Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wakas

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
A commonly stated argument by those who wish to raise traditional hearsay/ahadith to divine-status level is that its compilation was the same as The Quran.

Is that really true? Lets look at the simple and obvious facts...

The Quran = God's Word
Ahadith = man's word

The Quran = 100% fact/truth/perfect
Ahadith = mix of truth and falsehood (hence weak and strong hadith)

The Quran = recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet Muhammad
Ahadith = not recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet Muhammad

The Quran = written AND memorised word for word as soon as it was transmitted
Ahadith = no-one ever claimed to record and memorise ahadith word for word as soon as it was transmitted

The Quran = protected explicitly by God Himself as stated in The Quran
Ahadith = no such explicit protection stated

The Quran = no Muslim doubts its credibility
Ahadith = each sect has its own versions, weak & strong ones etc

The Quran = in-built verification mechanism, e.g. challenges others to find inconsistency, bring a chapter like it etc.
Ahadith = no such in-built mechanism, full of inconsistancies etc.

I believe it can have two theoretical meanings based on the Arabic form:

islam = submission/surrender / peacemaking

muslim = one who submits/surrenders or makes peace (i.e. peacemaker)

AFAIK these words are not special and have no inherent link with God. That is a later attachment to the literal meaning mentioned above.

There has been extensive discussion on this on free-minds forum etc.

peace Mohammed,

3:180 is a different verb form and the context indicates its meaning here. In fact, perhaps telling us this verb form has a different shade in meaning, which seems to be borne out by classical arabic dictionaries. In any case, based on the additional evidence discussed in the article the evidence is weighted for (3) in my view.

5:89 is regarding breaking of an oath made, so not equivalent to scenario in 2:184


I still think that there might be questions regarding fasting in areas out of the ordinary where the month is witnessed and in areas where the sun never sets or when it never rises.

Questions like this might arise: "when does one begin the fast in areas when where the sun never sets and the month of Ramadan falls on that time?" Norway , Alaska, Antartica etc

How can one see the white thread from the black thread of dawn in areas where the sun's light is always present and the thread cannot be witnessed? When does one stop to eat and drink?

I agree there is some unanswered issues. While ago I tried to research what exactly the moon phases were like in those areas but didn't find complete information. AFAIK partial moon is visible but not a complete moon-cycle. I would be interested to know if anyone has this info.


By witness I mean observe/experience such a thing, e.g. the shahr (full-moon, lunar-cycle, however one understands it).

This thread was asking how do we reconcile salat and sawm in locations where the timings (based on natural phenomena) are out of the ordinary.

As I said previously this issue with regards to sawm can be explicitly answered via Quran, i.e. it is only applicable to those who witness the shahr.

However, with regards to salat there is no explicit answer.

For example, this doesn't really pose a problem with my view of a minimum of two salat daily for the mumineen, which is based on the only plural address to believers for a timed salat verse, 24:58, wherein only "salat al fajr" and "salat al isha" are mentioned. Note, the sun is not explicitly mentioned in this verse.

However, it could pose a problem for anyone with a view of salat timings based on the sun, e.g. as commonly found in the 5 salat daily view.

That does not mean I reject the sentiments as found in brother Joseph's reply.

As a side note I already mentioned the above in my salat article (I thought you had read it, perhaps not).


I cannot give an example of something that does not exist.

e.g. if you witness the shahr, fast. If you dont, you dont have to.

For salat there is no time-related exception/criteria like the above. This could be problematic depending on your view.

Islamic Duties / Quran and 2:184 - what is the correct translation?
« on: May 10, 2019, 07:59:00 PM »
New article:

Quran and 2:184 - what is the correct translation?

Feedback welcome, especially corrections.


Please note:

sawm/abstinence is only applicable for those who witness the shahr [2:185]

there is no comparable timing-related exception given for salat

Women / Re: Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife
« on: May 02, 2019, 08:20:11 PM »
peace Duster,

The issues you raise are already addressed on

You claimed to have read it. See previous quotes along with more quotes below:

End Notes for Part 1

It has been shown that there is not one clear occurrence in The Quran in which "beat" is the meaning of DRB.

It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation.

It is interesting to note from (11) and (12) that in similar contexts, The Quran switches from a non-literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. indicate) to a literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. strike / put forth / point out), by stating what the physical objects are and their interaction with the preposition "bi (with/by)".

The only verses in which the preposition "bi" is used with DRB are 24:31, 57:13, 26:63, 2:60, 7:160, 2:73, 38:44, 37:93, and in all these occurrences the meaning is a physical usage:

wal yadribna bi khumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna = and let them draw/cast with their covers over/on their chests [24:31]
wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet [24:31]
fa duriba baynahum bi soorin = then put forth between them with a wall [57:13]
idrib bi AAasaka al bahra fa infalaqa = strike with your staff the sea, then it split/separated [26:63]
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then vented from it (twelve springs) [2:60]
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then gushed from it (twelve springs) [7:160]
idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder) [2:73]
Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a handful, then collide /put forth with it, and do not incline towards falsehood [38:44]
Fa ragha AAalayhim darban bi al yameeni = then he turned upon them striking with the right hand [37:93]

There are two verses that may need clarification:
    2:73 should be noted that a murder/crime is something specific and a real world tangible object and thus can be referred to as such. This might offer a possible reason as to why 2:73 was traditionally translated as it was, because if a murder/crime was not seen as a valid object/reference to DRB with, then the only other valid object would be the dead heifer.
    38:44 the act of DRB upon what/whom is not specifically mentioned, thus several interpretations may have existed at the time. Once the true context and meaning is identified as shown previously, this aspect becomes self explanatory and what/whom is not needed.

It is interesting to note that these are the only two verses with preposition "bi" that require careful study in order to reveal the most likely answer, thus for these two verses it is likely several interpretations may have existed. If physical/literal strike was one interpretation, then these verses could have been used to favour a physical/literal striking in 4:34.
If DRB in 47:4 is taken as a physical strike as is commonly done, albeit as an idiom, then it would be the odd one out, as it does not use "bi". This gives further weight to the alternative understanding presented above.

Also why would you need to 'cite' something in verse 4:34 when two other steps are already completed the first one being to admonish.... isn't that a form of cite already?..

Your above quote contradicts what you thought previously:

You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'

Allow me to quote form the conclusion given on with an explanatory note:


The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful; guardians to the unseen with what God guarded. And as for those women you fear their disloyalty, then: (first) you shall advise them, and (second) abandon them in the bed, and (lastly) cite them. So if they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way; Truly, God is High, Great. [4:34]
And if you (authority) feared a rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. [4:35]

The pronoun "them" refers to the same object in all three occurrences above, i.e. the woman/spouse. Thus you were correct when you thought:

You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'

If you have read the site you will know there are marital dispute examples in Quran which complement the above understanding:

An interesting example also appears in 58:1-4 in which a woman argues with the prophet complaining about her husband, and how the husband has estranged/alienated her by claiming her to be as his mother's back, which was a practice of the time, making the wife unlawful for himself but also not technically divorcing her allowing her to remarry, i.e. leaving her stuck/suspended.
This is an interesting example because if we suppose this could be classed as a case of iAAradan/alienation or shiqaqa/breach/rift, then the next step the wife took was to cite her husband's behaviour/actions to the authority, which would have been the prophet at the time. The correlation is specifically with 4:129 which advises the husband not to leave her stuck/suspended and this is the EXACT situation described in 58:1-4, thus showing that in a situation of no resolution, the next step would be to cite the partner/situation to the authority. If we correlate this example to what the next step would be in 4:34, if the steps are followed and no resolution is forthcoming, the next step would be to cite the partner to the authority. This would explain how the court/authority knew of the situation between the couple in 4:35. Since 'idriboo them' is the only step in between "abandon them in bed" and the authority becoming aware of the situation, is there a Classical Arabic meaning of DRB that fits in the sequence? The answer is a resounding yes, as one of its primary and most common meanings is: to cite/propound, declare/mention, put/show forth, point out or indicate. As we can see, it is a perfect fit.

Women / Re: Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife
« on: April 27, 2019, 06:09:51 PM »
Re: Q1)


DRB + mathal = propound/cite an example/similitude/parable
[2:26, 13:17, 14:24, 14:25, 14:45, 16:74, 16:75, 16:76, 16:112, 17:48, 18:32, 18:45, 22:73, 24:35, 25:9, 25:39, 29:43, 30:28, 30:58, 36:13, 36:78, 39:27, 39:29, 43:17, 43:57, 43:58, 47:3, 59:21, 66:10, 66:11]

With regard to the translation of DRB in the above verses there is variation, depending on translator, e.g. some use variations in 17:48, 25:9, 43:58, 43:17.

kathalika yadribu Allahu al haqqa wa al batila = in this way God propounds/cites the truth and the falsehood

For this verse some use "collides", "puts/shows forth" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), "points out" (e.g. Al Jalalayn).

All examples of DRB with a direct object and no prepositions mean "put/show forth", providing internal consistency of usage. And when used in the same way as 4:34, i.e. applied to a person in 43:57 and 2:73 it means the exact same thing. In 43:57 Jesus is the second object of the verb DuRiBa, and in this verse it is in the perfect passive form meaning the object received the action expressed in the verb, i.e. Jesus received DRB, i.e. Jesus was put/shown forth / cited/indicated (as an example) by those disputing. In 43:57 "mathala" could be considered an adverbial accusative that names or modifies the action of the verb. So the type of "darab" of the object "Jesus" is that of an "example". As we can clearly see a literal/physical striking of Jesus is nonsensical, and if we remove this modification of the verb, this shows when applied to a person as the object DRB on its own means to cite/indicate or put/show forth. A perfect match with 4:34 and 2:73.

Re: Q2)

Daad-Ra-Ba = to heal, strike, propound as an example, put forth a parable, go, make a journey, travel, mix, avoid, take away, put a cover, shut, mention/declare/state, propound.....

Posts on Facebook / Re: Was Ritual Prayer a Practice Invented Later?
« on: April 27, 2019, 05:59:45 PM »
peace brother Joseph,

... there is absolutely no historical proof that a mass invention of ritual prayer ever took place which introduced this practice into Muslim thought.

There is ample evidence suggesting certain aspects were formalised later, e.g. 5x daily, Friday congregational prayer e.g.

And we also know Traditional Muslim ritual prayer has things clearly additional, e.g. additional steps in ablution (compared to Quran) thus clearly innovation went on.

I haven't studied all the other aspects but it wouldn't surprise me to find initial variance/contradictory reports leading to a more formalised method later.

He is obviously not aware of:


We will discuss in more detail the verse which specifically mentions the issue of age. The context is the rights of orphans and their wealth:

And do not give the imprudent/weak-minded your money which God has made for you a means of support, and spend on them from it and clothe them, and speak to them in goodness. [4:5]
And test the orphans until they have reached the marriageable age*, then if you determine in them sound judgment**, then give them their wealth, and do not deliberately consume it wastefully or quickly before they grow up. And whoever is rich, then let him abstain (from the wealth), and if he is poor then let him utilise by what is recognised as good/appropriate. So when you paid to them their wealth, so call a witness on them, and be aware God is accounting. [4:6]

*The Arabic word is "nikah" (marriage) and has an implied meaning of sex, hence some translators interpret it as 'reached sexual maturity' in this verse.
**Arabic word is "rushd" and its meanings include: be well guided or directed, true direction, correct rule of action, straight forwardness, maturity of a child/intellect, capacity to manage one's affairs.

Thus, the two conditions for giving the wealth to the orphans are:
1- The reaching of the marriageable age / sexual maturity.
2- The proving of sound judgement / capability in managing one's affairs.

Interestingly, this implies that one could reach marriageable age / sexual maturity but still not have sound judgement, which is universally true and gives a possible reason why a specific age for marriage is not stated in The Quran. Based on this and other verses regarding marriage, it can be deduced that these two conditions can also be used as a guideline for when to consider marriage. The reason being, if we suppose after having reached marriageable age / sexual maturity an orphan is allowed to get married but their wealth is not given to them, this means they have been determined not to have sound judgement, yet they are being allowed to get married, which is logically inconsistent with the guidance in The Quran.

Please note, in 4:6 it also warns those entrusted with the wealth not to consume or waste it before they grow up, further reinforcing the idea that the period being referred to is when grown up. To conclusively prove this however, we can also look at other verses which discuss giving orphans the wealth owed to them [6:152, 17:34]. The Arabic word used in these verses is when they are "shudud", which means physical maturity / the period from adolescence to adulthood. Since the orphans can only receive their wealth once "shudud", and from 4:6 we know they become eligible for it after having reached marriageable age, this can only mean marriageable age begins from adolescence onwards. There is no other possibility.
This conclusion can also be verified in the story of Jospeh, who when first found in the well was a boy (Arabic: ghulam, see 12:19), then taken into care, then when he reached "shudud" (i.e. became physically mature) the female of the household tried to seduce him [12:22-23].
In addition, the usage of this word "shudud" in The Quran suggests reasonable physical strength, i.e. at least several years into adolescence [18:82, 28:14] which also agrees with most Classical Arabic dictionaries which average about from the age of 17 for the word "shudud", which also happens to coincide with when a significant number of orphans would meet the two conditions for receiving their wealth. Many countries begin to grant extra rights at the age of 16, and many give full rights at 18, so this seems fairly close to worldwide practice.

To conclude, it is proven beyond doubt by The Quran that one must be physically mature and be of sound judgement in order to get married.

Women / Re: Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife
« on: April 18, 2019, 10:24:35 PM »

Shalom / peace Wakas ... You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'......

1 - Do you have an example of any other place in the Qur'an where the verb 'idrib' means 'cite' as you have defined it? ... >>>
2 - Do you know of any lexicon in the entire Arabic language that provides the meaning of 'idrib' as you have defined it i.e. to mean 'cite'?

Can you clarify if you have you read ? Or used ?


Some things are not about verse/chapter numbers. The mathematical component of Quran (if there is one) would simply be one of multiple facets in terms of ascertaining its authenticity. You may find this interesting:

Women / Re: Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife
« on: April 13, 2019, 10:14:07 PM »
Would you say this "disciplining" would also apply in the case of a trouble-making husband? If not, why not?

I'm not sure whom you are asking this question to but for my reply please see the link I referenced above. It specifically analyses and compares 4:34 and 4:128, and you may note something very interesting, briefly summarised below:

Quote from

husband fears uprising/disloyalty from wife
---> advise ---> abandon in bed
---> (if still no resolution) idriboo/cite them
---> authority feared breach/rift (i.e. no resolution) thus appoint arbiters

if a wife feared uprising/disloyalty from husband
---> then no blame upon them that they try to reconcile between themselves
---> but if situation continues as is, i.e. no resolution, authority/arbiters can get involved (THINK: what would come before this step)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31