69 million page views

CURMALLY: Thank you for your clear admission (confession?) that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, that it desecrates idols Part I. And about pulling legs Part II

Reader comment on item: Dueling Fatwas
in response to reader comment: Dueling Fatwas -Reply to Plato

Submitted by Plato (India), Oct 18, 2010 at 10:07

Curmally, you wrote to me:

>>Whoever gave you the reference to 4:34 has pulled your leg. This Surah is called Al Nissa or women and this Ayat deals with how you treat women. You are welcome to your women.<<

No one gave the reference to 4:34. I read it myself. And I have also read some strange defenses of the verse. It reveals who is pulling whose legs :

Here is a long commentary on the verse by a modern Pakistani Muslim scholar and mathematician. I have given only a small part of the long-winded defence of beating of women allowed by the Koran. If you read the whole article you will realize he is making a very belaboured effort to make the word beat sound almost benign. (Italics, square brackets, Bold or underlined words within the article are by me)

Tafseer of Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 34

By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

(1984, Revised 2000)

Of all the Qur'anic passages about men and women perhaps the one most often misunderstood or misused by both Muslims and non-Muslims is verse 34 of Surah an-Nisa. The English translation of this verse reads as follows:

"Men are (meant to be righteous and kind) guardians of women because God has favored some more than others and because they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth. (In their turn) righteous women are (meant to be) devoted and to guard what God has (willed to be) guarded even though out of sight (of the husband). As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) leave them alone in beds (and last) beat or separate them (from you). But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, God is most high and great. (4:34)

[Being familiar with the methodology of Islamic scholars (fitting the meaning of words to suit their interpretation) I checked some other translations and noticed that the underlined words are different in other translations: For instance Pikthal: admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them..Shakir: admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them…Assad: admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them;

None of the three adds "or separate them (from you). Since the verse has already said leave them alone in their beds why should this translator superfluously add 'or separate them' along with beat?

Clearly this translator is adding to Allah's words with impunity. He does not even put in parenthesis what he has added like others do or even he does in the verse elsewhere. His intention to equate thrashing as suggested in the Koran with just separation becomes clear after you read his laboured analysis of the verse as shown below]

""beat them or separate them (from you)". If even suspension of sexual relations fails to work, then it is suggested that men use dharb. This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". Such a translation is supported by some passages in the Qur'an where the word does mean smiting or striking (2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc). But in many other Qur'anic passages there are other meanings of the word. Thus the word can mean constructing or coining something such as coining mathal or similitude (14:24, 16:75-76, 30:28, 36:27 etc). The word is also used to separate two things. In 20:77 it is used of the splitting of the sea to make a way for the children of Israel to escape and in 57:13 it is used of making a wall to separate the two groups of people in the hereafter. Leaving, withdrawing or taking away is the meaning in 43:5. In 13:17 the word is used of separating truth and falsehood. The word can also mean campaigning or traveling in the land, e.g., for the purpose of trade (2:273, 73:20).

In the present context, the Qur'anic usage allows two meanings: 1) separating from the wives in the sense of living apart from them, 2) beating them. The Arabic language also allows a third meaning: 3) have sex with them. The first meaning fits the context well, for some kind of physical separation is a very understandable step after suspension of sexual relations does not work. The second meaning is more natural from a linguistic point of view and has the support of a strong consensus among the commentators. The third meaning has no support in the Qur'anic usage. In the rest of this commentary, we consider the question: how is "beating", if that is what is intended in the verse, is to be interpreted in the light of the passage as a whole and the general teaching of the Qur'an." ['General teaching' is another fig leaf to hide the true meanings of verses]

[You will notice in the above two paras that this scholar is making a great effort to dilute the meaning of beat by linking it by an or with separation which no other translators I have read have done. He also admits that the more natural linguistic use of dharb is beat . After stating that it means beating according to many other passages he brings in the other passages where they are supposed to have entirely different meanings (marked in bold). A not very subtle attempt to water down the mearning of dharb which once dhimmi no more had analysed and showed it means not just beat but thrash (Pikthal – scourge). The author continues]:

"In this connection, it must be immediately noted that there is no warrant here in this verse for wife battering. [Battering is a no no but beating is okay!] The suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behavior that poses a threat to the marriage. [Again notice the Koran is silent about ' nuzhuz' on the part of the man] Beating is to be done after due admonition and suspension of sexual relations and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on [Wow! How merciful is Allah towads women!] but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favor of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating [The all-knowing Allah has forgotten to legislate against such inhumanity despite knowing how some men will behave towards their wives] that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shari'ah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. [I ask again why the all-knowing Allah did not know this would happen if He left his Sharia incomplete]. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet [The mecry to all mankind comes to the aid of battered wives !]

In regard to the suggestion about beating, the following further points should also be noted:

a) According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. [How merciful is the prophet. Beat them but do not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. Policemen all over the world know how to do this and cause excruciating pain and humiliation] On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say that the beating should be largely symbolic and should be administered "with a folded scarf" or "with a miswak or some such thing". [Why beat at all and humiliate another human who is supposed to be your partner in life?] However, it is not clear how such a beating can help overcome nushuz of the wife, a point that supports the first meaning of dharb. If dharb is translated as "beating", as most commentators do, then "beating" should be effective in its purpose of shaking the wife out of her nushuz. This means that it should provide an energetic demonstration of the anger, frustration and love [!!!!] of the husband. In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife [i.e. husbands can hurt their wives though not seriously]nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions. As for the argument that the Prophet intensely disliked beating, we can say that his intense dislike was for the type of beating done outside the limits set down by God. [What a great relief, this must be to Muslim wives!]

b) The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time. The suggestion applies only in the case when the husband is seriously disturbed by a prolonged nasty behavior on the part of the wife [Why is prolonged nasty behaviour on the husbands' part not considered?]but neither he nor the wife is as yet seriously thinking of breaking up.


d) Some Muslim jurists are of the opinion that beating is permissible but not advisable. They base their view on the fact that the Prophet intensely disliked the action. But to say that beating is only permissible but never advisable is to say that there is never any good in it but the husband can nevertheless resort to it if he wants to; in other words he can beat up his wife without any good reason. This, however, is a view that cannot possibly be attributed to the Book of God. We can expect the Holy Qur'an to mention beating only if there was some wisdom in that mention.[Only some wisdom? Is there some un-wisdom also in it? Tauba, Tauba. Does this scholar of Islam not know that each and every verse of is dripping with nothing but wisdom?] Therefore, if we translate dharb as "beating" we must not be apologetic but ask what is the wisdom behind the Qur'anic suggestion. [Conclusion: No apologies ladies, beating wives is a consequence of the wisdom of Allah].

First, the beating done within the limits defined by the Qur'an may indeed bring the husband and wife to some kind of understanding. This is not because of the pain involved, which in any case cannot be too much if the guidance in the Qur'an and Hadith are to be observed [Only almost painless beatings allowed. The Koran and the hadith have such great consideration for women!]. Rather, the husband and wife may come closer together after beating because of the emotions involved [I can't think of a more marvelous piece of logic from a Muslim scholar and a mathematician to boot!].

…… It seems from observations of human behavior that a show of male physical energy can sometimes bring a woman out of a prolonged bad mood … Of course, there are husbands who neither love their wives nor divorce them, but keep them to punish them or exploit them. But we are not dealing with this situation here, since the assumption is that ill-will (nushuz) is from the wife's side. [at last an admission that men can also be nasty to their wives – it took a long time coming]

Second, the mention of beating may have the wisdom, ironically, to protect wives against what is called wife battering.[Very ironical indeed] …… No statistics exist, but I feel confident that if we research the behavior of men in different religious groups over a long enough period and a vast enough area of the globe, we will find that the incidents of cases of wife battering and other forms of cruelty to women have been less, both in terms of numbers and seriousness, among Muslims than in other groups. [This from a mathematician scholar of Islam. Curmally just Google atrocities against women in Pakistan and see the statistics that come up. Saudi Arabia will beat in wife battering but they guard their statistics very carefully]


At the same time the wife should realize that her nasty behavior is causing a lot of unhappiness to all the family, [Now we are back to the nasty wife as the cause of family ills] to herself, to the husband and to the children and other close relatives. She cannot do this to the near ones without displeasing God and without paying for it in some way.

There are more weird arguments for wife beating after and before the paras I have quoted. [I have only underline some of the more silly ones]. This scholars arguments though a lot of drivel are not just tiresome but deeply depressing as it is typical of the modern scholars of Islam indulging in transparent trickery to justify the unjustifiable in the Koran.


>>I am truly sorry that you did not take my advice and let it lie. Once again I tell you, there is bad blood from generations ago amongst us. Let us heal the wounds but it seems you don't want to.<<

No, there is no bad blood between us. So that you will understand what I am saying I leave you these significant parts of verses from the Bhagvad Gita (which you say you have in your library – please read it and the other verses too, they are very enlightening), Gita 12.13-19:

"I (god) shall describe people whom I love. They have good will towards all living beings, and are incapable of ill will. They are friendly and compassionate….

Their serenity is constant, and cannot be disturbed by others; …

They are not attracted to particular people and places nor are they repelled by particular people and places (compare this with Koran despising Muslims who make friends with unbelievers)….

They love friends and enemies equally (the Bible says so too, but not the Koran). They are not encouraged nor discouraged by blame. Whether they are honoured or despised they remain calm. Within their hearts is silence. These are the people whom I especially love."

With Regards



Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to CURMALLY: Thank you for your clear admission (confession?) that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, that it desecrates idols Part I. And about pulling legs Part II by Plato

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)