From the Introduction of
QURAN: a REFORMIST TRANSLATION
by Edip Yuksel, Layth al-Shaiban, Martha Nafeh-Schulte

Sample Comparisons

On the following pages, you will find several comparisons between our translation and that of traditional orthodox English renditions of the Quran. By the word “tradition,” we refer to the works that heavily rely on hearsay reports such as hadith, sunna, and sectarian jurisprudence. We chose to compare our work primarily with the translation of Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir, since they reflect most of the common errors and ­distortions, and because they are popular translations among the English-speaking Sunni population. We use standard reference numbers in referring to specific passages of the Quran: the number preceding the colon is always the chapter number, and the subsequent numbers are always verse numbers.

Should Men Beat Their Wives?

A famous (and controversial) passage in the Quran has brought about a great deal of misunderstanding about Islam. When in 1989, I started translating the Quran to Turkish, verse 4:34 was among a few verses that I noted down on an orange paper for further research. I had problem with my understanding of it and I let its solution to God, in accordance to the instruction of verse 20:114. I shared the story of my discovery of its original meaning with my Turkish readers in “Errors in Turkish Translations of the Quran” (1992). Below are three translations of that verse, reflecting a deformed mindset followed by our translation:

! Disputed passage: The traditional rendering is: you may beat them.

DISCUSSION OF 4:34

“Verse 4:34 of the Quran orders Muslims to beat their wives; therefore, Islam is a male-dominant religion.” Many of us have heard this criticism from Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. Though wife-beating is not a Muslim specialty, and domestic violence is an endemic problem in the West as well as the East, the issue nevertheless is whether it is justified by God. Most people reading conventional translations of 4:34 feel that something is deeply wrong. How could God, the Most Wise order us to beat our women? What kind of solution is that? It appears to be in contrast to the verses in which God describes marriage:

“Among His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other. He places in your heart love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are signs for people who think.” (30:21)

Obviously, these mixed messages have bothered many contemporary translators of the Quran. To avoid the moral and intellectual problems, they try to soften the word “beat” when they translate the verse 4:34. For instance, Yusuf Ali uses a merciful parenthesis after “beat,” adding the word “(lightly).” This insertion does not appear in the Arabic text; it serves as a kind of apology for his translation of the surrounding material.

Later, Rashad Khalifa, a leading figure in the modern Islamic reform movement, rather than questioning the orthodox translation of the word, demonstrates his discomfort with his own version of orthodox translation by an implausible argument in the footnote and a contradictory subtitle before the verse: “Do not beat your wife.” (However, Rashad Khalifa does not duplicate the orthodox distortion of other key words in the verse).

Many orthodox translators have tried to beat around the bush when it comes to explaining this passage, and perhaps just as many have beaten a hasty retreat from those inquiring after the author’s intention — but all have found themselves, in the end, beaten by 4:34.

Now please reread the sentence above. You will see that the word “beat” has been used three times, conveying totally different meanings each time: a verbal phrase meaning “avoid approaching directly” (“beat around the bush”); a verbal phrase meaning “depart quickly” (“beat a hasty retreat”) and the status of having been defeated (“beaten”). Interestingly, the Arabic verb traditionally translated by male translators as “beat” or “scourge” — iDRiBuhunne – also has numerous different meanings in Arabic, which is reflected by the Quran.

When I finished the Turkish translation (1991), this verse was on the top of my list to study carefully. Whenever I encounter a problem regarding the understanding of a Quranic verse, I remember 20:114 and pray accordingly: “Most Exalted is God, the only true King. Do not rush into (understanding) the Quran before it is revealed to you, and say, ‘My Lord, increase my knowledge.'”

Almost all of the translations have mistranslated the four key words or terms of this particular verse. These are:

• Qawwamun;
• Faddallallahu ba’dahum ala ba’d;
• Nushuzahunna; and
• Fadribuhunna

In one of my books published in Turkey in 1992, “Errors in Turkish Translations,” I discussed the real meaning of these words and the motivation and reasons for mistranslating them. Let’s first start from the last one.

A Famous Multiple-Meaning Word

The main problem comes from the word iDRiBuhunna, which has traditionally been translated as “beat them.” The root of this word is DaRaBa. If you look at any Arabic dictionary, you will find a long list of meanings ascribed to this word. In fact, you will find that that list is one of the longest lists in your Arabic dictionary. It can be said that DaRaBa is the number-one multiple-meaning word in Arabic. It has so many different meanings; we can find numerous different meanings ascribed to it in the Quran.

• To travel, to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
• To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
• To beat: 8:50; 47:27
• To set up: 43:58; 57:13
• To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
• To take away, to ignore: 43:5
• To condemn: 2:61
• To seal, to draw over: 18:11
• To cover: 24:31
• To explain: 13:17

As you see, in the Quran alone we can attest to the verb DaRaBa having at least ten different meanings. DaRaBa also has other meanings that are not mentioned in the Quran. For example, in modern Arabic, you do not print money–you DaRaBa money. You do not multiply numbers–you DaRaBa numbers. You do not cease doing work–you DaRaBa doing work. In Turkish, we have many verbs similar to the Arabic DaRaBa, such as Çalmak, which means to play, steal, or strike. In English, we have two verbs that are almost equivalent to DaRaBa. These are “strike” and “beat.” Consider, for the sake of comparison, that Webster’s Dictionary gives fourteen different meanings for the verb “to strike,” and eight for the verb “to beat”! (One strikes a match, strikes a deal, strikes an opponent, strikes gold, goes “on strike” against an unfair employer; one beats another team, beats out a rhythm, beats a retreat, and so on.).

Finding the Appropriate Meaning

Whenever we encounter a multiple-meaning word in the Quran we must select the proper meaning (or meanings) given the context, the Arabic forms, the usage of the same word elsewhere in the Quran, and a certain amount of common sense. For instance, if one were to translate DaRaBa in 13:17 as “beat” (as one could conceivably do), the meaning would be ridiculous:

.” . . God thus beats truth and falsehood…” (13:17)

A more sensitive rendering of the context, however, yields a better translation:

“… God thus explains truth and falsehood…” (13:17)

Another example of mistranslation of DaRaBa can be found in the translation of 38:44. Almost all the translations inject a rather silly story to justify their rendering of the passage. Here is how Yusuf Ali translates the first portion of this verse, which is about Job:

“And take in the hand a little grass, and strike therewith: and break not (the oath).” (38:44)

Yusuf Ali, in the footnote, narrates the traditional story: “He (Job) must have said in his haste to the woman that he would beat her: he is asked now to correct her with only a wisp of grass, to show that he was gentle and humble as well as patient and constant”.

However, without assuming the existence of this strange, male-viewpoint story (which has no other reference in the Quran), we can translate the verse as:

Another Take on 4:34

In keeping with the translation we have used in 38:44, we translate the controversial “beating” portion of 4:34 as “leave her” (Literally, the phrase might also be rendered “strike them out,” meaning, in essence, “Separate yourselves from such wives.”).

Additionally, the word nushuz, which is generally translated as “opposition” or “rebellion” in 4:34, has another meaning. If we study 4:34 carefully we will find a clue that leads us to translate that word as embracing a range of related ideas, from “flirting” to “engaging in an extramarital affair” – indeed, any word or words that reflects the range of disloyalty in marriage. The clue is the phrase before nushuz, which reads: “… they honor them according to God’s commandments, even when alone in their privacy.” This phrase emphasizes the importance of loyalty in marriage life, and helps us to make better sense of what follows.

Interestingly, the same word, nushuz, is used later in the same chapter, in 4:128 – but it is used to describe the misbehavior of husbands, not wives, as it was in 4:34. In our view, the traditional translation of nushuz, that is, “opposition” will not fit in both contexts. However, the understanding of nushuz as marital disloyalty, in a variety of forms, is clearly appropriate for both 4:34 and 4:128.

The fourth key word is QaNiTat, which means “devoted to God,” and in some verses is used to describe both man and woman (2:116,238; 3:17,43; 16:120; 30:26; 33:31,35; 39:9; 66:5,12). Though this word is mostly translated correctly as “obedient,” when read in the context of the above-mentioned distortion it conveys a false message implying women must be “obedient” to their husbands as their inferiors. The word is mentioned as a general description of Muslim women (66:12), and more interestingly as a description of Mary who, according to the Quran, did not even have a husband! (66:12).

A Coherent Understanding

When we read 4:34, we should not understand iDRiBuhunna as “beat those women.” We should, instead, remember that this word has multiple meanings. God gives us three ways of dealing with marital disloyalty on the part of a wife. In the beginning stage of such misbehavior, the husband should begin to address the problem by giving advice. If this does not work, he should stop sleeping in the same bed and see if this produces a change in behavior. And if there is still no improvement in the situation, the husband has the right to compel a separation.

The Quran gives analogous rights to women who must deal with disloyal husbands (4:128); this is in accordance with the principle that women have “similar” rights to men in such situations, as stated clearly in 2:228. These would hardly be “similar” rights if women had to suffer physical beatings for marital disloyalty, and men did not!

Beating women who are cheating and betraying the marriage contract is not an ultimate solution, and it is not consistent with the promise of equitability and comparable rights that appears in 2:228. (This is an important consideration, because the Quran proclaims, and Muslims believe, that it is utterly free from inconsistencies.) But “striking out” the disloyal wives – that is, separating from them — is consistent, and it is the best solution. It is also fair.

Should Thieves’ Hands Be Cut Off?

If non-Muslims “know” anything about Islam, it is that they “know” that the Quran mandates a severe punishment for thieves: the cutting off of their hands. Here are three traditional translations of the famous passage on the left and our translation on the right:

! Disputed passage: Traditional translations render the punishment for thieves as “cut off,” while the verb has other meanings too.

DISCUSSION OF 5:38

The Quran often uses words with more than one applicable and relevant meaning. This leads to verses that mean two, three, or more things at the same time, verses that make the translator’s job exquisitely difficult.

We come now to such a verse. The verb form we translated as “mark, cut, or cut off” comes from a root verb — QaTa’A – that occurs in the Quran many times. In almost all of its occurrences in the Quran, this verb means “to sever a relationship” or “to end an act.” Only in two instances (12:31 and 12:50) is this verb clearly used to describe a physical cutting; in another instance (69:46), the verb might possibly be interpreted in that way. A related form of this same verb — one that implies repetition or severity of action — occurs in the Quran seventeen times. This particular form is used to mean physically cutting off; or as a metaphor for the severing of a relationship; or to describe physically cutting or marking, but not cutting off.

Thus, the verse recommending punishment for theft or burglary, in the context of the Quran and its terminology (and not the terminology or interpretation attributed to Muhammed or his followers) provides us with a single verb … but one that God has permitted to incorporate a range of possible penalties. For instance:

• Cutting or marking the person’s hands as a means of public humiliation and identification;
• Physically cutting off the person’s hands; or
• Cutting off the person’s means and resources to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment).

The act of imposing any of these penalties, or any of their combinations, would of course depend on the facts of each case, the culpability and mental capacity of the accused, and the ability of the society as a whole to act in accordance with God’s other instructions in the Quran. Note, for instance, that a Muslim society cannot punish a hungry person for stealing food, since letting a member of the society go hungry is a much bigger crime than the act of stealing food. Such a society actually demonstrates the characteristics of a society of unappreciative people! (See 107:1-7; 89:17-20; and 90:6-20). Considering theft solely as an individual crime, and advocating the severest possible interpretation of the Quran in rendering punishment, is neither fair nor consistent with the scripture.

Should Muslims Levy an Extra Tax on Non-Muslims?

Verse 9:29 is mistranslated by almost every translator. Shakir translates the Arabic word jizya as “tax,” Pickthall as “tribute.” Yusuf Ali, somehow does not translate the word at all. He leaves the meaning of the word at the mercy of distortions:

! Disputed passage: The meaning of the Arabic word jizya (reparation/compensation) has been distorted to mean extra tax for non-Muslims.

DISCUSSION OF 9:29

We should be reminded that the context of the verse is about the War of Hunain, and fighting is allowed only for self-defense. See: 2:190-193, 256; 4:91; and 60:8-9.

Furthermore, note that we suggest REPARATION instead of Arabic word jizya. The meaning of jizya has been distorted as a tax on non-Muslims, which was invented long after Muhammed to further the imperialistic agenda of Kings. The origin of the word that we translated as Compensation is JaZaYa, which simply means compensation or, in the context of war, means war reparations, not tax. Since the enemies of Muslims attacked and aggressed, after the war they are required to compensate for the damage they inflicted on the peaceful community. Various derivatives of this word are used in the Quran frequently, and they are translated as compensation for a particular deed.

Unfortunately, the distortion in the meaning of the verse above and the practice of collecting a special tax from Christians and Jews, contradict the basic principle of the Quran that there should not be compulsion in religion and there should be freedom of belief and expression (2:256; 4:90; 4:137; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21, 22). Since taxation based on religion creates financial duress on people to convert to the privileged religion, it violates this important Quranic principle. Dividing a population that united under a social contract (constitution) into privileged groups based on their religion contradicts many principles of the Quran, including justice, peace, and brotherhood/sisterhood of all humanity.

Some uninformed critics or bigoted enemies of the Quran list verses of the Quran dealing with wars and declare Islam to be a religion of violence. Their favorite verses are: 2:191; 3:28; 3:85; 5:10,34; 9:5; 9:28-29; 9:123; 14:17; 22:9; 25: 52; 47:4 and 66:9. In this article, I refuted their argument against 9:29, and I will discuss each of the verses later.

Some followers of Sunni or Shiite religions abuse 9:5 or 9:29 by taking them out of their immediate and Quranic context. Sunnis and Shiites follow many stories and instructions falsely attributed to Muhammed that justify terror and aggression, which is currently used as a pretext and propaganda tool by imperialist or neocolonialist powers to justify their ongoing terror and aggression against countries with predominantly Muslim population, surely with much sophisticated weapons and destructive effect. For instance, in a so-called authentic (or authentically fabricated) hadith, after arresting the murderers of his shepherd, the prophet and his companions cut their arms and legs off, gouged their eyes with hot nails and left them dying from thirst in the desert, a contradiction to the portrayal of Muhammed’s mission in the Quran (21:107; 3:159). In another authentically fabricated hadith, the prophet is claimed to send a gang during night to secretly kill a female poet who criticized him in her poetry, a violation of the teaching of the Quran! (2:256; 4:140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22). Despite these un-Quranic teachings, the aggressive elements among Sunni and Shiite populations have almost always been a minority.

Can One Marry Underage Orphans?

A passage of the Quran has persistently been interpreted as sanctioning marriage to young orphan girls:

! Disputed passage: The traditional rendering suggests that the objects of marital intention are the orphans, not the mothers.

DISCUSSION OF 4:127

Though the Quran permits polygamy for men (4:3), it severely discourages its actual practice by requiring certain significant preconditions: men may marry more than one wife only if the later ones are widows with children, and they should treat each wife equally and fairly. (See 4:19-20; 127-129.). Unfortunately, verse 4:127 has been traditionally misinterpreted and mistranslated in such a way as to suggest that God permits marriage with juvenile orphans. This is clearly not the case.

The Arabic expression yatama-l nisai-l lati in 4:127 has been routinely mistranslated as “women orphans, whom…” The expression is also sometimes translated as “orphans of women whom…” This later translation, though accurate, makes the crucial reference of the objective pronoun “whom” ambiguous: Does the phrase after “whom” describe orphans or women?

As it happens, the Arabic plural pronoun in this verse is the female form, allaty (not the male form allazyna), and it can only refer to the women just referenced, not to the orphans. This is because the Arabic word yatama (orphans) is male in gender!

All the English translations of the Quran that we have seen have mistranslated this passage. This is remarkable, because correct translation requires only an elementary knowledge of Arabic grammar. This error is thus much more than a simple grammatical slip; it is, we would argue, willful misrepresentation. The traditional interpretation of this passage offers an apparent justification for marriage with children, which flatly contradicts the Quran.

Like so many passages in the Quran, 4:127’s meaning was severely distorted in order to gain the favor of rich, dominant males. Over the centuries, male scholars with active libidos have used fabricated hadith to pervert the meaning of this and other Quranic verses relating to marriage and sexuality. (See the discussion of 66:5, below.)

What are the Characteristics of a Model Muslim Woman?

Verse 66:5 lists some ideal characteristics of an appreciative woman. The last three characteristics, however, have been mistranslated.

! Disputed passage: The traditional rendering emphasizes virginity.

DISCUSSION OF 66:5

Traditional translations mistranslate the last three adjectives used here to describe Muslim women. They distort their meaning as “fasters, widows and virgins.” When the issue is about women, somehow, the meaning of the Quranic words passes trough rapid mutations. For instance, we know that the Sunni and Shiite scholars who could not beat cows and examples found it convenient and fair to beat women (see 4:34). Those of us who have rejected other religious sources besides the Quran are still struggling to clean our minds from these innovations that even have sneaked into the Arabic language long after the revelation of the Quran. There is, in fact, nothing whatsoever about fasting, widows and virgins in this verse. We are rediscovering and relearning the Quran.

The third word from the end of the verse, SaYiHat, which we have translated as “active in their societies” simply means to travel or move around for a cause. About two century after the revelation of the Quran, when the rights of women were one by one were taken through all-male enterprises called hadith, ijtihad and tafseer, Muslim communities found themselves thinking and living like the enemies of Islam in the Days of Ignorance. The misogynistic mind of orthodox commentators and translators simply could not fathom the notion of a Muslim woman traveling around alone to do anything – and so they pretended that the word in question was not SaYaHa, but SsaWM – fasting! Socially active women were indeed more difficult to control than the women who would fast in their homes; they were even less costly, since they would eat less. For the usage of the verb form of the root, see 9:2. The word SaYaHa has nothing to do with fasting; the Quran consistently uses the word SaWaMa for fasting (2:183-196; 4:92; 5:89,90; 19:26; 33:35; 58:4).

The second word from the end is THaYiBat, which means “those who return” or “those who are responsive”. Various derivatives of the same root are used to mean “reward” or “refuge” or “cloths”. For instance, see 2:125; 3:195. The Arabic words for widow are ARMiLa or AYaMa. The Quran uses AYaMa for widow or single; see: 24:32.

The last word of this verse, aBKaR, which means those who are “young,” “early risers” or “foremost,” has traditionally, and implausibly, been interpreted as “virgins” in this passage. The resulting distorted meaning of the verse supports a sectarian teaching that justifies a man marrying more than one virgin. The Arabic word for virgin is BaTuL or ADRa.

Here, I will focus only on the last word.

This false interpretation has become so popular that it is apparently now considered beyond any challenge. We have not seen any published translation (except Edip Yuksel’s Turkish translation, Mesaj) that does not duplicate this centuries-old error. It is particularly important, therefore, that we explain exactly why we have translated this verse as we have.

The Arabic root of the word we have translated as “foremost” is BKR, and it occurs 10 times in the Quran. In seven of these occurrences, the word describes time; in two (including the present verse) it describes women; and in one case it describes a heifer.

Before deciding that aBKaR means “virgin,” the translator should look closely at how the Quran itself employs the root word. Here are the references in Quranic sequence:

• 2:68   —>        Young (heifer)
• 3:41   —>        Early morning
• 19:11 —>        Early morning
• 19:62 —>        Early morning
• 25:5   —>        Early morning
• 33:42 —>        Early morning
• 48:9   —>        Early morning
• 54:38 —>        Early morning
• 56:36 —>        ??? Woman
• 66:5   —>        ??? Woman
• 76:25 —>        Early morning

When this word is used in reference to women (in 56:36 and 66:5), orthodox scholars, without hesitation, leap to translate it as “virgin.” We reject this interpretation, and choose instead to translate the word as “foremost.”

Reportedly, one of the earliest converts to Islam, and the first elected Islamic leader after the death of Muhammed, was his father-in-law, a man who became known to Muslims as Abu Bakr. Abu means “father.” This nickname was not given to Muhammed’s father-in-law because he was the “Father of a Virgin”! Being the father of a virgin was not something unique, since every father of a daughter would deserve such a title at one time in their lives. Besides, Abu Bakr’s daughter did not remain virgin; she married Muhammed and was called by many as the “mother of Muslims.” Some sources relate the name to “young camels.” However, the best explanation must be related to his standing among Muslims. Abu Bakr was one of the foremost ones, one of the progressive ones, one of the early risers, one of the first converts to Islam. He was foremost – or, if you prefer, progressive.

We must note, too, the Arabic conjunction Wa (and), which appears before the word aBKaR (foremost ones). The end of the verse has traditionally been mistranslated, as though the word were actually OR:

“… previously married OR virgins”.

The traditional commentators and translators knew full well that a contradiction might present itself had they translated Wa accurately:

“… previously married AND virgins”.

We have chosen to render this passage as “responsive and foremost,” thereby retaining a legitimate alternate translation of the word traditionally translated “previously married” – as well as the impossible-to-evade “and” of the Arabic text.

There is, however, a portrait of the ideal Muslima (female Muslim): submitting, acknowledging, devoted, repentant, worshipful, active in her society, responsive and foremost.

Was Muhammed Illiterate?

During the month of Ramadan, every evening, after the lengthy congregational prayers millions crowding the mosques ask God to bless the soul of his Nabbiyy-il Ummy, meaning, in the orthodox interpretation, “illiterate prophet.” “Illiterate” (or “unlettered”) is one of the most common titles used by Muslim clerics and imams to praise Muhammed, the deliverer of the Quran.

The Arabic word ummy, however, describes people who are not Jewish or Christian. The meaning of this word, which occurs six times in the Quran, has nevertheless been rendered as “one who can neither read nor write.” This deliberate manipulation by Muslim scholars has become widely accepted as the true meaning of the word. For example, Yusuf Ali and Pickthall follow this pattern, while Shakir prefers not to translate the Arabic word.

! Disputed passage: Orthodox sources distort the meaning of ummy to turn Muhammed illiterate.

DISCUSSION OF 7:158

The Quran itself provides guidance for the true meaning of ummy. If we reflect on the verse 3:20 below, we will easily understand that ummy does not mean an illiterate person:

“And say to those who received the scripture, as well as those who did not receive any scripture (ummyyeen)…” (3:20)

In this verse, the word ummy describes Meccan polytheists. It is obvious that ummy does not mean illiterate because it has been used as the counterpart of the people of the scripture. If the verse was ” … And say to those who are literate and illiterate,” then the orthodox translation of ummy would be correct. According to 3:20, the people of the Arabian peninsula consisted of two main groups:

• The people of the scripture, i.e., Jews and Christians.
• Gentiles, who were neither Jewish nor Christian.

If the people who were neither Jews nor Christians were called “ummyyeen” (3:20; 3:75), then the meaning of ummy is very clear. As a matter of fact, the verse 3:75 clarifies its meaning as Gentile.

Mecca was the cultural center of the Arabs in the 7th century. Poetry competitions were being held there. It is a historical fact that Meccans were not familiar with the Bible, thus making them Gentiles. So the verse 62:2 describes Meccan people by the word ummyyeen:

“He is the One who sent to the Gentiles (ummyyeen) a messenger from among them, to recite to them His revelations, purify them, and teach them the scripture and wisdom. Before this, they had gone far astray.” (62:2)

The unappreciative opponents claimed that Muhammed was quoting verses from the Old and New Testaments (25:5; 68:15). The verse below refutes their accusation and gives the answer:

“You did not read any previous scriptures, nor did you write them with your hand. In that case, the objectors would have had reason to harbor doubts.” (29:48)

This verse tells us that Muhammed did not read nor write previous scriptures. The word min qablihi (previous ) suggests that Muhammed did read and write the final scripture.

Muhammed was a literate Gentile (ummy)

After this examination of the true meaning of the word ummy, here are the reasons and proofs for the fact that Muhammed was a literate Gentile:

To magnify the miraculous aspect of the Quran, religious people thought that the story of illiteracy would be alluring.

The producer(s) of the illiteracy story found it relatively easy to change the meaning of ummy. Nevertheless, the word appears throughout the Quran, and consistently means “Gentile” (2:78; 3:20; 3:75; 62:2). In verses 3:20 and 3:75, the Quran uses the word ummy as the counterpart to the ehlil kitab (“People of the Book,” a phrase that in both of these verses equates to “Jews and Christians”).

The Quran describes Meccan people with the word ummyyeen (Gentiles) (62:2). According to the orthodox claim, all Meccan people must have been illiterate. Why then were the poems of pre-Islamic Meccan poets hung on the walls of the Ka’ba (the ancient monotheistic shrine of Abraham)?

The Arabs of the 7th century used letters as numbers. This alphabetical numbering system is called “Abjad.” The merchants of those days had to know the letters of the alphabet to record their accounts! If Muhammed was a successful international merchant, as is universally accepted, then he most probably knew this numbering system. The Arabs stopped using the “Abjad” system in the 9th century when they took “Arabic numbers” from India.

The different spelling of the word bism in the beginning of the Basmalah and in the first verse of chapter 96 is one of the many evidences supporting the literacy of Muhammed. It is not reasonable for an illiterate to dictate two different spellings of the same word which is pronounced the same.

The very first revelation from the Controller Gabriel was, Muslims believe, “Read!” And the first five verses of that revelation encourage reading and writing (96:1-5). The second revelation was “The pen and writing” (68:1). These facts compel some questions that orthodox scholarship would rather avoid. Does God command an illiterate man to “read”? If so, could Muhammed read after Gabriel’s instruction to do so? The story told in hadith books about the first revelation asserting that Muhammed could read only after three trials ending by an angelic “squeeze” contradicts the other stories claiming that Muhammed died as an illiterate!

Traditional history books accept that Muhammed dictated the Quran and controlled its recording. Even if we accept that Muhammed did not know how to read or write before revelation of the Quran, we cannot claim that he preserved this illiteracy during the 23 years while he was dictating the Quran! Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that Muhammed was illiterate before the revelation of the Quran. Why then did he insist on staying illiterate for 23 years after the first revelation: “Read!”? Did he not obey his Lord’s command? Did he receive another command forbidding him from reading and writing?

Was it so difficult for Muhammed to learn to read and write? If a person still does not learn to read and write after 23 years of careful dictation of a book, what kind of intellect is that?

If Muhammed was encouraging his followers to read and write (which he did when he recited 2:44 to them), then why should he have excluded himself?

Muslim scholars, who are in disagreement on a bewildering array of subjects, somehow have managed to agree on the story of Muhammed’s illiteracy. Perhaps the glorification of illiteracy, using it as a positive attribute of a worshipped figure, is one of the causes of the high current level of illiteracy in Muslim communities.

PS: There is another meaning of ummy, which does not exclude Gentile, is “the one who is the resident of the capital city.” Mecca was the capital city of medieval Arabia and it is referred in the Quran as “Umm ul-Qura” that is “the mother of cities” (42:7).

Do We Need Muhammed to Understand the Quran?

The so-called “Orthodox Islam,” by answering the above question affirmatively, has sanctified a collection of medieval hearsay reports and traditions attributed to Muhammed. Unfortunately, this was accomplished through the distortion of the meaning of several Quranic verses regarding the role of the prophet. The following verse is one of several crucial verses that have been used to promote hadith and sunna as the second source of Islam.

! Disputed passage: The traditional rendering implies the need for hearsay.

DISCUSSION OF 16:44

Traditionalists have opted for what we consider an inaccurate rendering of the Arabic root word “BYN.”

The word ‘lituBaYyeNa is a derivative of “BYN,” which is a multiple-meaning word. It means:

• To reveal what is concealed; or
• To explain what is vague.

Thus the first meaning is the antonym of “hide,” and the second is the antonym of “make vague.” We have translated this passage in accordance with the first meaning, and understand the passage as relating to God’s order to Muhammed to proclaim the revelation which is revealed to him personally. We believe that the Quran is clear, as its text itself insists.

Indeed, “proclaiming” is the whole mission of the messengers of God, as the Quran maintains (16:35). To be sure, prophets sometimes experience difficulty in proclaiming the revelation (33:37, 20:25). But if the Quran is a profound book written in Arabic so that people may understand (12:2), if it is to be explained by God (75:19), and if it is simple to understand (5:15; 26:195; 11:1; 54:17; 55:1-2), then it is hard to see why or how the prophet is to assume the additional mission of explaining the divine message.

We emphasize, once again, that 75:19 holds that God explains the Quran, and makes no mention of Muhammed or any other prophet, or indeed any human explanation whatsoever. Thus, the word lituBaYyeNa of 16:44, which we have translated as “proclaim,” is similar to the one in 3:187. Verse 3:187 tells us that the people who received the revelation should

“… proclaim the scripture to the people, and never hide it.” (3:187)

Do The Verses of The Quran Abrogate Each Other?

There are schools of thought that have committed the travesty of allowing the Quran – regarded as the definitive word of God – to be abrogated (replaced, overridden) by the hadith and the sunna.

Though in his footnote, Yusuf Ali refers to the other meaning of the word AYAH, and the different interpretation of the verse, by translating the word as “revelations,” he affirms the traditional position known as “abrogation” of one revelation by another revelation. A few scholars, as we say, have gone so far as to use hadith to abrogate the Quran; a more common view, however, is that certain verses in the Quran either have been removed or some verses cancel each other’s judgment out. We reject these contentions.

! Disputed passage: The traditional commentaries and translations render 2:106 to justify abrogation in the Quran, thereby justifying the rejection of many Quranic verses.

 

DISCUSSION OF 2:106

Ayaat, the plural of aya, is used in the Quran to mean both a) signs/miracles and b) verses/revelations of the Quran itself. Since verses of the Quran are considered to be miracles/signs, the plural form occasionally conveys both meanings simultaneously.

A single verse of the Quran is not deemed to be a miracle since some short verses of the Quran (for instance: 55:3; 69:1; 74:4; 75:8; 80:28; 81:26) are not unique and can be found in daily conversations of Arabic-speaking people. In fact, the Quran determines the minimum unit of miraculous nature as a chapter (10:38), and the shortest chapters consist of 3 verses (103; 108; 110). Therefore, only the plural form of aya, that is ayaat, can be used as reference to the verses/revelation of the Quran.

However the singular form, aya, in all its 84 occurrences in the Quran is always used to mean sign or miracle. Therefore, we choose to translate the singular form aya in verse 2:106 as “sign,” rather than as “verse (of the Quran).”

By declaring the word of God to be vague and ambiguous, early scholars opened the gate for unlimited abuse and distortion. Furthermore, by distorting the meaning of 2:106, they claimed that many verses of the Quran had been abrogated (amended) by other verses or hadiths. By this “abrogation theory,” they amended verses which they did not understand, or which did not suit their interests, or which contradicted their hadiths. Repeating the same error committed by the Children of Israel (2:85), Muslims fulfilled the prophetic description of their action in 15:91-93. Some of them abrogated 5 Quranic verses, some 20 verses and some 50. Below, you’ll find an extreme (and bizarre) example of an abrogation based on the supposed “authority” of 2:106 as interpreted in the orthodox manner.

The verse that was abrogated by a goat!

Some fabricated hadiths claim that the prophet Muhammed stoned a particular couple to death for illicit sexual relations. This punishment, we believe, would have been in conflict with 24:2 of the Quran, which sets out a separate penalty for adultery, and makes no mention whatsoever of capital punishment.

Since hadith-manufacturers realized that hadiths were not enough to abrogate the clear verses of the Quran, they went so far as to fabricate a “verse” supporting stoning and attributed it to God. “Al-shaykhu wa al-shaykhatu iza zanaya farjumuhuma nakalan bima kasabu…” They tried to inject the stoning penalty for adulterers into the Quran!

When they failed, they fabricated stories which only the people who are described in 10:100 of the Quran (those who believe without understanding and comprehending) could accept. According to the story, the ‘stoning verse’ was recorded in the Quran during the time of Muhammed; but just after his death, a goat entered the house of the prophet’s wife Aisha and ate the page on which that verse was inscribed. Thus, we are assured, the “stoning verse” had been abrogated physically!

This story can be found in the so-called authentic hadith collections, such as Ibn Maja, Nikah, 36/1944 and Ibn Hanbal, 5/131,132,183; 6/269.

How could a verse of a perfect scripture be abrogated by a goat? As an answer to this question, Ibn Qutayba, a proponent of hadith and sunna, in his classic book entitled “Solving the Contradictions Among Hadiths” puts forward the contention that “the goat is a holy animal.” And he asked a counter question: “Why not trust in God’s power? As He destroyed the people of Aad and Thamud, He is also able to destroy His revelations by using even a goat!”

How Much of the Quran Can/Should We Understand?

Is the Quran meant for everyone to understand? Or are some parts inaccessible to mere human beings?

Verse 3:7 is one of the most commonly mistranslated verses; it is extremely important, since it deals with these very questions. Different interpretations of this verse can lead to two totally different conceptions of Islam! Both Yusuf Ali and Pickthall reflect the majority’s view on behalf of “not understanding,” while Shakir prefers the minority view of “understanding.”

! Disputed passage: The traditional rendering suggests that some Quranic verses can never be understood fully.

 

DISCUSSION OF 3:7

The Arabic word we have translated as “multiple meanings” is mutashabihat. The word comes from shabaha (“to became similar”).

The word can be confusing for a novice. Verse 39:23, for instance, uses mutashabihat for the entire Quran, referring to its overall similarity — in other words, its consistency. In a narrower sense, however, mutashabihat refers to all verses which can be understood in more than one way. The various meanings or implications require some special qualities from the person listening to or reading the Quran: an attentive mind, a positive attitude, contextual perspective, the patience necessary for research, and so forth.

It is one of the intriguing features of the Quran that the verse about “mutashabih” verses of the Quran is itself mutashabih — that is, possessing multiple meanings. The word in question, for instance, can mean “similar,” as we have seen; it can mean “possessing multiple meanings;” it can also mean “allegorical” (where one single, clearly identifiable element represents another single, clearly identifiable element).

As you may have noticed, interpretation of the last part of 3:7 depends on how one punctuates the verse. (There is no punctuation in the original Arabic text.)

If one stops after the word “God,” then one will assume, as centuries of Sunni and Shiite scholars have, that even those who possess deep levels of knowledge will never be able to understand the “mutashabih” verses. However, if the sentence does not stop there, the meaning will change to the opposite: Those who possess knowledge will be able to understand the meaning of allegorical or multiple-meaning verses.

Here are five reasons for why we prefer the second understanding of this verse.

REASON ONE: The passage clearly emphasizes the unhealthy intentions of those who fail to understand multiple-meaning verses. With the disease of doubt in their hearts, they try to confuse others by focusing on their own faulty interpretations of these verses. We think that the passage emphasizes this point because the Quran tells us elsewhere that only sincere people possess the qualities necessary to understand the Quran (as emphasized in 17:46; 18:57; and 54:17).

REASON TWO: The Quran tells us repeatedly that it is easy to understand. (It does so at many points, including 5:15; 11:1; 26:195; 54:17; and 55:1-2.). If one punctuates this verse in the traditional way, there is an apparent contradiction – the Quran is, at least in some places, impossible for any human being to understand — and Muslims maintain that the Quran does not contradict itself.

We believe the Quran broadcasts a very clear, coherent message. However, there is sometimes a problem with our receiver. If our receiver does not hear the broadcast or cannot understand it well, then something is wrong with our receiver and we have to check it. If the signal is weak, we need to recharge our batteries, or reset our antennas. If we do not receive a clear message, we need to set our tuning to the right station in order to get rid of the noises and interference from other sources. We may, of course, ask for some help from knowledgeable people or experts for this task. If the receiver does not work at all, then we have to make a sincere effort to fix the broken parts. However, if we believe that the problem is in the broadcast, then nobody can help us.

REASON THREE: It is beyond dispute that the Quran encourages Muslims to study its words with patience. It advises us not to rush into understanding without sufficient knowledge (20:114). Nevertheless, it claims to be easy to understand (see REASON TWO, above). This, however, is not a contradictory position!

Experience with the book suggests that both of these statements are accurate. Although it can be explored for a lifetime without conquering all of its subtleties, the Quran, as a whole, is in fact quite easy to understand, revolving as it does around three basic ideas:

• There is only one God.
• This life is a test.
• There will be an accounting for each individual after death.

We know that the Quran really is comprehensible and worthy of sustained, careful study, just as it promises. Whoever opens his/her mind and heart as a monotheist and takes the time to study it, will understand it, and that this understanding will be enough for salvation. Such people will also be inspired to explore it deeply, and will find ample rewards for doing so.

REASON FOUR: In order to acknowledge all the verses of the Quran, one does not need to be deeply rooted in knowledge. To be an “acknowledging person” is a sufficient condition to acknowledge all the verses. However, one needs to have deep knowledge of the Quran in order to understand “mutashabih” (multiple-meaning) verses accurately. Therefore, 3:7 mentions a narrow category (those who are deeply rooted in knowledge) in relation to those multiple-meaning verses.

REASON FIVE: If we follow the orthodox punctuation and translation of 3:7, then, we must, by logical extension, establish a clear definition of what the “mutashabih” verses are … in order to avoid trying vainly to understand them or teaching others based on them. We thus need a definitive list of the “mutashabih” verses in order to avoid being among those who are condemned in this verse. There is a problem, however: No one has ever been able to compile such a definitive list! What could the criteria for the list possibly be? Surely one person’s lack of understanding of a verse should not make a verse “taboo” for all other people. If that were the case, the lowest degree of understanding would be the common denominator for understanding and interpreting the Quran! In this Alice-in-Wonderland school of thought, there would be a perpetual race towards ignorance!

Unless one is committed to determining the truth by majority vote, then one may want to reflect upon the five reasons listed here for interpreting the verse as we have.

(A side note: There are a few Sunni commentators who support our understanding of this verse. For instance, the classic commentary of al-Baydawi prefers this understanding. Please note that Yusuf Ali also acknowledges this fact in the footnote of 3:7: “One reading, rejected by the majority of Commentators, but accepted by Mujahid and others, would not make a break at the point marked Waqfa Lazim, but would run the two sentences together. In that case the construction would run: ‘No one knows its hidden meanings except God and those who are firm in knowledge. They say’, etc.”)

Is the Earth Flat?

The Quranic description of the earth, the solar system, the cosmos and the origin of the universe is centuries ahead of the time of its first revelation. For instance, the Quran, delivered in the seventh century C.E., states or implies that:

• Time is relative (70:4; 22:47).
• God created the universe from nothing (2:117).
• The earth and heavenly bodies were once a single point and they were separated from each other by an explosion (21:30).
• The universe is continuously expanding (51:47).
• The universe was created in six days (stages) and the conditions that made life possible on earth took place in the last four stages (50:38; 41:10).
• The stage before the creation of the earth is described as a gas nebula (41:11).
• Planet earth is floating in an orbit (27:88; 21:33).
• The earth is round like an egg (10:24; 39:5; 79:30).
• Earth’s atmosphere acts like a protective shield for the living creatures (21:32).
• Wind also pollinates plants (15:22).
• The creation of living creatures follows an evolutionary system (15:28-29; 24:45; 32:7-9; 71:14-7).
• The earliest biological creatures were incubated inside flexible layers of clay (15:26).
• The stages of human development in the womb are detailed (23:14).
• Our biological life span is coded in our genes (35:11).
• Photosynthesis is a recreation of energy stored through chlorophyll (36:77-81).
• The atomic number, atomic weight and isotopes of Iron are specified (57:25).
• Atoms of elements found on earth contain a maximum of seven energy layers (65:12).
• The sound and vision of water and the action of eating dates (which contain oxytocin) reduce labor pains (19:24-25).
• There is life (not necessarily intelligent) beyond earth (42:29).
• The word Sabbath (seventh day) occurs exactly 7 times.
• The number of months in a year is stated as 12, and the word Month (shahr) occurs exactly twelve times.
• The number of days in a year is not stated, but the word Day (yawm) occurs exactly 365 times.
• A prophetic mathematical structure based on the number 19 implied in chapter 74 of the Quran was discovered in 1974 by the aid of computer shows that the Quran is embedded with an interlocking extraordinary mathematical system (I have written several Turkish and yet-to-be-published English books on this subject).

And there’s more – much more. Many of the signs/miracles mentioned in the Quran, for instance, represent the ultimate goals of science and technology. The Quran relates that matter (but not humans) can be transported at the speed of light (27:30-40); that smell can be transported to remote places (12:94); that extensive communication with animals is possible (27:16-17); that sleep, in certain conditions, can slow down metabolism and increase life span (18:25); and that the vision of blind people can be restored (3:49).

Does it make sense, then, that a book that displays such astonishing knowledge of the physical universe would declare that the earth is flat?

As for the shape of the earth, Yusuf Ali extends, Pickthall spreads, and Shakir expands. Other traditional translations are essentially no different. They extend, expand, or spread the earth.

! Disputed passage: Traditional translations extend and spread the egg-shaped earth.

DISCUSSION OF 79:30

Almost all English translations of the Quran mistranslate the word DaHY, a word that is still used for “egg” among Arabic-speaking populations in North Africa. Why? The answer can be found in the footnotes of some classic commentaries of the Quran, which were written centuries ago.

Early commentators and translators of the verse were stuck on the word DaHY, since it means (as we have translated) egg. In the verse it is used as a transitive verb with the third person pronoun Ha, which means “made it round like egg” or literally “egged it.” But, the commentators thought that the earth was flat!

Since they knew God’s word could not contain errors or contradiction, they assumed their understanding of the verse must have been wrong. Thus, they tried to interpret the description. They argued that the word DaHY (egg) must have implied maDHY (nest), and inferred that God meant “nest” by the word “egg.” Therefore, the earth is extended like a nest.

Early commentators had an excuse for reaching such a conclusion, since they did not know that the earth was spherical and slightly distended (like an egg); however, modern commentators of the Quran have no excuse to parrot this medieval misunderstanding. They should have known that the verse means what it says: the earth is shaped like an egg. The external physical appearance of planet earth is like an egg, and its cross-section displays geological layers similar to egg. Not only is the earth egg-shaped and resembles an egg regarding its layers, but so is its orbit around the sun. In fact, this is Kepler’s famous First Law of Planetary Motion: the orbit of a planet about a star is an ellipse, as opposed to a perfect circle.

Is it Obvious OR
is it Darkening, Scorching, Shriveling, and Burning?

Many verses in chapter 74 have been commonly misunderstood and mistranslated. We have written a lengthy article titled, Which One Do You See: Hell or Miracle?, exposing the problems in traditional commentaries and translations. Here we will only pick a sample from the lengthy list.

Verse 74:29 is very interesting and crucial in understanding the rest of the chapter. Though it consists of only two words, this verse is translated in several different ways. Here are some examples from English translations:

! Disputed passage: Many keywords in Chapter 74 have been mistranslated to describe the punishment of Hell, while in reality they describe an intellectual punishment.

Yusuf Ali:              “darkening and changing the color of man”

Pickthall:               “It shrivelleth the man”

Irving:                     “as it shrivels human (flesh).”

Shakir:                   “It scorches the mortal”.

M. Ali:                    “It scorches the mortal”

Dawood:                 “it burns the skins of men.”

M. Asad:                “making (all truth) visible to mortal man.”

R. Khalifa:             “obvious to all the people.”

Reformist:              “obvious to humankind.”

DISCUSSION OF 74:29

The derivatives of the word LWH are used in the Quran to mean a surface used for recording information, board, and flat wood; and nowhere is it used to mean scorch or burn. Before the fulfillment of the prophecy, translators and commentators of the Quran had difficulty in understanding the simple meaning of this word and thus, resorted to external sources and often odd meanings, such as scorch, or burn. In fact, the drive to justify a particular meaning for some “difficult” Quranic words is one of the many reasons for fabricating hadith.

Those who do not know Arabic might think that the words are difficult to understand and translate. In fact, the meaning of these two words, LaWwaHa and BaSHaR is very clear in the Quranic context. The word LaWwaHa, which comes from the root LWH, is the sister of the word LaWH (85:22) and its plural aLWaH. The plural form aLWaH is used in verses 7:145, 150, 154 for the “tablets” given to Moses, and in verse 54:13 for broad planks used by Noah to build his ark. The medieval commentators, not knowing the mathematical implication of the verses, mostly chose an unusual meaning for the word: scorching, burning, shriveling, etc. Ironically, most of them did acknowledge the obvious meaning of the word as “open board, tablet” (See Baydawi, Fakhruddin Al-Razi, etc.). Few preferred the “obvious” to the obscure. For instance, Muhammed Asad, who had no idea of the mathematical code, preferred the most obvious meaning. Rashad Khalifa who fulfilled the prophecy and discovered the implication of the entire chapter reflected the same obvious meaning. That “obvious” meaning, was obscured by the smoke of “scorching fire” burning in the imaginations of generations before him.

In 7:145; 7:150; 7:154, the word aLWaH, the plural of LaWHa is used to depict the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. In 54:13 it is used to describe the structure of the Noah’s ship made of wood panes. In 85:22 the same word is used for the mathematically protected record of the original version of the Quran. As for the LaWaHa of 74:29, it is the amplified noun-adjective derived from the root of the verb LWH, meaning open tablets, succeeding screens, obvious, manifesto, or clearly and perpetually visible. Ironically, the Quran uses different words to describe burning or scorching. For instance, for burning, the derivatives of HaRaQa (2:266; 3:181; 7:5; 20:97; 21:68; 22:9; 22:22; 29:24; 75:10), or for scorching the derivatives of SaLaYa ( 4:10; 4:30; 4:56; 4:115; 14:29; 17:18; 19:70; 27:7; 28:29; 29:31; 36:64; 37:163, 38:56; 38:59; 52:16; 56:94; 58:8; 69:31; 74: 26; 82:15; 83:16; 84:12; 87:12; 88:12; 92:15), or NaDaJa are used (4:56).

Again, we should note that the understanding of pre-1974 commentators was not without basis. Though their understanding did not rely on the Quranic usage of the words, and created some problems (such as explaining the verse 74:31), they had some justifiable excuses to understand the way they understood. The word LaWaHa also meant burn and BaSHaRa was another word for skin in Arabic language. As I mentioned above, the multiple meanings of these verses allowed the impatient pre-1974 generations to have an understanding, though a temporary and not primarily intended one. In fact, it was better for them to have patience and not rush to speculate on these verses without knowledge (20:114; 75:16-19). It was the computer generation that was destined to understand their real meaning (10:37-46).

A Portion of the Message OR a Fistful of Dirt?

Moses left his people with his brother Aaron and went to the mountain to receive commandments from God. While at the presence of God, Moses is lightly criticized for leaving his people behind:

“‘And what has caused you to rush ahead of your people O Moses?’ He said: ‘They are following in my footprints, and I came quickly to you my Lord so you would be pleased.’ He said: ‘We have tested your people after you left, and the Samarian misguided them.'” (20:83-85).

However, God knew that Moses’ people were not following his message. Taking advantage of Moses’ absence, the Samarian tried and succeeded to a degree to revert Jews to the religion of their Egyptian masters. Recognizing that many people respond better to concrete and tangible objects rather than an abstract idea of a transcendental God, the Samarian collected jewels and melted them in a pot to form a calf (7:148). He produced calf statues, which made sounds in the wind due to the craftily designed holes in their bodies, a symbol for intercession. Samarian was proud of his knowledge of human psychology, and he had the audacity to tell Moses the following:

! Disputed passage: Ignoring reason, the context of the verse, and the semantics of the Quran, traditional translations and commentaries create a bizarre story through mistranslation of the words AThaR, and NaBaZa. To accommodate the mistranslation, they also add several non-existing and non-implied words, such as, “Muhammed,” “Gabriel,” “Dust,” and “into calf.”

DISCUSSION OF 20:96

According to traditional translators and many who were unknowingly influenced by them, Samarian possessed extraordinary powers! According to the story that they all copy, the Samarian secretly followed Moses and somehow was able to see the Controller-messenger of God, Jibreel or Gabriel, riding a horse. He thought that the dirt stepped on by the feet of Jibreel’s horse must have had magical powers. So, the story goes, he collected some dirt and took it back to where his people were dwelling. He mixed the dirt with the melting jewelry and voila, the sound-making calf!

The word athar, which is mistranslated as “footprint” or “footsteps,” has the following meanings: trace, teaching, relics of knowledge, remains, mark, footprint, memorial, etc. The Quran uses the word athar to mean teaching or message (20:84; 37;70; 43:22-23). The meaning of the word should have been clear from several verses before, where in verse 20:84, it is used to mean “teaching.” God did not ask Moses why he came alone; He questioned Moses about leaving his people too early. Moses understood God’s question—though the majority of translators did not—and responded by saying that his people were following his teaching. God informs him about Samarian’s plan to mislead his people back to idolatry.

Should Skeptics Hang Themselves to the Ceiling?

The traditional rendering of verse 22:15 is so bad that it becomes an absurdity, a joke. The amazing thing is that anyone who studies the Quran should easily understand its meaning, since the expressions are used in other verses and contexts. Instead of first looking at the usage of words and expression in other parts of the Quran, the traditional translators look for inspiration from the early commentators who mostly relied heavily on hadith hearsay. Regardless of the source, with the exception of a few, such as Muhammed Asad, Muhammed Ali, and Rashad Khalifa, many translations have duplicated the bizarre and absurd traditional rendering.

! Disputed passage: Traditional translations insert non-existing words and produce a myriad of absurd and hilarious challenges.

 

DISCUSSION OF 22:15

Reading the verse within the immediate context of the Quran alone is sufficient to shed light on its meaning. For instance, just four verses before, verse 22:11 reminds us of the importance of unconditional trust in God:

“And from the people there is he who serves God in alteration. So if good comes to him, he is content with it; and if an ordeal comes to him, he makes an about-face. He has lost this world and the Hereafter. Such is the clear loss.” (22:11)

The following verse informs us that those people who oscillate in their service to God depending on the circumstances, associate others as partners to God.

“He calls upon besides God what will not harm him and what will not benefit him. Such is the far straying.” (22:12)

We learn from the Quran that most polytheists are in denial (6:23), though they hope for the intercession of prophets and saints (72:21 and 7:188;10:49;13:16; 48:11). The following verse expresses the reality of idolatrous people:

 

“He calls on those who harm him more than they benefit him. What a miserable patron, and what a miserable companion.” (22:13).

 

Verse 14 mentions God’s blessing on those who do not pollute their acknowledgement of monotheistic message through polytheistic ideas and practices:

 

“God admits those who acknowledge and promote reforms to gardens with rivers flowing beneath them. God does as He wishes.” (22:14)

And the following verse,22:15, shows them a way: try to reach God through prayer, science, charity, and cut off all of your dependence and hope from other things besides God. You should cut off your dependence to gods or holy people other than God, since you will do so in the hereafter (2:166). In other words, if you are able to remove all the idolatrous ideas and dedicate yourself to God alone, you will witness God’s help and victory. Those who mix monotheism with idolatry are not of those who acknowledge truth, even if they think so (49:14;6:23).

 

Thus, starting from verse 11, when we reach verse 15, the theological relationship among the verses becomes evident, and the meaning of verse 15 shines clearly. The message of22:15is identical to the message given in 6:41.

 

Unfortunately, many translations and commentaries ignore the context of the verse and the usage of certain words in the Quran, and copy the traditional false inferences and references inside the parentheses.

 

After reading these absurd and ridiculous translations and misleading parentheses, if an investigating person read the following verse,22:16, he or she would be repelled from the Quran, since it asserts that the revelation of the Quran is clear!

 

• Many add Muhammed’s name in the parenthesis, though the verse does NOT mention Muhammed and the context is not about Muhammed, but about God alone.
• Many insert the word “ceiling,” though sama does not mean “ceiling,” but rather means “heaven”; “ceiling” in Arabic is saqf (43:33; 21:32).
•  Many insert a “rope,” though the verse does not mention “rope,” which is habl (111:5; 3:103).

The insertion, twisting, and distortion are not limited to the three examples above. The prominent Pakistani radical scholar Mawdudi, in his commentary, Tafhim al-Quran (Towards the Understanding of the Quran), lists six alternative views of previous commentators on this verse:

 

1. Whoever thinks that God would not help Muhammed (pbuh), should hang himself to a ceiling?

2. Whoever thinks that God would not help Muhammed (pbuh), should climb to the sky with a rope and try to stop God’s help.

3. Whoever thinks that God would not help Muhammed (pbuh), should ascend to the sky and stop God’s revelation.

4. Whoever thinks that God would not help Muhammed (pbuh), should ascend to the sky and stop God’s blessings to him.

5. Whoever thinks that God would not help Muhammed (pbuh), should hang himself to the ceiling of his home.

6. Whoever thinks that God would not help Muhammed (pbuh), should ascend to sky to ask for help.

 

Mawdudi finds the first four comments to be meaningless in their context, since he rightly argues that the pronoun “he” cannot be referring to Muhammed, but instead refers to a person who has doubt about God’s help. Though Mawdudi concedes that the last two renditions fit the flow, he finds them to be far from reflecting the meaning of the verse. After rejecting all these alternative interpretations, Mawdudi presents his own version:

“Whosoever fancies that Allah will not help him in this world and in the Hereafter, let him reach out to heaven through a rope, and then make a hole in the sky and see whether his device can avert that which enrages him.”

Well, Mawdudi too disappoints; even more than the others. He asks the doubtful person to get a rope, climb to the sky, and open a hole in the sky to peep through! However, Mawdudi’s understanding is better than others who nicely ask the opponents of Muhammed to commit suicide by hanging themselves to the sky and THEN think about their feelings and doubts!

Now it is time to challenge all those scholars, mewlahums, commentators, translators, and their admirers, who missed the obvious and simple meaning of the verse:

If they think that our reformed translation is wrong, then they should extend a rope to the sky and hang themselves, and then think whether this trick of theirs would remove the cause of their anger!

If the above challenge is a meaningful and wise challenge, then they should take it! No, if it is an absurd and silly challenge, then they should expunge from their translations the Muhammed, the rope, the ceiling, the climbing, the hanging, the committing suicide, the thinking after killing self, and the opening of a peephole in the sky.

Smite at their Neck or Strike the Control Center?

The Quran does not promote war; but encourages us to stand against aggressors on the side of peace and justice. War is permitted only for self-defense (See 2:190,192,193,256; 4:91; 5:32; 8:19; 60:7-9). We are encouraged to work hard to establish peace (47:35; 8:56-61; 2:208). The Quranic precept promoting peace and justice is so fundamental that peace treaty with the enemy is preferred to religious ties (8:72). The Quran orders believers not to transgress and ask them to keep the prisoners of wars alive to be released afterwards.

! Disputed passage: The translations that is based on hadith/sunnah distort the meaning of the word RiQaB and translate is as “neck.”

 

DISCUSSION OF 47:4        

The expression “darb al riqab” is traditionally translated as “smite their necks.” We preferred to translate it as “strike the control center.” The Quran uses the word “unuq” for neck (17:13,29; 8:12; 34:33; 38:33; 13:5; 26:4; 36:8; 40:71). The root RaQaBa means observe, guard, control, respect, wait for (20:94; 28:18; 28:21; 44:10; 44:59; 11:93; 54:27; 5:117; 50:18; 4:1; 33:52; 4:92; 5:89; 58:3; 90:13; 2:177; 9:60; 47:4). “Riqab” means slave, prisoner of war, since they are controlled.

Even if one of the meanings of the word riqab were neck, we would still reject the traditional translation, for the obvious reason: The verse continues by instructing muslims regarding the capturing of the enemies and the treatment of prisoners of war. If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be need for an instruction regarding captives, which is a very humanitarian instruction.

Unfortunately, the Sunni and Shiite terrorists have used the traditional mistranslation, and abused it further by beheading hostages in their fight against their counterpart terrorists, Crusaders and their allied coalition, who torture and kill innocent people even in bigger numbers, yet in a baptized fashion that is somehow depicted non-barbaric by their culture and media.

The Quran gives two option regarding the hostages or prisoners of war before the war ends: (1) set them free; or (2) release them to get a fee for their unjustified aggression. Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, “aim to take captives.”

The Old Testament contains many scenes of beheadings and grotesque massacres. For instance, see: 2 Samuel 4:7-12; 2 Kings 10:7, and 2 Chronicles 25:12.