Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A new English-language interpretation of the Muslim Holy book the Koran challenges the use of words that feminists say have been used to justify the abuse of Islamic women.

The new version, translated by an Iranian-American, will be published in April and comes after Muslim feminists from around the world gathered in New York last November and vowed to create the first women's council to interpret the Koran and make the religion more friendly toward women.

In the new book, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, a former lecturer on Islam at the University of Chicago, challenges the translation of the Arab word "idrib," traditionally translated as "beat," which feminists say has been used to justify abuse of women.

"Why choose to interpret the word as 'to beat' when it can also mean 'to go away'," she writes in the introduction to the new book.

The passage is generally translated: "And as for those women whose illwill you have reason to fear, admonish them; 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!"

Instead, Bakhtiar suggests "Husbands at that point should submit to God, let God handle it -- go away from them and let God work His Will instead of a human being inflicting pain and suffering on another human being in the Name of God."

Some Muslims said the new interpretation strayed from the original. Omar Abu-Namous, imam at the New York Islamic Cultural Center Mosque, questioned Bakhtiar's interpretation.

"There is nothing to stop a woman from translating the Holy Koran. The translator should have good command of the Arabic language in order to convey it and translate it into other languages. I don't know if Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar has good command of Arabic," Imam Abu-Namous said.

"Maybe she is depending on other translations, not on the original," he said.

Bakhtiar defended her work, telling Reuters she translated from the Arabic text and that she "reads and knows classical Arabic."

The New York imam also said the passage she is challenging speaks of when a woman wants a divorce, and only allows a man to "hit his wife, according to the Prophet, with a 'miswak,'" or a twig of a pencil's length, on her hand.

Arabic Language Professor at the American University in Cairo Siham Serry said her interpretation of the word "idrib," was "to push away," similar but slightly different from Bakhtiar's "to go away."

She said she agrees with the imam that 'miswak' means twig and that the Koran does not encourage the harm of women. But she also said that men can interpret that passage to justify their own behavior.

"How can you hurt someone by hitting her with a very small, short and weak thing?" she asked by telephone from Cairo. "But sometimes the interpretation of the Koran is according to men, and sometimes they try to humiliate the woman."

Bakhtiar writes in the book that she found a lack of internal consistency in previous English translations, and found little attention given to the woman's point of view.

In other changes to the text, she cites the most accurate translation of the word traditionally translated to mean "infidel" as "ungrateful."

And she uses "God" instead of "Allah," saying that God is the universal English term.

Bakhtiar has been schooled in Sufism which includes both the Shia and Sunni points of view. As an adult, she lived nine years in a Shia community in Iran and has lived in a Sunni community in Chicago for the past 15 years.

"While I understand the positions of each group, I do not represent any specific one as I find living in America makes it difficult enough to be a Muslim, much less to choose to follow one sect or another," she writes.

The new text is published by Islamic specialty bookseller Kazi Publications, which has a store in Chicago and online.

http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFrien...AN-FEMINIST.xml

[Dan J 277]

I'm with them. No more beat for women !

[Sofiyya 1,687]

During the Prophet's lifetime, he sought counsel from women and encouraged them to express their concerns. There are ayat in the Quran that were revealed in response to issues women brought to the Prophet. Some of the greatest early scholars were women, but, after his death the remaining men worked quickly to negate many of the freedoms given to women by God. I'll check out her transliteration and see how much of it I can agree with. It's way past time to reintroduce the women's voice as part and parcel of the authority in interpretation of the texts and the sharia.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Interesting.

Purely from a translation point of view, I have to agree with using "God." (As my Islam Studies professor--one of the most respected authorities in the field--said, "Allah is the Arabic word for God. Palestinian Christians pray to 'Allah' just as much as Muslims do. It's silly to leave it untranslated.")

I've always wished I knew more scriptural languages (well, okay, *any* scriptural languages), I'd love to do comparisons of translations of holy texts.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

So they are just going to reinvent translations? Why not translate 'beat' as 'have a bowl of ice cream together'. Works for me. Maybe I'll rewrite my own Koran. "jihad' will become 'wash the dog'. I like where this is going.

[sparkofcreation 0]

So they are just going to reinvent translations? Why not translate 'beat' as 'have a bowl of ice cream together'. Works for me. Maybe I'll rewrite my own Koran. "jihad' will become 'wash the dog'. I like where this is going.

You obviously know nothing about translation or languages.

To give a very simple example, the English word "green" refers to a color, to being nauseated, and to being inexperienced. So if someone is translating something to another language, and they come across the word "green," they have to think about which one the writer most likely meant. And it's not always so clear--for example, if the sentence were "It was John's first day as a professional baseball player. He was green," it's pretty much equally likely that the writer is reiterating his newness versus that he/she means that John felt sick from nerves. (Unlikely that the color is meant--unless it's a children's book about frogs.)

The trouble for the translator is deciding whether any one meaning is clearly correct, or whether one meaning is likely enough to choose it even though the others are possible, or what to do if no one meaning is clearly the most likely.

Another example that I came across at work recently was someone who said "Me han gastado." That means all three of the following (among others that don't make sense here): 1. "They have made fun of me." 2. "They have wrecked me emotionally." 3. "They have beaten me to a pulp." Given such different yet equally-plausible-in-context meanings, it would be highly irresponsible for me to choose one without knowing which was meant. After all, it's a dangerous thing to accuse someone of beating you up when all they did was make fun of you, and it's dangerous to assume someone was merely made fun of when they were actually severely beaten.

I don't know whether the word in question does really mean both "to beat" and "to go away from," but I assume so since there was another scholar who confirmed it. I also don't know how plausible each of the possible meanings is. But recognizing words have multiple meanings is hardly rocket science. I mean, heck, the English word "beat" has multiple meanings. If you were standing in front of a drum, and I were angry with you for playing badly, and I said "Beat it!" would you (a) leave or (b.) hit the drum? (Yes, I've actually seen that situation happen.)

Edited March 24, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[cbd2cai 0]

And what about gender based variations in translations?? Not just talking about how men want to spin it to their advantage here (but you can see that it has happened for centuries). The context that men and women view and interpret from is different.

Another example: I went to a lecture where a female archeologist re-interpreted many finds from ancient egypt and it was truly fascinating. Seems that almost all archeologists were male up into the 20-21st centuries. In many cases, they weren't able to recognize feminine objects that were found in digs because their context did not include these items . . . they weren't WOMEN, so they didn't know what WOMEN did!!

Anyway, I think the Bible has some of the same problems . . . written by/for men . . . women were left out. IMHO . . . seeing as how I was raised with all of that, I guess I can have a little bit of an opinion about it.

Always lots of food for thought!

Edited March 24, 2007 by cbd2cai

[mybackpages 0]

So they are just going to reinvent translations? Why not translate 'beat' as 'have a bowl of ice cream together'. Works for me. Maybe I'll rewrite my own Koran. "jihad' will become 'wash the dog'. I like where this is going.

Arabic is a complicated language and words have several meanings. Also one word in English can have several words in Arabic to mean the same word (but then each is unique within arabic). Add to the problem that verses in the quran were often given in response to a specific incident happening at the time. Now you have to apply this specific ruling to modern situations and can get tricky.

ETA: Good examples from Sparkof creation .

Edited March 24, 2007 by mybackpages

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wonder just how long it's going to take until a fatwa is issued that seeks the death of this woman.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I wonder just how long it's going to take until a fatwa is issued that seeks the death of this woman.

That's the real question. I'm sure 'beat' becoming 'go away' won't be a popular change.

[Caladan 19]

sparkofcreation nails it. Translation is hard. Idioms don't line up. Metaphors are worse. It's not just pretending the words means what you want.

And even Biblical scholarship looks at the context and original meaning. How many Christians justify their participation in the military or support of the death penalty by arguing that what is translated as "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not murder"? How many justify wearing clothing woven of more than one thread type (banned in Leviticus) by arguing that at the time, having two kinds of material was reserved for the priests, so it should be interpreted as a call to dress simply and modestly.

I'm not sure if this woman has the scholarly chops to give a good interpretation. But what she's doing isn't some crazy thing, or something that implies intellectual dishonesty.