Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Is It Hateful To Tell The Truth About The Koran's Thumbs Up For Wife-Beating?
JihadWatch's Robert Spencer writes a letter to the editor of TheDartmouth.com in response to a woman who contends he is "bringing hate speech on campus and hates Islam itself." Spencer writes:

She offers no evidence for this. I ask anyone and everyone, including Chloe Mulderig, to listen to the talk I gave at Dartmouth and to come up with even a single example of “hate speech.”

Later on she says that “[Spencer’s assertion] that the Koran says it is okay to beat women is incorrect and offensive.”

Is that so?

Koran 4:34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. This is, of course, an extremely controversial verse, so it is worth noting how several translators render the key word here, waidriboohunna:

Pickthall: “and scourge them”

Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”

Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”

Shakir: “and beat them”

Sher Ali: “and chastise them”

Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”

Arberry: “and beat them”

Rodwell: “and scourge them”

Sale: “and chastise them”

Asad: “then beat them”

Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa and Asad are Muslims. Are their translations all “incorrect and offensive?”

Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates Koran 4:34 as “go away from them.” In light of this unanimity among the translators, both Muslim and non-Muslim, this seems difficult to sustain — all of these authorities got the passage wrong until Bakhtiar? But her impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment. Asad adduces numerous traditions in which Muhammad “forbade the beating of any woman,” concluding that wife-beating is “barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided.”

Unfortunately, however, this is not a unanimous view. Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

But Mulderig would apparently prefer to pretend that I made this up rather than deal with Muslim approval of wife-beating.

More fun for women under Islam here.

In other death-cult news, the next word in primitivism may be death to sites and/or servers. Word has it there's a cyber jihad planned for November 11 and beyond -- for those whose western values permit freedom of expression, including expressions critical of Islam. Robert McMillan writes for PC Advisor:

The attack was reported by DEBKAfile, an online military intelligence magazine. Citing anonymous "counter-terror sources", DEBKAfile said it had intercepted an October 29 "internet announcement", calling for a volunteer-run online attack against 15 targeted sites, set to begin November 11.

The operation is supposed to expand after its launch date until "hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites," the magazine reported.

Such an attack could be launched with a known software kit, called Electronic Jihad Version 2.0, said Paul Henry, vice president of technology evangelism with Secure Computing. This software, which has been in circulation for about three years, has recently become more easily configurable so that it could be more effective in a distributed denial of service attack, such as the one suggested by the DEBKAfile report.

Attackers would download Jihad 2.0 to their own desktops and specify the amount of bandwidth they would like to consume, not unlike the SETI@home software package used to scan for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence.

However, Henry said that his law enforcement contacts are treating the report with some scepticism. "I talked to a few people today who know of DEBKAfile, who feel they are dubious, but they can be credible," he said. "I'm not looking at November 11 as being the day that the internet goes down."

Security expert Gadi Evron, who recently studied the cyber attacks in Estonia, expressed similar scepticism.

"DEBKAfile gets a lot of news that no one else has, and fast," he said. "But it's a community driven tabloid. Treat it as a golden source to be taken with 5 grains of salt," he said via instant message.

Even if an attack is planned, it would likely be nothing new, Evron added. "Cyber jihad on the level of attacking websites happens every day for numerous causes by enthusiasts. The content of this warning is doubtful. There are not hundreds of thousands of infosec workers worldwide, not to mention working for al-Qaeda," he said.

Posted by aalkon at November 2, 2007 1:56 PM

Comments

What Spencer should realize (if he doesn't already) about Muslim apologists like Mulderig is that the last thing they want is to be confused with facts. Their whole MO is to screech "hate speech" at full volume at every word that "offends" them, and have what they say become accepted truth, merely because they screeched it louder than anyone else.

Spencer should save his logical argumentation for someone who is open to it.

Posted by: cpabroker at November 2, 2007 6:09 AM

Anybody watch "TO DIE IN JERUSALEM" last night on HBO? I watched it for a little while and it was really upsetting to watch (obviously, two young women died for no reason).

Blurb: "This documentary recounts the heart-wrenching story of two teenaged girls--one a 17-year-old Israeli student named Rachel Levy, the other an 18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber named Ayat al-Akhras--who died together in a Jerusalem market in 2002."

The parents of the bomber felt their daughter had died with honor and dignity and that she did it to please Allah, which is the ultimate accomplishment. It seemed so incredibly...wild...to me: these people seemed so completely and genuinely deluded by the lies of religion - lies which support murder of innocents. They couldn't separate themselves from what their religion tells them in order to realize that murder is wrong.

Posted by: Gretchen at November 2, 2007 7:25 AM

I recall a news video of a special forces guy showing a video of the 9/11 attacks to a local Afghani.

His response to the attack?
"I didn't know anyone could make a building that big."

Let's face it, we're dealing with Bronze Age mentalities.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 2, 2007 7:38 AM

Here's one of the sick, backward fucks who perpetrated the Bali bombing, crying -- but only for the Muslim victims of his crime:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22683986-23109,00.html

ONE of the three Bali bombers on death row in Indonesia has admitted crying for Muslim victims of his crime.

Bali bombings mastermind Imam Samudra told an Indonesian television station he was "very sorry" and had wept because he had killed Muslims in the 2002 attack.

But he remained unrepentant for the other innocent lives he had ended, when he masterminded the twin nightclub bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

About as close as you can get to being an animal while still being human.

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at November 2, 2007 7:59 AM

This post reminds me of that passage from the Hitchens book, roughly: The literal mind distrusts the ironic mind. As long as these texts contain passages likely to be interpreted so harshly, thy'll always turn their credulous readers into a threat.

Posted by: Crid at November 2, 2007 9:11 AM

But why is it so "bad" to call a spade a spade? If I see a dog foaming at the mouth, I'm not stupid enough to go up to it and pet it and say "nice doggy", I'm going to either go get someone to put it down, or I'm going to go get a gun and put it down myself. No way in hell I'm getting near enough to it to let it bite me! o_O

Posted by: Flynne at November 6, 2007 10:48 AM

Leave a comment