A recent New York Times article drew my attention to a new English translation of the Koran that is now apparently causing some stir among Muslims.

Laleh Bakhtiar worked for several years on a translation of the Koran until she stumbled on sura 4, verse 34 where the Arabic word daraba is used to refer to what should be done with a rebellious wife. It is usually translated as "hit" or "beat." Ms. Bakhtiar, however, "...decided it either has to have a different meaning or I can't keep translating...I couldn't believe that God would sanction harming another human being except in war." She eventually found a 19th century reference book that included, among SIX PAGES of definitions for daraba, the term "to go away." So she said to herself (real quote), "So that is what the prophet meant."

I beg to differ. That is what the translator, not the original author meant. This is a crass example of something that has been going on with Bible translations for ages. When it becomes clear that the holy text is no longer compatable with a modern, enlightened, humanist, common sense ethic, it is changed. Then people refer back to the holy book to defend that ethic as being based on the holy text! If the barbarity of the original is too obvious to change (such as the numerous references to stoning and execution in the Old Testament or hellfire in the New Testament), then it is either ignored or passed off as harmless allegory.

Another perhaps more typical example occurred a few years ago on Larry King Live. It was right after that gay kid had been murdered by homophobic bigots in Wyoming. Larry King's guests included Reverand Mohler from the Southern Baptists and several gay activists. The reverand only needed to cite the holy texts to condemn homosexuality. The gay representatives were unable to simply reject the holy text and say, "Well, that's what bronze age shepherds thought, but today we think differently about these kinds of things." Instead, they had to rhetorically dance in circles to make their modern, enlightened views conform with the Bible.

Churches, institutions and people are and always have been more important than the exact wording of the holy books that purportedly "inspire" them and their policies. They tend toward all manner of both decent and horrific behavior regardless of what "God" supposedly says. But the exact wording of the holy books is there and will continue to bear fruit and give moral support to all manner of mischief until enough people have the courage to say they simply don't believe it.

I would apply a day-to-day version of the "secular purpose" doctrine as it is applied to church-state issues in the United States. If a believer in a holy book wants to defend a particular policy, he or she is free to do so based on the holy book. But I am free to reject that opinion unless a defense of that policy can be made using arguments which are not based on the book alone. The weight of their case for me as a fellow citizen or voter will depend entirely on the non-holy reasons they bring to bear on the issue.

You can read an interview with the translator at The American Muslim. There you can also find other links to the story and the debate in the press and blogosphere.