Originally posted on the Writeous Sister Speaks blog on April 17, 2007. This is not actually a review, as to this day I have not actually read Bakhtiar’s interpretation and probably won’t ever get around to it. This post was written in response to Bakhtiar’s own words about why she felt a new interpretation of the Qur’an was necessary and her method of translation.
Because it came up in further conversation, I want to be especially clear about my disagreement with Bakhtiar’s interpretation of the verse 4:34. Ms. Bakhtiar stated elsewhere on that blog,
I strongly believe that the interpretation of 4:34 has to revert to the way the blessed Prophet understood it. When the verse was revealed, the Prophet understood it to mean: to go away (which is one of the many meanings of the form I of the verb daraba) and that is what the Prophet did. This is the Sunnah, not to beat but to go away, an interpretation that we all should try to follow.
My response was
Also… I have never as a woman had a problem with how that particular verse was interpreted by classical scholars, because it does not sanction beating in the way that you have implied. The other reason that I find your argument illogical is because there is a three-prong reaction in that verse and your definition of the third option is unnecessary since it is accomplished by the second option.
That said, I am no scholar and know nothing of Arabic myself so I am not setting myself up as a better translator/interpreter, simply following the very logical and normal interpretations that have existed for centuries and work for me. I had read your explanations for how you came up with your interpretations prior to writing my critique. I am not a scholar, and I recognize my limitations of knowledge; I just wish others would do the same. Your methodologies are not sound or based in your own study. Your translation skills in Arabic would not be considered up to the job for something of less sacred value; I say this with knowledge because I work for an agency that does translations and to be sure I asked if they would ever hire a translator that admits what you have about your method and they said no way. Any of us can think we know enough to interpret things, but when it comes to interpreting the Qur’an, this requires a very great level of study and immersion that you simply don’t seem to have. You may have more than I do, but that doesn’t mean you have what it takes.
There was much further discussion from there, and I am sorry to say that Ms. Bakhtiar never responded to my specific reference (also referenced in great detail by another commentor) that the verse gives a three-part series of how to deal with the wife, and to change the third and final reaction to be “go away” is wrong because “going away” is the second option anyway.
Also please note that the original post on the SunniSister blog that I refer to is no longer available.
Hijab tip to SunniSister for making me aware of the articles on this subject.
The prerequisite reading for my following article can be found here and here. Some secondary reference can be made here.
***************
In the most simplistic terms, it would seem that one can never have too many interpretations of the Qur’an to choose from, and that certainly one that is interpreted “from a woman’s point of view”, as Laleh Bakhtiar’s purports to be, can be a good thing.
Afterall, isn’t Islam constantly under fire for its mistreatment of women, its stiffling of their roles, its unfair advantages and rights given to men? Perhaps one would think that a woman’s interpretation of the Qur’an would set all these things to rest and prove the “true” spirit of the Qur’an. On the surface, one might be inclined to think that such an interpretation should be celebrated for speaking up for women and redefining Islam’s position on us.
Yet this is not what is actually accomplished through sister Bakhtiar’s translation of the Holy Book. Instead what is conveyed is that centuries of Islamic scholars were all ignoramouses who were unable or unwilling to interpret the Qur’an correctly, and that it is necessary for a modern woman to improve upon this sacred text to bring it up to date.
And yet this woman created her translation and interpretation without a solid knowledge of the Arabic language, utilizing various dictionaries, and with the active intention to alter all previous interpretations with which she disagreed.
Point 1: Lack of complete fluency in the variations of Arabic, both classical and modern, disqualifies a translator. Whether it be novels, poetry, or marketing materials, it is a normal international standard of expectation that anyone taking on the translation should be fully fluent (spoken and written) in both the language they are translating from and the language they are translating to. Anything less is not a credible translation.
”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. (Omar Abu-Namous, imam at the New York Islamic Cultural Center Mosque)
Point 2: In her statements following criticism of her work, sister Bakhtiar does not answer directly to any of the legitimate questions posed by that criticism. Instead, she reverts to the age old complaint that the only reason her translation is being targetted is because she is a woman. This seems to pander to exactly what non-Muslims and Westerners want to hear: poor, maligned woman that Islam is trying to repress stands up for all her downtrodden sisters! In fact, many of the people who have had reservations about her translation were women. And not just ignorant home-bound women, as one might assume, but active well-known Muslim women who are known for their own outspoken habits. Apparently, modern Muslim women did not feel that the Qur’an needed to be reinterpreted just for them and do not feel that a more “feminist” version is called for. Sister Bakhtiar is also either genuinely ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, in her implication that she is the first and only woman to have translated the Qur’an and that is why it is such an anomaly that it is difficult for other Muslims to accept it. In fact, several far-more-scholarly women have also produced translations in the past and they are common reading amongst Muslims.
Point 3: The desire to change everything in the Qur’an in order to bring it within a modern understanding is not only arrogant and unnecessary, but also an insult to the intelligence of those who read. There is no necessity to change “Allah” to “God” because western readers find it easier to understand. The word “Allah” is just not that complicated. Nor is “God” a sufficient translation of the full meaning of the word “Allah”, which would more correctly be rendered as something akin to “The One God”. In many ways, this translation seems to be pandering to the lowest possible intellectual level, striving to be easily understood, more than to be correctly understood.
Point 4: Although sister Bakhtiar’s translation has been referred to as a “feminist” version, she herself does not call it such, and it may therefore be an unnecessary label that is too easily affixed to attempt to make an easy classification. However, it is true that in her own statements she has repeatedly been quoted as saying that she felt the need to “give the woman’s point of view” or to make it more in keeping with the times’ expectations of the treatment of women. For those who are seeking to find the feminine within Islam, they should know that interpreting the texts in a self-serving way is not necessary. The Qur’an already has much within it that is very pro-woman and scholars have almost unanimously agreed upon the high status of women and expectation of their care. Although scholars in the past may have differed on certain specific rights or limitations in regards to women, it is non-scholars only who have perpetuated actual mistreatment of women. Therefore, it is not the text, or even its legitimate interpretation that needs to be refined for the age, but only the minds and hearts of men and women who do not live by the text.
I would also question such a reinterpretation of the text on the grounds of who is really benefitted by it. One of the most controversial issues has been the author’s reinterpretation of the husband’s right to “lightly beat” his wife to instead mean “go away from”. She, and other women who object to the verse, cite that men have misused this verse to justify physical mistreatment of their wives. But is this genuine textual justification (which is nowhere the example of the Prophet salalahi alahi wa salaam), or just some men’s self-serving fantasy? The type of man who would utilize this verse to justify such unIslamic behavior is certainly not the type of man who will be stopped or encouraged to rethink his position when he reads the “new” wording of the verse as presented by sister Bakhtiar. In fact, this is the one area where by virtue of being a woman she is lowering her reliability, because the type of man described above would certainly not be interested in how any woman has reinterpreted the verse!
Lastly, while I do not mean to malign the sister or call her deen into question, she has been quoted in several places as complaining about how difficult it is to be a Muslim or how hard it is to be a Muslim in America, and especially how hard to be a Muslim woman. I hope that this is either a misquote or a quote taken out of context because otherwise it leads me to wonder if her reinterpretation of the Qur’an was perhaps a self-serving attempt to water down Islam and make it more palatable to herself and others, as well-intentioned as she may think she is. For example, she has stated that she does not wear hijab since 9-11 due to fear of what would happen to her. Yet many American women continue to wear hijab despite the potential problems because they recognize it as one of Allah’s commands upon us. While it is true that hijab is difficult in many ways for many women, it does beg the question: does a woman who defies direct Qur’anic injunctions have a sincere reason for translating the Qur’an in a “new” way. I would be interested, for instance, to see how she translated the verses that describe a believing woman’s dress.
There may be other areas where her personal views, fears, and modern expectations would have necessitated that she “re-write” the way the Qur’an has been interpreted for centuries, in order to justify her own failings or desires. This would seriously call into question the scholarly potential of such a translation.
A clarification on women scholars:
(Myself, responding to a commentor who included a link to their own short commentary)
In response to your post and comments on your blog,I do however want to clarify that the problem is not with female scholars, as women have been part of Islamic scholarly tradition from the beginning (Aisha, RA) to the present (Aisha Bewley, Camille Helminksi). There is nothing wrong with women being scholars in Islam and they shouldn’t be in any way judged differently than male scholars. The questions I have about sister Bakhtiar derive from the fact that she is not a scholar and therefore following her as such is not wise. She is indeed a very accomplished and intelligent woman, alhamdulAllah, but her field of study was history without a focus on Islam, and certainly not Islamic jurisprudence, hafiz Qur’an, ahadith studies and the other aspects that would qualify her as a scholar within Islam. I would humbly suggest that we should be careful of “who you follow and what they have to say” regardless of whether they are male or female, and at the same time be cautious that we are not disregarding someone who has genuine scholarship just because they are a woman.
Indeed, I feel that is important to make it clear that the questions that most of those who are critiquing this sister’s translation have are based in genuine concern, and not because she is a woman. That is an easy excuse for her to fall back on, and perhaps she really even believes that is the problem, and certainly there will be detractors who see it just that way and yet they are wrong.