Marriage Parties, Rules, and Contract Expressions in Qur’an Translations: A Critical Analysis

4.1.1 Rendering أزواج مطهرة and من أزواجنا into English

The lexeme زوج is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an around 17 times, and the plural form أزواج is repeated 38 times. However, it does not refer to the same referent in all contexts. For instance, it may refer to different entities depending on the context. In some instances, it refers to the hypernym “spouse,” and in others, it refers to one of its two hyponyms, either “husband” or “wife.” In other cases, it may refer to “pairs/kinds” in a sense unrelated to marriage. A translator should engage in understanding the context and their knowledge of the Qur’an and Islam to decide on the proper translation of this lexeme in each verse. Table 2 illustrates how أزواج مطهرة is translated.

In this verse, Allah describes Jannah (Heaven) for man believers who will enjoy gardens with rivers underneath, where they will eat delightful fruits and be bestowed with purified wives; hence, Al-Tabari (1958, p. 395) identifies the lexeme أزواج as a plural of زوج, which means “the wife of a man.” In addition, these wives are described as “purified” مُطهّرة, which Ibn Kathir (2011) interprets as “wives” who are totally purified of all sensory impurities, including excreta and urine, menstruation and puberty, mucus, and spit. Also, the term means that the wives are free from other kinds of harm and immoral attributes such as intolerance, hatred, envy, and jealousy, as well as other illnesses, sins, bad morals, and relations.

Therefore, contextually, the marriage expression أزواج مطهرة refers to (wives/women) rather than (husbands/men). Unjustifiably, however, the translators employ the superordinate/hypernym, i.e., “spouse,” instead of using a hyponym, i.e., “wife.” Confusing a hypernym (spouse/companion/mate) with the hyponym “wife” in this Qur’anic verse will most likely result in a reader-focused coherence shift (Blum-Kulka, 2000). That is, target readers will understand the address as targeting both men and women rather than only men. In this way, “the purified spouses” may be taken wrongly to mean “husbands,” in addition to meaning “wives,” which is the exclusively intended sense here. It should be noted that Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), unlike English, does not have a separate word for “spouse,” i.e., there is a lexical gap here. Whereas English has the word “spouse” as a hypernym for the hyponyms “husband” and “wife,” classical Arabic uses the word زوج for both “husband” and “wife.” However, MSA lexically distinguishes between “زوج/husband” and “زوجة/wife,” thus leaving the hypernym’s slot as a lexical gap.

By observing the classical and recent translations, the mistranslation is clear, as none of the translators properly render the exclusive, specific meaning of أزواج as “wives.” This shows that there has been no progress or improvement with time. It also indicates that recent translations may have just been copied out from classical ones. To explain, Arberry, Itani, Sarwar, Abdel-Haleem, and Ghali translated أزواج مطهرة as “pure spouses” and “purified spouses.” These are inaccurate translations for two reasons; the first one is that “spouse” is a superordinate that may refer to a “male or female,” depending on the context, while, in fact, in this context, it refers only to “females.” Secondly, the term “purified” is an ambiguous term that may also confuse the target reader because they do not know where, how, or from what these females are “purified”; hence, a footnote should be provided.

For their part, Ali and Pickthall render this expression as “companions pure and holy,” which is also inaccurate because the word “companion” is gender underspecified; i.e., it can refer to both “husbands” and “wives.” Nevertheless, what distinguishes Ali as a classical translator is that he employs a glossary and a footnote to explain the lexeme مطهرة, denoting purity in the highest degree, which implies the reference is to “wives” rather than “husbands.” Finally, Shakir also offers an inaccurate rendition as he renders this expression as “pure mates” because the lexeme “mate” is too general and may refer to any partner like a friend or colleague, in addition to indicating a marital partner “husband, wife, or spouse.”

To conclude, both classical and recent translators, except for Ali (who uses a footnote to delimit the sense), distort the intended meaning by providing a more generic hypernym that is not based on context and is clearly unacceptable. The target reader will be misled by understanding that Allah’s address is directed to both men and women rather than exclusively to men, which is a serious reader-focused coherence shift.

Table 3 also demonstrates the procedures of both classical and recent translators in rendering .من أزواجنا

In this verse, the lexical item أزواجنا again refers exclusively to “wives.” Al-Tabari (1958) indicates that أزواجنا in this verse refers to a “female spouse/wife.” The classical translators Pickthall, Ali, Arberry, and Shakir successfully render the intended meaning of the lexeme أزواجنا as “wives.” By contrast, the recent translators Sarwar, Ghali, Abdel-Haleem, and Itani render it inaccurately by using the hypernym “spouses.” This is surprising because recent translators are supposed to be more careful than their classical counterparts when rendering such cultural items, as the motivation for retranslations should be an improvement from the existing ones. However, the classical translators prove to be more accurate in this case. The contextual meaning is transparent even to an averagely educated person. In addition, when confusion occurs, the standard exegeses are there to illuminate the problem.

4.1.2 Rendering بعولتهن into English

Table 4 shows the translators’ renditions for the lexical item in the marriage expression بعولتهن.

This verse features the marriage expression بعولتهن, which specifically refers to “their husbands.” As can be observed, seven of them (Pickthall, Ali, Shakir, Sarwar, Ghali, Abdel-Haleem, and Itani) have successfully captured the transparent meaning. As for Arberry, he has decided to render the contextual meaning “their mates” rather than the transparent meaning “their husbands” based on the co-text. That is, the morphology in this verse indicates that the possessive pronoun هن in بعولتهن, بردهن, لهن, and عليهن can only refer to “wives” as the counterparts of “husbands.” Therefore, Arberry’s “their mates” can be successfully interpreted as “their husbands” in this verse.

4.1.3 Rendering نسبا وصهراً into English

Table 5 shows how different translators handle the totality of meaning in the expression (نسبا وصهراً), which involves both marriage and lineage relations.

Ibn Kathir (2011) refers to as a “descent” and to صهر as “in-laws.” Examining the eight translations above, we can see that all the classical translations and three of the recent ones (Sarwar, Ghali, and Abdel-Haleem) have successfully been interpreted as involving blood/lineage relations and as involving marriage relations. As for Itani’s rendition, it has fallen short of capturing the totality of the two Qur’anic terms by bringing out the marriage side while ignoring the lineage side, namely. “relationships through marriage and mating,” which focuses only on marriage relations.

4.1.4 Rendering بنين وحفدة into English

Table 6 reflects how recent and classical translators render the marriage expression, بنين وحفدة into English.

The above Qur’anic verse employs two hypernyms بنين “children” and حفدة “grandchildren,” respectively, for the hyponyms “sons” and “daughters” on the one hand and “grandsons” and “granddaughters” on the other. Both prove problematic to some classical and recent translations alike. The classical translators Pickthall and Arberry offer hyponyms to stand for hypernyms, namely. “sons and grandsons,” which may result in a reader-focused coherence shift. The target reader will most likely wonder why “daughters” and “granddaughters” are excluded here. Ali and Shakir, for their part, offer paraphrases and hypernyms and a mix of hyponyms and hypernyms, respectively, namely “sons and daughters and grandchildren” and “sons and grandchildren.” Thus, with the exception of Ali’s awkward rendering, all the classical translations have failed to relay the intended meaning.

By contrast, two of the recent translators (Abdel-Haleem and Itani) show substantial improvement by successfully rendering the two marriage-related terms into “children and grandchildren.” As for Sarwar, just like most of the classical translators, he has fallen into the trap of employing hyponyms for hypernyms. Lastly, Ghali’s rendering suffers from wordiness, namely, “sons (i.e., Sons and daughters; seeds) and grandchildren.”

4.2.1 Rendering صدقاتهن نحلة into English

Table 7 shows the renditions of the expression صدقاتهن نحلة.

According to Ibn Abbas (2014) and Ibn Kathir (2011), a Muslim who plans to marry a woman must clearly state a dowry mahr for her in the marriage contract. Stating a dowry is an obligatory duty in Islam, and the Qur’anic word نحلةً contextually indicates this “obligatory sense.” Furthermore, according to islamswomen.com (2023), the term صداق is derived from the source root “honesty” صدق, which denotes the honesty of the man with his wife in the marriage contract. Additionally, giving mahr to the wife is a tradition in pre-Islamic culture.

As can be noted, none of the translators has taken into account that the dowry is obligatory, which may be expressed within the text or in a footnote. Simply put, it would be better translated as “Give the women their dowries as a mandatory or an obligatory duty.” However, neither classical nor recent translators have captured this significant part of the expression of marriage. All of them have indicated that the dowry is “a free gift” rather than “a mandatory duty.” Therefore, it is vital to specify the exact sense of the post-modifier نحلة before offering a translation of this marriage expression.

4.2.2 Rendering وآتيتم إحداهن قنطارا into English

Table 8 presents classical and recent renditions of the expression وآتيتم إحداهن قنطارا.

Ibn Kathir (2011) indicates that the word refers to a large amount of money or gold (about twelve thousand ounces). Al-Tabari (1958) adds that the amount may be a two hundred heavy of silver or one hundred pounds of gold. As can be seen, exegeses are not certain about what the exact equivalent is in money or gold; they only emphasize its large quantity. All the translators, classical and recent, have brought out this nuance of meaning by referring to a large amount of money/gold given to the bride upon marriage. To be more accurate, Ali (1934) opts to provide a footnote that explicates this term and emphasizes its large volume. All in all, the translators have successfully rendered the message intended by this marriage expression, which refers to “dowry.”

4.2.3 Rendering فاتوهن أجورهن فريضة into English

Table 9 showcases another expression that indicates in فاتوهن أجورهن فريضة.

This expression explicitly shows that paying a dowry is obligatory. If we exclude Arberry (classical) and Ghali (recent), the other translators have captured the message that the bride’s dowry/compensation is obligatory, which is the intended meaning of this marriage expression. Both Arberry and Ghali have missed the emphasis communicated by the post-modifier فريضة “obligatorily.”

4.2.4 Rendering لعدتهن وأحصوا العدة فطلقوهن into English

Table 10 highlights different translators’ procedures in rendering the expression فطلقوهن لعدتهن وأحصوا العدة.

The Qur’an also contains jurisprudential rules like the rule of ‘عِدة. This is an allocated period that a divorced or widowed woman must wait before she can remarry. This period exists to ensure that the womb is free of pregnancy, depending on the case in question. Specifically, it is 3 months as a standard case, or 4 months and 10 days for a widow, and for pregnant women until they give birth, while ‘ is not required in the case the man did not sleep with his divorcee. According to Al-Tabari (1958) and Ibn Kathir (2011), ‘in this context refers to “the calculated period of purity from three successive menstrual cycles.”

As this concept is alien to the West, it constitutes a complete referential gap. Therefore, translators must rely on translation procedures to properly render this term in a clear and understandable way, taking into consideration that this technical term is a Qur’anic euphemism for the legally mandated waiting period.

All translators, with the exception of Arberry (classical) and Itani (recent), have tried to paraphrase this concept for the target reader by explaining the meaning in its first occurrence and then using a general term for the second occurrence. Thus, the descriptive phrases, namely, “the waiting period,” “the prescribed period,” “the legal period,” and “the fixed spell,” “the period of purity,” all attempt to explain what is meant by ‘. Furthermore, Ali and Abdel-Haleem rightly support their translations with elaborate footnotes to ensure communicating this Islamic concept. Abdel-Haleem adds the following footnote: “the waiting period starts properly after menstruation and before intercourse is resumed, and lasts for three menstrual cycles.” For his part, Ali defines it within his footnote as: “a period of waiting for 3 monthly courses is prescribed, in order to see if the marriage conditionally dissolved is likely to result in issue.”

As for Arberry’s and Itani’s translations, they employ general/unspecified terms “period” and “period of purity” as equivalents for the term, which are misleading for the target reader. The former may be wrongly associated with women’s monthly menstruation. This was confirmed by Farghal and Al‐Masri (2000) who examined a group of twenty American native speakers of English that mostly provided interpretations related to the menstrual cycle rather than the intended meaning. Thus, Arberry’s translation is vague and may lead the target reader into misconceptions or irrelevant tracks. Likewise, the latter (Itani’s rendition) suffers from lack of clarity because the term “purity” is too abstract and general. If the target reader is not highly educated, they might fail to understand it, for example, they may think that the intended meaning of “purity” refers to the daily purity for the performance of الصلاة (e.g., purity after sexual intercourse), or purity from sins (i.e., repentance), although the intended meaning of purity specifically refers to menstrual cycles.

4.2.5 Rendering حتى يبلغ الكتاب أجله into English

Table 11 shows the translation procedures in rendering the expression حتى يبلغ الكتاب أجله.

Al-Tabari (1958) indicates that this verse contextually presents an Islamic rule stating that a man is not permitted to marry a widow until she has completed her ‘ time. So, the term الكتاب “book” refers figuratively to the term. As can be noted above, three of the translators (Arberry and Shakir/classical and Itani/recent) have opted for literal/semi-literal translation that may not communicate the intended meaning in the context of discussing the term‘. Arberry translates the figure of speech literally by rendering it into “the book,” which may amount to a mistranslation without a footnote. Similarly, Shakir and Itani have employed a general term “the writing,” which may also be misinterpreted. By contrast, the other translators (Pickthall, Ali/classical, and Sarwar, Ghali and Abdel-Haleem/recent) have successfully referred to as a period of time, viz. “(the term) prescribed,” “the term prescribed,” “the appointed time,” “the term has been reached,” and “the prescribed period,” respectively. Contextually, therefore, they have managed to paraphrase the figure of speech in a comprehensible manner to the target reader by avoiding the trap of literal/semi-literal translation.

4.2.6 Rendering فلا تميلوا كل الميل فتذروها كالمعلقة into English

Table 12 gives the renditions of this expression in the verse فلا تميلوا كل الميل فتذروها كالمعلقة in Surat An-Nisa, which is concerned with women’s rights.

This verse discusses the concept of “polygamy” and recommends that a husband should fairly deal with his wives. In addition, it strictly draws attention to the fact that when a man decides to marry another wife, he will never be able to treat his two wives with equal fairness, especially in his affection, even if he wants to do so. This prescribed good treatment should be extended to all marriage manifestations, including affection, respect, maintenance, and other marriage duties. Al-Tabari (1958) identifies the meaning of this expression فلا تميلوا كل الميل فتذروها كالمعلقة as “not letting your greater love for one wife over another lead you to leave the rights or your duty toward the latter.” A husband should be fair in his maintenance and have good treatment for both. Thus, leaving one of them “hanging (in the air)” or in “suspense,” i.e., “neither divorced nor married,” is unacceptable in Islam. Similarly, Ibn Abbas (2014) and Ibn Kathir (2011) assert the same interpretation.

Broadly speaking, figurative language is frequently used to create a broad oratorical impact. Abrams (1999) identifies figurative language as a departure from what speakers of a language perceive as the ordinary or standard significance or sequence of words in order to achieve some special meaning or effect. In this Qur’anic verse, the simile suggests that leaving one wife ignored is like leaving someone “hanging in the air/suspended.” This conversationally implicates (Grice, 1975) that the husband is ignoring one of his wives by not securing her rights and not performing his duties toward her, thus leaving her “neither divorced nor appropriately married.”

In this Qur’anic verse, a simile suggests that neglecting one wife is comparable to leaving someone ‘hanging in the air/suspended,’ implying (Grice, 1975) that the husband ignores one of his wives by not securing her rights and fulfilling his duties towards her. This leaves her “neither divorced nor appropriately married.”

As can be noted in the above translations, the intended meaning of the marriage expression is captured mostly through paraphrase and conversational implicature by referring to leaving a wife “in suspense/suspended,” thus implicating that “she is in a state between marriage and divorce.” Only Ali (classical) and Abdel-Haleem (recent) have explicitly referred to this state; namely, Ali translates the simile formally, “leaving her (as it were) hanging (in the air) and explicates in a footnote,” while Abdel-Haleem explicates using parenthetical material in the text “leaving her suspended [between marriage and divorce].” One should note that the intended meaning is conveyed in the ST by way of conversational implicature. Thus, it is necessary to explicate in the TT if the paraphrase has the same metaphorical potential, which is the case here. Explicitation, therefore, needs to be called up only when the conversational implicature may not come through.

4.3.1 Rendering عقدة النكاح into English

Table 13 shows eight renditions of the expression ولا تعزموا عقدة النكاح.

Ibn Kathir (2011) states that this expression specifically relates to confirming the marriage contract. This verse explicitly addresses men, stating that they are not allowed to confirm a marriage contract with a widow or a divorced woman until the designated period is over. Therefore, a man can keep his desire to wed a divorced or widowed woman to himself (in his heart) without revealing this, and he cannot officially wed her until she has completed her ‘ time. All the translations above successfully convey the message that a marriage contract cannot be legally concluded before the prescribed period has passed in order to rule out pregnancy from the previous marriage. Ali, Arberry, and Shakir (classical), and Ghali, Abdel-Haleem, and Itani (recent) have formally captured the Qur’anic metaphor عقدة النكاح by rendering it into “marriage knot/tie,” thus communicating the intended meaning metaphorically way it is expressed in the ST. For their part, Pickthall (classical) and Sarwar (recent) have opted to paraphrase the marriage metaphor using “decide/resolve,” which conveys the intended meaning apart from formal equivalence. One should note that when formal equivalence is workable the way it is in this case, it ought to be given priority in order to preserve the aesthetic parameter.

4.3.2 Rendering وأخذنا منكم ميثاقا غليظا into English

Table 14 shows the translation procedures for rendering the metaphorical expression .وأخذنا منكم ميثاقا غليظا

As can be noted, all the translators above (classical and recent) have successfully paraphrased the Qur’anic marriage metaphor ميثاقاً غليظا variably into “solemn compact/agreement/pledge/covenant,” “strong pledge,” “firm covenant,” and “solid commitment.” Unlike the metaphorical marriage expression عقدة النكاح above, which may semantically lend itself to formal/literal equivalence, namely, “marriage knot/tie,” the metaphorical marriage expression ميثاقاً غليظا literally/formally gives “a thick compact/agreement/covenant/commitment,” which are metaphorically alien to TL readers, hence may not be appropriately interpreted. Therefore, paraphrasing metaphorical expressions becomes inevitable in cases like this.