Try this one on your wife or girlfriend: "Honey, just slow down and think for a second before you tell me, because I know you can't speak and remember at the same time." Let me know how that goes...
[...] Time magazine, in its 31 July 1995 (pg. 39) publication, presented the results of a scientific study which displayed the image of a woman’s brain when she was engrossed in speaking and conversing. At that moment, both sides of the brain were completely occupied, being used to process speech. It also showed the image of a man’s brain when he was speaking, and only one side was being used. This makes him more precise (in speaking), because he uses the second side of his brain to remember, while the woman occupies both sides of her brain just to speak. This -- Allah knows best -- is the secret of the saying of Almighty Allah: “If there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” [Qur’an 2:282]. [...]
It's a shame that you are once again being very selective in your choice of quote Al-Mutarajjam... it is not representative of the article author's own thoughts on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe topic is women's participation in politics and democracy in general. He proposes a systematic method to look at this issue academically [in his view, at least], and responds to various issues raised against women assuming political positions.
His conclusion (on pg. 48) is more interesting and representative:
------
وأخيراً فإن قصة ملكة سبأ التي يذكرها القرآن الكريم في معرض المدح والثناء والحكمة ورجاحة العقل ، والمشورة والقوة والحزم لخير دليل على أن المرأة لا تحرم من المشاركة السياسية إذا توافرت الشروط الثلاثة التي ذكرتها .
Finally, the story of the Queen of Sheba is mentioned in the Qur'an, to compliment and to display the qualities of praise, wisdom, common sense, deliberation, strength, resoluteness (of the Queen of Sheba) as the best evidence that the woman is not prohibted from political participation, if the three conditions I mentioned are available.
------
And the three conditions he specifically espouses can be found on pg. 44, as follows:
------
1) توفير الأجواء المناسبة شرعاً التي تدرأ من حيث الظاهر المفاسد والمحظورات الشرعية من الخلوة المحرمة ، والنظر ونحو ذلك .
2) التزام المرأة التي تريد الولاية بضوابط الشرع بالأخلاق والقيم الإسلامية ، وفي الملبس ونحوه ..
3) أن لا تكون مشاركتها السياسية وولايتها العامة على حساب اولادها واسرتها ، وبعبارة أخرى فإن أهم ولاية ودور للمرأة هي صناعة الأجيال وتربية الرجال والأبطال ، وتوفير السكنى والأمن لزوجها ولنفسها ولأسرتها ، أما إذا تعارضت المشاركة مع هذا الدور الأساس الأصيل ، فإنها تصبح محظورة في نظري.
1) To provide the appropriate atmosphere, which wards off apparent harm and religiously prohibited things, such as being alone [with a non-mahram male etc.], and [forbidden] stares, etc.
2) The obligation of women who wants [political] authority to uphold Islamic values, ethics and the like, and clothing etc.
3) She should not participate in politics and general [political] authority at the expense of her children and family. In other words, the most important charge and role of women is to craft generations and raise men and heroes, and to provide security and reassurance to her husband and herself and her family. And if this [political] participation conflicts with these foundational duties, then it becomes forbidden in my view.
------
These present quite a different view of the same scholar!
David,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean this "is not representative of the article author's own thoughts on the issue"? I'm only quoting directly from the author--who are you to say those are not his views?! Yes, the overall essay (which is ~50 pp.) is about political and democratic participation for women, but that's not what my post is talking about at all, and I made no attempt to extrapolate anything from my excerpted translation and apply it to the author's view on political participation for women. You are merely playing the old game of setting up a straw man argument, and then arguing against that, rather than confronting the actual content of my post. You argument is completely irrelevant!
And sure, he praises the Queen of Sheba, but I bet he still thinks she had difficulty speaking and remembering at the same time...
sincerely,
al-Mutarjim
Al-Mutarajjam: Trying to taint the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and all of Islam in general because of the thought of one man in a research paper (published among many others!) is highly disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteThis is his source, which he definitely misunderstands the implications of, yet somehow still argues for full political participation of women! So what exactly are you trying to prove besides that this man views such-and-such about women, and believes this article to confirm his own understanding of a specific Qur'anic verse?
It does not follow that everyone else understands the verse and its implications in the same way. We have, for example, an explicit statement from the Mufti of Egypt regarding women's participation in politics, even stating that she can become the head of state.
This is the relevant part from the Times article for those interested. Hold the scholar to task for his faulty understanding of science, for sure, but generalisations do not help in any way.
-----
Just last week a new study showed that in science tests teenage boys who scored in the top 5% outnumbered girls 7 to 1, while girls outperformed boys in reading comprehension. In general, men as a group excel at tasks that involve orienting objects in space-like reading a map without having to turn it so it lines up with the road. Women, on the other hand, seem to be more adept at communication, both verbal and nonverbal. Readings of mri scans suggest one reason: women seem to have stronger connections between the two halves (hemispheres) of their brain.
What's sauce for the goose need not be a problem for the gander, however. The relative lack of cross talk between their hemispheres may actually benefit men by allowing each half of the brain to concentrate on what it does best. Studies have shown that when men are confronted with problems that deal with spatial orientation -- a function that can be handled by both the left and right hemispheres -- they tend to use the right hemisphere only. Thus there aren't many distracting messages coming in from the left hemisphere, which concentrates on language. This cerebral division of labor could also explain why there are so many more male architects and chess champions. Their brains may simply be better able to concentrate on solving problems involving spatial relations.
-----
The study with regard to male vs. female talents for spatial organization may be valid science, but it is not pertinent to the arena of political decision-making.
ReplyDeletePolitical decision-making has to do with ethics and morality. From a scientific point of view, that is a prefrontal lobe function. I closely follow all news of scientific studies of brain function, and I know of none that claim any superiority for males versus females in that regard.
Oh, and BY THE WAY, why does Barack Hussein Obama become completely tongue-tied every time he attempts to speak without his Teleprompter? Could it be that he cannot remember and speak at the same time?
Just askin’.
They've been watching Michelle Bachmann too much on the news and generalized from her example.
ReplyDeleteObviously.
Dawood is missing the point. The point is that the Muslim who wrote the fatwa believes, falsely, that women can't talk and remember at the same time, and that both sides of a woman's brain are completely occupied by talking, such that she is unable to do other things like remember. This is an extraordinary, incredible, and incredibly stupid claim. He does not say this about men. The Muslim who wrote the fatwa cites the Qur'an as support for this idea, and then imaginatively projects this scientifically baseless and misogynist interpretation onto a brief popular media "report" of some neuroimaging findings that he doesn't understand, and falsely represents.
ReplyDeleteThe excerpts Dawood cites from the fatwa don't mitigate the crazy comment. Nor are those other comments relevant. Relevant mitigation would be in the form of something like this: "You know that claim about women not being able remember and talk at the same time? I don't believe that myself. I'm just reporting what someone else said. Isn't that a terrible thing to say? And it's not even true."
In other words, when a writer says something as crazy and misogynistic as 'women can't talk and remember at the same time', it doesn't matter what else he says, short of denying the actual statement. If a politician or a respected religious leader in the U.S had said this, there would be a media frenzy of coverage over it.
Instead of mitigating the comment, the parts that Dawood quotes subtly reinforce the fatwa-writer's misogynist views. Note how he loads up a whole bunch of conditions and restrictions on the woman who seeks political leadership. And if he really believes that women can't remember and talk at the same time, then he (truly) believes that they are cognitively inferior to men such that, all else being equal, he probably wouldn't vote for a woman politician over a man. Indeed, if he truly believes this nonsense about women, much of the other things he says in the fatwa may well be mostly, if not entirely, empty posturing. After all, how could someone believe what the writer believes about women, and at the same time argue that women should be allowed into political leadership under any conditions? It doesn't add up.
Dawood wrote:
"It's a shame that you are once again being very selective in your choice of quote Al-Mutarajjam... it is not representative of the article author's own thoughts on the issue."
The "issue" in Al Mutarjim's presentation is that the writer in question thinks women are cognitively inferior to men (at least with respect to talking and remembering at the same time!), and the Qur'an seems to support this idea, and that ECFR apparently has given its official approval to the fatwa.
Did Al Mutarjim "taint" the ECFR? No. The ECFR has tainted itself by producing and apparently approving this outrageous nonsense.
Did Al Mutarjim taint all of "Islam"? No. The writer of the fatwa did by quoting the Qur'an to support his rather imaginative misogynistic views. It is really quite amazing how the writer came to the conclusion he did based only on some ambiguous study that he doesn't understand, plus the Qur'an.
We have reason not to trust Dawood's selection, translation, and presentation of those excerpts from the fatwa. Dawood has already proved to be unreliable and dishonest in his claims about a previous fatwa translation, for which see the "nikah" fatwa at Translating Jihad, Monday, March 7, 2011
[Update] Fatwa: "It Is Permissible to Have Sexual Intercourse with Prepubescent Girls"
Posted by Al Mutarjim
a comment from a friend: "In my opinion, the reason why Dawood finds Almutarjim's articles disingenuous is that Almutarjim IS selective in his translations and IS trying hard to find things to paint Islam in a certain light; it is not about showing truths, but rather it is about his bigoted views and islamophobic agendas.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is, if I wanted to, I could do the same; I could find crazy preachers and quote their interpretation of the Bible, or better still, quote the Bible about how women are not permitted to talk in the Church, or cite the inquisitions and the Church's position on knowledge and burning scientists at the stake for heresy, and do what Almutarjim is doing...if I was a bigoted, hateful person. You know very well, that even the Devil quotes scripture for his purposes.
The thing I find fascinating about all this, is that Almutarjim and his minions ignore the fact that Islam does not refute Judaism and Christianity. It uphold all the laws of God and does not vilify any of the prophets and holds them in high regard, including Jesus peace be upon him. If it was such a villain of a religion that was made-up by an illiterate man from the desert, he would not have went out of his way to give dues to the Jewish prophets and to Mary mother of Jesus and to Jesus himself and uphold the Oneness of God, the same way as all of the prophets had done before him. Therefore it is not in your best interest to villify a religion that is more adherent to Jesus and to the Jewish covenants with God than you yourselves are. When Danios cited the Rabbi's words about prepubescent girls and their marriage, he was merely showing that all 3 religions are based on the same principle, because the source is one. We and the Jews know this; hence both Muslims and Jews pray almost the same way and have the same way of ablutions and uphold circumcisions, and kosher meats....things that Jesus upheld himself. How many Christians follow Jesus the way we Muslims do? Not many as you well know.
As a Muslima I have the utmost respect for Jews and Christians as people of the Book and respect their scripture and so I do not vilify it or say anything bad about it. I might debate key points in them, but with respect. But most importantly, I have the wisdom to realize that people are not always good representative of religion as history has well demonstrated.
Dawood is not being illusive, but you are. In my opinion, he already proved without a shadow of a doubt that your Arabic is mediocre, and that you have an agenda, and that your translations are shady. End of story.
You should all be very ashamed of yourselves; instead of upholding understanding and tolerance and look at what brings us together, and stand with us in fighting ignorance and bigotry that will always be in the world; with or without religion, as a real Christian would have done; you are willfully promoting hate and adding fire to brimstone. This is reflecting YOU, and not what you say about Islam. And if you do not realize what you are and what you are promoting: your own real colors, then there is nothing left to say to you, except, may God illuminate your heart, so that you may see what is right, right and what is wrong, wrong, since you have been doing such a bad job so far."
no no no. ok here goes from the west country bristolian :D. it is impossible for both man and woman to talk and remember at the sametime, because the brain take a good 0.5 seconds to imprint the memory in the hippocampus onto the actual brain. See how brillant my brain is..that's how i use it to get this country OUT of the EU :D
ReplyDeleteAhlan wa sahlan ya sadiqati,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your comment, and for expressing your views candidly. I want to reiterate that I am not trying to paint Islam in a negative light--all I'm trying to do is bring it to light. Most of the things that I translate are completely hidden to the non-Arabic-speaking world, and I believe it is important for these things to come to light so that we may consider and discuss them.
You say I am selective in my translations, and that is true. I have to be selective, don't I? Obviously I cannot translate everything. What I choose to select are those things which are not being covered in the Western world, those about which the West would not otherwise know.
I translated this particular piece because I think it is important for people in the West to see how the Muslim Brotherhood, at least, views women, and how these views are rooted in the teachings of the Qur'an.
You are angry with me for translating this piece, but I am not the one who put these words into the Mufti's mouth. I am not the one who wrote that verse in the Qur'an that he is basing this opinion on. I am not the one who said, speaking to women:
"I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence." [Sahih al-Bukhari, V. 1, Bk. 6, No. 301]
Should not your wrath more properly be directed at the source of these misogynistic teachings, rather than at me, the translator who is merely attempting to bring these truths into the light? Why do you anger at the truth? Do you not see that it is only the truth that can set you free?
"And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall."
ok, something else too. I agree entirely with Ahmed khalil, problem is, guys like u talk a lot of riddles to me, so i have a hard time keeping my patience still to try to understand a load of jibber jabber, so in english, our gov is a wrath! and had made a wreck within the relations of this country, but only the country and not it's citizens because MashAllah, with the church we fought our lives away to keep them away from us until both world wars when they got power back over the people. Looks like we may have to do the same one day here in the UK. Unforunately a$$hole like Almutarjim won't be doing any favours. I'd like to see him try and fight for our civil liberties on his own ya :D
ReplyDeleteMichael
ahmed khalil (or the person he quotes),
ReplyDeleteNo, you should be ashamed of yourself for coming on here and making false allegations against Al Mutarjim. You clearly hate anyone who disagrees with Islam.
I note that not once do you address the actual substance of the statement which was officially approved by the ECFR. Do you agree with the statement? And do you agree with the Qur'an, which counts the worth of a woman's testimony as half that of a man, and which implies that women have trouble remembering?
You make allegations against Al Mutarjim's Arabic ability, but you cite no evidence to support the idea that there is anything wrong with Al Mutarjim's translation of the above item from the ECFR, nor of any previous translation.
I think it is safe to say at this point that Dawood and Danios are liars. It is now over two weeks since they made their false allegations against Al Mutarjim, and they still have not written a retraction and an apology. They lied to their readers in order to attack Al Mutarjim. They lied by claiming that the word nikah does not mean sexual intercourse. They lied when they claimed that the word nikah did not mean sexual intercourse in the context in which Al Mutarjim translated it. They withheld information from their readers in order to create a different impression of the mufti's fatwa. Al Mutarjim has already refuted this, and I have also responded to Dawood's blatant lies. See this:
Monday, March 7, 2011
[Update] Fatwa: "It Is Permissible to Have Sexual Intercourse with Prepubescent Girls"
The credibility of Loonwatch, including Danios and Dawood, was completely destroyed, due to their own deceptions.
It should be clear by now that Loonwatch, and commenters like you, want to shut down all criticism of Islam, while you continue to enjoy the freedom to criticize the beliefs of others.
Quoting my friend again :-): "Almutarjim:
ReplyDeleteI am not angry; I am saddened. I went to the website you chose this translation from; and as usual, either your understanding of the language or the culture is lacking, or you quote western translations that are careless and are just as clueless as you are. Here is the Arabic text of the hadeeth:
"ما رأيت من ناقصات عقل ودين أذهب للب الرجل الحازم من إحداكن"، قلن: "وما نقصان ديننا وعقلنا يا رسول الله؟" قال: "أليس شهادة المرأة مثل نصف شهادة الرجل"، قلن: "بلى"، قال: "فذلك من نقصان عقلها".
The translation you chose, translated the word "'aql" to mean "intelligence" which is wrong. If you go to lisaan al'arab you will find that a man who is 'aaqil means that he is one who is in control of himself and can prevent it from following its whims, العاقِلُ الذي يَحْبِس نفسه ويَرُدُّها عن هَواها taken from اعْتُقِل لِسانُه إِذا حُبِسَ ومُنِع الكلامَ which means he prevented his tongue from speaking. That is why the word i'tiqaal means the act of putting someone under arrest. Furthermore, lisaan al'arab defines Al'aql to mean verification التَّثَبُّت في الأُمور. It also uses the word 'aql and qalb (heart) interchangeably because in many instances real understanding is associated with the heart, and not the brain/mind in Arab traditions and in the Qur'an. Also, 'aql is التمييز which means differentiation, and finally عَقَلَ الشيءَ يَعْقِلُه عَقْلاً: فَهِمه which means 'understanding'.
The reason why in the above example, the word 'aqil is associated with control and prevention of one's whims (hawa) is because in this instance, he does not allow his emotions to cloud his judgment or to overtake him in his decision...." 2 b continued.
quoting pt.2:"...Therefore, to understand the hadeeth, the correct translation for 'aql is not decreased mental capacity or intelligence, but rather a decrease in judgment because women are overtaken by their emotional intelligence, which leans more towards mercy than justice.
ReplyDeleteThat is why my dear sir, a wife is prevented from testifying for or against her husband in a court of law...I am sorry, in YOUR courts for that very reason. Under that circumstance, she will not be thinking about justice, but would rather follow her heart to save the man she loves.
If it was not for her loving nature, a woman would not have enough mercy and compassion to bear children and raise them. In her hearts of hearts, she will always choose mercy over justice, and will always believe that a bad person can change and be better with dedication and support; hence why battered women believe the tears and apologies of their abusive loved ones again and again to their own detriment..unfortunately.
THAT is what the hadeeth says and THAT is why the Qur'an has that verse. If Allah or His prophet believed that women were stupid and lacking in intelligence, He would have prevented her from testifying altogether; but since that is not the case, it merely appointed that rule, so that if one woman who is too close to the case is swayed by her heart, another woman who is not, can set it straight.
I am a woman, and a muslima as I have stated already, and I find nothing in that hadeeth or verse to be angry at or to direct my anger towards (or so you HOPE I would do), because (I) understand the real meaning, whereas you with your ignorant bigotted 'heart' have no capacity for real understanding and so you desperately try to grasp at straws here and there and present them in the twisted way you always do.
Greenforest:
As you can see, I do not agree with the speaker's interpretation in the ECFR, and most Muslim scholars agree with my interpretation above..."
quoting pt.3: "As for Dawood and Danios, they have indeed shown that Almutarjim's translations are mediocre. It is enough that Almutarjim's actual alias was Almutarajjam for two years!! And would have continued to keep that ridiculous name had Dawood not pointed it out. If he does not know what 'translator' is in Arabic, and not only that, but concocted a word that does not even exist with a nonexistent wazn for that tasreef, then he would not have a clue in translating a word like nikah which does not only require a good understanding of Arabic but also a good understanding of Islamic Law and its technical register (I minored in Linguistics and have a masters degree in Speech Language Pathology and am currently doing my master and Ph.D in English Literature in France in case you are wondering!).
ReplyDeleteTHAT, my dear sir is enough evidence that he is clueless. As for your recent posts about nikah, which you quoted from western, English sources, I am sure Dawood will address them when he has the time with REAL Arabic and Islamic sources to show that Nikah means marriage contract and NOT sexual intercourse.
Furthermore, if anything, Dawood showed how Almutarjim's translation of that fatwa IS shady because the man made it clear in the text that marrying a girl is not the same as having sexual intercourse with her when he stated CLEARLY that the man, in Islamic Law must WAIT to have sexual intercourse with the girl AT LEAST until she reaches puberty and preferably MORE than that. THAT part was not included in Almutarjim's FIRST article on the topic...THAT part was omitted completely from his translation and his interpretation of what the mufti said, and THAT is why Dawood said RIGHTLY that Almutarjim is disingenuous, since that paragraph alone shows that the mufti did NOT allow sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls as the title of his article indicated.
Finally, what you and Almutarjim are doing is not 'criticism' of Islam, but pure bigotry and intolerance. If you would invite debate over points you feel are ambiguous or questionable and INVITE a civil debate over them, I would understand and respect you. But to selectively try to find things by Islamic brotherhood speakers (who do not speak for Islam, more than Protestants speak for the Vatican!!) or to select things with the intention of vilifying Islam to yourselves and your readers, THAT my dear sir is NOT ethical, nor innocent like you make it out to be!"
ahmed khalil (or ahmed khalil's friend!),
ReplyDeleteI note that she doesn't dispute the substance of Al Mutarjim's translation of the above excerpt of the fatwa, which claims that a woman can't remember and talk at the same time (but that a man can). This is quite an extraordinary claim, and moreover the writer of the fatwa makes a reference to the Qur'an as basis for this interpretation. Yet her anger (yes, I do think it is anger, despite what she claims) seems not to be directed at the ECFR or at the writer of the Qur'an. I suggest that her anger is misdirected.
Since her comment, posted by Ahmed, is quite lengthy, if I am going to address I will have to do so in separate posts. I will note, though, that many of the issues she raises, and allegations she makes, are ones that I've already addressed on the Translating Jihad thread ["Update Fatwa..."; see above citation] and on SATV
(continuing in reply...)
ReplyDeleteAhmed khalil's friend (AKF, [my brackets]): “I went to the website you chose this translation from [... etc., see AKF's post for complete quote...] The reason why in the above example, the word 'aqil is associated with control and prevention of one's whims (hawa) is because in this instance, he does not allow his emotions to cloud his judgment or to overtake him in his decision...." 2 b continued."
1. The translation of the hadith with that word translated as meaning “intelligence” is shown on numerous Muslim websites, not just by Al Mutarjim. I find it hard to believe that the translation is “wrong,” and my doubts are increased further by your own description…
2. Your own description of the meaning clearly indicates features of intelligence such as executive control, inhibition, emotional intelligence, etc. I don’t see how any of what you say constitutes a valid argument against the use of the word intelligence (or some word like intelligence). And I suspect any alternative you put in its place is going to at least be associated with intelligence or some kind of mental ability. Your description indicates that you are proposing a distinction that makes no significant difference.
AKF: "quoting pt.2:"...Therefore, to understand the hadeeth, the correct translation for 'aql is not decreased mental capacity or intelligence, but rather a decrease in judgment because women are overtaken by their emotional intelligence, which leans more towards mercy than justice.”"
What you just wrote is almost as offensive and absurd as the substance of the ECFR fatwa excerpt that is the topic of this thread.
AKF: “That is why my dear sir, a wife is prevented from testifying for or against her husband in a court of law...I am sorry, in YOUR courts for that very reason. Under that circumstance, she will not be thinking about justice, but would rather follow her heart to save the man she loves.”
Nonsense. There is no such restriction specifically and uniquely targeting the testimony of women in modern laws in modern Western countries such as the U.S. Any such restriction nowadays would concern issues such as conflict of interests, etc., whereby a person’s emotional involvement, and thus potential biases, would be taken into account in the admissibility of, and weight given to, that person’s testimony. If it affects a wife testifying for or against her husband, it would also apply to a husband testifying for or against his wife.
(continuing)
ReplyDeleteAKF: “If it was not for her loving nature, a woman would not have enough mercy and compassion to bear children and raise them. In her hearts of hearts, she will always choose mercy over justice, and will always believe that a bad person can change and be better with dedication and support; hence why battered women believe the tears and apologies of their abusive loved ones again and again to their own detriment..unfortunately.
THAT is what the hadeeth says and THAT is why the Qur'an has that verse. If Allah or His prophet believed that women were stupid and lacking in intelligence, He would have prevented her from testifying altogether; but since that is not the case, it merely appointed that rule, so that if one woman who is too close to the case is swayed by her heart, another woman who is not, can set it straight.”
1. You present no evidence for your claims about women’s testimony, but not men’s testimony, being compromised in such a way that one man’s testimony should be given equal weight to that of two women. It simply doesn’t add up.
2. If 7th century “Allah” and “His prophet” believed any of what you project on to them, they would not have said outrageously stupid and misogynistic things about women’s intelligence, emotional abilities, capacity for justice, or religious capacity. If they believed that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law and religion, they would say that women are equal to men in testimony and religion. They would not say that the man’s testimony is worth double that of a woman’s!
AKF: “I am a woman, and a muslima as I have stated already, and I find nothing in that hadeeth or verse to be angry at or to direct my anger towards (or so you HOPE I would do), because (I) understand the real meaning, whereas you with your ignorant bigotted 'heart' have no capacity for real understanding and so you desperately try to grasp at straws here and there and present them in the twisted way you always do.”
I have no evidence that you are a Muslima, a woman. For all I know, you could be a man. For all I know, you are Ahmed (not his friend!). However, this is irrelevant. Men and women of any religion, or of no religion, should recognize the need to reject these misogynistic claims in the Qur’an and Hadith, and in the ECFR fatwa in question. It is folly to pretend they say something other than what they say. The “you-don’t-know-Arabic” routine is getting very tired.
(continuing)
ReplyDeleteAKF: "Greenforest: As you can see, I do not agree with the speaker's interpretation in the ECFR, and most Muslim scholars agree with my interpretation above..."
1. Your interpretation looks like it is in the same direction as the quoted fatwa. You are suggesting that women, and not men, have some kind of deficiency that justifies the hadith and the statement in the Qur’an, cited above.
2. You present no evidence re “most Muslim scholars agree…”
AKF: "As for Dawood and Danios, they have indeed shown that Almutarjim's translations are mediocre.”
I read their allegations. They went quite a bit beyond alleging that Al Mutarjim’s translations were “mediocre.” They claimed that Al Mutarjim’s translations were “completely fraudulent,” and “deceptive.” They presented no evidence to support these charges. Moreover, Al Mutarjim and I have now produced quite a bit of evidence that Dawood and Danios were lying and misleading their readers.
AKF: “It is enough that Almutarjim's actual alias was Almutarajjam for two years!! And would have continued to keep that ridiculous name had Dawood not pointed it out.”
You are referring to a transliteration error that Al Mutarjim acknowledged, explained, and corrected. If we are to discredit someone due to what amounts to a spelling error, I can tell you that we can do the same with Dawood or practically anyone else.
That said, I note that, as far as I’m concerned, Dawood has failed to show any substantive error of translation by Al Mutarjim. And that is not for a lack of trying! In contrast, Dawood has committed several false statements, some of which may be errors, and some of which are very probably deception. This has already been shown (see my above references to this).
AKF: “If he does not know what 'translator' is in Arabic, and not only that, but concocted a word that does not even exist with a nonexistent wazn for that tasreef, then he would not have a clue in translating a word like nikah which does not only require a good understanding of Arabic but also a good understanding of Islamic Law and its technical register”
1. To say “concoct a word” is misleading. He did not concoct a word, any more than someone who makes a spelling mistake concocts a word.
2. The fact that someone makes one transliteration error can easily be dismissed with “to err is human.” More importantly, your argument fails because the commission of a spelling mistake has no bearing on the meaning of the word nikah. Al Mutarjim was right that nikah did mean sexual intercourse or marriage, in the context in question. Dawood and Danios were wrong when they claimed nikah could only mean a marriage without sexual intercourse, in the context in question. I have already addressed this.
AKF: “(I minored in Linguistics and have a masters degree in Speech Language Pathology and am currently doing my master and Ph.D in English Literature in France in case you are wondering!).”
That claim is neither verified nor relevant.
AKF: “THAT, my dear sir is enough evidence that he is clueless.”
No it isn’t, unless you are trying to convince only yourself. Your confidence game isn't working with me.
As for your false claims about the word nikah, and the exclusion of material from Al Mutarim’s first translation of the fatwa, I have already addressed all of this at the above cited references and in the SATV comments sections.
(completing)
ReplyDeleteAKF: “Finally, what you and Almutarjim are doing is not 'criticism' of Islam, but pure bigotry and intolerance.”
Your statement here suggests again that you do not accept any criticism of Islam. What you say leads me to believe that you think any criticism of Islam is bigotry.
AKF: “If you would invite debate over points you feel are ambiguous or questionable and INVITE a civil debate over them, I would understand and respect you.”
When you come on and start throwing around false and baseless allegations, that shows that you aren’t looking for a civil discussion. You are seem angry, frustrated with being in the position of having to defend Islam. There is no way you can respect someone who criticizes Islam, right? You clearly hate people who criticize Islam, don't you?
AKF: “But to selectively try to find things by Islamic brotherhood speakers (who do not speak for Islam, more than Protestants speak for the Vatican!!)”
False analogy. Protestants and Catholics are two different sects within Christianity, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood is simply one group within Islam. Thus your analogy should use a reference to a particular Christian group in relation to all of Christianity (see your next statement).
AKF: “…or to select things with the intention of vilifying Islam to yourselves and your readers, THAT my dear sir is NOT ethical, nor innocent like you make it out to be!”
Again, it was a fatwa officially approved by the ECFR. It contained a reference to a verse from the Qur’an. But we did not claim it represented all of Islam. It indicates a problem within Islam. To blame Al Mutarjim for bringing this problem to our attention is absurd and unjust. There can be no improvement or fixing of the problems in Islam if the problems are swept under the rug or denied or rationalized away. The problems must be shown, criticized, and then the necessary corrections and improvements should be made. Or, people can choose to leave Islam altogether. Yet, when it comes to Islam, you seem to reject the very premise of criticism and bringing problems to light.