Slavery as an evil practice of Pharaoh and other polytheists is abolished by the Quran (3:79; 4:3,25,92; 5:89; 8:67; 24:32-33; 58:3; 90:13; 2:286; 12:39-42; 79:24). No wonder, this verse emphasizes the equality between men and women, between the free and those who were unjustly enslaved by polytheists. See 60:10. God issues a lighter penalty for formerly slave women who commit adultery because of their past. Their tragic history and experience is considered a mitigating factor. This rule, at the same time, rejects the Sunni and Shiite punishment for adultery (death), since there cannot be half of a capital punishment. See 24:2.

God created humans in an excellent design (32:7; 64:3; 82:7; 95:4), yet we humans may lower ourselves to the lowest level by following the teachings of devil (95:5). It is interesting to see the passive voice when degeneration of human nature is mentioned. The Quran does not say "we made humans weak," but it says, "humans were made weak." Thus, whenever our weakness, impatience, or pessimism is mentioned the passive voice is used (4:28; 21:37; 70:19). Through this peculiar language, the Best Designer and the Ultimate Creator who created is in best design with freedom of choice, reminds us the negative impact of wrong choices on our excellent design. See 57:22-23.

As I discussed extensively, in Türkçe Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar (Errors in Turkish Translation of the Quran, Istanbul, 1992-1998) and in English article, Beating Women or Beating Around the Bush (Unorthodox Articles, Internet, 1998), four key words or phrases have been mistranslated by traditional translators. To justify the misogynistic and patriarchal practices, deliberately or unknowingly, a majority of translators render the phrase kawamuna ala al-nisa as "in charge of women" rather than "providers for women" or "observant of women." Interestingly, the same translators translate the same verb mentioned in 4:135; 5:8; 4:127; 2:229; 20:14; 55:9 as "observe/maintain." When the same verb is used to depict a relationship between man and woman, it somehow magically transforms into a prescription of hierarchy and authority. The second key word that is commonly mistranslated is iDRiBuhunna. In almost all translations, you will see it translated as "scourge," or "beat" or "beat (lightly)". The verb DaRaBa is a multiple-meaning verb akin to English ‘strike’ or ‘get.’ The Quran uses the same verb with various meanings, such as, 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), to beat or regret (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), and to explain (13:17). It is again interesting that the scholars pick the meaning BEAT, among the many other alternatives, when the relationship between man and woman is involved, a relationship that is defined by the Quran with mutual love and care (30:21). The third word that has been traditionally mistranslated is the word NuSHuZ as "rebellion" or "disobedience" or "opposition" to men. 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 marital life, and helps us to make better sense of what follows. Interestingly, the same word, nushuz, is used later in the same chapter, in 4:128 – but it is used to describe the misbehavior of husbands, not wives, as it was in 4:34. In our view, the traditional translation of nushuz, that is, "opposition," will not fit in both contexts. However, the understanding of nushuz as marital disloyalty, in a variety of forms, is clearly appropriate for both 4:34 and 4:128. The fourth word is the word QaNiTat, which means "devoted to God," and in some verses it describes both man and woman (2:116,238; 3:17,43; 16:120; 30:26; 33:31,35; 39:9; 66:5,12). Though this word is mostly translated correctly as "obedient," when read in the context of the above-mentioned distortion it conveys a false message as if to imply that women must be "obedient" to their husbands as their inferior, while the word refers to obedience to God's law. The word is mentioned as a general description of Muslim women (66:12), and more interestingly the description of Mary who, according to the Quran, did not even have a husband! (66:12). The traditional distortion of this verse was first questioned by Edip Yuksel in his book, "Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar" (Errors in Turkish Translations) (1992, Istanbul). For a detailed discussion on verse 4:34, see the Sample Comparisons section in the Introduction. After the revelation of the Quran, Muslim scholars turned back to the days of ignorance and they were supported by some Jewish and Christian scholars who apparently converted to Islam yet did not experience a paradigm change. These semi-converts and those Arabs who longed for the old culture of ignorance combined their forces together to take back the rights of women recognized and promoted by the Quran. The rights of women in the West have been recognized through the separation of church and state; however the culture is still basically a male dominant one and thus western women are objectified and exploited tremendously in the business world. The western culture is deeply influenced by the teaching of Christianity originating from the misogynistic authors of Old Testament and St. Paul (not Jesus) who subordinates women to men. For instance, see Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18- 19; 1 Peter 3:1-7. "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (I Corinthians 14: 34). "For a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man" (I Corinthians 11:6-9). "Let a women learn in silence with all submission. And do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness, with self-control" (I Timothy 2:11- 15). St. Paul's misogynistic teaching is a reflection and extension of a historical trend. The Old Testament contains many man-made misogynist teachings. For instance, a woman is considered unclean for one week if she gives birth to a son, but unclean for two weeks if she gives birth to a daughter (Leviticus 12:1- 5). The Quran prohibits a sexual relationship with a menstruating woman, not because she is dirty, but because menstruation is painful (2:222). The purpose is to protect women's health from being burdened by the sexual desires of their husbands. However, the male authors of the Old Testament, exaggerated and generalized this divine prohibition so much so that they turned menstruation into a reason for a woman’s humiliation, isolation, and punishment (Leviticus 15:19-33). Christianity puts all the blame on the shoulders of women for the troubles in this world. Yet, according to the Quran, we are created from one person (nafs), not one man (4:1). Furthermore, it was not Eve, but it was both Adam and his spouse who were deceived in the Paradise (2:30-39; 7:19-27). The Old Testament contains hyperbolic exaggerations and bizarre practices. For some examples, See the footnote of 4:119.

The phrase lam yastati tawlan is often taken to mean "he is not in a position to afford", i.e., in the financial sense; but Muhammad 'Abduh very convincingly expresses the view that it applies to all manner of preventive circumstances, be they of a material, personal or social nature (Manar V, 19).

In this context, ma malakat aymanukum (lit., "those whom your right hands possess") denotes women who were captured in a holy war and have subsequently embraced Islam. In the above phrase, the pronoun "you" refers to the community as a whole.

I.e., since all human beings - whatever their outward "social status" - are members of one and the same human family, and are therefore equal to one another in the sight of God (cf. 3:195), it is only the strength or weakness of faith which makes one person superior or inferior to another.

Lit., "and not taking unto themselves secret love-companions". This passage lays down in an unequivocal manner that sexual relations with female slaves are permitted only on the basis of marriage, and that in this respect there is no difference between them and free women; consequently, concubinage is ruled out.

The weaker social status of a slave makes her, obviously, more accessible to temptation than a free married woman is presumed to be.

I.e., to those who for one reason or another are unable to marry free women and are, at the same time, not equal to the temptations arising from celibacy. As is made clear in the next sentence, the Qur'an discourages such marriages - obviously with a view to removing a major attraction from the institution of slavery as such, and thus promoting its abolition.

An allusion to the genuine religious teachings of the past, which aimed at bringing about a harmony between man's physical nature and the demands of his spirit - a harmony which is destroyed whenever asceticism is postulated as the only possible alternative to licentiousness (see also note on surah 2, verse 143). This allusion arises from the discussion of sexual morality in the preceding passages devoted to marital relations.

Lit., "want you to deviate with a tremendous deviation".

I.e., to remove, by means of His guidance, all possibility of conflict between man's spirit and his bodily urges, and to show him a way of life in which these two elements of human nature can be harmonized and brought to full fruition.

If the particle illa preceding the above clause is given its usual meaning of "except" or "unless it be", the phrase ought to be rendered thus: "unless it be [an act of] trade based on mutual agreement". This formulation, however, has baffled many a commentator: for, if taken literally, it would imply that wrongful profits from trading based on mutual agreement are excepted from the general prohibition, "Devour not one another's possessions wrongfully"- a supposition impossible to maintain in view of the ethics postulated by the Qur'an. To obviate this difficulty, most of the commentators express the opinion that the particle illa has in this context the meaning of "but", and that the clause ought to be understood as follows: "but it is lawful for you to profit from one another's possessions by way of legitimate trade based on mutual agreement". However, quite apart from the fact that this interpretation is highly laboured and artificial, it does not explain why "legitimate trade" should have been singled out here as a sole means of lawfully deriving economic benefits from one another - for, as Razi, rightly points out in his commentary on this verse, "it is no less lawful to benefit economically through a gift, a bequest, a legal inheritance, alms, a dower, or an indemnity for injuries received: for there are, aside from trade, many ways of acquiring possessions [lawfully]". Why, then, should trade alone have been stressed? - and, moreover, stressed in a context not particularly devoted to matters of trade? A really satisfactory answer to this puzzle can, in my opinion, be obtained only through a linguistic consideration of the particle illa. Apart from its usual connotation of "except" or "unless it be", it has sometimes - as has been pointed out in both Qamus and Mughni - the meaning of the simple conjunction "and" (wa); similarly, if it is preceded by a negative clause, it can be synonymous with "nor" or "and neither" (wa-la): as, for instance, in 27:10-11, "no fear need the message-bearers have in My Presence, and neither (illa) need he who...", etc. Now if we apply this particular use of illa to the passage under consideration, we arrive at the reading, "nor [shall you do it] by means of trade based on mutual agreement", or simply, "not even by way of trade based on mutual agreement" - whereupon the meaning immediately becomes obvious: the believers are prohibited from devour­ing another person's possessions wrongfully even if that other person - being the weaker party - agrees to such a deprivation or exploitation under the stress of circumstances. The reading adopted by me logically connects, moreover, with verse 32, which admonishes the believers not to covet one another's possessions.

Lit., "by way of [deliberate] transgression and wrongdoing" ('udwanan wa-zulman).

I.e., paradise. However, according to some of the commentators, the expression mudkhal denotes not the place but the manner of "entering" (Razi) - in which case the above phrase may be rendered thus: "We shall cause you to enter [upon your afterlife] in a state of glory".

I.e., wives and husbands (Abu Muslim, as quoted by Razi).

Lit., "more on some of them than on the others".- The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane VIII, 2995). The grammatical form qawwam is more comprehensive than qa'im, and combines the concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as of moral responsibility: and it is because of the last-named factor that I have rendered this phrase as "men shall take full care of women".

Lit., "who guard that which cannot be perceived (al-ghayb) because God has [willed it to be] guarded".

The term nushuz (lit., "rebellion"- here rendered as "ill-will") comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour of a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife, including what is nowadays described as "mental cruelty"; with reference to the husband, it also denotes "ill-treatment", in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse 128 of this surah). In this context, a wife's "ill-will" implies a deliberate, persistent breach of her marital obligations.

It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.

They would rather have no laws to constrain their desires

7:17, 25:28-29

So you must be merciful to others. 2:275, 53:39. Illa in this verse means 'not even' and not 'except'. 2:188, 26:181

4:34, 28:77

4:11-12-33-176

Qawwam = Protector = Maintainer = One who helps others to stand at their feet. Nushooz = Ill-treatment = Rebellion = To stand up (2:259, 58:11) = To stand up against virtue = Mental abuse = Domestic violence = To rebel against the permanent moral values. Wa'az = Admonishment = To apprise of consequences (2:231, 3:66). Dharb = Example (13:17, 16:74, 36:13) = To stop or prevent (8:11, 43:5) = To embark upon a journey = Strike the road or begin to travel (4:101) = To give examples (4:34, 13:17, 16:74, 36:13, 43:58) = To withdraw (43:5)

This expression simply means that God is appointing the husband as "captain of the ship." Marriage is like a ship, and the captain runs it afterdue consultation with his officers. A believing wife readily accepts God'sappointment, without mutiny.