Preface and Introduction to the Sublime Quran and the Argu-

ments 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 trans-
lators 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 transla-
tions put emphasis on inter- preting a Quranic verse without precisely
representing the original Arabic word. For example, in one transla-
tion, 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 trans-
lations 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, philoso-
phers and writers, those who had been the exponents of Islamic cul-
ture 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 trans-
lating until the end. I used the same method in translating twenty-
five 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 sci-
entific 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 al-
Mu<jim al-mufahris: al-laf[# al-qur>[n al-kar\m. The
Mu<jim lists every Arabic root and its derivative(s) found in the
Quran as verbs, nouns and some particles (adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions or interjections). Each time a specific word appears, the
relevant part of the verse containing that word is quoted with refer-
ence to Chapter and Sign (verse). They are listed under their three-
letter or four-letter roots.
As there was no Arabic program for the Macintosh computer
when I began this great undertaking in 2000 CE, I transliterated the
words according to the system of transliteration developed by the
American Library Association, Library of Congress 1997 Roman-
ization Tables in preparing the accompanying Concordance of the
Sublime Quran.3 I then placed its English translation that I would
not repeat for another Arabic word. I found that there are 5790+
unique Arabic verbs and nouns, excluding most prepositions, that ap-
pear at least one time in the Quran. Only in some 76+ cases was it
necessary to use the same English word twice for two different Ara-
bic words and most cases refer to prepositions such as with, to, be-
fore, among and so on.
Grammar: Beginning this process seven years ago with the
words instead of the first sentence, I later learned that this was much
the method, called formal equivalence, used in the translation of the
2
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 transla-
tion, 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 trans-
lation.
In this translation, the translation of the active participle when
used nom- inally and not as an adjective, differs from other transla-
tions. Instead of creating English words that would not readily res-
onate 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 al-
ternative equivalent that has not been previously used elsewhere in
the translation is used. This resulted in 5866+ unique English equiv-
alents. I then added the some 38,090+ particles (adverbs, preposi-
tions, conjunctions or interjections not listed in the al-Mu<jim) to
the 52,889 I had to complete the data base.
For every Arabic verb’s perfect (past and sometimes future
tense), imper- fect (present and future tense), and imperative form,
the same basic English equivalent is used adjusted according to
whether it is past, present or a command. A dif- ferent English equiv-
alent is used for a verbal noun, an active or passive participle, and a
noun, again, adjusted according to its usage.
It is important to remember as you read the Quran that it was
revealed over time and the verses put together in the Chapters after
the revelation by the Prophet. Therefore, there may be verb tense
changes from verse to verse or even subject changes from one verse
to another.
In regard to the Arabic verb, to be (kun), when it appears in
the perfect, it has been translated as “had been” to distinguish it from
“was” or “were”. In the imperfect, it has been translated as “be” to
distinguish it from “is” or “are”. This is to help the student learning
3
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 sep-
arate 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 miss-
ing in previous translations and which I aimed to attain in the trans-
lation of The Sublime Quran. No commentary: Introducing the non-
Arabic speaker to the words of the revelation without any
commentary is as formal equivalence dictates. Related to the eter-
nality 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 recit-
ing 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 al-
lowing the translation, as the Quran itself is, to be free of any tran-
sient political, denominational or doctrinal bias.
Words not appearing in the Arabic, but necessary for under-
standing in English, have been put in italics, in some cases to em-
phasize 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 “unwill-
ing” 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 ad-
dition to the translation being unbounded by time, in several sen-
sitive 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 un-
5
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 submit-
ted 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 trans-
lation 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 at-
tempt to speak to people in their own language, is the use of God in-
stead of Allah. Many English speaking Muslims as well as many of
the English translations of the Quran to date, use Allah when speak-
ing 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 per-
son 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 mes-
sage 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 per-
son singular (Thou, Thee, Thy) refers to the Oneness of God, the sin-
gular 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 ad-
dresses 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 How-
ever, 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 Eng-
7
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 ac-
knowledged 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 grate-
ful. 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 su-
perior-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 correspon-
ding pronouns such as (they, them, those), I have placed an (f) after
the word to indicate the word refers to the feminine gender specifi-
cally.7 Otherwise, in the Arabic language (as in Spanish), the mas-
culine 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 Ja-
fari (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 transla-
tion I have not added any indication of differences in recitation be-
tween the sects so that it does represent the majority view. At the
same time, I have chosen to continuously engage in the greater strug-
8
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 par-
ent, 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 suf-
fering 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, every-
one 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 jour-
ney culminating in this translation.
Presentation: In terms of presentation, most English transla-
tions of the Quran presently available translate and present the trans-
lation 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 relia-
bility. It is the first critical English translation by a woman who in-
cludes 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 spir-
itually one with them by my very existence. The question I kept ask-
ing 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 ini-
tiate 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 any-
one 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 Non-
Roman Script.
11
 4 See Muhammad al-Ghazzali, The Recitation and Interpre-
tation of the Quran edited by Laleh Bakhtiar.
5 One Iranian woman, Tahereh Saffarzadeh, and one Ameri-
can woman, Umm Muhammad, have translated or worked with a
group on a translation of the Quran into English previous to the pub-
lication of The Sublime Quran. However, while Tahereh Saf-
farzadeh’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 In-
terpreted and Sayyid Ali Quli Qarai, The Quran with English Para-
phrase.
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 Mus-
lims. 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 humil-
ity 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 his-
tory—no beginning and no end—eternal. The message for the pres-
ent, 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 lan-
guage 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 recita-
tion 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 con-
sidered 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 in-
cluding: 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. With-
out 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 organ-
ized 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 com-
14
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 dis-
cernment between right and wrong, good and evil, lawful and un-
lawful, truth and falsehood. The Quran as The Criterion, is the
standard by which to determine the correctness of a judgment or con-
clusion. 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, purify-
ing 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 com-
mands 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 bar-
rier; 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 be-
tween 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 some-
thing 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 <al[ it means to stomp; with the prepo-sition
<an it means to turn something away; with preposition bayn it means
16
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 para-
ble . . . .” (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 desper-
ation 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 pro-
vide 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 sup-
port 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 Is-
lamic Perspective, Jay R. Crook (Muhammad Nur) adds in conclu-
sion 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 re-
trieve 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, hav-
ing 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 situ-
ation. 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 cen-
turies 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 rea-
soning in regard to criminal laws and punishment (hud]d laws) re-

19
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 in-
terpretation 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 un-
derstanding 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 un-
derstanding 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 ju-
rist had produced the same arguments and logical reasoning, the al-
most 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 trans-
lation 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 hus-
bands 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 mean-
ings 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
(<aqaba) then chastise with the like of that with which you were
chastised. . . .” (16:126), a verse revealed before 4:34 so that the
Prophet would have been aware of it when 4:34 was revealed.
Therefore, conceivably if a husband harms his wife by beat-
ing her, according to 16:126, his wife would be allowed to chastise
her husband in return. The Prophet would have intuitively known
21
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 leg-
endary. This included not only his wives, the mothers of the believ-
ers, 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 mu-
tual 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 re-
cent 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-<Ar]s as pointed out earlier. A
legal jurist would say: “We have to choose the one that suits most
the general Quranic principles and rules, not a meaning that contra-
dicts them.”14 Yet why has this not been done in regard to 4:34? The
Quran itself says in a verse to which this translation is dedicated: “So
give good tidings to My servants, those who listen to the saying of
the Quran and follow the fairest of it.” (39:17-18)
Now we get to the heart of the main reason why the word
“beat” is a mis- interpretation. We begin with two premises: Islam
encourages marriage and divorce, while allowed, is discouraged. The
Prophet said: Marriage is half of faith. He also said: Divorce is de-
plorable.
We read in Chapter 2 verse 231: “When you divorce wives,
and they (f) are about to reach their (f) term, then hold them (f) back
honorably or set them (f) free honor- ably; but hold them (f) not back
by injuring them so that you commit aggression.” In other words, the
Quran is telling husbands not to harm their wives whom they want
to set free, not to hold them back by injuring them. The word “injur-
ing” (#irar) also means hurt, harm, use force or commit aggression.
Let’s take an example. A Muslim wife, after many attempts
to help her husband manage his inappropriate anger, anger that most
often is taken out against her, tells her husband that she agrees to a
divorce. He, in his anger, does not at that moment remember that ac-
cording to 2:231 he is not to hold back by injuring a wife he wants
to divorce, and instead, being both judge and jury, beats her as erro-
neously allowed in 4:34. The battered wife, becoming the victim of
his anger, is then afraid to speak out again as this last instance has
caused her to seek refuge in a shelter for battered women.
Therefore, we see a disconnect between 4:34 and 2:231. Ju-
rists have created a contradiction that is not in the Quran by encour-
aging divorce and discouraging marriage so that we can conclude, a
Muslim woman who is to be divorced must be set free without in-
juring, hurting, or using force against her, but a Muslim woman who
wants to remain married does do under the threat of being beaten! If

23
Muslim wives knew their rights, which one would want to stay mar-
ried 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 so-
lution: Revert the interpretation back to how the blessed Prophet un-
derstood 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 un-
seen 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 in-
direct 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 orig-
inal 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 lan-
guage. We could say in English, “leave them,” and we would be fol-
lowing 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 “dis-
obedience.,” 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 hus-
bands.” In a truly fair and just fashion as the Quran always is, how-
ever 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 them-
selves—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 tes-
timonies 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 in-
jured! 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 remain-
ing 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 Mus-
26
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 com-
mentators 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 heal-
ing 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 Ara-
bic 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 atten-
tion of the heart. If reason succeeds in attracting the heart to itself,
the self is turned towards the spiritual and internal world. If the pas-
sions succeed, the self is turned towards the material and imperma-
nent 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 suc-
ceeds 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 guid-
27
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 good-
ness and moral balance achieved through self-examination. Tradi-
tionally, 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 strug-
gle within the self: Either a person is ruled by passion rather than
reason, or a person does not know God. According to spiritual in-
tegrity, 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 spir-
itual 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 expe-
riential 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 In-
donesia.
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 interpre-
tations, 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 fan-
ciful 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, there-
fore, 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 fig-
urative 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 il-
lustration”) or <ala #arb w[=id (“similarly applied” or “applied to
29
them”) or #uribat <alayhim adh-dhillah (“humiliation was im-
posed on them” or “applied to them”) and so forth. Taking all this
into account, I am of the opinion that the imperative i#rib]hu oc-
curring in the above Quranic passage [2:73] must be translated as
“apply it” or “this (referring, in this context, to the principle of com-
munal responsibility). As for the femi- nine pronoun h[ in ba<#ih[
(“some of it”, it must necessarily relate to the nearest preceding femi-
nine noun: that is, to the nafs that has been murdered, or the act of
murder itself about which (f\h[) the community disagreed. Thus the
phrase i#rib]hu bi-ba<#ih[ may be suitably rendered as “apply
this [principle] to some of those [cases of unresolved murder].’: for
it is obvious that the principle of communal responsibility for murder
by a person or persons unknown can be applied only to some and not
to all such cases.” Muhammad Asad, Message of the Quran, p 16.
Many people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer the
Muhammad Asad translation to that of Yusuf Ali or Marmaduke
Pickthall yet in this case he has completely rejected previous trans-
lations and rightfully argues that the interpreters were clearly using
“fanciful” thinking. In spite of this, no Islamic organization has
banned the Asad translation as was done with The Sublime Quran. I
wonder why!
6 Some may see translating this verse this way as going
against the tradition of commenta- tors and interpreters over the cen-
turies. The issue is similar to the way that Muhammad Asad trans-
lated 2:73. So let the Criterion give us a judgment as 39:17-18 says:
“So give good tidings to My servants, those who listen to the saying
of the Quran and follow the fairest of it.”
One cannot help but recall the Biblical influence on yet an-
other story of another Prophet and that was the assertion that Eve
was created from the rib of Adam. This found its way into Quranic
exegesis much like the story of Job.
7 Jay R. Crook (Muhammad Nur), The Old Testament: An Is-
lamic Perspective, p. 746.
8 Hujjat al-Islam Musavi Lari in correspondence with this
translator agrees that i#rib]hu in 4:34 should be interpreted so that

30
husbands “go away from them (f)” or “separate from them (f),” them
referring to their wives. He adds that if the interpreters choose to per-
sist in seeing this as “beat them,” then according to the Quran, a hus-
band 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 Mis-
bahzadeh 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-<Arab and Zamakhshari. Raghib in his Al-Mufridat fi
Gharib al-Qur>an gives the meaning of these words with special
reference to this verse. . . . Raghib points out that #araba metaphor-
ically 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-<Arab.” Therefore, he concludes,
daraba cannot mean ‘to strike them (women)’. What the male
camel did to the female camel can be described in terms of daraba
as “hit upon.” A woman who has been “talked to suasively; then left
alone in bed” is now about to be “hit upon” by her husband, which
in some cases can suggest “rape.”
Why go to such lengths comparing women to female camels
in order to understand a verse of the Quran. This is further oppressive
to women. One only has to go to the Sunnah to know that “beating”
a wife or “hitting upon her” is not how the Prophet understood it by
his behavior nor do these understandings follow the moral and legal
principles of the Quran. Women are not camels to be “hit upon” nor
“beaten” as the following arguments in the Introduction explain.
12 See Amina Wadud, Quran and Woman, pp 66-78 for an
excellent discussion of many of the significant words in 4:34.
13 See www.sublimequran.org for examples of many
presently available English translations of this verse. In regard to
similarity and dissimilarity in translations of the Quran, in a review
of The Sublime Quran, the reviewer, Abdur Raheem Kidwai, insin-
uates that the translation of The Sublime Quran “at times, almost the
same as in Arberry’s earlier translation in 1955.” (Muslim World
Book Review, 28:1, 2007) He quotes three passages, first from The
Sublime Quran and then from Arberry. What he did not do is to com-
pare the translation of The Sublime Quran to Abdullah Yusuf Ali,
Marmaduke Pickthall and Saheeh International translations which
are also as similar. As these examples show, since all translators are
32
translating the same text and in some cases using the method of for-
mal 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? (al-
Hijr 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.” (Ab-
dullah 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 possess-
ing 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 re-
sponse 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 arbitra-
tion. There is no point in recommending a peaceful method of con-
flict 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 re-
spect that God, his revelation through the blessed Prophet and the
Quran has for womanhood.

34