Debating bad ideas

Fourthly, there is the timing of the alleged divine revelation. Although it is possible to locate believers who assert that the modern world affects any reading of The Koran, such persons are probably outnumbered by adherents who, in keeping with the teaching of some (if not many) clerics/scholars, insist that it is the living book of God which, literally, explains and regulates everything on Earth, and that it binds believers and non-believers alike.

In some quarters, any suggestion that the belief system prescribed by the book is long overdue for a reformation, say of a kind that accounts for contemporary Christianity (in its many forms), is rejected as insulting or blasphemous or worse. This has an internal sectarian logic if The Koran is taken to be the last, complete, perfect and, thus unalterable divine revelation,and if it asserted, as must follow, that all Earthly authority derives solely from the Almighty.

If the foregoing summary is inaccurate and the plain English meaning of any part of the scripture has become obsolete as expressing a bad idea and can therefore be ignored (as is uncontroversial in Australia with earlier competing scriptures), there should be no inhibition in saying so in a secular democracy. In the Islamic world any such "disrespectful" claim can lead to lethal summary punishment.

The acute and entirely predictable sectarian sensitivity of HT to criticism of its religious ideas can also be seen in the statement of one of its Australian spokesmen that apostasy can attract similarly severe punishment.

Fifthly, in secular democratic Australia, the non-believer is not bound to disregard the plain English meaning of words of any scripture. Common sense dictates that there is nothing helpful to be gained by confecting ambiguity.

Nor is there any reason why any such person should feel bound to spend precious time considering the copious secondary (Earthly) commentary. (Perhaps some non-believers would be sufficiently motivated to read the Life of the Prophet.) This too may displease believers, but the underlying conceit of any politico-religious claim to be the last word on anything and everything may excite suspicion in the mind of a non-believer and fortify her/his disinclination to embark on a reading of any translation of the book. That understandable reaction should be resisted.

HT's chosen English language version of the scripture speaks for itself. And it closely resembles two well-known translations. The first is by Pickthall (1930) – which claims to be "the first by an Englishman who is a Muslim". In it, for example, the equally plain word "scourge" is substituted for "beat" in Surah 4:34. Another translation is that by Dawood (1956) in the Penguin Classics series (available here online). In it, the plain words "superior to" are substituted for "to excel".

In his introduction to the Pickthall translation, William Montgomery Watt observed that since Pickthall had consulted "the Sheykh al-Azhar of the time, the head of the traditional Islamic university and presumably also Grand Mufti of Egypt, Pickthall might be said to have something like official approval."

Pickthall's foreword and introduction are essential reading for anyone trying to arrive at a basic understanding of the ideas contained in The Koran. However, in his foreword, Pickthall expressed the disconcerting assessment that the book "cannot be translated".

In response to the release of the HT video, one Australian academic commentator said that several recent media reports had sensationalised domestic violence within the Muslim community and often falsely linked it to Surah 4:34. This claim puts the non-believer in a curious position made curiouser because the same commentator uses yet another English language translation and provides a link to seven more such translations, including Pickthall's.

Finally, one paradoxical feature confronting the non-believer and exemplified in the recent controversy has been the commentary of some clerics to the effect that domestic violence is forbidden but whose comments omit to mention Surah 4:34 or its broad assertion of female subordination. This suggests that for some purposes there is a central element of doctrinal authority and for other purposes there are differences of opinion or textual interpretations. As fascinating as that conundrum is, it should not distract the non-believer's attention from the plain meaning of any given verse.

The reality is that Australians will not (and did not) miss the plain English meaning of HT's preferred translation, namely, that the Almighty has commanded that men are superior to women and that wife-beating has a role in ensuring that a wife obeys her husband and does not stray from the path of divinely revealed righteousness.