Wanted: annotated translation of Afghan law

A snippet of Afghan law. I got it from a CBC article, but it's quoted widely in many news sources. Bolding is mine.

The law, which does not affect Afghan Sunnis, says that a wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."

"As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says.

"Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

One provision says a "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."

As a translator, my first instinct on reading this is to find the source text. There are obviously nuances in the original that cannot be fully communicated in idiomatic English. Examples:

- Preen? Not especially meaningful in English. We can guess from context, but the word itself doesn't communicate much for us. What exactly is the scope of the equivalent word in the source text?

- Travelling? Why the focus on the act of travelling rather than the (presumably implied) fact of the husband and wife not being in the same location?

- Why are being ill and having an illness presented as two separate concepts? What is the implicit difference in the source?

- Should not avoid for any longer than $FREQUENCY? Why avoid (which makes it sound intentional?) What is important about this that led to the awkward construction of any longer than a frequency rather than any longer than a period of time as is idiomatic in English?

I should heavily emphasize here that this is not criticism of the translator. The translator did perfectly well. It's a close translation, yes, but that's standard for legal language and this is legal language about concepts for which we don't have legal terminology in English. The English is for information only and not at all legally enforceable, and we already know the text is foreign by its very content so the lack of instantaneous and absolute clarity and the hint of foreignness aren't going to be disconcerting to the reader.

The problem is that the translator is working within the limits of translation. You're given a sentence of source text, you produce a sentence of translation. You use all your research and knowledge and expertise and decide that preen is the best word for the concept in question, and then all you can do is write the word preen. You could write a whole graduate thesis on why you chose the word preen, but all that translation allows you to do is put the word preen in the sentence.

I want that graduate thesis on the word preen. I want all the fun factoids surrounding, to use some entirely fake examples that I just made up with no knowledge of the source language, the information/renseignements or ser/estar situation with "being ill" vs. "having an illness", or that "travel" is perhaps a very specific concept in the Koran and would lose centuries of cultural connotations if translated into something more idiomatic in English.

It's obvious that there were a lot of difficult translation decisions made in this text, and I'd love to know what they were. I'd be very happy to see a paper on this some day.