
“John Esposito, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, writes that the customs of veiling and seclusion of women in early Islam were assimilated from the conquered Persian and Byzantine societies and then later on they were viewed as appropriate expressions of Quranic norms and values. The Qur’an does not stipulate veiling or seclusion; on the contrary, it tends to emphasize the participation of religious responsibility of both men and women in society.[22] He claims that “in the midst of rapid social and economic change when traditional security and support systems are increasingly eroded and replaced by the state, (…) hijab maintains that the state has failed to provide equal rights for men and women because the debate has been conducted within the Islamic framework, which provides women with equivalent rather than equal rights within the family.”[23]”
“Bloom and Blair also write that the Qur’an does not require women to wear veils; rather, it was a social habit picked up with the expansion of Islam. In fact, since it was impractical for working women to wear veils, “A veiled woman silently announced that her husband was rich enough to keep her idle.”[24]”
“What valid points has she made?”
I find that I disagree with her more on her social-political views than her theological views. For example, I disagree with her views on profiling and her apparent belief in the superiority of pasty non-Muslim men over their brown Muslim counterparts (a belief she shares with Saira Khan and other needy immigrant Muslimahs). But I agree with her views on mixed gender prayer and female Imams. Although it’s considered a innovation by Sunni and Shia, there are numerous antecedents in non-sectarian Islamic history. When Raheel Raza led the prayers for a predominately “Quran alone” congregation in Oxford, they considered it controversial. But women of the “Quran alone” view like Sanobar Tafazoli, Maryam Jenna, Faridah Salek, Martha Schulte, and the woman who introduced me to Islam, led prayers over a decade earlier. In the 7th century, the Warrior/Imam Ghazala al-Haruriyya led a mixed-gender congregation in Basra. And men and women have been praying in Mecca just as long (much to the chagrin of the Saudis).
“How so?”
For starters, she doesn’t advocate profiling. And I think she her understanding of Islam isn’t as superficial as Asra’s.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Here’s the link for non-Muslim’s opinion on the hijab:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Historical_and_cultural_explanations
December 25th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
LOL! I was so busy gettin’ my Xmas vacation on that I confused your comment about the elliptical nature of the verse with the other dude’s comments.
December 28th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Michael Elwood,
what exactly confused you?
On other note: perhaps we can exchange emails and discuss the issues you raised?:Arabocentrism in Islam, mixed gender prayer, female imams, headscarves and hijab. i am thinking of starting a personal blog where i would make articles based on my exchanges here, allowing people to comment and post their own material: something for scholars, independent researchers,journalists, imams, religious scholars,and up-and-coming- scholars to contribute to.
Allahu A’lam
December 29th, 2010 at 5:08 am
@muhammad ‘abd-al haqq
“what exactly confused you?”
What you wrote wasn’t confusing. In my rush to get on with my vacation, I mistakenly thought your comment about the elliptical nature of the verse was made by the other dude. I also said that Ghazala led a mixed gender prayer in Basra, when it was in Kufa.
“On other note: perhaps we can exchange emails and discuss the issues you raised?:Arabocentrism in Islam, mixed gender prayer, female imams, headscarves and hijab.”
I think the issues of racism (or more accurately, racialism) and sexism aren’t given enough attention by Muslims. Both have been used by Islamophobes (with mixed results) to try to turn people off to Islam.
For example, take halalpork’s claim (which I’ve seen made by other Islamophobes) that Muhammad was “white” and prejudiced against “blacks”. It’s a claim meant to turn “blacks” off to Islam. There are a lot of immigrant Sunni and Shia who fancy themselves “white” or “Aryan” and who are prejudiced against “blacks”. In his book titled “Blue-Eyed Devil”, Micheal Knight pointed out that a lot of them place a premium on “white” converts like himself. In an article for altmuslimah titled “Non-Desi like me”, Adam Sitte pointed out that they discriminate against “blacks” when it comes to marriage. And many, like Asra Nomani and Saira Khan seem convinced that “white” men are superior to non-”white” men. Despite this constant dissing of “blacks”, they seem genuinely surprised when someone like Allen West comes along.
Muhammad, of course, was neither “white” nor prejudiced against “blacks”. Like Pince Bandar and Mohammad al-Amoudi, Muhammad was likely brown skinned. As al-Jahiz pointed out centuries ago in an essay, many Arabs are brown skinned due to a combination of genes and environment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz#The_Essays
Like most Americans (and most humans), the Arabs are mutts.
It’s ridiculous to claim Muhammad was prejudiced against “blacks”. His adopted son, Zayd ibn Haritha, was a dark skinned man of part African descent. And Muhammad loved Zayd’s son, Usama ibn Zayd, as much as he loved Hasan and Husayn. Interestingly, one of Muhammad”s descendants who is considered an Imam by the Shia, Ja’far as-Sadiq, freed and married a slave woman of African descent named Hamidah. Their son, Musa al-Khadim, is also considered an Imam by the Shia.
It’s to bad all those “white” and “Aryan” Sunni and Shia, who claim to follow the example of Muhammad and his household, don’t follow them in this regard. The Quran says:
30:22 From His signs are the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and your colors. In that are signs for the world.
35:27-28 Do you not see that God sends down water from the sky, thus We produce with it fruits of various colors? Of the mountains are peaks that are white, red, or raven black. Among the people, and the animals, and the livestock, are various colors. As such, only the knowledgeable among God’s servants reverence Him. God is Noble, Forgiving.
49:13 O people, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honorable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Ever-aware.
“i am thinking of starting a personal blog where i would make articles based on my exchanges here, allowing people to comment and post their own material: something for scholars, independent researchers,journalists, imams, religious scholars,and up-and-coming- scholars to contribute to.”
I’m none of the above, just a layman. I think your blog would make for a good read. My email is melwood19[at]gmail[dot]com.
December 29th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Michael Elwood,
Jazak Allahu Khair for your comments and for the email. i will add you and send you some stuff. You comments on racialism particularly interest me. Not only because of the fact that i prefer that term to racism, since racism implies power, and racialism is a more all-encompassing term, but also because of the issues it raises.
“I think the issues of racism (or more accurately, racialism) and sexism aren’t given enough attention by Muslims. Both have been used by Islamophobes (with mixed results) to try to turn people off to Islam.”
Many Muslims deny the racialism present among Muslims. Too many. You’ve got Arabocentrism, North Indians think they are better than South Indians and Pakistanis and vice versa, Persians consider themselves superior, etc etc. But nothing seems more prevalent than this “black”/”"white” dichotomy in the Muslim world. It is very prevalent in Arab and Berber society, from the North African Maghreb to the Arabian Peninsula. It is also to be found among South Asians and to some extent among East Africans. Alot of “blacks” will deny this racialism until they are confronted with it when they try to marry a “white Arab” or a South Asian. Especially “black” males. i’ve had this problem myself.
And Islamophobes mistakenly think this racialism is part of Islam. But i was especially offended when reading a jihadwatch article exhorting “blacks” to return to their Christian heritage, suggesting that Islam is racist against “blacks”.
Allahu A’lam
December 30th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
@muhammad ‘abd-al haqq
“Many Muslims deny the racialism present among Muslims.”
They claim that there’s “no racism in Islam.” And they’re right. There’s no racism in Islam, but there’s plenty of it in “Muslims”.
“Too many. You’ve got Arabocentrism, North Indians think they are better than South Indians and Pakistanis and vice versa, Persians consider themselves superior, etc etc. But nothing seems more prevalent than this ‘black’/'white’ dichotomy in the Muslim world. It is very prevalent in Arab and Berber society, from the North African Maghreb to the Arabian Peninsula. It is also to be found among South Asians and to some extent among East Africans. Alot of ‘blacks’ will deny this racialism until they are confronted with it when they try to marry a “white Arab” or a South Asian. Especially ‘black’ males. i’ve had this problem myself.”
As Dan pointed out in another thread:
“Not going to defend Juan Williams here, but let’s be realistic. You don’t think non-black Muslims express fear when they see blacks walking around? Desi Muslims are the most guilty of this in my opinion.”
Even here on LoonWatch, when a “black” American is mentioned, the disparaging racial remarks seem to flow freely. Like Sourin Mahbub’s reference to Allen West as a “paranoid monkey” and “neo-coon” or Halal Pork’s suggestion that Whoopi Goldberg go back to the “jungles of Africa”.
The funny thing about Halal Porks’s comment is that there is just as much, if not more, desert per square mile in Africa than jungle. Moreover, most “black” Americans like Whoopi are descended from people from the forest (and savanna) regions of West Africa. Kinda like the forest regions of western Europe, but less temperate.
And needless to say, when immigrant Muslims go running to Obama, Ellison, Carson, or some other “black” (or more accurately, mulatto), to lobby for one of their little pet causes (because they can’t get one of their supposedly “white” and “mainstream” selves elected to significant office), they don’t call them monkeys or coons.
“And Islamophobes mistakenly think this racialism is part of Islam. But i was especially offended when reading a jihadwatch article exhorting ‘blacks’ to return to their Christian heritage, suggesting that Islam is racist against ‘blacks’.”
You can’t blame Islamophobes for trying to use the racism (and sexism) in Muslims to their advantage. It’s frustrating, though. Because some Muslims can’t seem to connect the dots. They don’t see the connection between their racist behavior and the existence of people like Williams and West. Besides being un-Islamic, racism is strategically stupid. It makes it impossible for them to speak with any moral authority on the subject of bigotry. And they have managed to not only turn off non-Muslims like Williams and West, but even Muslims like Adam Sitte, Dan, and others. It’s almost as if some of these immigrant Muslims (especially the “white” and “Aryan” ones) are determined not to have any allies here in the West.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:57 am
“i am thinking of starting a personal blog”
Muhammad abd al Haq, that would be very good.
December 31st, 2010 at 3:17 am
Mosizzle,
it’s official… i have already begun. i got this idea because almost every single LW post gets derailed with off-topic discussions, but the issues raised in these discussions are important in and of themselves.
i was thinking of making it a repository of Islam-related authentic information for scholars, independent researchers,journalists, imams, religious scholars, up-and-coming-scholars, and any other qualified individuals to contribute to.
i think many LW writers and commenters also are well qualified to write articles for it and would appreciate it. i am currently working on topic ideas for the articles and would appreciate it if you or any other Loonwatchers like Dawood, Jack Cope, or Michael Elwood would send ideas my way, or even whole articles if you like. The struggle continues.
Allahu A’lam
December 31st, 2010 at 6:52 am
I take it you didn’t get my email then muhammad :-S Hold on the website for now, I have one that is getting to be up and running in the near future.
September 3rd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
That was awesome. Lets get hitched.
September 3rd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
That was odd, let’s not…