The Automatic Response
Whenever a critic quotes a troubling Quranic verse—wife-beating (4:34), killing polytheists (9:5), or eternal hellfire with skin regeneration (4:56)—a predictable response follows: "That's a mistranslation! You need to understand Arabic! The real meaning is completely different!"
This defense serves two purposes: it deflects criticism without actually engaging the argument, and it intimidates critics who don't know Arabic into thinking they're unqualified to comment. But the "mistranslation" defense is almost always dishonest. The disturbing meanings are confirmed by: (1) Arabic dictionaries, (2) multiple independent translations by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, and (3) classical tafsir (Quranic commentary) written by native Arabic speakers.
Let's examine specific examples where Muslims falsely claim mistranslation.
Example 1: Wife-Beating (Quran 4:34)
The most frequent "mistranslation" claim concerns Quran 4:34:
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance—[first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." — Quran 4:34
The Arabic word in question is "wadriboohunna" (واضربوهن). Muslims claim this doesn't mean "strike/beat them" but rather "separate from them" or "go away from them."
The Arabic Evidence:
The root word is ḍ-r-b (ض ر ب). Lane's Lexicon, the most authoritative classical Arabic-English dictionary, lists the primary meanings:
- "He beat him, struck him, or hit him"
- "He smote him"
- Various derivatives related to striking, beating, or hitting
"Separate" or "go away" is listed as a secondary, metaphorical usage ("to strike out" on a journey, i.e., depart). Using this rare metaphorical meaning while ignoring the primary literal meaning is dishonest when the context clearly involves correction/punishment of disobedient wives.
Hans Wehr Dictionary: Lists ḍaraba as "to beat, strike, hit, whip, knock."
Usage throughout the Quran: The same root ḍ-r-b appears throughout the Quran meaning "to strike/beat":
- Quran 8:12: "Strike [their] necks" (fadhriboo fawqa al-a'naaq) — clearly violent striking in battle
- Quran 2:73: "Strike it [the cow] with part of it" (idhriboohu) — physically strike
- Quran 20:77: "Strike for them a dry path" (faidrib lahum tareeqan) — here it means "make" but in the sense of striking/cutting a path
If ḍaraba means "separate from" in 4:34, why does it mean "strike violently" everywhere else?
Classical Tafsir Confirms "Beat":
Ibn Kathir, the most respected classical commentary:
"[Allah said] 'beat them' means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not benefit, beat her in a way that does not cause injury or leaving marks. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, 'This means a beating that is not violent.'"
Ibn Kathir explicitly interprets it as beating, only limiting it to non-injurious beating. He doesn't say "separate from her"—he says "beat her, but not too hard."
The "mistranslation" claim is refuted by Arabic dictionaries, Quranic usage, and classical scholars. Muslims who claim otherwise are lying.
Example 2: "Kill Them Wherever You Find Them" (Quran 2:191)
Muslims often claim this verse is mistranslated or taken out of context. Let's examine the Arabic:
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you. And fitnah is worse than killing." — Quran 2:191
The Arabic: "wa-qtulūhum ḥaythu thaqiftumūhum" (واقتلوهم حيث ثقفتموهم)
Word-by-word analysis:
- wa = and
- qtulūhum = kill them (from q-t-l root, meaning kill/slay)
- ḥaythu = wherever
- thaqiftumūhum = you find/overtake them
There's no mistranslation. The Arabic clearly says "kill them wherever you find them."
Muslims claim it's defensive: "It only means those actively fighting you!"
But classical scholars didn't limit it that way. They understood it as applying to warfare against polytheists generally, not just those actively attacking at that moment. The verse continues, "expel them from wherever they have expelled you"—this is about reclaiming Mecca and expanding Islamic territory, not mere self-defense.
Example 3: "Struck Mary" (Quran 66:12)
Some Muslims claim translations saying Allah "breathed" into Mary should say He "struck" her, using the same ḍ-r-b root. But this backfires—if ḍ-r-b can mean something gentle like divine breath in one verse, why insist it can't mean violent striking in 4:34?
The answer: context determines meaning. In 66:12, the context is miraculous conception (requires something non-violent). In 4:34, the context is punishing disobedient wives (a violent meaning fits perfectly).
Example 4: Eternal Torture with Skin Replacement (Quran 4:56)
"Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses—We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise." — Quran 4:56
Some Muslims claim "replace them with other skins" is mistranslated and doesn't mean what it seems.
The Arabic: "kullam nḍijat julūduhum baddalnāhum julūdan ghayraha" (كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا)
Word-by-word:
- kullam = every time
- nḍijat = are roasted/cooked through
- julūduhum = their skins
- baddalnāhum = We replace them
- julūdan ghayraha = with skins other [than them]
The meaning is crystal clear: every time their skins are burned through, Allah replaces them with new skins so the torture can continue. This isn't mistranslation—it's exactly what the Arabic says.
Classical tafsir confirms this interpretation. Ibn Kathir explains that Allah replaces the burned skin with new skin so the pain receptors are renewed and the punishment can continue. This is sadistic torture by design.
Example 5: Sex with Captive Women (Quran 4:24)
"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess." — Quran 4:24
"Those your right hands possess" (mā malakat aymānukum) is a Quranic euphemism for slaves/captives. This verse permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with married female captives—effectively permitting rape of prisoners of war.
Muslims sometimes claim this is mistranslated or doesn't mean sexual access. But classical tafsir and Islamic jurisprudence explicitly interpret it as permitting sex with female captives, even if they were married before capture (the marriage is considered dissolved).
Sahih Muslim confirms this interpretation:
"We went on a campaign with the Messenger of Allah and captured prisoners. We asked, 'Should we have intercourse with the captive women when we want to keep them for ransom?' He said, 'It is better not to ejaculate inside them.'" — Sahih Muslim 1438
Muhammad didn't forbid sex with captives—he just advised not ejaculating inside them (to preserve ransom value). The permission for sex with captives is explicit.
Translation Comparison Method
When Muslims claim mistranslation, check multiple translations:
For Quran 4:34 "wadriboohunna":
- Sahih International: "strike them"
- Pickthall: "scourge them"
- Yusuf Ali: "beat them (lightly)"
- Shakir: "beat them"
- Arberry: "beat them"
- Muhammad Asad: "beat them"
When multiple independent translators—including Muslims—translate the same word the same way, it's not mistranslation. It's the actual meaning.
The only translations rendering it differently are modern revisionist attempts (like "separate from them"), created specifically to avoid the embarrassing obvious meaning.
The Pattern: Selective Reinterpretation
Notice the pattern:
Verse sounds good: Muslims insist on literal translation, citing Arabic dictionaries to prove the beautiful meaning.
Verse sounds bad: Suddenly it's all metaphorical, mistranslated, needs special Arabic understanding, classical scholars got it wrong.
This is intellectually dishonest. Either trust the translations and classical scholarship or don't. You can't cherry-pick based on whether the verse makes Islam look good or bad.
Why Classical Scholars Got It Right
Classical Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, and Al-Jalalayn:
- Were native Arabic speakers
- Lived closer to the time of Muhammad
- Had access to oral traditions and linguistic context
- Had no incentive to make Islam look bad to Western audiences (that concern didn't exist)
- Agreed on disturbing interpretations because that's what the text actually says
Modern Muslims claiming these scholars "mistranslated" their own language are engaging in absurd revisionism.
Questions to Consider
- If ḍaraba doesn't mean "beat" in Quran 4:34, why does it mean "strike violently" in 8:12 ("strike their necks")?
- Why do all major classical tafsir interpret 4:34 as permitting beating if it's "mistranslated"?
- Why do multiple independent translators (Muslim and non-Muslim) translate verses the same way if it's wrong?
- Are we really to believe that Arabic-speaking scholars for 1400 years misunderstood their own language?
- Why do Muslims only claim "mistranslation" for embarrassing verses, never for verses that sound good?
- Can you provide one Arabic dictionary that supports the "mistranslation" claim Muslims make?
Conclusion
The "mistranslation" defense is almost always dishonest. The problematic meanings critics cite are confirmed by: Arabic dictionaries (Lane's Lexicon, Hans Wehr), multiple independent translations, classical tafsir by native Arabic speakers, and Islamic jurisprudence developed over 1400 years.
When Muslims claim mistranslation, they're either ignorant of their own sources or deliberately lying. The real mistranslation is modern revisionist attempts to soften Islam's harsh teachings by inventing new meanings never held by classical scholars.
Critics of Islam aren't taking verses out of context or mistranslating—they're reading the Quran exactly as 1400 years of Islamic scholars read it. If the meanings are disturbing, the problem isn't the translation—it's the text itself.
Related articles: The Context Defense, Scholarly Consensus