YUKSEL.ORG

In the Name of God, Gracious, Merciful

The Quran:

A Reformist Translation

A Rendering of the Meaning for Twenty-First Century Men and Women

Eight Unique Features

Amazon.com shows seven translations of the Quran ranking at #20,000 or above out of a possible 1.4 million. These books are perennially strong backlist performers. Interestingly, the seven most popular translations of the Quran on Amazon.com are all from male translators.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation is the result of a collaboration between three translators, two of whom are women.

Every single one of these translations (including Yusuf Ali's, which ranks at a remarkable #8,321 as of this writing) relies on orthodox scholarly interpretations in rendering crucial passages in the text.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation explicitly rejects the right of the Islamic clergy to determine the likely meaning of, or in any way influence the interpretation of, disputed passages.

¨ For instance, 17:36, traditionally rendered "Pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge," has been held for centuries by the Islamic clergy to apply only to those testifying as experts in legal proceedings! We render it as "You shall not follow anyone blindly in matters of which you have no knowledge," thus (we believe) restoring the meaning to its original dimensions.

Specifically, The Quran: A Reformist Translation does not rely on either hadiths (traditions associated with the Prophet Muhammad) or tafsir (orthodox scholarly commentary on the Quran) in rendering the likely meaning of the text. To the contrary, our translation consciously excludes the influence of these works.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation uses the language of Quran itself as the ultimate authority in determining likely meanings, rather than ancient scholarly interpretations rooted in patriarchal hierarchies.

The seven most popular translations of the Quran are each the product of a single author representing a single interpretation of Islam.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation is the product of three translators working together; all independent of clerical bias. Scholars from different faith traditions will evaluate the text.

The seven most popular translations of the Quran are the result of pre-Internet-era scholarship.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation will be vetted by a global committee of progressive, independent scholars offering commentary and suggestions via the Internet.

The seven most popular translations of the Quran are all text-heavy, with standard layouts featuring huge blocks of text.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation offers a unique graphic approach to the holy book of Islam that makes approaching the book easier for those unfamiliar with the text.

The seven most popular translations do not cross-reference their translation to other works.

The Quran: A Reformist Translation will offer extensive cross-referencing to the Bible and to key philosophical and scientific documents in the Western canon.

Most important of all:.

As a result of all of the above … this will be the first truly independent English translation of the text in modern history.

Introduction: Why A Reformist Quran?

Arguments against the practices and teachings of Orthodox Islam have created controversies in the past and are likely to continue to do so in the future. But the Holy Quran, the word of God Almighty, demands that its words be proclaimed without misdirection or obstruction:

And (remember when) God made covenant with those who received the Book. (God said:) Proclaim the scripture to the people, and never conceal it. -- excerpt from 3:187

This volume is undertaken in obedience to this command. The Quran: A Reformist Translation is the first English version of the Quran that abandons the rigid preconceptions of all-male scholarly and political hierarchies. It is a progressive translation of the final revelation of God to all of humanity – a translation of a book that we believe resonates powerfully with (supposedly) modern notions of gender equality, progressivism, and intellectual independence.

After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, something interesting happened. In direct contradiction to the teachings of the Quran, male clerics dedicated the religion not to God alone, but to a "holy" corporation consisting of:

God +
Muhammad +
Muhammad's companions +
The companions of Muhammad's companions +
Early sect leaders +
Late sect leaders +
Early scholars of a particular sect +
Late scholars of a particular sect; and so on.

The product of this corporation was the Hadith (teachings attributed to Muhammad), the Sunnah (actions attributed to Muhammad), the Ijma (consensus of a select group of scholars), the Ijtihaad (religious decrees by early scholars) and numerous sects. This concoction of medieval Arab/Christian/Jewish cultures was introduced to the masses as God's infallible religion, as delivered by the last prophet. The only thing actually delivered by God to Muhammad, however, was the text of the Holy Quran, which is set out as the final and authoritative divine message to humankind:

Once We recite it, you shall follow such a recitation (Quran). Then it is We who will explain it. -- 75:18-19

Unfortunately, ignorance, intolerance, misogynist teachings, superstitions, and outdated practices have accumulated over the centuries in interpreting and translating the holy book of Islam. It is time to re-introduce the actual message of the Quran. It is time to remove the accumulated layers of man-made dogmas and traditions that have attached themselves to the text.

Numerous English translations of the Quran have appeared – and sold briskly -- in recent years. As of this writing, the most popular Quran translations at amazon.com include:

· The Holy Quran, Allameh Nooruddin, Noor Foundation.
· Al-Quran, Ahmed Ali, Princeton University
· The Koran, N.J. Dawood, Penguin
· The Message of the Quran, Muhammad Asad, Kazi Publication
· The Glorious Quran, Marmaduke Pickthall, Mentor/Penguin
· The Meaning of the Holy Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Amana Books

(The last two perhaps are the most popular English versions; but it is worth noting that they are often sold through bookstores and mosques.) All the above translations and commentaries have a common weakness: each is the product of one person, invariably a male, and they all reflect the outdated interpretations – what might be termed the "culture of ignorance" – that was revived soon after the death of Muhammad.

By presenting the peaceful and unifying message of the Quran, we hope to increase understanding and reduce tensions between Muslims and people of other religions, especially those whom the Quran calls the People of The Book (Jews and Christians). This translation will also highlight, without apology or distortion, the major differences between our approach and that of orthodox translations and commentaries.

We believe that any modern commentary on the Quran – and all translations are, by definition, commentaries upon the Arabic text – should not be monolithic, but should instead reflect the perspective and critical evaluation of diverse disciplines and populations. We also believe that the voices of women, suppressed for so many centuries by Islamic clergymen, should be taken into account in any interpretation of these extraordinary verses. To correct the egregious historical biases so obvious in previous English translations, we have chosen to take an inclusive approach incorporating input from scholars, lay readers, and even non-Muslims. The final word choices of the actual translation, however, are ours. We and we alone are responsible for them before God; if we have made an error, we appeal only to God for forgiveness.

Sample Comparisons

On the following pages, you will find several comparisons between our translation and traditional orthodox English renditions of the Quran. We chose to compare our work primarily with Yusuf Ali's translation, since it reflects most of the common errors and distortions, and because it is one of the most popular translations among English-speaking Muslims. We use standard reference numbers in referring to specific passages of the Quran; the number preceding the colon is always the chapter number, and the subsequent numbers are always verse numbers.

Does the Quran Permit Men to Beat Their Wives?

A famous (and controversial) passage in the Quran has brought about a great deal of misunderstanding about Islam. In Pickthal's translation, we are told that God offers the following advice to Muslim husbands about their wives:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for their support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

In M.H. Shakir's translation, we read:

(A)nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them..

And here is the popular Yusuf Ali translation of the entire (much-disputed) verse:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Here is our translation of the same passage, with appropriate sidebar references to disputed passages:

! Disputed passage:

The traditional rendering is: you may beat them.

Men take care of women – since God has endowed some with qualities that differ in degree, and since men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God), and during the absence (of their husbands), they honor them according to God's commandment, even when alone in their privacy. As for those women who bring about in you a fear of disloyalty, you shall first advise them. Then (if they continue), you may desert them in bed. Then, (if they continue), you may leave them. If they obey you, (however,) then you must not do any wrong against them. God is Most High, Supreme. – 4:34

COMMENTARY ON 4:34

"Verse 4:34 of the Quran orders believers to beat their wives; therefore, Islam is a male-dominant religion." Many of us have heard this criticism from Christians, atheists, agnostics, and others. Personally, every time I read conventional translations of 4:34, I feel that something is deeply wrong. How could God, the Most Wise order us to beat our women? What kind of solution is that? It appears to be in contrast to the verses in which God describes marriage:

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

Obviously, these mixed messages have bothered many contemporary translators of the Quran. To avoid the moral and intellectual problems, they tried to soften the word "beat" when they translate the verse 4:34. For instance, Yusuf Ali uses a merciful parenthesis after "beat," adding the word (lightly). This insertion does not appear in the Arabic text; it serves as a kind of apology for his translation of the surrounding material. Rashad Khalifa, rather than questioning the orthodox translation of the word, demonstrates his discomfort with his own version of orthodox translation by an implausible argument in the footnote and a contradictory subtitle before the verse: "Do not beat your wife." (However, Rashad Khalifa does not duplicate the orthodox distortion of other key words in the verse).

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

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

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

Almost all of the translations have mistranslated the four key words or terms of this particular verse. (These are: "Qawwamune," "Faddallallahu ba'dahum ala ba'd," "Nushuzehunne," and "Fadribuhunne.") In a previous book, "Errors in Turkish Translations" (Istanbul, 1992) I discussed the real meaning of these words and the motivation and reasons for mistranslating them.

A Famous Multi-Meaning Word

The main problem comes from the word "Idribuhunne," which has traditionally been translated as "beat them." The root of this word is "DaRaBa". If you look at any Arabic dictionary, you will find a long list of meanings ascribed to this word. In fact, you will find that that list is one of the longest lists in your Arabic dictionary. It can be said that "DaRaBa" is the number-one 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 the Quran alone we can attest to the verb "DaRaBa" having at least ten different meanings. "DaRaBa" has also other meanings that are not mentioned in the Quran. For example, in modern Arabic, you do not print money--you "DaRaBa" money. You do not multiply numbers--you "DaRaBa" numbers. You do not cease doing work--you "DaRaBa" doing work. In Turkish, we have many verbs similar to the Arabic DaRaBa. In English, we have two verbs that are almost equivalent to "DaRaBa". These are "strike" and "beat." Consider, for the sake of comparison, that Webster's Dictionary gives fourteen different meanings to the verb "to strike," and eight to the verb "to beat"! (One strikes a match, strikes a deal, strikes an opponent, strikes gold, goes "on strike" against an unfair employer; one beats another team, beats out a rhythm, beats a retreat, and so on.)

Finding the Appropriate Meaning

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

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

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

… God thus explains truth and falsehood... – 13:17

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

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

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

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

! Disputed passage

The traditional rendering is: Now, take grass in your hand and strike her with it and do not break your oath.

"Now, you shall travel the land to fulfill your pledge (to deliver the message of God)." We found him steadfast. What a good servant! He was a submitter. - 38:44

Another Take on 4:34

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

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

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

A Coherent Understanding

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

The Quran gives analogous rights to women who must deal with disloyal husbands (4:128); this is in accordance with the principle that women have "similar" rights to men in such situations, as stated clearly in 2:28. These would hardly be "similar" rights if women had to suffer physical beatings for marital disloyalty, and men did not!

Beating women who are cheating and betraying the marriage contract is not an ultimate solution, and it is not consistent with the promise of equitability and comparable rights that appears in 2:28. (This is an important consideration, because the Quran proclaims, and Muslims believe, that it is utterly free from inconsistencies.) But "striking out" disloyal wives – that is, separating from them -- is consistent, and it is the best solution. It is also fair.

Does the Quran Demand Thieves Have Their Hands Cut Off?

If non-Muslims "know" anything about Islam, they "know" that the Quran mandates a severe punishment for thieves: the cutting off of their hands. Here is Yusuf Ali's translation of the famous passage (5:38):

As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

Here is our translation of the same passage:

As for the thieves or burglars, male or female, you shall mark, cut, or cut off their hands; a response for what they commit and a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Most Wise. (5:38)

COMMENTARY ON 5:38

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

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

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

Cutting or marking the person's hands as a means of public humiliation and identification
Physically cutting off the person's hands.
(Or even:) Cutting off the person's means to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment)

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

Does the Quran Justıfıes The Taxatıon of Non-Muslims?

Verse 9:29 is mistranslated by almost every translator. M.H. Shakir translates the Arabic word Jizya as Tax:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latte day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

Yusuf Ali, somehow does not translate the word at all. He leaves the meaning of the word at the mercy of distortions:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Here is our translation of the same verse:

"You shall fight (back) against those who do not believe in God, nor in the last day, and they do not prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, and do not abide by the system of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the REPERATION, in humility." (9:29).

COMMENTARY ON 9:29

You have noticed that we inserted a parenthesis since the context of the verse is about the War of Hunain, and fighting is allowed for only self defense. See: 2:190-193, 256; 4:91; and 60:8-9.

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

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

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

Some followers of Sunni or Shiite religions, together with their like-minded modern Crusaders, abuse 9:5 or 9:29 by taking them out of their immediate and Quranic context. Sunnis and Shiites follow many stories and instructions falsely attributed to Muhammad that justify terror and aggression. For instance, in a so-called authentic (or authentically fabricated) hadith, after arresting the murderers of his shepherd, the prophet and his companions cut their arms and legs off, gauge their eyes with hot nails and leave them dying from thirst in the dessert, a contradiction to the portrayal of Muhammad's mission in the Quran (21:107; 3:159). In another authentically fabricated hadith, the prophet is claimed to send a gang during night to secretly kill a female poet who criticized him in her poetry, a violation of the teaching of the Quran! (2:256; 4:140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22). Despite these un-Quranic teachings, the aggressive elements among Sunni or Shiite population have almost always been a minority.

Six Diabolic Steps to Distort and Discredit

The following six steps are cleverly utilized over and over by the enemies of islam, including Christian missionaries, to discredit the Quran. For the 3rd and 4th steps they find great ammunition inside the volumes of hadith and sectarian jurisprudence books. (No wonder they like those books very much). For the 5th and 6th steps they find many allies among Sunni or Shiite versions of Hislamics who are extremely intoxicated by those anti-islamic sectarian teachings.

Before exposing this unholy alliance let us quote several war related instructions from the so-called authentic hadith books:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari (Jihad) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Muslim Book 019, Number 4321)

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them. (Muslim Book 019, Number 4322)

Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them. (Muslim Book 019, Number 4323)

Here are the repeated sixes:

Ignore the fact that the Quran is a self-sufficient, self-explaining and detailed book, and destroy its semantic network by deliberately disconnecting its verses. Take a portion of the Quran and ignore all other verses that explain, supplement or bring limitation to that verse. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
Reduce your reference to a smaller portion; take a Quranic verse or part of it out of its immediate context. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
Twist the meaning of some words. You may even find a sectarian book or a website that has done that before you. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
Refer to the mishmash collection of fabrications called hadith and sunnah; there you will find a treasury of trash to stink an entire city. Claim that the Quran is useless and unintelligible without these sources. Some Hislamic people will be confused by your love of those "holy" teachings! That is a good sign. If you cannot convince, you must confuse… But, your goal is to convert as many as possible. So, find as much as garbage out of the Hislamic sources and introduce it as Islamic. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
Pick some examples of Sunni or Shiite idiots or terrorists, from among more than a billion Muslims, and generalize it to all Muslims. Especially, choose your examples from traumatized populations that have been abused and oppressed under the occupation of USA, UK, Israel, or Russia, or under the tyranny of a puppet dictator supported by one of these nations. While doing this, you must entirely ignore all the wars, destructions, massacres, tortures, and terrorist acts committed by the Judeo-Christian forces. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
Exchange words of hatred and bigotry with some intoxicated Sunni or Shiite Hislamics. Then go to your church, sing songs about love and Jesus, and do not forget asking forgiveness for your sins. You will start your next day clean and ready to commit more sins. Your Hislamic partner (!) will be waiting for you since they do not have confession sessions. If this is not enough to make it ugly and scary, then you have picked a very wrong verse. Choose another verse from the Quran, and go back and start from step one!

Does the Quran Permit Marriage to Underage Orphans?

A passage of the Quran has persistently been interpreted as sanctioning marriage to young orphan girls. Here is Yusuf Ali's translation of 4:127 (note highlighted passage):

They ask thy instruction concerning the women say: Allah doth instruct you about them: And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but Allah is well-acquainted therewith.

And here is our translation of the same verse (note highlighted passage):

! Disputed passage

The traditional rendering suggests that the objects of marital intention are the orphans, not the mothers

They ask you for divine instruction concerning women. Say, "God instructs you regarding them, as has been recited for you in the Book about the rights of orphans whose mothers you want to marry without giving them their legal rights. You shall observe the rights of helpless children, and your duty to treat orphans with equity. Whatever good you do, God has full knowledge of it.

COMMENTARY ON 4:127

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

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

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

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

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

How Does the Quran Define the Model Muslim Woman?

Here is Yusuf Ali's translation of 66:5:

It may be, if he divorced you (all), that God will give him in exchange Consorts better than you—who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to God in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast, previously married or virgin.

Here is our translation of the verse:

! Disputed passage

The traditional rendering emphasizes virginity; see the commentary.

If he divorces you, his Lord will substitute other wives in your place who are better than you; submitters, believers, devoted, repentant, worshipful, active in their societies, connected, and progressive. (66:5)

COMMENTARY ON 66:5

The Arabic word aBKaR, which means "young," "early risers" or "people who go before," has traditionally, and implausibly, been interpreted as "virgins" in this passage. The resulting distorted meaning of the verse supports a sectarian Islamic teaching that justifies a man marrying more than one virgin.

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

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

Before deciding that aBKaR means "virgin," the translator is, we believe, obliged to look closely at how the Quran itself employs the root word.

Here are the references in Quranic sequence:

· 2:68 ---> Young (heifer)

· 3:41 ---> Early morning

· 19:11 ---> Early morning

· 19:62 ---> Early morning

· 25:5 ---> Early morning

· 33:42 ---> Early morning

· 48:9 ---> Early morning

· 54:38 ---> Early morning

· 56:36 ---> ? Woman

· 66:5 ---> ? Woman

· 76:25---> Early morning

When this word is used in reference to women (in 56:36 and 66:5), orthodox Islamic scholars, without hesitation, leap to translate it as "virgin." We reject this interpretation, and choose instead to translate the word as "progressive." (A literal translation might be "foregoer," but that word does not resonate well in English.)

One of the earliest converts to Islam, and the first elected Islamic leader after the death of Muhammad, was his father-in-law, a man who became known to Muslims as Abu Bakr. Abu means "father." This nickname was not given to Muhammad's father-in-law because he was the "Father of a Virgin"! It was given to him because he was one of the foregoers, one of the progressive ones, one of the early risers, one of the first converts to Islam. He was "the Foregoer" – or, if you prefer, "the Progressive."

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

... previously married OR virgins.

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

… previously married AND virgins.

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

The Arabic adjective saihaat is another important attribute of the model woman described in verse 66:5. This is the third word from the end of the verse, which we have translated as "active in their societies." The word comes from the root SaYaHa, which means to travel or move around for a cause. For centuries, orthodox commentators and translators simply could not fathom the notion of a Muslim woman traveling around alone to do anything – and so they pretended that the word in question was not SaYaHa, but SsaWM – fasting! There is, in fact, nothing whatsoever about fasting in this verse.

There is, however, a portrait of the ideal Muslimah (female Muslim): submitting, believing, devoted, repentant, worshipful, active in her society, connected, and progressive.

How Much of the Quran Can/Should We Understand?

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

Verse 3:7 is one of the most commonly mistranslated verses; it is extremely important, since it deals with these very questions. Different interpretations of this verse can lead to two totally different conceptions of Islam!

Yusuf Ali's translation of this critical passage represents the orthodox understanding:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meaning except God. And those who are firmly endowed by knowledge say: 'we believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:' and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

Here is our translation of the verse:

! Disputed passage

The traditional rendering suggests that some Quranic verses can never be understood fully.

He revealed to you this scripture, consisting of straightforward verses, which are the essence of the scripture, as well as verses with multiple meanings. Those who harbor doubt in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to seek their meanings. No one knows their meaning except God and those who are deeply rooted in knowledge. They say, 'We believe in this; it all comes from our Lord.' Only those who possess intelligence will take heed. (3:7)

COMMENTARY ON 3:7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is only one God.

This life is a test.

There will be an accounting for each individual after death.

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

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

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

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

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

Does The Quran Need Muhammad in Order to Be Understood?

Orthodox Islam, by answering the above question affirmatively, has sanctified a collection of medieval hearsay and tradition attributed to Muhammad. Unfortunately, this was accomplished through the distortion of the meaning of several Quranic verses regarding the role of the Prophet. The following verse is one of several crucial verses that have been used to promote Hadith and Sunnah as the second source of Islam.

Yusuf Ali's translation of 16:44 is a typical orthodox translation:

… And We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

Our translation of 16:44:

! Disputed passage

The traditional rendering is: explain clearly

. . . And we sent down to you this message, to proclaim clearly to the people everything that is sent down to them; perhaps (then) they will reflect. -- 16:44.

COMMENTARY ON 16:44

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

The word "'lituBaYyeNa" is a derivative of "BYN", which is a multiple-meaning word. It means:

1. To reveal what is concealed; or

2. To explain what is vague.

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

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

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

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

Are The Verses of The Quran Abrogated by Other Verses and Hadiths?

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

Here is Yusuf Ali's translation of a critical verse:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?

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

Our translation of 2:106:

We do not abrogate any sign or cause it to be forgotten, unless we produce a better, or at least an equal one. Do you not know that God is Omnipotent? (2:106)

COMMENTARY ON 2:106

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

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

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

By declaring the word of God to be vague and ambiguous, early scholars opened the gate for unlimited abuse and distortion. Furthermore, by distorting the meaning of 2:106, they claimed that many verses of the Quran had been abrogated (amended) by other verses or hadiths. By this "abrogation theory," they amended verses which they did not understand, or which did not suit their interests, or which contradicted their hadith. Some of them abrogated 5 Quranic verses, some 20 verses and some 50. Below, you'll find an extreme (and bizarre) example of an abrogation based on the supposed "authority" of 2:106 as interpreted in the orthodox manner.

The verse that was abrogated by a goat!

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

Since Hadith manufacturers realized that hadiths were not enough to abrogate the clear verses of the Quran, they even fabricated a "verse" supporting stoning and attributed it to God. "Al-shayhu wa al-shayhatu iza zanaya farcumuhuma nekalen bima kasabu…" They tried to inject the stoning penalty for adulterers into the Quran!

When they failed, they fabricated stories which only the people who are described in 10:100 of the Quran (those who believe without understanding or sense) could accept.

According to the story, the 'stoning verse' was recorded in the Quran during the time of Muhammad; but just after his death, a goat entered the house of the Prophet's wife Aisha and ate the page on which that verse was inscribed. Thus, we are assured, the "stoning verse" had been abrogated physically!

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

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

Was Muhammad Illiterate?

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

The Arabic word "ummy," however, describes people who are not Jewish or Christian. The meaning of this word, which occurs six times in the Quran, has nevertheless been rendered as "one who can neither read nor write." This deliberate manipulation by Muslim scholars has become widely accepted as the true meaning of the word. For example Yusuf Ali, in his translation, follows this pattern:

... So believe in God and His Apostle, the unlettered Prophet,....

Marmaduke Pickthall's translation also reflects the same manipulation:

... So believe in Allah and His messenger, the prophet who can neither read nor write,...

Our translation of 7:158:

… So you shall believe in God and His messenger, the Gentile prophet… (7:158)

COMMENTARY ON 7:158

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad was a literate gentile (ummy)

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

To magnify the miraculous aspect of the Quran, religious people thought that the story of illiteracy would be alluring.
The producer(s) of the illiteracy story found it relatively easy to change the meaning of "ummy." Nevertheless, the word appears throughout the Quran, and consistently means "Gentile" (2:78; 3:20; 3:75; 62:2). In verses 3:20 and 3:75, the Quran uses the word "ummy" as the counterpart of the "ehlil kitab" ("People of the Book," a phrase that in both of these verses equates with "Jews and Christians").
The Quran describes Meccan people with the word "ummyyeen" (Gentiles). (62:2). According to the orthodox claim, all Meccan people must have been illiterate. Why then were the poems of pre-Islamic Meccan poets hung on the walls of the Ka'ba (the ancient monotheistic shrine of Abraham)?
The Arabs of the 7th century were using letters as numbers. This alphabetical numbering system is called "Abjad." The merchants of those days had to know the letters of the alphabet to record their accounts! If Muhammad was a successful international merchant, as is universally accepted, then he most probably knew this numbering system. The Arabs stopped using the "Abjad" system in the 9th century when they took "Arabic numbers" from India.
The different spelling of the word "bism" in the beginning of the Basmalah and in the first verse of chapter 96 is one of the many evidences supporting literacy of Muhammad. It is not reasonable for an illiterate to dictate two different spellings of the same word which is pronounced the same.
The very first revelation from the Angel Gabriel was, Muslims believe, "Read!" And the first five verses of that revelation encourage reading and writing (96:1-5). The second revelation was "The pen and writing" (68:1). These facts compel some questions that orthodox scholarship would rather avoid. Does God command an illiterate man to "read"? If so, could Muhammad read after Gabriel's instruction to do so? The story told in Hadith books about the first revelation asserting that Muhammad could read only after three trials ending by an angelic "squeeze" contradicts the other stories claiming that Muhammad died as an illiterate!
Traditional history books accept that Muhammad dictated the Quran and controlled its recording. Even if we accept that Muhammad did not know how to read or write before revelation of the Quran, we cannot claim that he preserved this illiteracy during the 23 years while he was dictating the Quran! Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that Muhammad was illiterate before the revelation of the Quran. Why then did he insist on staying illiterate for 23 years after the first revelation: "Read !"? Did he not obey his Lord's command? Did he receive another command forbidding him from reading and writing?
Was it so difficult for Muhammad to learn to read and write? If a person still does not learn to read and write after 23 years of careful dictation of a book, what kind of intellect is that?
If Muhammad was encouraging his followers to read and write (which he did when he recited 2:44 to them), then why should he have excluded himself?

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

Is The Earth Flat?

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

Time is relative (70:4; 22:47).
God created the universe from nothing (2:117).
The earth and heavenly bodies were once a single point and they were separated from each other by an explosion (21:30).
The universe is continuously expanding (51:47).
The stage before the creation of the earth is described as a gas nebula (41:11).
Planet earth is floating in an orbit (27:88; 21:33).
Earth's atmosphere acts like a protective shield for the living creatures (21:32).
Wind also pollenates plants (15:22).
The creation of living creatures follows an evolutionary system (15:28-29; 24:45; 32:7-9; 71:14-7).
The earliest biological creatures were incubated inside flexible layers clay (15:26).
The stages of human development in the womb are detailed (23:14).
Our biological life span is coded in our genes (35:11).
Photosynthesis is a recreation of energy stored through chlorophyll (36:77-81).
The atomic number, atomic weight and isotopes of Iron are specified. (57:25).
Atoms of elements found on earth contain maximum seven energy layers (65:12).
The sound and vision of water and the action of eating dates (which contain oksitoxin) reduces labor pains (19:24-25).
The total amount of annual rain on earth does not change (43:11; 15:21).
There is life (not necessarily intelligent) beyond earth (42:29).
The number of months in a year is stated as 12 and the word Month (shahr) is used exactly twelve times.
The number of days in a year is not stated, but the word Day (yawm) is used exactly 365 times.
A prophetic mathematical structure based on number 19 implied in chapter 74 of the Quran was discovered in 1974 by the aid of computer shows that the Quran is embedded with an interlocking extraordinary mathematical system. (I have written several Turkish and yet-to-be-published English books on this subject).

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

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

As for the shape of the earth, Yusuf Ali translates the relevant verse -- 79:30 -- as follows:

And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse).

Other traditional translations are essentially no different. They extend and spread the earth. However, the correct translation should have been:

And the earth afterwards, he made it egg-shaped. (79:30)

COMMENTARY ON 79:30

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

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

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

Early commentators had an excuse for reaching such a conclusion, since they did not know that the earth was spherical and slightly distended (like an egg); however, modern commentators of the Quran have no excuse to parrot this medieval misunderstanding. They should have known that the verse means what it says: the earth is shaped like an egg. The external physical appearance of planet earth is like an egg, and its cross-section displays geological layers similar to egg.