Preface and Introduction to the Sublime Quran and the Arguments as to Why 4:34 Has Been Misinterpreted © Laleh Bakhtiar Preface In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate After having spent many years studying the various English translations of the Quran and realizing the sincere efforts of the translators in this great, divinely blessed task, it became clear to me that English translations lack internal consistency and reliability. Clearly no translation of the Quran can compare in beauty and style with the original Arabic, which has been described as: “by turns, striking, soaring, vivid, terrible, tender and breathtaking.”1 Recognizing this, a translation of a sacred text which will never equal the original still has certain criteria it should meet. I found, when the context is the same, if the same English word is not used for the same Arabic word throughout the translation, it becomes difficult for someone who wants to learn to correlate the English and the Arabic to be able to do so. In other words, the twenty or so English translations put emphasis on inter- preting a Quranic verse without precisely representing the original Arabic word. For example, in one translation, the English verb “to turn” is used for over forty- three different Arabic words and the noun “sin,” twenty-three. The Arabic language is much more precise than present translations would indicate and God used a different word in each case. Therefore, a translation should do the same to the extent possible in order to give the English reader more of a sense of the depth to the Quran. This Arabic-English version of The Sublime Quran is the best way for a student of classical Quranic Arab to learn to read the Quran because of the internal consistence and reliability of the translation. For the Muslim, the Quran is the Word (Logos) of God. It is this Word of God that has inspired artists, artisans, poets, philosophers and writers, those who had been the exponents of Islamic culture and civilization for almost 1500 years. Yesterday and today’s Muslim wants to know more about each Word that God chose for His revelation through the Quran. This realization, in turn, prompted 1
this present translation, an attempt to give the sense of unity within the revelation to a non-Arabic speaking reader. The method used by English translators of the Quran to date is to start at the beginning of the sacred text and work through translating until the end. I used the same method in translating twentyfive books before I earned a Ph. D. in edu- cational psychology much later in life. Armed with this science, I began this translation as a scientific study to see if it was possible to apply these principles to a translation by finding a different English equivalent for each Arabic verb or noun in order to achieve a translation of a sacred text that has internal consistency and reliability. As I am unlettered, so to speak, in modern Arabic, I relied upon my many years of private tutoring in classical Quranic Arabic grammar.2 It was at that time that I had become familiar with the alMu
[n al-kar\m. The Mu
King James Version of the Bible first published in 1611 CE. This translation, then, is one of formal equivalence in order to be as close to the original as possible. This is the most objective type of translation, as compared to a translation using dynamic equivalence, where the transla- tor attempts to translate the ideas or thoughts of a text, rather than the words, which results in a much more subjective translation. In this translation, the translation of the active participle when used nom- inally and not as an adjective, differs from other translations. Instead of creating English words that would not readily resonate with the reader, I have used “one who” for the animate and “that which” for the inanimate. The caution to the read- er, however, is that this translation should be read with a “fresh eye” rather than expecting an English equivalent as used in previous translations. The English equivalents for these verbs and nouns are then studied in con- text and, where necessary for correct meaning, an alternative equivalent that has not been previously used elsewhere in the translation is used. This resulted in 5866+ unique English equivalents. I then added the some 38,090+ particles (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions or interjections not listed in the al-Mu
Arabic. When the subject is “thou” in order to avoid the verbs for this pronoun such as “wantest” or “decidest”, the verbs have been translated as “hadst wanted” for the perfect and “hast wanted” for the imperfect. The reader may come to verses that read, “you, you” or “they, they” or “I, I”. Where the Quran has included both the separate pronoun and repeated it at the end of the verb for emphasis, this is expressed in The Sublime Quran translation, giving the sentence the same emphatic expression as it appears in the Arabic. The same is true of “those, they,” the exact phrasing used in the Quran. With this as the beginning point, I arrived at six points that I felt was missing in previous translations and which I aimed to attain in the translation of The Sublime Quran. No commentary: Introducing the nonArabic speaker to the words of the revelation without any commentary is as formal equivalence dictates. Related to the eternality of the Quran, each reader of the translation would then be able to ask: As this is the eternal Word of God, what does it mean to me today? What does it say to me? How can I self-identity with it? How do I feel when I read it? Do I accept the arguments that the Quran presents for the Oneness of God? In writing about the Quran, al-Ghazzali says each person should read or recite it, not as a historical document, because then it loses its eternal quality, but as it relates to the person reading or reciting it. He asks: “How can one suppose otherwise when the Quran was revealed to the Messenger not only for him par- ticularly, but as a spiritual cure, guidance, mercy and light for all the worlds?” As the Quran says: “We send down in the Quran what is a healing and a mercy for the ones who believe.” (16:126).4 The Quran is not an historic text, frozen in the time period of its revelation. To this end, there are no parenthetical phrases in The Sublime Quran further interpreting and elaborating a verse, thus allowing the translation, as the Quran itself is, to be free of any transient political, denominational or doctrinal bias. Words not appearing in the Arabic, but necessary for understanding in English, have been put in italics, in some cases to emphasize the intent of the Quran. An example is that often the Quran refers to someone’s being struck blind, deaf and dumb. The meaning 4
refers to someone who is “unwilling to see, hear or speak,” and not someone who is physically disabled. Therefore, the word “unwilling” appears in italics. When an English speaker reads the translation of the Quran, it is not clear which are the Names, Qualities or Attributes of God that he or she may be reciting. This present translation recognizes them by presenting the definite article (The) with a capital letter. In this way, one can make the connection between one of the Attributes of God they are reciting and a Quranic verse in which it appears. None of this denies the reader the opportunity to seek out commentaries that describe the history or language of the Quran, but it gives him or her a chance to see how each and every Word reflects the Divine intention. Universal: The blessed Prophet did not bring a new religion; he came to confirm what was right in the messages of the previous Prophets. Does this trans- lation speak to the universality of the Quran? The Quran tells the Prophet, the mercy to all of humanity, to speak to people in their own language. Following his example, in addition to the translation being unbounded by time, in several sensitive cases, the word chosen to translate an Arabic word is also of a universal or inclusive rather than a particular or exclusive nature. For example, based on a study6 done about Prophet Yahya, the word =a~]r (3:39) has been correctly translated in The Sublime Quran as “concealer of secrets“ and not the usual “chaste” of other English translations. This opens up the study of who this Prophet actually and adds to the broadening of the perspective and scope of the Quran so that it becomes inclusive rather than exclusive to one particular group of people. In other words, in this way a larger audience can relate to its message. Inclusive language: Examples of this would be the translation of the derivatives of k f r, literally meaning: To hide, to deny the truth or cover over something. Most English translations use the verb “to disbelieve” or “to be an infidel” making the active participle “one who disbelieves” or “one who is an infidel.” In the present translation the more inclusive viable terminology is used, namely, “to be un5
grateful,” the active participle being “one who is ungrateful.” The Quran itself declares its timelessness and universality. Therefore, its understanding or interpretation must also be eternal and for all time, inclusive of all of humanity rather than exclusive to one group of people. Applying the above criteria to the word aslama, “he submitted to God,” in the eight times that it appears in the form of islam, it is translated according to its universal meaning as “submission to God,” and the forty-two times that its form as muslim appears, it is translated according to its universal meaning, “one who submits to God.” Or zakat usually translated as alms does not give the universal meaning of the Arabic. Zakat has been translated in the present translation as “purifying alms” because the important aspect of paying the religious tax is that it purifies the rest of one’s wealth. Another example of the use of inclusive language in an attempt to speak to people in their own language, is the use of God instead of Allah. Many English speaking Muslims as well as many of the English translations of the Quran to date, use Allah when speaking English instead of God. The intention on the part of the speaker is to maintain a sense of piety. They feel that using Allah in English moves them in that direction. Many even claim that the word Allah cannot be translated. However well intentioned a person may be, the use of the word Allah instead of God when speaking English, first of all, does not follow the Quranic verse that tells the Prophet to speak to people in their own language. Subsequently, it does not follow the Sunnah of the Prophet who did speak to peo- ple in their own language. In addition, it creates a divide between Muslims who use the word and the English speaking people of various faiths to whom they are speaking. In effect, it creates the illusion that there is more than One God—Allah and God. The response of the English speaking person of another faith is to say: I do not under- stand your religion; you have a different God than I do and you call Him Allah. It needs to be clearly explained to English speaking Muslims that, unlike what they may feel, they do not have a monopoly on the word Allah. Arabic speaking Christians and Arabic speaking Jews 6
also refer to God as Allah. The Old Testament and New Testament, when translated into Arabic, use Allah for God. English speaking Muslims, therefore, need to recall the message of the Quran that God is One (taw=id). In addition, the Prophet did not bring a new religion but confirmed what was correct in the messages of previous Prophets, name- ly, that God is One. Finally, they need to follow the example of the Prophet, as the Quran says he is the model or example to be followed, by speaking to people in their own language. Thou vs You: In regard to the second person singular (thou) as opposed to the second person plural (you) in English, in the Arabic language is very specific. There are fourteen personal pronouns in Arabic as opposed to six in English. Arabic includes the nominative “thou“; the objective, “thee“; and the possessive, “thy”. As this is the bi-lingual edition, the exact equivalent of the Arabic pronoun is used. Whereas to many this is what they call “King James” English, from the theological point of view, it is important to keep the distinction. The distinction between using the second person singular (Thou, Thee, Thy) refers to the Oneness of God, the singular God. Whereas when “you” or second person plural is used for God, we are indicating that there are plural gods. This is the only sin that the Quran says is unforgivable. In addition, whenever the Prophets are spoken to directly, the pronoun used is thou or thee. This is also the way that the Quran addresses Mary. Verse 4:34: Another distinction between this translation and other present English translations arises from the fact that this is the first critical English trans- lation of the Quran by a woman.5 However, that does not necessarily make this a feminist translation. The Sublime Quran is the translation of a person who practices spiritual integrity (futuwwa) or spiritual chivalry as it is sometimes called. It should also be noted that none of the reasons given as to how this translation differs from all other English translations has anything to do with my being a woman. They are all indications of gender-free intellectual reasoning. Just as I found a lack of internal consistency in previous Eng7
lish transla- tions, I also found that little attention had been given to the woman’s point of view. While the absence of a woman’s point of view in Quranic translation and commentary for almost 1500 years since the revelation began clearly needs to change, it must be acknowledged that there are many men who are supportive of the view of women as complements to themselves, as the completion of their human unity. To them, I and other Muslim women are eternally grateful. They relate to women as the Quran and Hadith intended. The criticism women have is towards those men and women who are not open to this understanding, who are exclusive in opposition to the Quran and Sunnah’s inclusiveness. Clearly the intention of the Quran is to see man and woman as complements of one another, not as superior-inferior. Consequently, in the following Introduction and translation, I address a main criticism of Islam made in regard to a human rights issue, namely, that a husband can beat his wife (4:34) after two stages of trying to discipline her. In addition, when words in a verse refer directly to a woman or women or wife or wives and the corresponding pronouns such as (they, them, those), I have placed an (f) after the word to indicate the word refers to the feminine gender specifically.7 Otherwise, in the Arabic language (as in Spanish), the masculine pronoun may be used generically to include both male and female human beings. At this point I should say that there will be those who see me as a person having a particular Muslim point of view. Let me assure the reader that I am most certainly a Muslim woman. I have been schooled in Sufism which includes both the Jafari (Shia) and Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii (Sunni) points of view. As an adult, I lived nine years in a Jafari community in Iran and have been living in a Hanafi community in Chicago for the past fifteen years with Maliki and Shafii friends. While I understand the positions of each group, I do not represent any specific one as I find living in America makes it difficult enough to be a Muslim, much less to choose to follow one sect or another. However in this translation I have not added any indication of differences in recitation between the sects so that it does represent the majority view. At the same time, I have chosen to continuously engage in the greater strug8
gle of self-improvement. This is the beginning stage of the Sufi path (including murruwa or moral reasonableness leading to futuwwa or spiritual chivalry) and I cannot even claim that I have moved beyond that. God knows best. I grew up in the United States with a single parent, a Christian, American mother. My father, an Iranian, lived in Iran. I was an adult before I came to know him. He was not religious, but spiritual, devoting his life as a physician to help to heal the suffering of people. My mother was not a Catholic, but she sent me to a Catholic school. At the age of eight I wanted to become a Catholic, to which she had no objection. When I was twenty-four, I went to Iran for the first time as an adult, with my former husband and our children. I began taking classes in Islamic culture and civilization taught by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. One day he asked me what religion I followed, and I said that I had been brought up as a Christian. He said: Well, now that you are in Iran and your father is Muslim, everyone will expect you to be Muslim. I said: I don’t know anything about Islam. He said: Well, learn! And that was the beginning of my journey culminating in this translation. Presentation: In terms of presentation, most English translations of the Quran presently available translate and present the translation Sign by Sign (or verse by verse), much like a translation of the Old or New Testament. The numbering system, added later, does not always mark the end of a verse. Often the sentence continues to the next verse. In order to put less empha- sis on a verse number and in order that the reading may be uninterrupted, the reader will find a very different format from the usual English translation for- mats.8 As the Quran was revealed in the oral tradition and is still recited in Arabic as it was revealed, this English translation is arranged to match the Arabic oral recitation. The number and name of each Chapter (s]rah) appears at the top of each page of this edition of the translation along with the Stage (manzil, division of the Quran into seven parts so it can be read in its entirety in a week), Part (juz> or para, division of the Quran into thirty parts so that the entire Quran can be read during the month of 9
Ramadan), Section (ruk]<, an indication to bow the head), and the Signs ([y[t) on that page. Recitation Marks: The Arabic letter (m) indicates a necessary stop. This is marked at the end of a line of English translation with a period (.) followed by the symbol: •. The fourteen Signs where a prostration is obligatory are indicated at the end of the English line of translation with the symbol: ‡. The numbering of Signs used in this translation is based on the Kufi numbering system.9 The translation is based on +afs version of the reading of Asim which is the most popular reading throughout the Islamic world.10 Therefore, this translation differs from previous English translations in that there has been a conscious attempt to present a translation of the sacred text that has internal consistency and reliability. It is the first critical English translation by a woman who includes the view of women in the Signs (verses) wherever relevant. The translation is consciously a universal, inclusive, one widening the relevance of the sacred text to a larger community. The translation is presented line by line in a larger font size so that it can be read and understood more easily while listening to the Arabic recitation. Let is also be said that this translation was undertaken by a woman to bring both men and women to equity so that the message of fairness and justice between the sexes can be accepted in Truth by both genders. God knows best. ***** While I have personally been blessed by my contacts with the most understanding and compassionate of men in my lifetime, and I have never found myself in a situation of being physically threatened or beaten, reading about and hearing first hand stories of women who have, I felt the deep sense that I am essentially and spiritually one with them by my very existence. The question I kept asking myself during the years of working on the translation: How could God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, sanction husbands beating their wives? The need to pay attention to this feeling did not surface until the day I first publicly presented the results of this translation 10
of the Sublime Quran at the WISE (Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity) Conference (November, 2006) where 150 Muslim women from all over the world had gathered to discuss the possibility of forming a Women’s Islamic Council. I gave the logic as to why the word “to beat” in 4:34 has been a misinterpretation. At the end of the session, two Muslim women approached me. They said that they work in shelters for battered women and that they and the women in the shelters have been waiting for over 1400 years for someone to pay attention to this issue through a translation of the Quran. The heavy weight of responsibility sud- denly fell upon my shoulders. I had to publish my findings as soon as possible to initiate a dialogue with the exclusivists. Hopefully, the initiating of a dialogue will further open the minds and awaken to consciousness and conscience those men who place their hand on the Word of God giving themselves permission to beat their wife and those women who believe they deserve to be beaten! I ask for the forgiveness of the One God for any errors in this translation, at the same time that I ask for His blessings. Laleh Bakhtiar, Chicago, January 2007 Notes to the Preface 1 Muhammad Khalifa in notes to the translator. 2 The Quran was revealed in classical Arabic, not modern Arabic. Many speakers of modern Arabic cannot understand the meaning of the Quran. Whoever wants to learn the Quran must learn classical Arabic which is what I studied at Tehran University in a Ph.D. program and later with a private tutor for three years. Also anyone familiar with the Persian language can read the classical Arabic of the Quran, but may not understand the meaning of each and every word as well. Persian language borrowed many words and structures from Arabic. Both languages are written the same way, from right to left with the same alphabet, but while Arabic has twenty-eight letters in its alpha- bet, Persian has thirty-two. 3 American Library Association/Library of Congress, 1997. ALC/LC Romanization Tables: Transliteration Schemes for NonRoman Script. 11
4 See Muhammad al-Ghazzali, The Recitation and Interpretation of the Quran edited by Laleh Bakhtiar. 5 One Iranian woman, Tahereh Saffarzadeh, and one American woman, Umm Muhammad, have translated or worked with a group on a translation of the Quran into English previous to the publication of The Sublime Quran. However, while Tahereh Saffarzadeh’s translation is published under her name, the name of Umm Muhammad does not appear in the published Saheeh International translation of the Quran. However, the words “ummat Muhammad,” “the Muhammadan community,” do appear on some editions of the translation. In both cases, however— that of Tahereh and Umm Muhammad—these women did not challenge the over 1400 years of male interpretation of the Quran. Therefore, in key passages like 4:34, their translations read exactly as the translations by a male. In other words, theirs is not a critical translation representing the prophetic voice speaking out against wrongdoing and injustice, but, instead, supporting the status quo. 6 See Agron Belica, The Crucifixion: Mistaken Identity? Cambridge: The Harvard Bookstore, 2009. 7 See the excellent work by Margot Badran on “Feminism and the Quran,”“Gender in the Quran,” and “Sisters,” as well as “Gender Journeys in/to Arabic.” 8 The same method is used by A. J. Arberry in The Koran Interpreted and Sayyid Ali Quli Qarai, The Quran with English Paraphrase. 9 The Quran has been recited and reprinted millions of times in Arabic throughout the Muslim world without the slightest change of a sentence, a word, or even a letter. The order of the verses has not changed, nor the 114 chapters. There are only a few discrepancies of diacritics which effect some vowels that may emphasize a different shade of meaning of specific words and a different numbering of the verses: 6239 (Kufa), 6204 (Basra), 6225 (Damascus), 6219 (Mecca) and 6211 (Medina) but they all contain the same number of words and the same number of letters. 10 See Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p 492. 12
Introduction In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate The Quran is the eternal Word of God for those who are Muslims. Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, did not believe that he was bringing a new religion. Rather, as the Last and Final Prophet, he was teach- ing: the manifesting of humility and sincerity and outward conforming with the law of God and the taking upon oneself to do or to say as the Prophet has done or said. Therefore, for those who follow “sincerity in religion without hypocrisy” or Islam as their way of life, Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, completed the message of a way of life that has existed continuously from ancient times. This way of life is an open system with no beginning and no finite end. It has existed in the past, but begins again in the present and goes on for an eternity making it an example of an open history—no beginning and no end—eternal. The message for the present, as it was for Prophets such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus, may God bless them all, is: “There is no god but God,” Who alone is to be worshiped. This is the central message of taw=id or the Oneness of God. The concept of sincerity in this way of life or subscribing to His way of life1 connected itself little by little through transition from one Prophet to another, culminating in the message of the Quran. The Quran was revealed to the Prophet in the Arabic language in the early 7th century AD and it is the Arabic of the Quran that is considered to be the eternal Word of God. It is only the recitation or reading of the Arabic that has spiritual efficacy. Any and every translation is considered to be an interpretation of the Quran and not the Quran itself. The questions that the translation of The Sublime Quran pose relate to the way some verses have been interpreted over the centuries, interpretations which oppose the Sunnah of the Prophet. For the Muslim, the person who subscribes to His way of life, the Quran, meaning “Recitation,” is the eternal Word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon 13
him, over a period of twenty- two years and five months. This is considered to be the greatest miracle of Prophet Muhammad. He was unlettered, yet he was chosen to receive the Arabic Recitation (Quran), which is considered to be unique in style, possessing a sense of unity of language and level of discourse. One of the greatest acts of worship for a Muslim, then, is to memorize the Arabic Recitation. One who does so is called a =[fe&. But in order to recite the Quran in Arabic (til[wah)2 one must study the Quranic sciences which are stud- ied through many sciences including: tajw\d, qir[>[t and tafs\r. Tajw\d teaches how the text is divided together with its rhythm and phonetics. The reciter must understand the meaning of the Signs or verses in order to determine how to recite, where to pause, where to take a breath and so forth so that the meaning of the Quran is preserved. Many verses do not end when the verse ends but continue on to the next verse or verses. Without understanding the meaning, one cannot place emphasis where it is needed. During the month of Ramadan, Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, separated and divided the Signs or verses in the Recitation (Quran) into 114 Chapters or “Enclosures” (singular, surah). These 114 Chapters each begin with the words: In the Name of God, The Merciful, The Compassionate, except for the ninth chapter where the same words appear in the text (27:30) instead of at the beginning of a chapter. The chapters of the Quran were eventually divided into 558 sections, liter- ally “bowing of the head” (ruk]>). The text is organized more or less by length of chapter and is not in chronological order. For one who wants to begin to savor the Quran, it is best to read it randomly and not from beginning to end. While the Quran was revealed in the oral tradition and oral transmission remains important, even after it was compiled into the written form we now have, once it was compiled into a Book form, the Quran became the first book-length example of Arabic literature.3 It is the bridge between the pre-Islamic oral tradition that focused on narrative or poetic traditions and the written language that rapidly produced great works of prose and poetry. It was com14
piled into the form of a Book by the same scribes who had written down the verses as they were revealed to the Prophet, verses written on pieces of parchment, leather, stone tablets, animal shoulder blades, palm leaf stems and pieces of cloth. The particular details and practices to be followed are found in the Sunnah—the exemplary practice of the Prophet. A Muslim considers himself or herself a good example of a Muslim if he or she follows the example or Sunnah of the Prophet. The Sunnah consists of the actions and sayings of the Prophet and is considered to be an accepted source for interpreting the Signs of the Quran. The Sunnah has been compiled in six canonical works, that which the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii schools of law follow; the Jafari school has a different but similar in content set of canonical works. The Quran refers to the Recitation by different names, one of which is The Sublime Quran (al-qur>an al-a&\m, 15:87), the name chosen for this present translation. Being sublime refers to the Quran’s spiritual value. In its sublimity it guides and inspires beyond the material world that it transcends. One can only understand the sublimity of the Quran if one begins with some standard that establishes a system based in justice and fairness in order to be able to enter the world of the spiritual and intuition. One has to begin with some criterion, that is another of the names the Quran gives itself, al-furq[n or The Criterion: The discernment between right and wrong, good and evil, lawful and unlawful, truth and falsehood. The Quran as The Criterion, is the standard by which to determine the correctness of a judgment or conclusion. It is the measure, the reference point against which other things may be evaluated. The most conclusive arguments in Islamic tradition to prove or disprove something is to use the Quran to prove another point in the Quran. The method is called tafs\r al-qur>[n bi-l-qur>[n.4 This I will do. I will show how the present erroneous interpretation of 4:34 and the verb i#rib]hu creates a contradiction not in the Quran itself and denies, at least in two cases, rights that the Quran clearly gives to women. For the Muslim, the Prophet is the living Quran; that is, he 15
practiced exactly whatever God revealed in the Quran. If it was a command to good: Fasting, daily formal prayer, pilgrimage, purifying alms, charity, he performed these commands. If it was to prevent a wrong like drinking alcohol, gambling or eating pork, he refrained from these things. As the living Quran, the life, behavior and sayings of the Prophet serve as a model for all Muslims. As the Quran refers to the Prophet as a mercy to humanity and the model whose example should be followed, it is clear that he would have carried out any and all of the commands (imperative forms of the verb) in the Quran that related to his life (there are commands specific to other Prophets as well) yet we find an exception in # r b according to the interpreters over the centuries. The root letters # r b without any special preposition include: To encompass; to cast, throw or fling upon the ground; to set a barrier; to engender; to turn about; to make a sign or to point with the hand; to prohibit, prevent or hinder from doing a thing one has begun; to seek glory; to avoid or shun or leave; to turn away oneself; to be with shame; to be in a state of commotion; to be in a state between hope and fear; and to go away. The verb daraba appears fifty-eight times in the Quran. In only twenty-two cases does it not appear with a preposition. Of these twenty-two times, eleven times it means “to strike,” four times it means “to stamp,” and in seven times it means something other than “to strike” or “to stamp.” In 2:73 and 43:5 it means “to turn something about,” in 13:17 it means “to compare.” in 18:17 it means “to seal the ears, ” in 24:31 it means “to draw,” and in 57:13 it means “to set up between.” In regard to 24:31, the verse relates to the hijab or covering for women. The relevant part states: “And let them (F) draw their head coverings over their bosoms. . . .” Clearly one cannot “strike” or “beat” their head coverings over their bosoms! Therefore, in terms of linguistics, the verb daraba, as used in the Quran, does not always mean ”to strike” as it clearly does not mean that in 4:34 as the following additionarly arguments will show. With special prepositions, #araba fi’ l- ar# means to travel; with the preposition
to set up between, to separate. As a verbal noun, it means striking; with preposition f\ it means traveling or journeying. Of the twelve times it appears as a command in the Quran, two are commands to angels in the same verse, namely, “Mention when thy Lord revealed to the angels: I am truly with you, so make those who have believed firm. I will cast alarm into the hearts of those who were ungrateful. So strike above their necks and strike each of their fingers from them.” (8:12); three are followed by the word for “parable” so they become the command: “And propound to them the parable . . . .” (18:32); “And propound for them the parable . . . .” (18:45) and “And propound a parable for them . . . .” (36:13). Four times the command appears as commands to Moses: “Strike the rock with thy staff. . . .” (2:60); “Strike the rock with thy staff. . . .” (7:160); “Then strike for them a dry road in the sea. . . .” (20:77); “Strike the sea with thy staff. . . .” (26:63). The command is given once to the Children of Israel. Here the imperative form is used it relates to the story of the cow. “So We said: Strike him [the dead man] with some of it [the cow]” (2:73). Muhammad Asad, a Jewish convert to Islam, there- fore familiar with Jewish tradition, rejects this interpretation and declares that the story as told by most interpreters is not true.5 The eleventh use of the imperative form of #araba, namely i#rib]hu, relates to the story of Job (Ayy]b) (38:44). This verse (38:44) is most often translated as “And take in thy hand a bundle of rushes and strike with it and fail not thy oath.” It is clearly unspecific as to what aspect of Job’s life this verse refers to. Early commentators and interpreters embellished the story from the Old Testament. There Job’s faithful and long-suffering wife, Rahmah, at some point in Job’s patiently bearing his afflictions, tells him to end his suffering by means of suicide. Quranic commentators said that at some point, out of desperation for money, she sold her hair in order to buy bread for Job. Satan hurried to Job to increase his grief and anguish, saying that his wife had committed adultery and as a punishment, her hair was cut off. Once Rahmah returned to Job, Job saw her hair was cut. He became 17
angry and swore an oath to beat her with one hundred strokes. His wife was in despair because Job, whom she dearly loved and whom she vowed she would leave, has falsely accused her. Once God healed Job and returned his fortune to him, Job became reluctant to carry out his oath. Muslim commentators then say that the angel Gabriel told Job of her innocence but he said that, in spite of her being innocent, Job should honor his oath by striking his wife lightly with a bundle of one hundred rushes. It does not take much for one to see how outside the pale of the Quran this story from commentators and interpreters is that Gabriel would tell Job that it was more important to carry out his oath than to beat an innocent person, even light- ly. Rahmah had been the most exemplary wife. Once Job lost all of his material wealth, she did not leave him as his other two wives had done, but instead began earning money as a cleaning woman in order to be able to provide food for her husband. When others in the village found Job’s state so disgusting, they were not even prepared to help Rahmah carry him to a garbage heap. Yet she remained faithful throughout his long ordeal and then to be punished by a bundle of one hundred rushes for whatever a satanic force may have said that she had said or done goes against so many Quranic verses that listing them would only be tire- some to the reader! To apply any aspect of this story as rationalization for i#rib]hu in 4:34 being interpreted as “beat” (lightly) goes against the rest of the verse for another reason as well. The first statement in 4:34 is that husbands are supporters of their wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they shared their wealth. In the case of Job, his wife Rahmah was the support of the family so the rest does not qualify Job to be able to “beat” his wife, even “lightly”. That is a strong enough in argument to be the basis for some commentators to suggest that Job was supposedly told to strike his wife lightly in order not to fail his oath whereas 5:89 says that God “will not take you to task for what is unintentional in your oaths” or Job could have chosen the more humane way and paid an expiation for an oath that he could not fulfill. In addition, the root letters of = 18
n th in the first form mean not only “fail not in your oath,” but also according to T[j al-Ar]s, “to retract or revoke one’s oath.” As we have seen the root letters # r b also mean to cast, throw or fling to the ground, the verse can be translated as: “And take in thy hand a bundle of rushes and cast them upon the ground and retract thy oath.”6 Therefore it is a misinterpretation for commentators to use the story of Job and his faithful wife in any sort of justification for a husband to beat his wife even lightly. In The Old Testament: An Islamic Perspective, Jay R. Crook (Muhammad Nur) adds in conclusion to this story: “Nevertheless there will always remain a suspicion that the original oral tradition [of the story of Rahmah and Job] was lost or distorted and the later Muslim commentators, unable to retrieve it, adopted the story of Job’s wife from the later Jewish Job cycle to meet their exegetic needs.”7 The twelfth usage of # r b in the imperative form is in 4:34 allowing hus- bands to “strike, beat, hit, chastise or spank” a nush]z wife. Yet in all of the canon- ical works there is no reference to Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, having ever beaten women. It is the misinterpretation of the word i#rib]hu in 4:34 that this translation challenges and emphasizes that this misinterpretation must revert back to the way the Prophet understood it through his behavior when facing the exact same situation. Therefore it is not a personal interpretation but one that calls for the elevation of the Prophet and a return to the Sunnah. The misinterpretation is not in the Arabic of the Quran, the eternal Word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, but it is how commentators over the centuries have interpreted the Word of God that is at issue and whether ijti=[d or strenuous endeavor to reason an issue has to be applied or ta=qiq, as I prefer, reviving the intellectual tradition of Islam, the proponent being a mu=aqqiq—to know by verifying and realizing The Truth and Reality of something for oneself. Normally ijti=[d with a capital “I“ is a method of legal reasoning in regard to criminal laws and punishment (hud]d laws) re19
served for the highest legal authorities. However, this does not apply in this case. Here it is possible to use ijti=[d with a small “i“ because the issue of beating a wife has not been declared criminal as it should have been. It is clearly a criminal act to beat another person and an expiation is required for having done so.8 This has not been the interpretation of jurists over the centuries in regard to 4:34. It should have been but since they have not done so, it takes the issue of 4:34 from ijti=[d to ta=qiq. This means that everyone has the right to come to a realization about what they know to be the truth no matter what their level of Quranic knowledge may be. All have a right to weigh in on the issue based on what they know to be Reality. Al-Ghazzali says very clearly that it is wrong to believe that the purpose of the commentators of early Islam was to limit our understanding of the Quran to only that which one hears or receives from an authority. He says this is wrong, first of all, because it meant having heard the narration from the blessed Prophet himself which was not the case. Many of the Companions were giving their own opinion and not what they had heard the Prophet say. Secondly, there was dis- agreement among the Companions and commentators who came after them. The various explanations were so varied that they could not have come from the Prophet. He concludes: “It is lawful for everyone to draw a meaning from the Quran according to his understanding and the limit of his intelligence.”9 Now we come to the point from which people assume this is a feminist translation.10 The reader will notice that it is the use of intellectual endeavor that is relevant, not my gender. If a Muslim jurist had produced the same arguments and logical reasoning, the almost 1500 year mistake would be more readily admit- ted and changed.11 Not only is the language of The Sublime Quran translation inclusive rather than exclusive, this translation also reverts the translation of 4:34 back to the way the Prophet understood it as shown to us through his behavior. The part of Chapter 4 verse 34 in question is more or less read in most present English translations: “Those husbands who fear disobedience (nush]z) on the part of their wives, first admonish them, then abandon their sleeping places, then beat 20
them.” My position is that the understanding of this verse must revert back to the interpretation given it by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, through his actions. He carried out the command of God in 4:34 because he understood the word to mean: “go away” which is another meaning of the twenty-six meanings of daraba in Form 1 of the verb. He never beat anyone much less any of his wives. When there was any marital discord, he went away. We have to ask ourselves, why did the Prophet not beat his wives even though it was a command in the Quran? First of all, when the verse was revealed to him it appears from his behavior in the same type of situation that he did not consider it to mean “beat them” referring to his wives. It might possibly be because the Quran uses three other words for strike or beat, namely in 28:15, 38:41 and 51:29. In 28:15 Moses struck a young man with his fist. The root letters are not # r b, which we know also means “to strike,” but w k z. In the case of 38:44, the command to Job to stomp his foot, the root letters used are r k # and not # r b which can also mean “to stamp” or “to stomp.” In 51:29, when Sarah, the wife of Abraham was told she would have a child, she struck, slapped or smote her face on purpose, the root letters being ~ k k and not # r b which as has been stated also means “to strike” or “to smite.” Therefore just as other Arabic words may mean “to strike,” so the root letters # r b may mean other than “to strike,” i.e., “to go away” or “to separate.” Based on his character, a model for all of humanity, he knew innately that it was wrong to harm another human being. He knew that according to 16:126 one is commanded to chastise with the same chastisement that that person has been given. “And if you chastise (
that if a husband were to beat his wife, she could reciprocate to her husband. He clearly believed that it was not within his Sunnah to do such a thing. Therefore he showed by his behavior that 4:34 and the use of the word #araba means “go away from them” or “leave them” and let the emotions subside. Thirdly, the Prophet’s respect for the female gender was legendary. This included not only his wives, the mothers of the believers, but his daughters as well. He had a very special relationship with his daughter, Fatima, the only one of his daughters to survive him. How could he beat his wives and not consider that someone might beat one of his beloved daughters. Fourthly, the Prophet knew that marriage was based on mutual respect and love. The Quran often tells husbands and wives to consult on issues with each other. It would be unfair and unjust to think that God would have revealed a verse that allowed husbands to beat their wives instead of separating for a short period of time and allowing the anger to subside. Then they would be able to once again consult with one another. Therefore anyone who claims to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet must do the same thing because the Sunnah of the Prophet is not to scourge, beat, hit, hurt, spank, or chastise any woman. The word i#rib]hu is a command, an imperative form of the verb, yet a command the Prophet did not carry out if it means “beat them (f).” However he did carry it out when it means “go away from them (f).” What else does the Quran tell us relating to this issue? In recent translations, the last part of the verse reads as follows: “As for those of whom you fear per- versity, admonish them; then leave them alone in bed; then spank them,” (4:34)12 while another: “If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.” The words “beat,” “chas- tise,” ”spank,” and “hit” are English translations of the Arabic imperative form of the verb, #araba, namely, “i#rib]hu” yet the Prophet never understood this imperative to mean “beat”.13 This next argument, then, for why there needs to be a reverted interpretation is that the verb form of #araba and subsequently its 22
imperative form of i#rib]hu has many meanings in Form I, as found in Arabic lexicons like T[j al-
Muslim wives knew their rights, which one would want to stay married under such circumstances? Is this encouraging marriage? Does this make sense? 4:34 as presently interpreted contradicts 2:231. How can we eliminate this contradiction? There is a very simple solution: Revert the interpretation back to how the blessed Prophet understood it through his behavior. It has been a great blessing that The Sublime Quran is the first English translation to use “go away from them (f)” instead of “beat them (f)” in English translation. This verse in The Sublime Quran reads: “Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones (f) who are in accord with morality are the ones (f) who are morally obligated, the ones (F) who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those (f) whose resistance you fear, then admonish them (f) and abandon them (f) in their sleeping place then go away from them (f) and if they (f) obey you, surely look not for any way against them (f); truly God is Lofty, Great.” We are told by jurists that the word “beat” in this verse (4:34) is a transitive verb. That means it can only take a direct object. As this verb is transitive it can only mean “beat them (f).” If it means “to go away from them,” the verb becomes intransitive, taking an indirect object (“from them (f)”). There are two arguments against this rationalization of an immoral act. First of all we have to ask: When this verse was revealed to the blessed Prophet and he heard the word i#rib]hu, that jurists and commentators have said for almost 1500 years means “beat them (f),” did he sit back and discuss within himself whether the verb that God was revealing was a transitive or an intransitive one? No! By his behavior, we know that he understood it to mean “go away from them.” Otherwise we would have to conclude, God forbid, that the Prophet did not understand the Quran as well as the later legal jurists did, those who make this distinction. Secondly, we are talking about translation, not about the original Arabic which is the eternal Word of God. When you translate from an original text into a target language, you have to go with the rules of the target language. There are many times when an English 24
word requires an indirect object whereas the Arabic word does not. Do you then distort the meaning? No. You go with the target language. We could say in English, “leave them,” and we would be following the grammar of the jurists but perhaps implying more than what the Prophet under- stood. There are at least four other times in the English translation where a transitive verb has to become intransitive to make sense. They are 12:107, 24:38, 44:56 and most clearly in 83:3 where people are told that when they sell goods, they should be fair: “When they want to measure for them or weigh for them. . . .” The preposition “for” does not appear in the Arabic. In Persian or Urdu whether you say, “beat them (f)” or “go away from them (f),” the form of the verb does not change. In Urdu “go away from them” is un ko choro and “beat them” is un ko moro. In Persian it would be: “On-ha ra bezanid” for “beat them (f)” or “on-ha ra tark konid” for “go away from them (f).” This may be true of many other languages as well. Therefore, this is only an issue, in this case, with the English target language. What jurists claim is that the “beating” is only given to a wife whose “nush]z” the husband fears. The jurists explain “nush]z” as “disobedience.” As a matter of fact, nush]z does not mean “disobedience.,” but “resistance.” Using resistance for nush]z, we see while in 4:34 the Quran says: “husbands who fear “resistance” (nush]z) on the part of their wives,” in 4:128 the Quran says: “wives who fear “resistance” (nush]z) on the part of their husbands.” In a truly fair and just fashion as the Quran always is, however we translate the word in regard to a wife in 4:34, the very same word must be translated and interpreted the same for a husband in 4:128. If nush]z is interpreted as meaning disobedient then it must apply in both cases, a disobedient wife and/or a disobedient husband! Another example from the Quran as to why the word i#rib]hu in 4:34 does not mean to beat. 24:6-9 states: “And those who accuse their wives—and there are no witnesses but themselves—let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies sworn to God that he is among ones who are sincere and a fifth that the curse of God be on him if he has been the one who lies. And it will 25
drive off the punishment from her if she bears witness with four testimonies sworn to God that he is the one who lies, and the fifth, that the anger of God be on her if he has been among the ones who are sincere.” It is over. The oaths of the wife prevail and punishment is averted from her.15 Now let us imagine the same situation as we did with 4:34. Before a wife has a chance to take advantage of her right given in the Quran in 24:6-9, her husband accuses her of flirting with another man without witnesses other than himself and beats her. She becomes a victim, perhaps ending up in a shelter. Now, a victim, she no longer has the will to defend herself and instead assumes that she is in the wrong and deserves to be beaten whether she has done anything wrong or not. Thus wrongly interpreting i#rib]hu to mean “beat” instead of “go away” or “leave” has turned at least two realities that the Quran has given women into myths. The reality is that a wife who is to be divorced cannot be harmed. This protects a wife who wants to be set free. This is a right she is given in the Quran—not to be injured! When i#rib]hu is interpreted as beat, this reality becomes a myth as the example has shown. It is reality that 24:6-9 allows a wife who is accused by her husband without any witnesses other than himself to defend herself against the accusation and God and humanity accepts her defense, but because of misinterpretation of 4:34, because of not following the behavior of the Prophet, the best model for humanity, a reality is turned into a myth for a wife. In addition, in both cases of the use of the word i#rib]hu, interpreted as meaning “beat,” Muslim translators and interpreters are commanding to munkar and prohibiting ma>ruf, commanding to immorality and prohibiting morality, the definition of a hypocrite in 9:67. They make it preferable to ask for a divorce because then she cannot be harmed instead of remaining married because remaining married is under the threat of being beaten. I have been asked: How can you go against the tradition and over 1400 years of commentary? My response: If we study Islamic history, after the time of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs, we Mus26
lims have had for almost 1500 years of uninterrupted rulership by tyrants and dictators with the exception of a few years of a pious ruler. Does that mean that we cannot go against history and demand pious, benevolent rulers? No. Of course not. The response is that the minute that each individual member of the Muslim community or ummah gains conscious- ness of a wrong being done in the name of God, in the name of Islam, he or she has the responsibility to speak out. What might help those who are sincere in His way of life to join together to overcome the inadvertent mistakes made by commentators and interpreters of the Quran in the past? One way would be for the human self to struggle (jih[d) to attain the highest human perfection possible. This struggle, known as the greater struggle (jih[d al-akbar), the goal of which is moral healing. The proof of one having attained the final stage of moral healing is: 1. When one is able to give up seeking justice for oneself at the same time that one constantly struggles for justice for others; 2. When one does not see oneself as superior to anyone else; 3. When one recognize one’s own vulnerabilities; 4. And when one manifests, shows, displays, behaves towards others with mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice and forgiveness. Such a person is known as a spiritual advocate or fat[ for the male in Arabic and fat[t for the female in Arabic or jav[nmard for either sex in Turkish, Urdu and Persian. It is a struggle between reason and the passions for the attention of the heart. If reason succeeds in attracting the heart to itself, the self is turned towards the spiritual and internal world. If the passions succeed, the self is turned towards the material and impermanent world. This struggle is a significant one because it reinforces those values which the model human being, Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, manifested. That is, when reason succeeds in attracting the heart towards itself, the self gains control and mastery over the passions—inappropriate lust and anger. Gaining mastery, the self can then process values to which it has been guid27
ed by revelation and turn away from the disvalues which guidance through revelation has discredited. Such misguidance and disvalues are interpreting i#rib]hu in 4:23 as “beat them” instead of the meaning the exact same word has “go away from them,” or “leave them.” The model of the self that produces spiritual advocates is called the Presence of God (wajh All[h). It emphasizes moral goodness and moral balance achieved through self-examination. Traditionally, each night before going to bed, one reflects upon one’s feelings, thoughts, and actions of that day to overcome vices with virtues. The question becomes: How do I better myself as a human being? There are two basic causes of the need for this greater struggle within the self: Either a person is ruled by passion rather than reason, or a person does not know God. According to spiritual integrity, one needs to observe the moral balance in nature and learn to read the “Signs upon the horizon and within themselves until it is clear that it is The Truth“ (Quran 43:51). The language of the Signs may be letters of the Arabic alphabet, words such as the verses of the Quran, numbers, and/or geometry. Traditional Islam, of which spiritual integrity is perhaps one of the highest achievements, sees these Signs as so many symbols of the Presence of God. Knowledge of God, in the case of spiritual integrity, is experiential and leads to the sensing of the Presence of God in all that one does. In this state, the heart of the spiritual advocate becomes the throne of God. It is a path that is open to all. Notes to the Introduction 1 To subscribe to His way of life implies not only consent or assent but hearty approval and active support. 2 In the Arabic speaking world, in Iran and in Turkey, a man is not permitted to listen to the voice of a woman reciting the Quran. This prevents women from learning the traditional method of reciting the Quran. Only a few are able to learn from their father or another close relative and then they are not allowed to recite in public. This also denies women the right to listen to a woman recit- ing the Quran. 28
This is not the case in other Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. When it comes to a woman reciting the Quran in translation, there does not appear to be any restrictions as to who can listen to it. As a result, I have recorded the entire Sublime Quran in .mp3 format. My hope is that women who translate the Quran into other languages will then recite it themselves or find a woman to recite it so that women throughout the Muslim world have a chance to hear a woman recite the meaning of the Quran in their language. 3 Encyclopedia of the Quran, Vol. 1, p 316; Hanna Kassis, The Concordance of the Quran, p xxvi. 4 According to Nevin Neda, an Islamic scholar who lives in Canada, “This classification really suited reformist agendas since they wished to break away from the traditional, transmitted interpretations, tafs\r bi-al-ma>thur. They wanted to interpret the Quran according to the needs of the time. Today these two expressions are very much in use and generally accepted as the right thing to do thanks to reformist discourse.” 5 Muhammad Asad’s footnote says: The phrase i#rib]hu be-ba<#ih[ can be literally trans- lated as “strike him [or “it] with something of her [or “it’] and the possibility has given rise to the fanciful assertion by many commentators that the Children of Israel were commanded to strike the corpse of the murdered man with some of the flesh of the sacrificed cow, whereupon he was mirac- ulously restored to life and pointed out his murderer! Neither the Qur>[n, nor any saying of the Prophet, nor even the Bible offers the slightest warrant for this highly imaginative explanation, which must, therefore, be rejected—quite apart from the fact that the pronoun hu in i#rib]hu has a masculine gender, while the noun nafs (here translated as “human being”) is feminine in gender: from which it follows that the imperative i#rib]hu cannot possibly refer to nafs. On the other hand, the verb #araba (lit., “he struck”) is very often used in a figurative or metonymic sense, as, for instance, in the expression #araba fi’ l ar# (“he journeyed the earth’), or #araba mathal (“he coined a similitude” or “propounded a parable” or “gave an illustration”) or
them”) or #uribat
husbands “go away from them (f)” or “separate from them (f),” them referring to their wives. He adds that if the interpreters choose to persist in seeing this as “beat them,” then according to the Quran, a husband would have to pay an expiation (kaf[rah) if he harms his wife. 9 See Muhammad al-Ghazzali, Recitation and Interpretation of the Quran edited by Laleh Bakhtiar. 10 Feminist issues involve gender inequities and equal rights for women. Neither of these apply in this case. There are many men who agree that the interpretation of 4:34 should revert to the way the Prophet, to whom it was revealed, understood it. However there are many women, particularly in the Islamic world, who actually believe that it is the Will of God that they be beaten or live under the threat of being beaten in their marriage. I am not advocating that husbands are being allowed to “beat” their wives because of gender inequity, nor am I advocating equal rights for women to be allowed to beat their husbands. Rather, it is that fairness and justice of the Quranic message need to be restored to its rightful place in the interpretation of the Quran. It is clear that reverting the interpretation of i#rib back to the way the Prophet understood it will not put an end to husbands beating their wives. No. However, it will put an end to such actions being done In the Name of God as if God had sanctioned it. This way hopefully the Muslim women who end up in shelters for battered women will know that their husbands have committed a criminal act. Not only will the husband have to pay the punishment of Islamic and Quranic Shariah laws and even if he lives outside a Muslim country, he will have to pay the punishment pre- scribed by those laws as well. 11 Here we recall great scholars and jurists who agree that the interpretation of idrib in 4:34 should be “to separate” or “to go away” instead of “to beat.” They are Abdul Hamid A. Abu Sulayman, the former head of the International Institute of Islamic Thought in his Occasional Paper called “Marital Discord: Recapturing the Full Islamic Spirit of Human Dignity”; Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi in his Persian translation of the Quran on the internet, Hujjat al-Islam Misbahzadeh in his lectures and Hujjat al-Islam Musavi Lari in his paper on the topic. Mention can also be made of Ahmed Ali’s translation 31
of the Quran, al-Quran, published in 1993 by Princeton University Press. He translates the part of the verse in question as follows: “As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing) (p 4).” He based this translation on “Raghib, Lisan al-an gives the meaning of these words with special reference to this verse. . . . Raghib points out that #araba metaphorically means to have intercourse and quotes the expression #arab al-fahl an-naqah, ‘the stud camel covered the she-camel,‘ which is also quoted by Lisan al-
translating the same text and in some cases using the method of formal equivalence, they are similar and dissimilar to the same extent: Tell them of the guests of Abraham when they entered upon him and said: Peace? He said: Truly we are afraid of you. They said: Take no notice; truly we give you good tidings of a knowing boy. He said: You give me good tidings even when old age has afflicted me? So of what, then you give good tidings? They said: We give you good tidings of Truth, so be you not of the ones who despair. He said: Who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except the ones who go astray? (alHijr 15:51-56, Bakhtiar, pp. 302-303). And tell them of the guests of Abraham, when they entered upon him, saying, ‘Peace!’ He said, ‘Behold, we are afraid of you.‘ They said, ‘Be not afraid; we give thee good tidings of a cunning boy.‘ He said, ‘What, do you give me good tidings, though old age has smitten me? Of what do you give me good tid- ings? They said, ‘We give thee good tidings of truth. Be not those of who despair.’ He said, ‘And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord, excepting those that are astray?’ (A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1980, p. 284). Tell them about the guests of Abraham. When they entered his presence and said, “Peace!” He said, “We feel afraid of you!” They said: “Fear not! We give thee glad tidings of a son endowed with wisdom.” He said: “Do you give me glad tidings that old age has seized me? Of what then, is your good news?” They said: “We give thee glad tidings in truth: Be not then in despair!” He said: “And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord, but such as go astray.” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, Maryland, Amana Publications, 1989, p. 628). And tell them of Abraham’s guests. (How) when they came in unto him and said: Peace. He said: Lo! we are afraid of you. They said: Be not afraid! Lo! we bring thee good tidings of a boy possessing wis- dom. He said: Bring ye me good tidings (of a son) when old age hath overtaken me? Of what then can ye bring good tidings? They said: We bring thee good tidings in truth. So be not thou of the despairing. He said: And who despaireth of the mercy of his Lord save those who are astray? (Marmaduke Pickthall, The Glorious 33
Quran, Chicago, Kazi Publications, 1994, p. 259). And inform them about the guests of Abraham. When they entered upon him and said, “Peace.” (Abraham) said, “Indeed, we are fearful (i.e., apprehensive) of you.” (The angels) said, “Fear not. Indeed, we give you good tidings of a learned boy.” He said, “Have you given me good tidings although old age has come upon me? Then of what (wonder) do you inform?” They said, “We have given you good tidings in truth, so do not be of the despairing.” He said, “And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?” (Saheeh International, Saudia Arabia, 1997, 348-349). I responded to the Editor of the Muslim Book Review. My response was never even acknowledged, much less published! 14 Havva Guney-Ruebenacker, presently an S.J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School also rightly points out that “the meaning of beating also contradicts the verse that follows, namely 4:35 which suggests a way of conflict resolution among spouses that is arbitration. There is no point in recommending a peaceful method of conflict resolution among spouses after allegedly permitting a physical violence in the preceding verse.” 15 Notice the fine nuance in the Quranic language between what the husband must swear an oath to: “the curse of God be upon him if he lies” and yet the wife must swear an oath that “the anger of God be upon her if her husband is sincere.” This shows the great respect that God, his revelation through the blessed Prophet and the Quran has for womanhood.
34