No ‘compulsion’ in ‘religion’?

Verse 2:256 is generally translated as:

There is no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.

The first part of the verse is one of the most quoted phrase from the Quran to show Islam’s tolerance:

There is no compulsion in religion – لا اكراه في الدين

And as many times as it has been quoted, it has also been pointed out that even several Muslim scholars of Islam believed that the verse was abrogated with the order to “fight.” Other scholars have tried to explain that while no one is compelled to accept Islam, it does not mean that Islam will tolerate fisad(uprising) and whenever there will be an uprising, jihad and qital (killing) will take place.  Suyuti interprets 2:256 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient and later in 9:73 asked Muslims to “strive hard against the unbelievers.”

Somewhat skeptical about the notion of abrogation, and certainly shocked by Suyuti’s explanation (which makes the early Muslims and the Prophet seem so opportunistic!)  I thought I should do some research and find out what the verse may mean other than the meaning offered and refuted many times.

The word اكراه (ikraha)  is translated as compulsion by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Mohammad Asad (coercion), Arberry, Mohammad Sarwar, Hilali and Khan, Malik, Maulana Ali, Qarribullah, and Rashad Khalifa amongst many others.

One can suspect that one person simply copied the idea from the previous translation because اكراه  does not only mean compulsion and it certainly did not mean compulsion in old Arabic. اكراه  is from the root Ka/Ra/Ha which in old Arabic meant:

Finding difficult, dislike, disapprove, feel aversion for, loathe, abhor, hate, detest, be unwilling.

Some form of Ka/Ra/Ha is used 41 times in the Quran and other than in 2:256, it is never translated as compulsion.

In old Arabic lexicon one will not find the word compulsion/force/coercion for Ka/Ra/Ha. There also exists a word in Urdu ‘karahiyat’ which is from the same root and it is specifically used to show aversion, for example, it is often used in collocation with pigs or pork – “I feel ‘karahiyat’ (aversion resulting in nausea) when I look at pork.” I have never heard anyone say “I feel compulsion when I look at pork”!

The word اكراه occurs in many ahadith as well, always meaning ‘dislike’ or ‘difficult.’ This shows that the initial meaning of the word was perhaps not compulsion.

Interestingly, George Sale’s earliest (19^th Century) translation of the Quran translates the word اكراه  as ‘violence’ – there is no violence in religion.

Ibn Kathir too has some interesting stories to share about this verse[i] which in the given context were not really clear to me. What did catch my attention was this little incident that Ibn Kathir narrates:

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa’i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,

«أَسْلِم»

قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

“Embrace Islam.” The man said, “I dislike it.” The Prophet said, “Even if you dislike it.”

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.’

Even in the above narration, the word كَارِهًا is translated as dislike.

Furthermore, the word الدين (ad-deen) occurs some 47 times in the Quran and at least in verses 9:36; 51:6; 52:12; 56:56; 70:26; 82;15; 82:17; 16:52; 26:82; 37:20; 38:78; and 1:4 the meaning implied is not religion but judgment (as in reasoning and differentiation of good from bad).

From these evidences, it would be fairly correct to say that the word اكراه  means something other than compulsion which matches the rest of the verse and makes sense when the verse is read completely. Could it be that the verse should read as:

There is no difficulty in judgment: Truth stands out clear from Error – hence whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the strongest support that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.

meaning truth is so simple to detect from error that it is not difficult at all for anyone to realise it.

And of course Allah knows best.

---

[i] Allah said,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿that before Islam﴾, “When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.’ Allah revealed,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path)

Misogynistic interpretations

Sisters! Know this: In fighting for intellectual space within our religion, we cannot pay enough attention to grammar. Take it as an axiom, embroider it on a pillow, or tattoo it on a discreetly-covered limb: The believer with the best grammar wins. I’m talking about winning liberation from erroneous and oppressive interpretations, winning room to breathe, think and soar.

Read more here.

A short note on the English Translations of the Quran

The English translations of the Quran can be divided into two broad categories:

Pre-Twentieth Century Translations

Christians who wanted to convert Muslims to Islam and in the process also expose Islamic theories as forgeries were the first to translate the Quran into English. Alexander Ross who was the chaplain to Charles I was the first to try and translate the Quran around 1625-49. He called it the “newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities.”

Since Ross didn’t know any Arabic himself he had to rely heavily on translations of the Quran from French by Andrew Du Ryer whose own translation was faulty.

Later translations were made by George Sale, John Rodwell (1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905). Sales translation is best known although some suggest that he too translated the Quran not from Arabic but from Latin. There are no verse numbers or footnotes in his translation which makes it very difficult to follow.

In India , Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan (1905), Mirza Hairat Dehlawi (1912), and Mirza Abu’l Fazl (1912) were Muslims who translated the Quran into English under British Raj. Almost all of these were to refute the claims of Muir and other Christian polemics who had produced biased translations.

Twentieth Century Translations

The Holy Quran by Muhammad Ali

Muhammad Ali was Ahmadi and translated the Quran in 1917. He produced four editions of his work, revising his work often. He was well-verses in Arabic and his English was very good as well. Muhammad Ali’s explanations and footnotes are well-researched.

However, Muhammad Ali did not believe in miracles and hence his interpretations always offer different explanations for the miracles in the Quran. For instance, he did not believe in Jesus’ virgin miraculous birth and his interpretation led to all Ahmadis to deny it. He also did not believe in Jinn and his hatred for Jews and Christians caused him to interpret Jinn in the Quran as a reference to Jews and Christians.

The Meaning of the Glorious Koran by Muhammad M. Pickthall

Pickthall was a convert to Islam who was fluent in Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu. While working in India he worked on his translation of the Quran and finished it in two years in 1920. Pickthall’s translation often uses archaic terms and flowery language style particular to his time.

He believed that Quran can never be translated into any language but that its core meaning can be deciphered.

Pickthall’s work was also influenced by several other scholars including Muhammad Ali. Like Ali, Pickthall also rejected miracles and explained them as non-literal incidents.

The Koran Interpreted by Arthur Arberry

Arthur Arberry’s 1955 translation also acknowledges that Quran cannot be translated. Arberry’s translation was the first without traditional or personal biases.

The Holy Quran: Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Yusuf Ali’s translation was published in 1934. Yusuf Ali was an English educated Indian civil servant. His translation and commentary has very elaborate footnotes. His translation is often criticized for being biased against the Jews but it is what made it very popular with Saudi Arabia.

The Noble Quran in the English Language by Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan

Hilali and Muhsin Khan’s interpretation was funded by Saudi Arabia and is the first to include commentaries of Tabari, Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir. Thus, the interpretation is based heavily on medieval works and is far removed from modern ideologies, and often comes out as intolerant and preaching hate. The most famous example of their intolerance which has been quoted often is that in Surah Fatiha (the first surah) the verse, “Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored, not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray” is translated by Hilali and Khan as “Guide us to the Straight Way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” The footnotes on this verse justify the hate by basing argument from medieval scholars like Ibn Kathir.

Hilali and Khan also always translate the Holy Land of Israel as Palestine!

The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad

Asad also doesn’t believe in miracles and explains the stories in the Quran (for example the story of the People of the Cave) as merely a writing style and metaphorical rather than true stories.

Asad was a former Jew and his translation is one of the best even though it was sponsored by Saudi Arabia. However, today his work is banned in Saudi Arabia since the Salafis has issues with his interpretations.

Al-Quran, a Contemporary Translation by Ahmed Ali

Ahmed Ali is a well-known Pakistani translator of the Quran whose work rejects Biblical, Midrashic, and Talmudic influences on the Quran and hence presents a version of the Quran that is very different from the original.

The Holy Quran by Syed V. Mir Ahmed Ali

Syed Ali’s translation is accepted as standard Shite translation. His work relies heavily and solely on Shite interpretations and ideologies.  He was helped by Ayatollah Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi and unfortunately their work has sectarian bias and insults key Sunni figures, for example they believe that both caliphs Abu Bakr and Omar were ignorant of the Quran. More dangerously, Yazdi claims that the Prophet’s official scribe Zaid bin Thabit had no “academic” qualifications for the compiling of the Quran.

Interestingly, the English work is arranged and reads from right to left!

The Noble Qur’an: A New Rendering of its Meaning in English by Abdalhaqq Bewley and Aisha Bewley

The Bewleys are Sufis and their translation reads as such. However, it is more a translation than an interpretation as there are no footnotes.

The Quran, a New Translation by M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem

Abdel Haleem is an Egyptian scholar in the UK who has memorized the Quran. He is often criticized for including Sunnis stories without looking into their credibility. For instance, he maintains that a Quran exists in Heaven as an exact prototype of the earthly Quran which was used as the standard for the collection of the earthly Quran by Angel Gabriel who taught the Prophet Muhammad how to collect it.

However, he is the first scholar to explain that Islam and Muslim does not refer to a religious movement and its adherents as we know today. He is the first to read Allah as God and is also one of the first to translate and explain the word ummi as “gentile” rather than the popular “unlettered.”

His work has no footnotes or commentary and no accompanying Arabic text.

Beating women, or beating around the bush, or …

The following article is by the Turkish Muslim scholar and writer Edip Yuksel. 

“Verse 4:34 of the Quran orders believers to beat their wives; so, Islam is a male dominant religion.” Many of us have heard this criticism from Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc. Personally, every time I read 4:34, I felt that something was wrong. How does God, the Most Wise order us to beat our women? What kind of solution is that? It is 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, this mixed messages have bothered many contemporary translators of the Quran. To avoid the moral and intellectual problems, they tried to soften the word “beat” when they translate the verse 4:34. For instance, Yusuf Ali uses a merciful parentheses after “beat” to save women:

“. . . As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly). . .” (4:34)

Many tried to “beat” around the bush to “beat” the problem generated by the “beat” of 4:34.

When I finished the Turkish translation (1991), this verse was on the top of my orange 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, an 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: “Qawwamune,” “Faddallallahu ba’dahum ala ba’d,” “Nushuzehunne,” and “Fadribuhunne.”  In our late book, “Errors in Turkish Translations” (Istanbul, 1992) we have discussed the real meaning of these words and the motivation and reasons for mistranslating them. Here, we will focus on the last word, “Fadribuhunne.”

A Famous Multi-Meaning Word

The problem comes from the word “Idribuhunne” which we used to translate 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. That list is one of the longest list in whole Arabic dictionary. It can be said that “DaRaBa” is the number-one multi-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 Quran alone we can witness the verb “DaRaBa” having at least ten different meanings. “DaRaBa” has also other meanings which are not mentioned in the Quran. For example, in the Arabic language, you  do not print money–you “DaRaBa” money, you do not multiply numbers–you “DaRaBa” numbers,  you do not cease the work–you “DaRaBa” the work. In Turkish we have many verbs similar to DaRaBa, such as “tutmak”, “calmak”, “vurmak” etc. In English we have two verbs which are almost equivalent to “DaRaBa”. These are  “strike” and “beat”.

Webster’s Dictionary gives fourteen meanings to the verb “strike”: hit (against); ignite; (of snake) bite; (of plants) (cause to) take root; attack; hook (fish); sound (time) as bell in clock etc.; affect; arrive at, come upon; enter mind of; discover (gold, oil etc.); dismantle, remove; make (coin); cease work as protest or to make demands. The same dictionary gives eight  meanings to the verb “beat”: strike repeatedly; overcome; surpass; stir vigorously with striking action; flap (wings); make, wear (path); throb;  sail against wind.

In the beginning of this article (underlined) I deliberately used “beat” in three different meanings in a single statement just to show the variety of meanings in a single word. In English, when we order someone to “beat it” we mean “get out”. Similarly in Arabic, when we order someone with the commend form of “DaRaBa”, that is  “iDRiB”, we mean “get out”.

How Can We Find The Appropriate Meaning

When we encounter a multi-meaning word, we select the proper  meaning according to the context, forms, and common sense. For instance, if we had have translated “DaRaBa” in 13:17 as “beat” instead of “explain”, the meaning would be ridiculous:

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

 Another example of mistranslation of “DaRaBa” can be found in the translation of 38:44. All the translations (except Dr. Khalifa’s translation) inject a male-made story to justify their silly translation.

Here is how Yusuf Ali translates the verse about Job:

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

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 injecting this story, we can translate it as the following:

“Now, you shall travel the land to fulfill your pledge (that is to deliver the message).” We found him steadfast. What a good servant! He was a submitter.” (38:44)

 Let’s turn back to 4:34

Additionally, the word “Nushuz” which is generally translated as “opposition” has another meaning which can be translated as degrees of disloyalty ranging from flirtation to sexual liaison. If we study 4:34 carefully we will find a clue that leads us to translate that word as “flirting or cheating” or “extramarital affair” (Any word or words that reflect the range of disloyalty in marriage). The clue is the phrase before “Nushuz” as reads: “. . . and observe God’s commandments, even when alone in their privacy.” This phrase emphasizes the importance of loyalty in marriage life.

Furthermore, the same word “Nushuz” is used in 4:128, but it is used to describe the misbehavior of husbands not wives as was in 4:34. So, the traditional translation of “Nushuz”, that is, “opposition” will not fit here. In vertical relations, “opposition” cannot be a double-edged behavior. So, translators try to avoid this contradiction by ascribing just the opposite meaning of “opposition”, i.e., “oppression” in verse 4:128. However, the meaning of “Nushuz” as “disloyalty” is appropriate for both cases described in 4:34 and 4:128.

A Coherent Understanding

When we read 4:34 we should not understand “idribuhunne” as “beat those women”. We must  remember that this word has many meanings. God gives us three ways of dealing with extra-marital-affair. In the beginning stage of such misbehavior husband should start from giving advice. If it does not work and she goes further and commit a proven adultery, that time husband has the right to strike them out (4:34 & 65:1).

Let’s present our suggestion for the translation of verse 4:34

“Men take care of women, since God has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God’s commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don’t transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme (4:34).

 Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but “striking them out” from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too.

Lessons that can be learnt from the Satanic Verses

I don’t know if the case of the Satanic Verses or what we Muslims call the “Gharaniq verses” is true or not, but I wonder why anyone would treat it as scandalous or use it to suspect the authenticity of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) as a Messenger of God.

Almost all modern students of Islam dispel the Gharaniq incident as a fabricated tale but it was mentioned in four early major biographies of the Prophet. It appears in al-Waqidi, Ibn Saad, al-Tabari (it appears as two different versions in Tabari), and Ibn Ishaq. It is also indirectly and in part referred to in Bukhari:

6.385 Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him.

There are two passages in the Quran that refer to the event and appear in the four biographies as part of discussion on the Gharaniq event. The first is (22:52-54) and the second passage is (17:73-75)

Authenticity of Quran

I personally think the Gharaniq event is a powerful event that carries extremely important lessons. If it is true then it only strengthens the authenticity of the Quran as the unaltered and constantly approved word of God. No one could add anything to the Quran on their own, not even the Prophet. It dispels the argument non-Muslims often put forth that Quran was written by the Prophet. Had the Prophet been the author of the Quran the Gharaniq verses would have been included in the Quran to please the pagans.

Allah’s wrath

It also proves that Allah will not pardon anyone who commits a sin against Him for He tells Muhammed (pbuh) that had he erred his punishment would have been double:

They sought to entice you from Our revelations – they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us. (17:73-75)

Such words must have really upset the Prophet as he was cautioned so severely right in the beginning of his career even though he did not utter those two verses purposefully.

Furthermore, the credibility of the Prophet is enhanced with the inclusion of this stern reprimand (17:73-75) in the Quran. Would the Prophet have included such unsympathetic verses against him in the Quran if he was the author/editor of the Quran?

Concept of infallibility of prophets

The event also clarifies the concept of ismah (infallibility of prophets) in that infallibility does not mean that prophets were free from making mistakes, but that no mistake they ever made was left uncorrected by God because God Himself says:

We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, without having the devil interfere with his wishes. God then overrides what the devil has cast, and God secures His signs (22:52).

Prophet’s challenge and exodus

Another result of this episode was that the Prophet’s challenge became many times more difficult after he retracted the verses and openly condemned the three goddesses with the newly revealed verses:

Have ye seen Lat and ‘Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! How many-so-ever be the angels in the heavens, their intercession will avail nothing except after Allah has given leave for whom He pleases and that he is acceptable to Him.  (53:19-20/23/26) 

The consequence of the retraction was that a ban was placed upon him by the Quraish which eventually led to the exodus of Muslims to Medina.

 I feel there is no reason for Muslims to apologize for the inclusion of the Gharaniq event in the four biographies because the episode only strengthens the legitimacy of the Prophet, his message and his God. 

Mary in the Quran

About a year ago someone wrote to me asking me to explain why Mary is the only woman mentioned in the Quran if Jesus is not the son of God. S/he claimed that Mary is the most important woman in the history of Islam because God had chosen her Himself:

“Behold! the angels said: ‘O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee – chosen thee above the women of all nations.’” (3:42).

Mary is a very important woman in Islam but she is not the only woman mentioned in the Quran. While she is the only one mentioned by name, other women mentioned are:

·        Eve (20-120),

·        Sarah (11:71-72),

·        wives of Lot and Noah (66:10),

·        mother and sister of Moses (28:7,10,11),

·        wife of Moses (28:23-27),

·        women of Aziz (12:23, 31, 51),

·        Asiya the wife of a Pharaoh (66:11),

·        Queen Sheeba (27: 23-24, 34-35, 42-44),

·        wife of Imran (3:33-36),

·        and Khoulah bint Thalabah (58:1).  

Hagar is mentioned 21 times in the Torah, by name, but she is not mentioned in the Quran at all although like the Jewish Matriarch Sarah, Hagar is the Muslim Matriarch.

So what is it about Mary?

Mary’s name appears in the Quran many times and Jesus is called Jesus the son of Mary. The entire Surah 19 is named after Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Other places where she appears are:

·        Mary’s birth when her mother says “And not wise is the male like the female.” (3:34)

·        Gabriel comes to Mary (3:45)

·        Immaculate conception (3:47) and (66:12)

·        Her choice as mother of Jesus (3:42)

·        Her chastity and obedience to God (66:12)

Mary is mentioned by name because she is the only woman about whom truth is severely distorted in the Gospel. Not so in the Old Testament but in the New Testament, Mary is literally made the Mother of God and that is the one most serious issue with God – partnership.

If duality of God was acceptable, Abraham the great Patriarch of monotheism would have been taught that, but he wasn’t. Duality of God and the belief in Trinity is explicitly forbidden by the Quran and is called the greatest sin. God ensures in the Quran to unambiguously announce that Jesus is not the son of God and the “Holy Spirit” is but only the angel Gabriel – the Ruhul Qudus.

Thus, Quran mentions Mary by name not only because she is an important woman but also because the lie attached to her is the most important to address:

Surah Mary (34-35):

Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.