3. “Mr. Azzi, I found in reading the Qur’an, one verse — 98:6 — that describes Unbelievers as ‘the most vile of created beings.’ And another — 3:110 — about how Muslims are ‘the best of peoples.’ Can you tell me if Muslims really believe that, and if so, what can or should be done about it?”
Again, Azzi cannot deny the existence of these verses. He can only offer something along these lines:
Well, I’m a Muslim, and I certainly don’t think you are “the most vile of created beings.” [Laughter.] Do you have Muslim co-workers, Muslim friends? Do your kids perhaps have Muslim school friends? Do you think, as the conspiratorial Islamophobes want you to believe, that all these Muslims are merely hiding a deep contempt for you, that they really consider all of you “vile”? Look, let’s be sensible. This is just the kind of verse the extremists, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, like to focus on. They’ll quote it, but they won’t tell you that no one except people like them take it seriously. They’re in the business of distorting our religion for the sake of their own hunger for power — they want to conquer the world, make no mistake about it, but it’s got nothing to do with Islam, except in the sense that they want to exploit Islam for their own, un-Islamic ends. They want to be famous, the way bin Laden was. It’s not a good idea to give them the publicity they want. Sure, ISIS wants you to get all hot and bothered about these verses, wants you to think that not just ISIS, but the vast majority of moderate Muslims, think that way. It’s utter nonsense.
Let me repeat what we all know. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims, maybe millions, are anxious to move to Europe. Hundreds drown each year in the Mediterranean making the attempt. You’ve heard these stories. Well, for heaven’s sake, why would hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Muslims want to live among those very people whom they supposedly believe to be the “most vile of created beings ”? [Laughter.] Why would they want their kids to go school with “the most vile of created beings”? [More laughter.] I rest my case.
You know, I always like to tell people that while we believe that the Qur’an is the literal Word of God, that it was not meant to be read literally. You have to understand more deeply. So don’t take that verse literally. What does it really mean? It’s a negative statement, greatly exaggerated for effect, against those particular people — the “Unbelievers” — whom the Muslims were fighting at the time. It’s not meant to apply to all non-Muslims, but only to those with whom Muhammad was then in a state of war. It’s swearing at the enemy. Do you know the kinds of things that were written in this country during World War II about the Germans and the Japanese? It was a lot worse than just being called “vile.” And now Germany and Japan are two of our closest allies.
In trying to understand the Qur’an, remember it’s a very difficult text in places, written in a classical Arabic quite different from modern Arabic, and the meaning is not always crystal clear. That shouldn’t surprise anyone — the text is 1400 years old. I always tell myself that when a verse goes against what, in its totality, Islam stands for, then I just don’t bother with that verse. If that verse says that Unbelievers are “vile,” I just ignore it. I know it’s not meant to apply outside its 1400-year-old context. That’s got nothing to do with the Islam I converted to as a young man or that I’ve been happily practicing for a half-century, and I think if you ask any Muslims you meet, they’ll tell you the exact same thing. Next question.
4. “It says in the Qur’an that a man can beat his wife if she is disobedient. Could you comment on that?”
Azzi:
Yes, I’m glad you asked that question, because islamophobes like to keep bringing that up. It’s true that some 1400 years ago, and not just in the Middle East but in Europe, men had far more control over their wives than they do today. I’m not excusing it, just putting it in its proper historical perspective. So yes, if a wife was considered disobedient, in those days, then a Muslim husband could first of all reprimand her. If that didn’t change her behavior, she would have to sleep in a separate bed. And if she still was disobedient, and only then, the husband could “beat” his wife but only very lightly, using an instrument as small as a “miswak” — a small natural toothbrush. It’s a symbolic, not a real beating. Try hurting someone with a toothbrush. I rest my case.
And remember all that Muhammad did for women’s rights. I’ve heard it said that “Muhammad was the greatest champion of women’s rights the world has ever seen.” He didn’t want to force women to stay at home. His first wife Khadijah, who had a great influence on him, was no shrinking violet, but a successful businesswoman. The Qur’an provided women with explicit rights to inheritance, to property, gave them the right to testify in a court of law, and the right to divorce. It severely limited the use of violence against female children and women as well as on duress in marriage and community affairs. That isn’t gender equality in the modern sense, but it did give Muslim women greater rights than they had had in the pre-Islamic period. So I’d say that that verse about “beating a disobedient wife” should be seen in its proper context and given its intended meaning. It should read: “beat with a toothbrush.” [Laughter]
Next question. Yes, there, on the end of the third row.