Thoroughly Modern Mohammed

Sweden, the UK, and the Netherlands are in a three-way race to see which country can achieve full dhimmitude first. Every time I think one of them is winning, one of the other contenders puts on a burst of speed and pulls ahead.

Today the Netherlands has forged into the lead. A Dutch philosopher has taken a close look at the Koran and determined that it is a thoroughly modern book, especially in its prescriptions for how women should be treated.

I kid you not. According to Radio Netherlands:

Does the Qur’an say I can hit you?

The Qur’an is more positive about women than many people think. That’s the conclusion by philosopher Marlies ter Borg, who compared the texts on women in the Bible and the Qur’an on the website Nevertheless, it is difficult to remain objective with all the commotion surrounding Islam in the Netherlands.

‘Woman and her relationship to man’ is the name of the new chapter on the website by IKON and Radio Netherlands Worldwide. The creators of the website, Marlies ter Borg and Karima Bisshop, place texts on themes such as the economic independence of women, marriage and divorce from the Qur’an and the Bible alongside one another so that readers can decide for themselves.

The website’s compilers see it as a contribution to the public debate on Islam in the Netherlands, which they say is full of misconceptions. Marlies ter Borg answers some of RNW’s questions and starts by explaining:

“Many people think the Qur’an is anti-women. But there’s nothing in the Qur’an to suggest this. Christians, on the other hand, often think they are more tolerant towards women. But Bible texts can be worse on that point…”

RNW: So the Qur’an is less misogynistic that people think?

– – – – – – – –

“In many ways, the Qur’an is more modern than the Bible. Which isn’t surprising by the way, because the Qur’an is much more recent and many of the stories are based on the Bible.

Many of the biblical themes are revisited in a modern version.

Take the economic position of women. The Old Testament says women can make financial transactions, but they can be reversed by her father or husband when they think she has done the wrong thing.

On the other hand, the Qur’an gives women financial independence when they get married. The man has to pay her a dowry, which she can use at her own discretion. She is able to enter financial obligations as an individual.

Another example is divorce. Both Jesus and Mohammed were confronted by the outrageous situation that men could simply turn their wives out onto the street. Jesus solves the problem of divorce by banning it.

Mohammed says: Split up if there is no other option but, when you do so, follow a procedure, which protects the interests of the woman. An extensive divorce procedure, in which the woman is entitled to support. This was an huge reform at that time.”

RNW: You cite the Qur’an verse which states that sons get twice as much inheritance as women. This is clearly a case of inequality. But why do you think it is reasonable to a certain extent?

“Because in the Qur’an men have many more financial obligations. When he gets married he has to pay a dowry, when he gets divorced he is responsible for the woman and the children. So it is not surprising that he gets more financial resources.”

And now we come to one of the more damning verses in the Koran: the one that values the testimony of a woman at half that of a man.

Alas, Prof. ter Borg must have spilled soup on that page when he was making his close examination of the book, because he missed it:

RNW: Another Qur’an verse says that evidence given by a woman is worth half that of evidence given by a man. This verse plays an important role in the discussions on this subject in the Islamic world. But I haven’t come across that verse in the chapter.

“I think we must have missed that verse. If people give us tips on things we have missed, we say: Thank you very much, we’ll add it. The internet is an interactive medium.”

Whoops! We should have sent in a tip. Oh, well…

RNW: In the press release you say that the idea that a man should beat his wife is based on a translation error.

“The Arabic word ‘daraba’ in the verse you are talking about has different meanings: it can mean beat, but it can also mean leave. It can be interpreted in different ways. The question then is: which interpretation is the most accurate? In the context of the passages on divorce, it appears to be about the question: when can a man leave his wife?”

You’ve got to give the Radio Netherlands interviewer credit; he couldn’t let that honker just slide by:

RNW: Aren’t you interpreting the Qur’an? I don’t think you will be able to find an Arabic speaker who reads that word as ‘leave’.

“We don’t really interpret. But sometimes you are confronted with the question of how to translate a certain word. We just want to show people that different interpretations are possible. So that in the public arena you cannot just say: the Qur’an says men can hit women!”

In other words: “When choosing our interpretation of the Koran, we will always choose the version that makes Muslims look their best, and lets them off the hook!”

The phrase “Useful Idiot” has been overworked in recent years, but I can’t think of a better term.

Hat tip: TB.

10 thoughts on “Thoroughly Modern Mohammed

  1. There are flaws with Marlies ter Borg’s theory about Koran 4:34 and the word “and beat them” (Arabic: waidribuhunna, which is three words put together, meaning literally “and beat them” — wa (and) idribu (beat) hunna (them — the feminine plural pronoun, objective case). The form “idribu” is just a different conjugation of the form Borg supplies, “daraba”).

    I’ll only deal with one of the flaws now: If Borg’s theory were correct, why do the tafsirs assume it is physical beating? Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, for example, says:

    “beat them” means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not produce the desired results, you are allowed to discipline the wife, without severe beating.

    [Sahih] Muslim recorded that Jabir said that during the Farewell Hajj, the Prophet said:

    You have the right on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to discipline them lightly. … Ibn `Abbas and several others said that the Ayah refers to a beating that is not violent. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that it means, a beating that is not severe.

    There would be no need to moderate the beating (don’t make it too “severe”, etc.) if it merely meant “leave the wife”.

    Similarly, most translations of the Koran done by Muslims add in parentheses “lightly”, again to moderate the beating, which would be senseless were it referring to “leaving” (or at best would require a torturously inventive interpretation).

  2. My suspicion is that every Quran that adds “lightly” does so in an effort to mislead non-Muslims, since the passage itself contains no such limitation.

  3. 8-0 Erich, you have really study their culture.

    I suspect you are an EX-MUSLIM!!!
    XD XD 🙂 🙂

    “Sweden, the UK, and the Netherlands are in a three-way race to see which country can achieve full dhimmitude first.”

    Maybe our concepts of “dihmitude” are different but, if it means being subverted then, for what has been showed to me – because I only know what has been showed to me – I’d say that France is the worst state of the West.

    My impression is that in France “everybody pays”, while in England, there is a greater “appartheid”, the more Conservative people can get away from the “ethnics” in Britain, what I think does not happen in France. El called it “escapability”. Then, in second, I’d put Netherlands for being such a tiny Nation. Basically the Netherlands are just Amsterdam (and that big metropolis).

    I can’t seriously count with Belgium as a Nation so, in third I’d put Spain: It will continue to be socialist don’t mattet what and the people in power have even less respect for their people than the rest. You might be surprised but there is no visible right wing oposition in Spain but that of the PP which has degenerated into the Portuguese PP or even the PSD, right wing parties in name only. Like the Democrats. Atocha, for instance… I think that in less than five years Spain will be as mad as Sweden. The Spaniards are already giving “Human Rights” to monkeys. I’m going now…

  4. What a load of crap! Muslim men treat women like shite! Muslim men want muslim women to have at least their heads covered and others want them cloaked in a black shroud; otherwise, they are fair game for rape. Muslim men use the excuse that any woman whose head is not covered is fair game for rape. Give me a bloody break.

    I don’t need a book, the Koran, to instruct men on how they should go about beating women. There is no sanctioned beating of women in Christianity. Just remember, if there isn’t a man available to take the throne of David, a woman was given the right to succeed, in which one today is living proof of this – Queen Elizabeth II.

    Let’s remember in ‘Muslim land,’ they follow Sharia Law, we do not!

  5. One just has to read the life story of Muhammad, as described in Al-Tabari volumes 6 through 9 (this is also Islamic scripture – Sirat), to decide that this professor is full of crap.

    The Quran is nothing but a collection of bad excuses for bad behaviour. Reading the Sirat makes it clear, no further discussion needed.

  6. So Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have been talking a load of crap?

    Curses, I’ve been wasting my time.

    As we used to say to the commies during the cold war “Just hop over the wall for 10 years then come back and tell us how great it is. Remember the wall is there to keep you out, so don’t expect it to be easy.”

    There is no wall keeping this guy out of Iran so he should just hop it. He could always go to Saudi Arabia and stop the first woman he meets to ask her how blissfully happy she is.

    Useful idiot.

  7. For reference, I suggest to pick up Prophet of Doom. It’s free and a very comprehensive analysis of the life of Muhammad, as described in the early Islamic scripture (Hadith, Sirat & Quran).

    The first half is funny, the second is – for obvious reasons – not.

    We need this information. Not some half-baked dhimmi professor paid not to think independently.

  8. It was refreshing to hear of a reporter who had actually done some homework and wasn’t a mere mouthpiece for the interviewee. We could use some of those here.

  9. Let’s just be honest with ourselves, The icon of Jesus on display in that Slidell courthouse had nothing to do with history or the law; Jesus gave us no laws. It was a devotional portrait, pure and simple. The ADF’s attempt to make it something else is wholly unpersuasive.
    new way to advertise

Comments are closed.