All Comments (358)

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

The comic visited the land for the first time in decades to promote his anRrpWTYnkmcou new animated movie about bees, and he was treated like royalty literally

The comic visited the land for the first time in decades to promote his anRrpWTYnkmcou new animated movie about bees, and he was treated like royalty literally

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

First time here on your site. I am delighted to find your wonderful website online. asian babe cams
VZ4H4Hx8E4

Excellent! Good work! Would you please also visit my homepage? hot asian women
P5bKf66g3s

Very well! Your site is neat! Please visit my homepage too: free amateur pics
J4RQ2i5UaW

Good design. I liked this site, it's neat. Good job! Would you please also visit my site? drudge report
PS7n6u5dk2

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: drudge report
cA62n6YW8B

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: drudge report
cA62n6YW8B

Excellent! Good work! Would you please also visit my homepage? sasha brinkova
t28s2dvKJw

Greetings to the author of this page. Nice site, keep up the good work monster video xxx
88Pa76Vd9

Nice design. Please add more smiles to your guestbook free hun page pic yellow
E93Gunu7R2

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: map search direction
E93Gunu7R2

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: map search direction
E93Gunu7R2

Thanks for the good site and usefulinfo. I found compass cove oceanfront resort
E93Gunu7R2

First time here on your site. I am delighted to find your wonderful website online. world war 2 map
sDw72oj52o

m531k

ive been away for a month and just came back to this-

youve just proven my point mr omar-

hit the road means to leave.

not a violent strike, as your contention that the meaning of the word means in the contested ayat-

but to leave.

another definition for the word "hit".

I wouldn't put too much store in what Christoph Luxenberg (not Lexington) said about the Syriac-Aramaic origin of the Quran. That's the same guy who thinks Muslim men would want to go to heaven and marry raisins.

You can draw too long a bow with things like this. It's an interesting thesis but one that can be quickly discounted on the basis of its evident incoherence.

Victoria,
If you bring those 9 example of daraba not meaning 'beat' we can examine the grammatical construct.

Don't forget about Arabic idioms - which still means beat. Like hit an example = provide an example. But the darab here still means beat, not provide. It's just a figure of speech like when you say 'hit on an idea'. That word still means 'hit'.

Another example - dabara fee al-ard = hit in the earth. That means to travel because you 'hit in the earth'. It's the same as the English phrase 'hit the road, jack.' That word "hit" still means "hit".

See what i mean?

I think people forget 'figures of speech' and the meaning of words.

Qasim Omar:

Thanks again for your response. Like I said before, I do not think that the methodology you used to determine the use of the word Daraba is infallible. I am not saying you are completely wrong, but that I have come across enough variables related to the codification of classical Arabic and its application to the Quran that it leaves open quite a few possibilities. I am not arguing with you at this point, just explaining the reasons for doubt in my mind, which you have clearly indicated are secondary to your reliance on the "harf al jar" to determine the meaning of the root.

1. Attempts at codification of classical Arabic at least a hundred years after Islam. This would have allowed the language to evolve and take on characteristics/changes that did not necassarily exist during Mohammed's time.

2. The evolution of Classical Arabic. Though a lot of Arab scholars deny that it has ever changed since the days of Mohammad, I have come across a few non-Arab anthropologists and linguists who have discussed the influences of the cultures and languages of the regions, that came under the control of the Arabs through conquest, spreading of Islam etc, on the Arab dialects and classical Arabic. I think its Koller who discussed this though I am not exactly sure about the name.

To digress a bit, one humorous comment I came across suggested that to determine what Arab region a person was from, just ask him which country's dialect was closest to the Arabic in the Quran and invariably the person will give his origins away.

3. Lexington talks about the Quran being written in Syriac, Aramaic and Arabic; a concept that has been almost heretical for most Muslim Scholars and especially Arab scholars. He makes a good argument in favor of exploring that possibility since Muslim scholars have always had difficulty interpreting certain sections of the Quran by trying to apply the rules of Classical Arabic only.

Lexington's theory, though interesting, has not been developed or explored enough to be considered mainstream, but it does again plant a seed of doubt wrt the grammatical rules you pointed out.

4. The fact that time and time again, whether it is the traditional Muslim scholar (who would advocate beating, chopping off of hands, a nine year old Aisha etc.) or the Modern ones (who would interpret in favor of non-violence, restrictions on capital punishment, a 17plus year old Aisha etc), there is a consensus that the Quran must be interpreted based on how the verses relate to other verses and to the general concept that is being talked about etc. rather than a literalist word by word interpretation.
Those interpretations obviously vary quite a bit.

You do not have to respond. Once again, I understand that in your and Khalid's opinion the grammatical rules are of paramount importance. Traditional Muslims scholars, ironically, are on your side in this case at least; though as I mentioned, they too advocate against a literalist interpretation.

Thanks again for pushing me to acquire some really interesting knowledge about Islam and the Arabic language. Peace to you.

hi there- ill nterject into this how many angels can dance on the head of a pin discussion-
actually mr omar, the word daraba occurs 16 times in the quran, and 9 of those times it as a meaning other than beat- but its all moot in a way-
i have a more esoteric, and hence less validly scholarly attitude-

now mr omar- i was taken aback somewhat by that farewell sermon-
i have never seen a version like that- i have seen the same consistent version many places many times- from many different sources, it seems more like a political statement than a personal farewell and last words of wisdom-

now- im american, and the only arabic i speak is my own inarticulate and possibly barely recognizable prayers-

as far a sunnah being derived from hadith, i think you have that backwards- the actions of Muhammad(pbuh)- but it is STILL moot after all-

now, unfortunately i only have a few minutes and cannot provide any substantiation- only opinions right now- so il offer my humble subjective one-

i think mr khalid said that women cannot be chauvinist or sexist-
that is a remarkably male thing to say.

i have had my most spirited conversations with WOMEN not men- who were the mostdoggedly sexist, and have spent hours and hours with women who are seemingly brainwashed that way- it reminds me of the stockholm syndrome-
and i have spent hours pondering this anomaly.

im willing to bet(and i dont0 that none of the men here have spent more than a few seconds considering it-

here is what i discovered- those in the most tenuous of social and finacial standing(i.e. women) are always the first casualties when the status quo is threatened or dismantled-
with the most to lose, they are often the most ardent and vocal of the supporters of the staus quo- whatever it may be(in this case, women being beaten)
now while they may vociferously and emotionally react to this question, they never respond with reasoned or well thought out explantations for why such a thing may be correct.

now, how could a woman who has supported herself, and traveled around the country independently understand such a thing? i am sometimes a bigger threat to their own security and social standing than the husband who beats them- but trust me- as i know from many years of dealing eith women in this situation- there are none who feel it is right in their hearts-the closest you come is someone whose self esteem is so thoroughly eroded that thier sense of right has been so illogically attacked, that they really dont have a strong center of this important moral compass.

no one, even an animal- deserves to be abused.
period period period

the prophet(swa) did not himself, strike any women. so that is that-

i wish i had more time as my statements seem so intractable and absolute and i cant get into any subtleties-which is where i do best (IMHO)

also ill leave with a quick paraphrased hadeeth from memory- so forgive if it is off at all- (its really not though)

once Muhammed(pbuh) asked his companions who was the most blessed- the man who recites qur'an with perfect intonation and inflection, or the man(or woman- hee hee- obviously my interjection) who faltered and said it imperfectly-

seems like a no-brainer, yes?

well, naturally they replied that it was the person who said it flawlessly.

they were wrong. he stated it was the person who stumbled on their words.

now theres no explanation for why this is, but i have stumbled upon my own inadequate reasons for it, as it touches me personally.

the person who seamlessly (and possibly rotely?) churns out perfect diction - is doing so with ease and no effort-

the one who stumbles- obviously is not a native arabic speaker- or possibly just uneducated- in either case its a situation of familiarity versus non-familiarity-

those non-familiar must expend so much more effort- the effort is the key.

as a blue eyed white woman, i find that other americans accept quite readily anything i share about islam- but i often encounter a sort of discrimination from arabic speaking people- and a condesending bemusement-

so i doggedly research every single assertion made to me by muslims from other countries(my own reverse discrimination?) looking for cultural corruptions or patriarchal interpretations from both men and women-

so i ask at least 5 people and still demand sources for every query, as i have a long history of studying and valdiating what i believe and know i will have to justify every word that comes out of my mouth to someone somewhere- so i do this in anticipation of some future questioner and also of course my own clarification-

so be aware of these things when worrying about the scholarly attributes of this lady from persia- her
o i really must go-
peace all
sorry thre were no meaty tidbits here or rebuttals, not the time right now
you know, ALLAH really is not male or female- i do the same thing with feminist (or any ism) view-

o ive really gone on- but the point is-

MZBH,
I see you won't let this go even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. You prefer to believe a person who does not even speak Arabic to real Arabic speakers. You prefer to believe someone who misinterpreted Lane's Lexicon than some people whose evidence is confirmed by Lane's Lexicon.

The fact that your source, Laleh Bakhtiar, DOES NOT EVEN SPEAK ARABIC is sufficient for me. Her own evidence, thanks to Khalid, is false. She did not even understand Lane's Lexicon.

I read your link - unfortunately you can't argue with the rules of Arabic grammar. The entries in Lane's Lexicon has the harf jarr like Khalid and I have pointed out. The debaters in your link do not much consider the Arabic grammar and the need for the harf jar. I wouldn't put much store in what they wrote.

In fact, one of the debaters, Tajmaha, got it totally wrong. This is what he wrote:

"In looking in an Arabic dictionary 'Al Mu'jamm Al Wajeez', to my surprise I couldn't find the meaning to beat or to beat up, there was a long list of several other meanings though. It seems that Arabs originally didn't use the word Dharaba to mean to hit or to beat up (someone), this is only a contemporary meaning of the word which we use all the time thinking that it is what it means originally, when it is not!
Dharaba is always linked with a preposition. If it appears solely then it means something else other than to beat up. "

Not only did Tajmaha get the preposition rule opposite to what it should be but he claimed that Arabs originally did not use Dharaba to mean beat. What nonsense - the quran uses daraba to mean beat/strike/hit/scourge (these are all the same to Arabs btw - not different words) at least 10 times.

I think this discussion is just about over. Thanks to Khalid for showing us the Lane's Lexicon entries and the need for the harf jarr for daraba to take on a secondary meaning like 'turn away from'.

Qasim Omar (and Khalid):

Here is a link to one of the discussions over the translation of the ayat 4:34:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7439.0

You may have to register.

Qasim Omar (and Khalid too I suppose):

“I don't see how you can say an interpretation conforming to Arabic grammar rules is an untruth.”

I thought I retracted the “untruth” part in my last post to you. I clarified (or thought I did ) that “misinterpretation” was a more appropriate word to use.

As for lanes Lexicon; it is definitely an impressive authority and attempt to codify classical Arabic. But this following statement from the study Quran website that offers a free version of Lane’s online:

“All information contained within this document is correct to the best of our (the contributors) knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always verify information and seek knowledge when possible. This approach is recommended by The Reading (al quran) itself.”

And also:
““Which root meaning is correct?

...ALL occurrences of the root and their contexts must be examined.
Specific derivatives of a root may have to be separated and analysed.
Crucial or relevant words within these verses should be checked to make sure they have been used accurately.
Before understanding a specific word/concept, it must be checked that this word/concept is consistent, logical and does not interfere with another part of the message.
Other verses discussing the same or similar subject must be checked.
Don't draw something out that is not there. When you have to embellish on a word to make it mean what you think it means, most chances are it doesn't mean that. The connection should be clear. Get solid evidence to demonstrate that a word may not mean what many think it to mean.
After this thorough investigation, you may find that several meanings are possible/acceptable for an occurrence. Even if 2 or 3 meanings remain, if there is no reason to disregard them, we should not, but rather conclude that what must be meant is both the 2 or all three (or however more there may be) or better yet, choose the meaning that includes, and does not cancel out, all other possible meanings. A more accurate understanding of a word/concept should gradually develop as one's study increases/improves.””

There is a very interesting discussion on this very issue going on in the free-minds.org forums (which you can link to from Lanes Lexicon’s site): http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm. )

The translation of the verse 4:34 by free-minds:

“The men are to support the women by what God has bestowed on them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear desertion: advise them; and abandon them in the bedchamber; and let them go forth. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.”

I am going to defer to the discussion going on the free-minds.org forum since a lot of the issues I have raised, or did not even think of are/have been discussed there, and in light of those discussions, I still maintain that your method of arriving at the translation of “beat” or “hit” is not by any means infallible; neither are the rules governing classical Arabic, as they pertain to the Quran at least.

But thank you for engaging in this discussion. I discovered an interest in Islam that I don’t think I have ever had. I had started identifying myself as a deist, until I visited faithfreedom.org (Sina's version of Islam was not the one I grew up with), which led me to undertake a lot of research to clarify the accusations made and in the process discover liberal Islam. This exchange with you pushed me to educate myself even further and while I still do not believe that God would be so simple minded and petty as to require obedience to a very narrow set of beliefs, knowing (as only an almighty God would know) the human species, as full of life, freethinking and strong willed as it can be, would never adhere to one particular set of beliefs; I find modern Islam to be quite uplifting and an excellent source of values and beliefs to pass on to my children (if and when such a day comes; gotta finish school first).

P.S: You may call liberal Muslim efforts “revisionist”, I consider them to be an attempt to go back to Gods true word (As preached by Mohammed in this case, but equally applicable to liberal Christians revisiting the Church’s dogma). If the rules of grammar need to be discarded, then discarded they shall be (since the "flawed", IMO, interpretation of the Quran was a primary source for them anyway.)

So, as I said before, we can agree to disagree.

From New York Times article about Lelah Bakhtiar:

Debates over translations of the Koran — considered God’s eternal words — revolve around religious tradition and Arabic grammar. Critics fault Ms. Bakhtiar on both scores.

This is what Qasim and I have been telling you - Lelah Bakhtiar has zero knowledge of Arabic grammar. She can't even read Lane's Lexicon correctly and somehow missed the harf al jar required to change the meaning from beat to leave.

There is another entry in Lane which I missed:

ضربت عنه صفحا Darabtu ‘Anhu SafHan I turned away from him and left him.

See the عنه here too?

MZBH,
Lelah Bakhtiar does not even speak Arabic. She mistranslated idribohunna because she couldn't bring herself to translate it correctly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25koran.html?ei=5088&en=835924e5b6d16c52&ex=1332475200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

“I decided it either has to have a different meaning, or I can’t keep translating,” said Ms. Bakhtiar, an Iranian-American who adopted her father’s Islamic faith as an adult and had not dwelled on the verse before. “I couldn’t believe that God would sanction harming another human being except in war.”

It's just wishful thinking on her part.

When she reached the problematic verse, Ms. Bakhtiar spent the next three months on “daraba.” SHE DOES NOT SPEAK ARABIC, but she learned to read the holy texts in Arabic while studying and working as a translator in Iran in the 1970s and ’80s.

Her eureka moment came on roughly her 10th reading of the Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, a 3,064-page volume from the 19th century, she said. Among the six pages of definitions for “daraba” was “to go away.”

I looked up Lane's Lexicon and this is what I found:

ضرب عنه Daraba ‘Anhu He turned away a person or thing from him [or it]

also اضرب عنه IDrib ‘Anhu

Lane specifically put in an arrow to denote that one must add the "harf jar" عنه after اضرب to make this work.

Looks like Lelah Bakhtiar did not even understand what she was talking about. All she did was pick up some translation without regard to the Arabic grammar rules, nor understand Lane's Lexicon.

MZBH - see the Lane's Lexicon entries? All of them have the preposition AN عنه.

Do you see that in 4:34?

I wonder why these Arab women on the panel and the audience cannot understand that darab in 4:34 does not mean 'beat' but 'leave'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mpwqwg2MY&mode=related&search=

Notice how none of the Arab women, who presumably can understand Arabic, never raised the possibility that darab in 4:34 does not mean 'beat' but 'leave'.

Millions and millions of Arab women watch this sort of program on TV and hear their Imams saying this sort of thing in the masjid and not a single one comes out to say that idribohunna does not mean 'beat'.

I suppose those women saying darab is beat are patriachal too.

MZBH,
I don't see how you can say an interpretation conforming to Arabic grammar rules is an untruth.

While your unevidenced opinion, contrary to centuries of Arabic grammar, is the truth.

Sorry, but I think most people would have a hard time accepting your position.

MZBH
It is clear you did not read or understand my post where I showed the proper Arabic grammar.

This is what you wrote:
I discovered that that word daraba has twenty plus different meanings, but take two; hit and leave; both verbs. You say that the pronoun is attached to the verb “idrib” it means “hit” and then “idrib o hun” would mean “hit them”. But if daraba can also mean “leave” (and twenty plus other things) then “leave them” makes perfect sense as well.

I'm sorry but you're wasting my time. I will repeat this once more:

1. Idribo (no preposition) hunna = beat them.

2. Ariboa (preposition = AN) hunna = turn away FROM them.

Do you see Idribohunna or Adribo AN hunna in 4:34?

An Arabic speaker knows Idribohunna CANNOT mean leave them. It means 'beat them'. That is why the tafsir masters all translate idribohunna to mean 'beat them' because the word is idribohunna, not AdriboANhunna.

We've going around in circles because you're just won't accept the rules of Arabic grammar as given to you. All you do is to INSIST that daraba can mean 'leave them'. Sure it can - but it requires the preposition to do so. How many times do I have to say this?

As for the farewell sermon - there are many references like this.

http://muslim-canada.org/farewell.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] STRIKE THEM IN A WAY THAT DOES NO HARM. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah. So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message? -- O Allah, be my witness.

---

PS: If you want to show that idribohunna can mean leave her you have to show the evidence - not opinions. You just made up your own opinion that is against the rules of Arabic grammar. I'm sorry but that is not enough.

Please show the rules of Arabic grammar that you used to get idribohunna to mean ‘leave her’.

MZBH
It is clear you did not read or understand my post where I showed the proper Arabic grammar.

This is what you wrote:
I discovered that that word daraba has twenty plus different meanings, but take two; hit and leave; both verbs. You say that the pronoun is attached to the verb “idrib” it means “hit” and then “idrib o hun” would mean “hit them”. But if daraba can also mean “leave” (and twenty plus other things) then “leave them” makes perfect sense as well.

I'm sorry but you're wasting my time. I will repeat this once more:

1. Idribo (no preposition) hunna = beat them.

2. Ariboa (preposition = AN) hunna = turn away FROM them.

Do you see Idribohunna or Adribo AN hunna in 4:34?

An Arabic speaker knows Idribohunna CANNOT mean leave them. It means 'beat them'. That is why the tafsir masters all translate idribohunna to mean 'beat them' because the word is idribohunna, not AdriboANhunna.

We've going around in circles because you're just won't accept the rules of Arabic grammar as given to you. All you do is to INSIST that daraba can mean 'leave them'. Sure it can - but it requires the preposition to do so. How many times do I have to say this?

As for the farewell sermon - there are many references like this.

http://muslim-canada.org/farewell.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] STRIKE THEM IN A WAY THAT DOES NO HARM. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah. So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message? -- O Allah, be my witness.

---

PS: If you want to show that idribohunna can mean leave her you have to show the evidence - not opinions. You just made up your own opinion that is against the rules of Arabic grammar. I'm sorry but that is not enough.

Qasim Omar;

I wrote in my last post:

"Like I said before; you are trying to prove an untruth by using other untruths."

I was not trying to suggest that you are lying and I apologize for how that sentence came across. If anything, it was a bit redundant given the sentence preceding it.

Qasim Omar:

“Your own prophet clarified the meaning of 4:34 in his farewell sermon - and the meaning is clear - idribohunna means beat.”

What version of the sermon are you reading? Could you post the section where this “clarification of beating women” occurred? Every version that I have come across does not contain any such reference. The fact that there are at least three versions of this sermon is a good indicator that sections, or all, of the alleged sermon should be constantly scrutinized for conflicts with the Quran (if they exist as you claim wrt to idribohunna being clarified to mean beat).

This is the reference to women I came across:

““O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.””

The Hadith and sermon can be discarded if they come in conflict with the Quran. If there is an interpretation of Mohammeds final sermon that advocates “beating” then it should be discarded.

“I know it pains you to know that your prophet condoned and encouraged wife-beating. You have to get used to that.”

Thank you for your concern, but you may rest easy knowing that I have no doubts as to the veracity of the translation to mean “leave” or “go forth”. What pains me is that people still continue to propagate a misinterpretation and try to prove it by using other misinterpretations. Like I said before; you are trying to prove an untruth by using other untruths.

As far as your grammar lesson:

“When the pronoun is attached to the verb اضرب idrib it carries the original meaning of the verb which is hit.”

I discovered that that word daraba has twenty plus different meanings, but take two; hit and leave; both verbs. You say that the pronoun is attached to the verb “idrib” it means “hit” and then “idrib o hun” would mean “hit them”. But if daraba can also mean “leave” (and twenty plus other things) then “leave them” makes perfect sense as well.

Basically your entire “grammar lesson” is based on this “original meaning” of the word. You (and other classical scholars with their patriarchal, conservative cultural biases) prefer “hit” I do not see any reason why “leave them” is not a better translation, especially in light of the use of the word Daraba in the rest of the Quran.
Who determined the “original meaning” of the word daraba to be “hit”, out of twenty plus other meanings? Why pick one over the other as the “original meaning”? You say the Tafsir, Hadith and sermon validate your version, but the Tafsir and Hadith are interpreted by the same body of scholars with the same cultural biases so that is not a valid source to back up your argument.

You also haven’t answered why, if there is such a "grand and absolute" source of “rules and regulations” governing classical Arabic grammar, so many translations of the Quran (by scholars well versed enough in classical Arabic to translate daraba to the same “beat”) could not come up with identical translations for the rest of the Quran. I provided you with one example where the same word “yadribu” was translated three different ways. If the “science of classical Arabic” is so codified, where is the continuity and homogeneity in its application?

MZBH,
You can't malign the tafsir masters just because they don't agree with you. Classical Arabic grammar has not changed. It can't change. We're not talking about a modern interpretation but about what your God said. He said it only once and his meaning stands for all time - then as well as now and into the future.

Their interpretion of idribohunna is not governed by patriachy or misogyny or any perceived 'bias'. It is a straight forward issue.

Your own prophet clarified the meaning of 4:34 in his farewell sermon - and the meaning is clear - idribohunna means beat. Are you saying he was biased or that the reporting of the farewell sermon was flawed? As far as I know there were only 3 differences in the narrations and they were minor points and totally unrelated to this issue.

I know it pains you to know that your prophet condoned and encouraged wife-beating. You have to get used to that.

How can you expect anyone to believe the 'opinions' of a couple of modern women 'scholars' (no such thing in Islam actually) when what they say is against the Arabic grammar rules and the words of your own prophet?

I urge you to consult a good Classical Arabic dictionary like Lane's Lexicon to see for yourself. I'm sure you'd find I am right about the rules of Classical Arabic pertaining to this word.

MZBH,
You misunderstand me. I'm not denying Lelah Bakhtiar's right to interpret the Arabic any how she likes. However, in this case she is wrong. Her knowledge of Arabic grammar is flawed. One wonders how she came to her interpretation, other than wishful thinking.

I challenge anyone to show any of the Arabic masters pre-20th century who interprets daraba in 4:34 to mean 'leave'. All without exception (as far as I know) understand it to mean 'beat'.

Now, you've been given the evidence of the tafsir masters who presumably know Classical Arabic backwards. You have been shown the evidence of the early Arabs narrating the hadiths who also know Classical Arabic. You've been given a couple of grammar lessons.

However, you insist on believing against the rules of Arabic grammar that idribohunna means 'leave' her while it actually means 'beat' her.

I really don't understand your point about your second unnamed woman Muslim scholar who also mis-interprets idribohunna to mean 'leave' her. I think this is yet another example of wishful thinking.

All you're doing is arguing against the evidence and relying on 'less than credible' opinions. I don't care what these women scholars think. I know for sure that the rules of Arabic grammar dictates that idribohunna means 'beat' her.

Every time in the Quran, daraba is used it means 'strike' or 'beat' if the word is used without the "harf jar". When the word is used with the "harf jar" it takes on a secondary meaning. I think you should ask your women Muslim scholars to tell you where the "harf jar" is in 4:34. They are merely misleading the ignorant, in my view.

anon:

Following is a post I wrote on another board in response to a similar question from another "anon". I thought it brought across the point I was trying to make a little better:

"Many Muslim individuals have fallen under a veil of tyranny, silence, and intimidation in their own communities."

Thank you for your measured response. First let me digress a bit and tell you how I felt at reading it; actual happiness. Not because I think I convinced you or that I think you are starting to see the light or anything, but because you made that distinction between "Muslims" who are extremists and the religion itself. The video link you posted, and your own comment "To step out from under that veil is to step into the "cross hairs", I believe enforces my point. Moderate Muslims, like myself, find ourselves waging a two fold battle. Not only must we speak out against the tyranny of this violent minority, but we must also speak out against the vitriol that is sent our way by those in the West. Not only do we find ourselves in "crosshairs" but also in a "crossfire" (starting to sound like the Chrysler line up here...). I would love to talk about reform and social and cultural change, but I always find myself getting drawn into these pointless exchanges over "Muhammadans" and "Islam is a cult" blah blah blah.

There are two questions that need to be answered by non-Muslims criticizing Islam:

1. Do you believe that there are moderate Muslims ?
2. Why would an attack on Islam, and not on "extremist Muslims" specifically, not also be an attack on moderates who are fighting the same war?

When people toss slurs at Islam, they are also throwing slurs at my (moderate Muslims) faith, my upbringing and my family. The result is that most moderates end up trying to combat the negative perceptions and stereotypes amongst non-Muslims, instead of focusing their entire energies on reform.

The extremists take the slurs as just one more way to brainwash their followers into believing that non-Muslims (and specifically the West) are out to "get Islam". The West needs to get on the side of the moderates and start distinguishing between Islam and extremist Muslims.

After watching the video, I was scrolling through the comments and wanted to engage some of the Muslim posters over issues in the clip, but after reading some of the anti-Islam comments my blood was boiling and I just gave up; lest I be drawn into the vitriol. In the poisonous atmosphere that existed, no reason would have been listened to.

That is the tragedy of the moderates in Islam right now. I believe that is the point Dr. Ahmed was trying to make.

Anon:

"Why do the world's leading Islamic organisations (such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission) always fail to criticise sites such www.alminbar.com, and fail to demand that such hatred is removed from these hugely influential websites?"

Personally, I had no idea what this alminbar website was about (still don't because the address you provided doesn't work). I am not sure why these organizations have to condemn every nut case website on the internet. I am not defending their inaction, there are other human rights issues that they could approach, but this argument put forward by critics of Islam that "CAIR" or so and so should always come out and condemn acts of terrorism is ridiculous. CAIR and the IHRC (from what I read on their website) are organizations primarily devoted towards defending Muslims from discrimination and prejudice from outside the Muslim community. They (especially CAIR) exist for a very specific purpose.

That said, I agree with you that in a lot of Islamic countries moderates are afraid to speak out against intolerance and violations of basic human rights and dignities because of the very real threat of a violent backlash by extremists. This danger exists not because the countries are Islamic, but because socio economic conditions and a nexus between the ruling elite and the extremists, provide the conditions for riots, and other violence to suppress a dissenting view. Look at Saudi Arabia and the free hand given to the Wahabi extremists by the royal family, while the U.S media (and Govt.) is going overboard trying to portray them as moderates and the need to continue to support and prop them up. Same thing in Egypt with Mubarak and his dictatorship.

But anyway, even if what you said, about Islamic organizations, was correct, it is no justification for an attack on Islam. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not subscribe to those views, but are trapped due to circumstances not of their choosing. You do all us moderates great harm in our struggle against extremism when you lump us in with the extremists when you criticize "Islam" instead of "extremist interpretations of Islam".

Qasim Omar:

Regarding Laleh Bakhtiar:

You keep trying to bring her “Iranian American” heritage into the debate as if that automatically disqualifies her from doing anything with Arabic or the Quran. If we follow your reasoning, then the research or work of anyone who does/did not have English (for example) as a first language should be ignored. It is not her nationality that counts, but the quality of her research and the methodology she (and other modern Muslim scholars) have used.

Following is an abbreviated description of her research methodology and some other reasoning why the traditional interpretation is incorrect:

““Another women scholar from Iran Laleh Bakhtiar who has translated the Qur’an from feminist point of view and has spent 40 years on this work also disagrees with translation of daraba as chastisement. She says, “ After 40 years studying and translating books related to the Qur’an, I realized that something was missing: an objective universal and inclusive translation of the Qur’an from its classical Arabic into contemporary English. Most of the 17 English translations I had seen included some interpretation of the verse making a direct comparison between the English and Arabic extremely difficult. Plus, many of the English translations continue to use Arabic words and names such as Allah for God, which can be confusing or even off-putting to new readers.”

Two things she says about the method she followed is quite striking: she has looked at all different uses of the word in the text in context before determining the appropriate meaning in English. She used computer to create database of 40,000 nouns and verbs of the Qur’an 50,000 particles of speech. This method is most appropriate as then alone one can understand the significance of a word, both as verb and noun. The methodology of understanding the Qur’an which I have discovered is also collating all the verses of the Qur’an on one subject and then inferring most appropriate meaning.
Also, one should always remember no ‘alim (scholar) can avoid being influenced by his/her circumstances, both cultural and political, for understanding the scriptural text. There is no surprise, if the commentators of early Islam understood chastisement by the word daraba in their own cultural and political milieu.
Also, Prophet’s Sunna plays an important role in evolving shari’ah laws. No one, even the most conservative ‘alim or jurist, has ever referred to the holy Prophet ever chastising any of his wife even when they made unreasonable demands on him. The Qur’an itself refers to an incident in which the Prophet’s wives made demand for more worldly goods which the Prophet could not afford. Let alone chastising them, he did not even utter harsh words against them.
He simply withdrew into a room and did not speak to his wives for a month and then, as per the Allah’s instruction, explained to his wives that either they should opt for this worldly goods and separate from him or live with him and expect their reward from Allah. This incident has been referred to in the Qur’anic verses 33:28-29 and also in 66:1-3 and we find in Sahih Bukhari reference to this incident that Holy Prophet temporarily separated from his wives for a month and then reconciled to them.””