American Journal of Islam and Society Vol 42 No 3-4.indb 180 KOPAH: A Serbian Translation of the Qur’ān by Mićo Ljubibratić E N E S K A R I Ć Abstract This essay examines the historical and social context surround- ing Mihajlo Mića Ljubibratić’s first translation of the Qur’ān into Serbian, published in 1895 in Belgrade. The article explores the political and social factors influencing Ljubibratić’s decision to undertake this translation, as well as the reception of his work in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. It also discusses subse- quent editions and publications of the translation. Additionally, the essay analyzes the Russian and French sources used in the translation and provides commentary on Ljubibratić’s stylistic choices within their sociolinguistic context. Enes Karić is a professor of Qur’anic studies and history of the interpretation of the Qur’ān at the Faculty of Islamic Studies, University of Sarajevo. He pre- viously served as the Minister of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1994-1996). Karić, Enes. 2025. “KOPAH: A Serbian Translation of the Qur’ān by Mićo Ljubibratić.” American Journal of Islam and Society 42, nos. 3-4: 180–205 • doi: 10.35632/ajis.v42i3-4.3893 Copyright © 2025 International Institute of Islamic Thought FOrUM  181 Keywords: Mićo Ljubibratić, Qur’ān translation, Serbian nationalism Introduction The year 2025 marks 130 years since the publication of the first edition of Koran (KOPAH), Mićo Ljubibratić Hercegovac’s (1839–1889) Serbian translation of the Qur’ān. This is, as far as is known, the first published and printed complete translation of the Qur’ān into the common language of many Southern Slavs, now referred to as Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Montenegrin. In 1895, Ljubibratić’s translation was published in Belgrade by the Ilija Milosavljević Kolarac Foundation. It was printed in Cyrillic and featured a beautifully designed edition with the title page stating: “Printing financed by the Foundation of Ilija Milosavljević Kolarac, State Printing Office, Biograd, 1895.” Few books published in the Balkans at the end of the 19th century have garnered such widespread and diverse attention. Ljubibratić’s KOPAH drew interest from political, cultural, religious, and national audiences. Its publication is accompanied by a fascinating story, not only about the translator and his wife Mara, who faithfully preserved his work after his death in 1889, but also about the translation itself, which serves as a testament to significant national, cultural, religious, and political currents in Austria-Hungary and the Western Balkans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The first edition of Ljubibratić’s KOPAH in Belgrade was well received by many Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Western Balkans, where it was reported as an unusual and noteworthy event in the press at the time, though there was some opposition. This essay sheds greater light on the production of this remarkable translation. The Life of Mićo Ljubibratić Mićo Ljubibratić was born in 1839 in the village of Ljubovo near Trebinje,1 in eastern Herzegovina. He completed his Orthodox elementary educa- tion at the nearby Duži monastery before continuing his studies at a general grammar school in Dubrovnik, often referred to as the Italian 182  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 school, where he became proficient in Italian and French. In 1857, amidst uprisings against the Ottoman Empire in eastern Herzegovina, the young Ljubibratić joined the insurgency under the leadership of Luka Vukalović. According to the Serbian encyclopedia, Ljubibratić demon- strated his commitment to the cause by setting fire to his own house, signaling to his comrades that he had no home to return to and was fully dedicated to the fight.2 During the uprisings of the Orthodox population in Herzegovina from 1857 to 1878, which were directed against the Ottoman Empire and often against Muslims in the region, Ljubibratić played a key role in peace negotiations, representing the insurgents in meetings with Bosnian Muslim representatives in places like Cavtat and Mostar. It was likely during this period that he conceived the idea of translating the Qur’an into Serbian, believing such a translation could help persuade Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) to support Serbian national initiatives in the Western Balkans. Ljubibratić fought against both the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, rallying support from Orthodox, Muslim, and Catholic communities. His influence extended from Imotski to Italy, where in 1880 he met Giuseppe Garibaldi.3 The only empire against which he did not lead uprisings was the Russian Empire. To further his revolutionary goals, Ljubibratić also became involved in Freemasonry. Ljubibratić proudly fought as an insurgent “for the Serbian national cause” in the Balkans during the second half of the 19th century. However, unlike most insurgent leaders of his time, he recognized the importance of cooperation with Bosnian and Herzegovinian Muslims and Catholics. His work on KOPAH, the first complete translation of the Qur’ān into a South Slavic language in the Western Balkans, was a direct consequence of his rebellious actions against the Ottoman and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Information about Ljubibratić as a translator of the Qur’ān remains scarce. In encyclopedic entries, he is barely mentioned, as noted by Sinan Gudžević, who asked, “Who was Mihajlo Mićo Ljubibratić, whose literary work is completely unknown, and who […] accomplished a translation feat of translating the Qur’ān?”4 During the 1857–1862 uprising, it is known that Ljubibratić served as the secretary to the uprising’s leader, Luka Vukalović. Sparse and FOrUM  183 unreliable sources suggest he lived in Belgrade from 1864, led secret organizations, was subordinate to Garašanin, and was influenced by the Italian Risorgimento. The most credible accounts of Ljubibratić during the Herzegovina uprising come from Kosta Grujić, who wrote in September 1875: Everyone around me is sleeping, only I am awake, partly because I am bitten by lice and partly out of desperation, for I can see that the entire uprising is amiss. The Montenegrins here are mostly here to plunder, with no discipline, almost like our Herzegovinians, some of whom are fraternizing with the Turks and working against us, while others lack courage. The few who are capable are disorganized. Leaders could not be worse, and there is no central government. Mićo [Ljubibratić] is opposed everywhere, and he himself, poor man, is exhausted in body and spirit, for he too has lost all hope in the progress of our cause. Serbia is not rising, Montenegro does not dare, and alone, we are not capable of doing anything with such people. Committees are useless and are only making things worse. There is no bread, there is nothing. The whole cause has just failed.5 The Serbian historian Milorad Ekmečić (1928–2015), in his text published in Biografije Matice Srpske (Biographies of Matica Srpska),6 described Mićo Ljubibratić as follows: Ljubibratić traveled to Italy to negotiate cooperation with Giuseppe Garibaldi, staying in Caprera and Rome. The period from 1877 to the Herzegovina uprising of 1882 marked the development of his political ideology for Serbian liberation. He devised a project for reconciliation with the Mohammedans and the conditions that should be established with the Porte, collaborating closely with a group of Bosnian beys, particularly with Omerbeg Ćemerlić. Ekmečić emphasized Ljubibratić’s strong interest in a political agree- ment with Bosnian Muslims stating, “Cooperation with Muslims, even at the cost of sacrificing peasant rights to resolve the agrarian issue by 184  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 dismantling feudal relations, was the foundation of his activity.”7 Ekmečić added that Mićo Ljubratić expressed his political activities toward Bosnian Muslims in calls for joint cooperation against the Ottoman Empire: He wrote many calls to Bosnian Muslims to work together with the Serbs in liberating Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Turks and in this regard, he became one of the most significant ideologues of secret organizations. Under the very recognizable influence of the Italian Risorgimento, he harmonized Serbian liberation ideology with the Italian model. In the first place, the starting point was that ethnic identity is determined by language, so all the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina, “regardless of religion, are brothers: according to God, language and homeland.” Sent to Herzegovina in order to prepare the joint uprising of Muslims and Orthodox Christians in 1866, he completed the ideological framework of this future revolution based on the equality of all religions, the preservation of the property of the Muslim nobility and the democratic form of the state.8 According to Muhamed Hadžijahić (1918–1986), a Bosniak historian, the first complete translation of the Qur’ān into one of the mentioned Slavic languages appeared in 1895 under the title Kopaн. Hadžijahić emphasized the significant role of Ljubibratić as a “Herzegovinian upris- ing leader”9 in the 1875 uprising in Nevesinje and its surroundings. He further elaborated on Mićo Ljubibratić’s contributions, stating: The author of [this] translation [of the Qurʼān] is a Herzegovinian uprising leader Mićo Ljubibratić, who stood out as a proponent of fraternal cooperation between Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. The translation was published after Ljubibratić’s death.10 The uprising against the Ottoman Empire erupted once more in Herzegovina in 1875, persisting until 1878, when Austria-Hungary, fol- lowing the Congress of Berlin, forcibly invaded and occupied Bosnia FOrUM  185 and Herzegovina under the pretext of “establishing order.” With Austria- Hungary’s arrival in 1878, Mićo Ljubibratić’s political aspirations were dashed.11 The Ottoman Empire was ousted, but Ljubibratić now believed it would be easier to garner support among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina to resist the new empire. Mićo Ljubibratić was already known to Austro-Hungarian authori- ties and their spies before the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878. His insurgent tendencies and pro-Russian ideological leanings were viewed with suspicion. Some sources indicate that Ljubibratić was arrested near Imotski in 1876 and subsequently imprisoned for a year in Linz and Graz. Additionally, his insurgent activities were often undermined by regional intrigues among rival insurgent groups. Politically, Ljubibratić advocated for a joint uprising of Muslims and Christians against Ottoman rule. In pursuit of this goal, he maintained contacts with Bosnian Muslim representatives, such as Omerbeg Ćemerlić, to foster collaboration. Ljubibratić championed the concept of “Bosnian unitarism,” envi- sioning Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state, akin to Serbia’s independence achieved with Ottoman consent and its subsequent with- drawal. He aspired for a sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina to align with Serbia as an ally in the Balkans during the latter half of the 19th century. In his work Memoari sa Balkana (Memoirs from the Balkans, 1858–1878), Martin Gjurgjević (1845–1913) described Ljubibratić’s political stance: A certain Mićo Ljubibratić, a native of Herzegovina (possibly Zubac) who settled in Biograd after the Battle of Grahovac, came to Herzegovina and played a significant role in the uprising, acting in favor of the Serbian Obrenović dynasty. This was met with disapproval from both Montenegro and Austro-Hungarian diplomacy. One day, he was apprehended by Austrian gendarmes in Dalmatia and expelled to Serbia. On this occasion, Ljubibratić declared that he cared little about who governed Herzegovina, as long as: “The Turk is out!”12 In essence, Ljubibratić was open to Bosnia and Herzegovina becom- ing autonomous and independent, provided the Ottoman Empire was 186  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 expelled from the region. This stance embodied his vision of Bosnian unitarism. However, during that period, many nationalist factions in Serbia and Montenegro opposed Ljubibratić and his proposal for an alliance between Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. These groups advocated for Bosnia and Herzegovina, or at least a significant portion of it, to be annexed by Serbia. This opposition likely contributed to Serbia’s delayed intervention to secure Ljubibratić’s release from the Austro-Hungarian prisons in Linz and Graz. In Serbian historiography, Mićo Ljubibratić’s legacy is met with ambivalence. His socialist tendencies and advocacy for Bosnian unita- rism were seen as overly ambitious, particularly his calls for Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina to join the uprising against the Ottomans and, later, Austria-Hungary. During the peace negotiations of 1875 and in discussions between Ljubibratić and the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it remains speculative whether proposals were made to establish Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent and autonomous state or if such demands were intended for the Ottoman Porte in Istanbul. From this historical distance, it is important to avoid projecting modern notions of “naive pacifism” onto the second half of the 19th century. One should not assume that pre-1878 Bosnia and Herzegovina, prior to the Austro-Hungarian occupation, experienced an “idyllic political agreement” between Mićo Ljubibratić’s Serbian insurgent faction and the Mostar ulama or the broader Herzegovinian bey elite. In any case, Mićo Ljubibratić, after his release from prison in Graz, returned to Belgrade before traveling to Rome in 1879. According to the limited available sources, such as the online edition of Srpska enciklo- pedija (Serbian Encyclopedia),13 it was during this time in Rome that he began translating the Qurʼān into Serbian. Upon his return to Belgrade, Ljubibratić continued his insurgent activities, notably participating in the 1882 Herzegovina-Boka Kotorska uprising. His political agitation, along with that of his associates and Orthodox compatriots, encouraged many Bosniak Muslims to join this uprising, forging a new alliance with the Serbs against the Austro-Hungarian government.14 However, the uprising was not without its share of intrigue, deception, and betrayal. Following the failed uprising, Ljubibratić returned to Belgrade, where he lived out FOrUM  187 the remainder of his life peacefully. It is believed that during his final years, from 1882 to 1889, he completed his Serbian translation of the Qurʼān. Mićo Ljubibratić passed away in Belgrade on February 26, 1889.15 Mićo Ljubibratić’s Translation of the Qurʼān Mićo Ljubibratić, the man who undertook the challenging task of trans- lating the Qur’ān into Serbian, succeeded in producing a remarkably eloquent and polished translation. Unfortunately, he did not live to see his work published, as he passed away in 1889. Nevertheless, his transla- tion is marked by a strikingly beautiful language and style. Even today, 130 years after its publication, Ljubibratić’s work remains a testament to linguistic richness and clarity. His translation is characterized by vivid expression and enduring relevance, with many passages untouched by the passage of time. It is evident that Ljubibratić made the final revisions to his translation between 1885 and 1889. However, the exact moment when he decided to begin this monumental task remains a subject of inquiry. It is challenging to provide reliable and factual answers to this question. The claim that he decided to translate the Qur’ān in Rome in 1879 cannot be corroborated by any documents, relying solely on “sec- ond-hand” testimonies. According to Muhamed Hadžijahić, the idea of translating the Qurʾān into Serbian had been brewing in Belgrade and Serbia since the mid-nineteenth century, driven by utilitarian and prag- matic goals. Hadžijahić therefore stated that: [T]he idea of publishing a Serbian translation of the Qurʼān dates back to 1868, if not earlier. It seems that this project was motivated above all by political reasons with the aim of building national-political sympathies among Bosnian Muslims through the publication of the translation of the Qurʼān [… Jovan] Skerlić wrote that in 1868 [the newspaper] Srbija reported that a “learned and virtuous Serbian priest is translating the Koran into Serbian,” and [the newspaper] Vila suggested that the United Serb Youth should publish that translation and “in this way, show its opinion about its Turkified brothers in the clearest way.”16 188  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 Hadžijahić continued stating that, “It is useful to supplement Skerlić’s information with the fact that exactly at this time in Belgrade Ljubibratić was actively working on the uprising in Bosnia, while count- ing on winning over the Bosnian Muslims. On May 11, 1867 [Mihajlo Mićo] Ljubibratić also submitted his plan for the uprising to Minister Garašanin.”17 It should be pointed out that Muhamed Hadžijahić also noted that in this period in Belgrade Mićo Ljubibratić was spreading his ideas about the “joint action of Orthodox Christians and Muslims” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he assured the then Serbian authorities in Belgrade that it was possible to win over “our Turkified brothers” in the fight against the Turks. In order to explain Mićo Ljubibratić’s beliefs, Muhamed Hadžijahić referred to the work Prilozi za prouča- vanje hercegovačkih ustanaka 1857-1878 (Supplements to the Study of the Herzegovinian Uprisings of 1857-1878). In the work, Mićo Ljubibratić is quoted stating that, “Reconciliation with the Mohammedans of Serbian nationality is my idea, which I have been working on since 1861. Since my arrival to Belgrade in 1867, I recommended this idea to all Serbian governments up to 1874.”18 Hadžijahić added that “in 1867 there were […] also some contacts established, so that a deputation of Bosnian Muslims also came to Belgrade.”19 Unfortunately, we do not know any further details about who were the members of this delegation of Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina that traveled to Belgrade in 1867, nor do we know who received the “Muslim delegation” in Belgrade and how they were treated. It should also be mentioned that the Srpska Enciklopedija (online edition) mentions Omer (Omerbeg) Ćemerlić as one of Mihajlo Mićo Ljubibratić’s collaborators working on reconcilia- tion projects between the Orthodox Christians and Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina.20 Several sources mention that the news about the translation of the Qurʼān into Serbian in Belgrade even spread to other European capitals. For example, “Revue Britannique,” in 1875, in its 6th volume (pp. 243-244) mentions the translation, where it says the following in French: Le Coran a été traduit en slave à Belgrade, à lʼusage des musulmans de cette nationalité, auxquels on offre de rentrer dans le ginon slave FOrUM  189 sans renoncer á leurs croyances. Le fanatisme féroce des partisans monténégrins, qui massacrent sans pitié les musulmans slaves, a fait avorter pour le moment la propagande serbe. Mais, comme les beys nʼont guére moins à se plaindre des Turcs, un accord entre les Slaves chrétiens et musulmans sur le pied de lʼégalité civile et la liberté des cultes nʼest pas aussi éloigné quʼon pourrait le croire. Il existe à cet égard un précédent, celui des musulmans de lʼīle dʼEubée, qui sont devenus de trés-bons et loyaux citoyens du royaume hellénique et fournissent à son armée dʼexcellents officiers. Il ne faut pas oubler que la traduction du Coran constitue un schisme séparant radicalement les musulmans qui lʼacceptent du khalifat de Constantinople, et que, si cet exemple était imité, lʼislamisme, qui est de sa nature une religion “acéphale”; en dʼautres termes, un protestantisme, ne tarderait pas à prendre rang à la suite des autres sectes protestantes autour de lʼastre du christianisme, comme lʼa fait récemment le mosaïsme.21 The Qur’ān was translated into Slavic in Belgrade for the benefit of Muslims of that nationality, who were encouraged to return to the Slavic fold without renouncing their religion. The savage fanaticism of the Montenegrin insurgents, who mercilessly massacred Slavic Muslims, temporarily halted Serbian propaganda. However, as the beys had little reason to long for the Turks, an agreement between Christian and Muslim Slavs under the banner of civil equality and religious freedom was not as implausible as it might seem. There was a precedent for this in the Muslims of Euboea, who became loyal citizens of the Greek kingdom and provided excellent officers for the Greek army. It is important to note that the translation of the Qur’ān marked a schism between radical Muslims who accepted the caliphate from Constantinople (Tsarigrad). If this example were to be followed, Islam, which by its nature is “acephalous” (i.e., without a supreme leader or head of religion), could become akin to Protestantism. In turn, it might not be long before it followed the path of other Protestant sects around the center of Christianity, much like the Mosaic religion recently did. 190  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 Unfortunately, it must be noted once again that comprehensive research on the broader reception of KOPAH (i.e., Ljubibratić’s trans- lation) in the Serbian press, as well as within the Serbian literary and political sphere at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, has yet to be conducted. What we have so far are only fragments and limited information about KOPAH and its translator, Ljubibratić. Following the sparse mentions of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān in the works of Serbian writers, we came across the book Последњи пророк [The Last Prophet] by Dragutin J. Ilić.22 Dragutin J. Ilić (1858–1926), the brother of the renowned Serbian writer Vojislav Ilić (1862–1894), wrote a critical review of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān just one year after its publication. He stated: It was, first of all, useful to compare Ljubibratić’s translation of the Koran with the Arabic text, because it was not translated from the original. In 2:209 and 35:9, Ljubibratić’s translation reads: “Bog upućuje koga hoće a ostavlja u zabludi koga hoće” [lit. God guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills], but Arabic language experts claim that it does not say: “koga” [whom] but “ko” [who].23 In the first version, Free Will [of people] would be absolutely denied, and in the second it would be absolutely recognized.24 Occasionally, one might come across some news or references to the publication of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān in books by Serbian writers from that era. However, the full scope of the Serbian literary reception of KOPAH remains unknown. It appears futile to search the archives and the written legacy of Serbian writers from the late 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, as there is little hope of uncovering anything new that has not already been published. The publication of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān was also marked by an incident in 1895, specifically during the time when KOPAH had already been printed and was awaiting binding at the printing house in Belgrade. According to details provided by Srpski Književni Glasnik (Serbian Literary Herald) from November 1, 1931, the FOrUM  191 writer and ethnologist Milan Đ. Milićević documented the following in his memoirs, dated March 14, 1895: “Ljuba Stojanović came to me and reminded me that there was a cross on the Koran next to the name of the late Ljubibratić (the translator) and that this would be a scandal for Muslims and a convenient opportunity to slander us Orthodox. So, oh my, I decided to erase the entire cross with a knife. I wrote to Ćumić to urge him to do the same thing on all copies.”25 Muhamed Hadžijahić commented on this Milan Đ. Milićević’s note thus: “Because of this, if one looks carefully at the cover sheet and the title page of the edition of the Qurʼān from 1895, what can be noticed on every copy is an erased part where a cross was printed next to Mićo Ljubibratić’s name, and on some of the printed copies the title page was completely replaced with a newly printed one.”26 The Reception of Ljubibratić’s Translation of the Qurʼān in Bosnia and Herzegovina As mentioned, KOPAH or Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān was published in Belgrade in early 1895, nearly six years after the translator’s death. News of the “translation of the Qur’ān into Serbian” was also covered by several newspapers outside Serbia at the time. The magazine Carigradski Glasnik (The Constantinople Messenger), published in Serbian in Istanbul from January 14, 1895, to 1901, once a week,27 reported on the release of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān in a brief article. When Mićo Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān was published, many ulama circles from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sandžak, and Montenegro strongly opposed it. It is possible that someone from these conservative and tra- ditionalist circles followed the publication of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān with a note in the “official gazette of the Scutari vilayet,”28 as Hadžijahić described it, which read: The translation of the Qur’ān in the Serbian language that was published in Belgrade cannot be in the least equal to the original. It is also stated that they found out that the translation “was sent to bookstores in Podgorica and it is sold there,” so it is considered 192  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 necessary to issue this warning in case that this translation ends up in the hands of Muslim citizens and is read by them, whether they get the translation for free, or they pay money for it.29 Hadžijahić mentioned that he does not know the name of the news- paper in which these warnings were written. He claims that he found the note stuck on a copy of Ljubibratić’s translation that belonged to the famous Sarajevo hafiz Ajni Bušatlić (1871–1946).30 The newspaper of Mehmedbeg Kapetanović Ljubušak (1839–1902), Bošnjak,31 also wrote about Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān and (with reference to the newspaper Carigradski Glasnik) said: “In its latest issue, Carigradski Glasnik brings the news that the Ćupić’s foundation in Biograd had a translation of the Koran made public, and that the official newspaper of the Scutari vilayet is angry, saying that the translation will not be correct, because it is not everyone’s job to translate the Koran and establish its fundamental statements.” In this same issue, the newspaper Bošnjak32 added the following short comment on this news: “To this, we say that it would be good if the Koran was translated correctly into Slavic, because then surely all learned people would have a different opinion about the Koran and Islam, because they would see that Islam was founded on firm foundations.” The newspaper Bošnjak, probably its editor Mehmed Beg Kapetanović Ljubušak, did not provide any broader explanation of what is meant by “Slavic,” nor was it indicated who are the people who should translate the Qurʼān into “Slavic.” Among the significant Bosniak newspapers from the first half of the twentieth century that considered Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān, the ultraconservative magazine Hikjmet from Tuzla stands out for its response.33 In a series of harsh articles directed generally against the translation of the Qurʼān, Hikjmet disparagingly claims that Ljubibratić’s translation is “a watered-down stew”:34 When direct translations from the Arabic language can be so weak, hallow and even completely faulty and incorrect, what should then be said about Ljubibratić’s translation into our language, which is, as our people would say, “a watered-down stew,” because it was FOrUM  193 translated from Russian, and into Russian from French, which is often opposed and referred to by our so-called progressives…35 Tuzla’s Hikjmet was not alone in its claim that Ljubibratić’s translation had something to do with the French translation of the Qurʼān by Albert de Biberstein-Kasimirski (1808–1887), which was published in Paris in 1841.36 This was also claimed by Mehmed Handžić (1906–1944), the afore- mentioned Dragutin J. Ilić and others. That there is a possible connection between Le Coran, i.e., the translation of the Qurʼān by Albert de Biberstein- Kasimirski, on the one hand, and Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān, on the other, can be deduced from the recent research on the influence that Kasimirski’s translation had in the Ottoman Empire in the mid-nineteenth century. In his Translating the Qurʼān in an Age of Nationalism, Print Culture and Modern Islam in Turkey,37 M. Brett Wilson argues: The importance of the French language in late Ottoman intellectual life should not be underestimated, even in the domain of Islamic thought. Someone living in nineteenth-century Istanbul could easily purchace a French translation of the Qurʼān, complete and freestanding, without Arabic text or the glosses of commentators […] It is all but certain that the most widely read translation in the late Ottoman period was the French-language Le Koran by Albert de Biberstein-Kazimirski, originally published in 1841. It was in this context that Ottoman Muslim intellectuals began to discuss the need for a Turkish translation that resembled those in European languages.38 Here, Wilson sheds new light on Ljubibratić’s decision to use Le Coran, i.e., the French translation by Biberstein-Kasimirski, as the pri- mary template for his Serbian translation of the Qurʼān. It is likely that Ljubibratić was aware of the popularity of this French translation of the Qurʼān in Istanbul, and indeed on the Ottoman Empire as a whole amid the tanzimat reforms. And, in keeping with the modernist spirit of the time, it would likely have seemed natural to translate the Qurʼān into the Serbian language using Le Coran. 194  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 Returning to the reception of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān by Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it should be noted that Tuzla magazine Hikjmet claimed that, “translations of the Qurʼān, due to their weakness, more or less emptiness and one-sidedness, do not affect the soul of the reader even remotely as the original, which is very often recited [i.e., read] with complete respect even by those who do not understand it.39 Due to this assumption, Hikjmet could not commend the style of Ljubibratić’s translation. However, it is noteworthy that Ljubibratić’s translation was praised by the most traditional Bosnian ulama between the two world wars, including Ali Riza Karabeg (1872–1944) and Mehmed Handžić (1906– 1944). For example, Mehmed Handžić, a graduate of the renowned Islamic university al-Azhar, noted that Ljubibratić’s translation is both linguis- tically and stylistically elegant: “Ljubibratić’s translation—printed forty years ago—40 despite our beautiful language it was written in, contains many mistakes and mistranslated verses. Furthermore, this translation is not translated from the original, but it is a translation of a translation.”41 As can be clearly seen, Mehmed Handžić praised Ljubibratić’s trans- lation, describing it as characterized by “our beautiful language,” which is a significant tribute to its quality. However, despite acknowledging its merits, Handžić also noted that the translation “contains many mistakes and mistranslated verses.” Unfortunately, he did not specify which parts were incorrect or provide examples of passages in Ljubibratić’s trans- lation of the Qur’ān that were “mistranslated,” nor did he list all the shortcomings of the translation. In his brochure Prvi prievodi Kur-ana u svietu i kod nas (The First Translations of the Qur’ān in the World and in Our Country),42 after a brief analysis and presentation of Russian, Polish, Czech, and Croatian—complete or partial—translations of the Qur’ān, Mustafa Busuladžić (1914–1945) turned to the “Serbian” translation of the Qur’ān by Mićo Ljubibratić: The Qur’ān was translated into Serbian from French by Mićo Ljubibratić-Hercegovac, titled Koran (Printing financed by the Foundation of Ilija Milosavljević Kolarac, State Printing Office, Biograd, 1895). Ljubibratić’s Serbian language is clear and sound. Based on Ljubibratić’s Serbian translation, physician M. FOrUM  195 Jovanović-Batut, a professor at the Faculty of Medicine in Belgrade, made a selection of passages related to health and published them as Život, zdravlje, bolest i smrt u Kuranu (Life, Health, Illness, and Death in the Koran, Published by the Institute of Public Health in Sarajevo, State Printing House, Sarajevo, 1927).43 Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān also influenced some Bosnian Muslim translators of the Qur’ān in mid-twentieth-century Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mustafa Busuladžić believes that Ali Riza Karabeg (1872– 1944),44 the translator of the Qur’ān from Mostar, made extensive use of Ljubibratić’s translation: “Along with the translation, Karabeg wrote a short preface. Karabeg’s translation, which the translator himself claims to be translated from the Arabic original, is actually an adaptation with minor changes of Ljubibratić’s Serbian translation, although Karabeg knew Arabic very well.”45 It should also be noted that Zodijak library in Belgrade published a selection from Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān titled Iz Kurʼāna časnog – Svetu celom opomene (From the Holy Qurʼān – A Warning to the Whole World).46 The Style of Ljubibratić’s Translation of the Qurʼān and the Influence of Kasimirski’s French Translation Some observations have already been made regarding the praise for the style and language of Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān (e.g., by Handžić and Busuladžić). Furthermore, the fact that, over different periods, two selections from Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān have been published, along with two new complete editions in Cyrillic script— in 1990 in Sarajevo and in 2016 in Sarajevo and Banja Luka—speaks to the readability of the translation solutions offered by Ljubibratić. Ljubibratić’s translation of the first surah of the Qur’ān (al-Fātiḥa) serves as an excellent prologue to his work. He opts for “ordinary words,” achieving a sense of closeness in receiving the message of the Qur’ān and effectively conveying the voice of the Qur’ān, which suggests to people that they, like everything else, according to the Qur’ānic worldview, have one and only God, their creator: 196  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 У име Бога благога и милосрднога 1 Слава Богу, господару свега свијета, 2 Благому, милосрдному, 3 Владару судњег дана. 4 Тебе ми обожавамо, од тебе ми помоћи просимо. 5 Упути нас на праву стазу, 6 На стазу онијех које си ти обасуо доброчинством, 7 Не онијех, који су на себе навукли гњев твој, нити онијех који блуде.47 From reception theories, it is understood that every translation of a literary or religious text is also regarded as the translator’s interpre- tation of that text. This principle applies to translations of the Qur’ān as well. Each translation of the Qur’ān serves as both an interpretation of the text and a reflection of the translator’s views on Islam, their perception of the Qur’ān, and related matters. In this context, Mićo Ljubibratić’s KOPAH is significant from both a theological (particularly comparative-theological) and a socio-linguistic perspective. Regarding these viewpoints—both comparative-theological and socio-linguistic—it is evident that Mićo Ljubibratić drew upon his knowledge of the Qur’ān and Islam from his high school education in Dubrovnik, his subsequent study of Islamic literature, and his interactions with contemporary Bosnian Muslims in Mostar, Sarajevo, and elsewhere. Even among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina (who today identify as Bosniaks), Islamic terminology in the Bosnian language, as well as its religious lexicon, developed relatively late—at least in written form, using Latin and Cyrillic scripts—during the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. It should be acknowledged that Islam, as both a religion and a cul- ture, has influenced South Slavic languages, particularly those spoken by Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Albania. This influence is also apparent among Catholics and Orthodox communities in the Western Balkans. Many terms from the Qur’ān have been assimilated into colloquial language, such as zakāt FOrUM  197 (giving alms), ṣadaqah (charity), and ḥajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). Notably, the Persian word namāz (performing obligatory rituals, in Arabic ṣalawāt) has played a significant role. Bosnian Muslims adopted the Persian term namāz as a substitute for the Bosnian word molitva (prayer). Over time, namāz became perceived as more “Islamic” to them than the Slavic term molitva. In the sociolinguistics of the Bosnian language, it is sometimes suggested that molitva signifies a “prayer” of lesser signif- icance than namāz or ṣalawāt. When Bosnians say klanjati namāz (to perform namāz), it is understood to indicate something higher, greater, or more valuable than vršenje molitve (performing prayer). A similar distinction exists between the words Gospod (Lord) and Gospodar [Lord]. Generally, but not always, Christians use Gospod, while Muslims use Gospodar. This distinction arises from certain linguistic logic, a subject studied by sociolinguistics. The translator of the Qurʼān Mićo Ljubibratić sticks to his Orthodox terminology. He uses the word Господ (Lord) for the Qurʼānic word rabb and he also uses the word молитва (prayer) for the Qurʼānic word ṣalāt etc. Indeed, in Ljubibratić’s translation, the principle of intelligibility is not violated, although here sociolinguistics detects a gradual “transition of signs” or “transition of meaning” from one religious-linguistic area to another religious-linguistic area. There are thousands of proofs in Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān that the principle of intelligibility has not been violated. An excellent example is the surah Āli ʻImrān (3:7): Он је тај који ти је од своје стране послао књигу. У њој се находи неизмјењивијех стихова, који су као мати књиге, и других који су у преноснијем сликама. Они којих срца скрећу с правога пута трче за преноснијем сликама, из жеље за нередом и из жеље за тумачењем; али њихово тумачење нико не зна осим Бога. Људи становитог знања рећи ће: “Ми вјерујемо у ову књигу, све што она садржи долази од нашега Господа.” Јест, само људи разумом обдарени размишљају.48 198  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 “Cтихови” (verses) instead of āyāts (signs), then “Господ” instead of “Gospodar”—all of this represents Ljubibratić’s opting for “Orthodox” terminology, which a traditional Muslim reader from Bosnia and Herzegovina notices quite clearly. Of course, KOPAH or Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʼān contains an abundance of words or syntagms from the aegis of a Serbian Orthodox reading and understanding of the Bible. For instance, in addition to translations such as “Господ” and “cтихови,” there are also translations by Ljubibratić such as: “дан васкрса” (day of resurrection),49 then “Господ и анђели,” (Lord and angels),50 and “Бог и анђели поштују пророка” (God and angels respect the prophet).51 Ljubibratić’s translation of the word “ислам” [Islam] as “submission to the will of God” is also interesting, as can be seen in the following trans- lation: “Који год жели друго богослужење ван покоравања вољи Божјој (ислам), то богослужење неће примити Бог…” (Literally: Whosoever wants another form of worship outside of submission to the will of God (Islam), that worship will not be accepted by God).52 Kasimirski’s influ- ence on Ljubibratić is also evident. Kasimirski translated the word Islam with the syntagm “submission to the will of God”: “Quiconque désire un autre culte que la résignation à Dieu (Islam), ce culte ne sera point reçu de lui…”53 In fact, Ljubibratić took Kasimirski’s explanation for the word Islam: “Islām […)] signifie sʼen remettre à la volonté de Dieu.” (“Islam […] means relying on the will of God”).54 KOPAH or Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qur’ān demonstrates how a translator’s religious and cultural background influences their work. The translator engages in a dialogue with the style of the Qur’ān, bring- ing their own socio-cultural characteristics into this interaction. This interplay is often evident in the translation. Ljubibratić, an Orthodox Christian, infused his translation of the Qur’ān—a significant contribu- tion to the history of Qur’ān translations into Bosnian (Serbian, Croatian, etc.)—with his personal style and religious worldview. His translation shares stylistic constants with other notable works, such as Vuk Karadžić (1787–1864) and Đuro Daničić’s (1825–1882) translations of the Bible. This includes not only the archaic language commonly found in such texts but also the incorporation of specifically Christian terms (e.g., Господ [Lord], анђели [angels], хаџилук [pilgrimage]). In his rendering FOrUM  199 of Surah al-Baqara (2:1-5), Ljubibratić’s spiritual perspective, the ele- gance of his archaic language, and occasional use of rare words (e.g., кажипут [a guide]) are particularly striking. У име Бога благога и милосрднога 1 А. Л. М. Ево књиге о којој не може бити сумње; она је кажипут онијем, који се боје Господа; 2 Онијем који вјерују у сaкривене ствари, који уредно свршавају молитву и раздају у поклонима добра, која им ми дијелимо; 3 Онијем, који вјерују у открића од горе послата теби и прије тебе; онијем који тврдо вјерују у будући живот. 4 Само ће с њима бити њихов Господ, само ће они бити блажени.55 It should also be mentioned that in translating the name Allāh, the most frequent name used for God in the Qurʼān, Ljubibratić followed Kasimirski’s example. Namely, just as Kasimirski translated the name Allāh with the French word Dieu, Ljubibratić used the Slavic word Бог (God). The opening segment of the translation of āyat al-kursī (2:255) in Kasimirski’s translation reads:56 Dieu est le seul Dieu; il nʼy a point dʼautre Dieu que lui, le Vivant, lʼEternel.” Ljubibratić faithfully followed in his footsteps: Бог је једини Бог; нема другог Бога осим њега, Живога, Непромјенљивога. Kasimirski’s influence on Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʾān is evident in several aspects. For instance, Ljubibratić closely followed the pagination of lines and paragraphs used by the French trans- lator. Additionally, the names of significant figures in Ljubibratić’s 200  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 translation—such as Ној (Noah), Аврам (Abraham), Мојсије (Moses), Лот (Lot), Јосиф (Joseph), and Вениамин (Benjamin)—reflect the biblical tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church. These names are deeply rooted in the Christian tradition of the Orthodox population in the Balkans. Muslim readers of the Qur’ān, accustomed to the Arabic equivalents—Nūḥ, Ibrāhīm, Mūsā, Lūṭ, Yūsuf, and Binyamīn—do not find this nomenclature unfamiliar. However, sociolinguistic differences in language use highlight cultural nuances, which can be seen as a form of cultural wealth. Ljubibratić’s translation also reflects his Orthodox Christian background in the way he handles Qur’ānic oaths. For exam- ple, he uses expressions like ваистину (indeed, certainly, verily) and frequently employs the aorist tense, which aligns with the stylistic con- ventions of biblical language in the Orthodox tradition.57 Concluding Remarks Ljubibratić’s translation of the Qurʾān is a significant achievement in the South Slavic linguistic and cultural context. Over time, it has gained recognition and praise as a literary work. Through this transla- tion, Ljubibratić demonstrated that the universal message of the Qur’ān could be effectively conveyed in Serbian, a language deeply influenced by Orthodox Christianity. The Serbian orientalist Darko Tanasković (b. 1948) described Ljubibratić’s translation as the “best in terms of language and style, and satisfactory in meaning.”58 Following its publication, the trans- lation had a positive influence on some Serbian writers who approached Islamic and Muslim themes with goodwill. For example, Branislav Nušić (1864–1938) wrote Рамазанске вечери (Ramadan Nights), and Aleksa Šantić (1868–1924) incorporated many Muslim motifs into his poetry. In terms of style, Ljubibratić’s translation is suitable for use in a mosque. However, its nomenclature and terminology also make it compatible with an Orthodox Christian context. Sinan Gudžević was right when he said the following: Until someone with a Muslim name turns up and translates at least something from the Bible, Mićo Ljubibratić will not have FOrUM  201 a peer in our language. Today, 120 years after the publication of Ljubibratić’s Koran, it can be said that it is stylistically very beautiful, that our other translations do not surpass it in terms of readability, and that there can be no doubt that it was done with the greatest love. The fact that melek was translated as anđeo [angel], that Bog [God] was sometimes translated as Gospod [Lord], and poslanik [prophet] as prorok [seer], cannot be held against the translator, because at that time our language did not yet have a fully developed Qur’ānic terminology. The mistakes in Ljubibratić’s translation are no greater than the mistakes of other translators of the Qur’ān from that period. One had to wait 43 years for the next translation of the Qur’ān into our language, the one by Ali Riza Karabeg, and it turned out to be merely a superficial reworking of Ljubibratić’s translation.59 202  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 Endnotes 1 This information about Mićo Ljubibratić’s origin and life is drawn from the site: http://srpskaenciklopedija.org/ – Мићо Љубибратић. Accessed on October 1, 2024. 2 See: http://srpskaenciklopedija.org/ – Мићо Љубибратић. Accessed on October 1, 2024. 3 This information is, in part, drawn from the work: Milorad Ekmečić, Ustanak u Hercegovini 1882. i istorijske pouke, objavljeno u: Radovi iz istorije Bosne i Hercegovine XIX veka, Beograd, 1997. 4 Sinan Gudžević, Mićo Ljubibratić, Novosti, Zagreb. January 13, 2015. 5 Cited according to Sinan Gudžević, ibid. 6 https://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/stariSajt/biografije/biografije_sbr.pdf (biografija: Мићо Љубибратић – accessed on October 10, 2024). 7 https://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/stariSajt/biografije/biografije_sbr.pdf (biografija: Мићо Љубибратић – accessed on October 10, 2024). 8 https://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/stariSajt/biografije/biografije_sbr.pdf (biografija: Мићо Љубибратић – accessed on October 10, 2024). 9 Muhamed Hadžijahić, “Bibliografske bilješke o prijevodima Kurʼāna kod nas,” Bibliotekarstvo, XIII/3., Sarajevo, 1967., str. 43. 10 Muhamed Hadžijahić, “Bibliografske bilješke o prijevodima Kurʼāna kod nas,” ibid., p. 43. 11 Instead of a sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina—an idea with some popular sup- port—in 1878 Bosnia and Herzegovina became a corpus separatum under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 12 Martin Gjurgjević, Memoari sa Balkana (1858 – 1878), Sarajevo, 1910., p. 75. 13 See: http://srpskaenciklopedija.org/ – Мићо Љубибратић – accessed on October 1, 2024. 14 More on this in: Nikola Stijepović, Hercegovačko-bokeljski ustanak 1882: borbena dejstva i pouke, published by Vojno delo, Beograd, 1963. 15 Mićo Ljubibratić’s grave is located in the Belgrade New Cemetery. 16 Muhamed Hadžijahić refers to the book by Jovan Skerlić (1877-1914), Omladina i njena književnost (1848-1871), Beograd, 1906, pp. 221-222. 17 For these claims Muhamed Hadžijahić refers to the following source: Savo Ljubibratić and Todor Kruševac, Prilozi za proučavanje hercegovačkih ustanaka 1857- 1878. godine. Godišnjak istoriskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine, year VII. Sarajevo, 1956, p. 185 and further. 18 As it was said, Muhamed Hadžijahić refers to the following work: Prilozi za prouča- vanje hercegovačkih ustanaka 1857-1878. godine (authors Savo Ljubibratić and Todor Kruševac), published in: Godišnjak istoriskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine, year VII. Sarajevo, 1956, p. 200. FOrUM  203 19 Regarding this, Muhamed Hadžijahić refers to the following source: “Zastava” o Bosni i Hercegovini. Prva knjiga. Svjetlost. Sarajevo, 1953, p. 118. 20 This Omerbeg Ćemerlić is also mentioned in the work Odabrane biografije (pub. Matica srpska), volume five, see online edition, entry on Ljubibratić. 21 “Revue Britannique,” 1875, vol. 6, pp. 243-244. 22 Cf. Dragutin J. Ilić, Poslednji prorok, published by Knjižara Mite Stajića, Beograd, 1896. 23 What Dragutin J. Ilić wants to say is that the translation of this paragraph of the Qurʼān should read: “God guides to the right path those who want the right path, and leaves in error those who want to remain in error.” 24 Dragutin J. Ilić, Последњи пророк, ibid., p. 91, note 1. 25 Cited according to: Srpski književni glasnik, Beograd, November 1, 1931., book XXXIV, No. 5., p. 350. Cf. Muhamed Hadžijahić, Bibliografske bilješke o prijevodima Kurʼāna kod nas, ibid., p. 43. 26 For more see: Muhamed Hadžijahić, Bibliografske bilješke o prijevodima Kurʼāna kod nas, ibid., p. 43. 27 Muhamed Hadžijahić, Bibliografske bilješke o prijevodima Kurʼāna kod nas, ibid., p. 43. 28 Unfortunately, the name of this official newspaper of the Scutari vilayet is not known. 29 Muhamed Hadžijahić, “Bibliografske bilješke o prijevodima Kurʼāna kod nas,” p. 41. 30 Cf. Hadžijahić, ibid., p. 41. 31 The newspaper Bošnjak was published in Sarajevo from 1891 to 1910, and it was launched by the Bosnian Muslim reformer Mehmed-beg Kapetanović Ljubušak (1839-1902). 32 In the same issue of December 10, 1896. 33 Adnan Jahić wrote an excellent monograph on Tuzla Hikjmet. See: Hikjmet – riječ tradicionalne uleme u Bosni i Hercegovini, Tuzla, 2004. 34 Cf. Hikjmet, year II, no. 23-24, Tuzla 1931, p. 323. 35 Ibid., 323. 36 Cf. Albert de Biberstein-Kasimirski, Le Koran, Paris (Charpentier), 1841. 37 Cf. M. Brett Wilson, Translating the Qurʼān in an Age of Nationalism, Print Culture and Modern Islam in Turkey (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2014). 38 Ibid., p. 104. 39 Hikjmet, ibid., p. 323. 40 Mehmed Handžić wrote this in 1937. 41 Mehmed Handžić, Prijevod Kurʼāna od hadži Ali Riza Karabega, magazine El-Hidaje, year II, no. 9., Sarajevo 1937., p. 141. 204  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 42 Cf. Mustafa Busuladžić, Prvi prievodi Kur-ana u svietu i kod nas, Sarajevo, 1945. 43 Mustafa Busuladžić, ibid., p. 12. 44 Cf. Kur-an, preveo s arapskog Hadži Ali Riza Karabeg, Štamparija “Prosvjeta“, pub- lished by J. Karić, Mostar, 1937. 45 Mustafa Busuladžić, ibid., p. 13-14. 46 Cf. Iz Kurʼāna časnog – Svetu celom opomene, translated by Mićo Ljubibratić, selected by Miodrag Maksimović, foreword by Hasan Kaleši, Library Zodijak (published by Vuk Karadžić), Beograd, 1967. 47 A literal translation reads: In the name of the compassionate and merciful God; 1. Glory be to God, Lord of the whole world; 2. The compassionate, the merciful; 3. Master of the Day of Judgment; 4. We worship you and you we ask for help; 5. Guide us to the right path; 6. The path of those whom you showered with charity; 7. Not of those who incurred your wrath, nor those who went astray. 48 KOPAH, Beograd, 1895, p. 35. A common English translation from Mustafa Khattab’s The Clear Qur’an for readers unfamiliar with this verse reads: “He is the One Who has revealed to you [O Prophet] the Book, of which some verses are precise—they are the foundation of the Book—while others are elusive. Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking [to spread] doubt through their [false] interpreta- tions—but none grasps their [full] meaning except Allah. As for those well-grounded in knowledge, they say, “We believe in this [Qurʼān]—it is all from our Lord.” But none will be mindful [of this] except people of reason.” 49 KOPAH, p. 341. (75:6). 50 Cf. Ljubibratić’s translation of surah 89:23. 51 Cf. Ljubibratić’s translation of the paragraph in 33:56. 52 Cf. Ljubibratić’s translation (p. 43.) of the paragraph found in 3:85. (Ljubibratić’s pagination 3:79). 53 Cf. Kasimirski, Le Coran, Garnier-Flammarion, Paris, 1970, p. 77. 54 Kasimirski, ibid., p. 72. 55 A common English translation from Mustafa Khattab’s The Clear Qur’an for read- ers unfamiliar with these verses reads: Alif-Lam-Mim. This is the Book! There is no doubt about it—a guide for those mindful [of Allah], who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them, and who believe in what has been revealed to you [O Prophet] and what was revealed before you, and have sure faith in the Hereafter. It is they who are [truly] guided by their Lord, and it is they who will be successful. 56 Kasimirski, p. 66. 57 On the translation of the Qurʼān by Mićo Ljubibratić and comparisons of his trans- lation solutions with those given by our other translators of the Qurʼān, see many FOrUM  205 sections in our book: Hermeneutika Kurʼāna, published by Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb, 1990. 58 Darko Tanasković, Kurʼan, Mogućnosti, časopis za književnost, umjetnost i kulturne probleme, no. 8/9, Split, 1979, p. 882. 59 Sinan Gudžević, Mićo Ljubibratić, Novosti, Zagreb, January 13, 2015.