Six translations of Qur’an 4:34:
- “Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband’s absence, because God has of them been careful. ButÂ chideÂ those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear;Â remove them into beds apart, andÂ scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!” (Rodwell’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
- “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience,Â admonishÂ them and send them toÂ beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.” (Dawood’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
- “Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion,Â admonishÂ them andÂ banish them to beds apart, andÂ scourgeÂ them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.” (Pickthall’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
- “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebelliousÂ admonish;Â banish themÂ to their couches, andÂ beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great.” (Arberry’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
- “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion,Â admonish them, andÂ leave them alonein their sleeping places andÂ beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
- “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct,Â admonish themÂ (first), (next),Â refuse to share their beds, (and last)Â beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
Ali’s additions of words (in brackets) to the Koran in order to change the obvious meaning, remind us of Jehovah’s Witnesses who inserted the word [other] several times in Col 1:16-17, into their New World Translation (sectarian paraphrase). Jehovah’s Witnesses inserted the extra word several times in order to soften the plain fact that the passage teaches Jesus is not a creature. Likewise, Ali inserted the word (lightly) to soften what the Koran says. If Allah really wanted the word softly inserted, he should have done it himself.
Sally doesn’t get it:
Burqa ban call row continues
IT wasn’t a Muslim woman with just her eyes showing through her burqa who last month robbed the small community bank two blocks from us.
In fact, I haven’t yet heard of a single bank anywhere in this country that’s yet been stuck up by a Muslim woman who walked in hiding a pistol beneath her veil.
But somehow a Queensland retail lobby group has developed such a fear of pistol-packin’ Muslim mommas that it’s now demanding a ban on full-face burqas, as well as hoodies, in banks and shops.
And even more surprising was that almost 9000 of the 10,000 responses to theÂ Herald Sun’sÂ online and telephone poll backed the burqa ban.
Has there been an epidemic of hold-ups by women in burqas that everyone but me has noticed?
Or are people just seizing on any excuse to ban a kind of clothing they don’t like for other reasons entirely?
OK, the full-blown burqa can be confronting for many people for all sorts of reasons.
I certainly don’t like them and am glad I’ve only seen a few on the streets of Melbourne.
Most Muslim women here wear the simple hijab, a head scarf and loose clothing but with their face in full view.
I hardly even notice a woman in a hijab head scarf any more, but the sight of a woman covering her whole body and face in a burqa still makes me shudder.
Yes, I know it’s supposed to be the women’s choice and it’s seen as an act of worship and all that.
But I just can’t see it as anything other than oppressive. (Educate yourself, Sally. Its worse, far worse…/ed)
Can people seriously think women’s bodies are so powerful that they have to be shielded from weak-minded men?
And that not even their eyes can be seen?
The sight of a burqa also conjures up everything else I dislike about the more archaic aspects of the Muslim religion, like honour killings, genital mutilation and girls’ schools being closed, as they have been again this month in Pakistan. (See, now we’re getting somewhere. Its a package deal…/ed)
The sight of a woman in a burqa takes me straight back inside the pages of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s wonderful autobiography Infidel, where women were the lowest form of life with no rights at all.
Still, I want to live in a society where people can be free to wear what they want and where people’s different religious beliefs are respected.
And if that means I have to put up with the sight of the occasional burqa, then that’s a small price to pay. (?)
It’s a hard thing to stomach but I actually agree for once with acquitted terror suspect JackÂ Thomas, who said forcing Muslim women to remove at least the veil of their burqas in shops would be discriminatory and unfair. (Why agree with a terror suspect, Sally? Especially it he wants to force his beliefs on you?)
Although I do understand why retailers want to see their customers walk in with faces uncovered.
Even now, the tellers of our local bank sure are jumpy.
As you walk in, all the staff, including the boss sitting way at the back, looks up sharply to check whether they’ve got business or trouble.
Of course, once they see it’s just me they relax.
But if I were draped head to foot in metres of black cotton, with just my eyes on show, I’d forgive them for nervously wondering what I might be hiding.
It’s such a shame what some stuff-you thug with a gun has done to the trust we like to show each other.
And even more shameful is that such thugs are now making us distrustful of even the guiltless.
But can’t we wait until armed robbers start dressing in burqas before we decide to ban them?
Why wait, Sally? Why prosecute after the clitoris is cut off? Why not stop it before it happens?
Until then, we’re all freaking out about a danger that exists purely in our imagination. Not…