Messages

peace,
I recommend this article:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/kitab-hikma.html

Specifically the discussion on what is "hikma"/wisdom.

Forgot to ask, what were you referring to when you said:

"Your discussion about the deeper meaning of kitab resolved one of my doubts of the Qur'an."


Related article:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/covenant-quran.html

peace,

I'm not really saying they are one and the same. I am saying they are related, i.e. not a secondary source compiled from hearsay reports.

There is variance when it comes to the understanding of 27:40 however I meant where it says "the one who had knowledge of the kitab..." was able to do XYZ in a seemingly extraordinary way. Asad considers this person to be Solomon, others do not. Some interpolate various interpretations of what happened. http://quranix.org/27#40
I haven't concluded in my understanding of 27:40. If you have a cogent understanding please share.


Re: 66:3, my understanding:
One of the wives told another and the prophet was made aware of this so when he talked about it he discussed one part of it and left a part out. Main point is, relevant to the article, is she was reprimanded for divulging a hadith of his i.e. not meant to spread it.

The article has now been updated and discusses the meaning of kitab, hikma, ummi, and touches upon a few interesting observations and how it all fits together.

Here are some articles you might find interesting:

The Quran and probability
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Does_God_Exist_home.htm

Errors in The Bible (there are many many more than these):
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/errors_mistakes_bible.htm

What a refusal to answer the question.

Wrong. I already answered it.

She was clearly asking if she would have to return the mahr if she wanted to divorce from an abusive husband. Your answer is yes, so why not just say that? In your interpretation, she has to return her marriage gift to an abusive husband so she is able to get out of her marriage.

Wrong again. Rather than claiming what my position is why not provide a quote from me which proves what you claim is my position is actually my position.

Now they have to suffer financially, birth babies, take care of said babies (including the manchild husband), her in-laws, etc, and STILL return the mahr? Imagine doing all that and you still have to give more.
Yet there is no such stipulation on the husband to give anything to his ex-wife who is far more likely to suffer as a result and is far more likely to be stuck with children, and far more likely to suffer societal wrath, whether she initiates the divorce or not.

Wrong again. Where in Quran does it say the wife gets stuck with the children / father does not need to provide for them / husband does not provide anything to ex-wife etc.

The real question in the context of this discussion should be: if one wants to follow the more Western model of divorce with both being able to initiate divorce, is that fine in Islam or not?

I cannot answer for the religion of "Islam" with a capital "I". If you are referring to Quran based islam then I already answered this.

[The calendar system according to The Quran]

peace all,

The calendar system according to The Quran
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/quran-calendar.html

Quote:

To summarise the information we have so far:

Year is solar (365.25 days)
Both sun and moon are involved in the calendar/timing system.
Count of months/moons is 12 per solar year, 4 of which are consecutive inviolable months/moons
The first inviolable month/moon is probably "shahr ramadan" and the latter 3 are for the hajj - and all 4 are in a warm period
The hajj period and ramadan do not overlap/coincide
Seasons are in sync (i.e. regular pattern) in the year - and the inviolable months/moons are unlikely to be in spring or winter

It is similar to brother Ayman's article but with some different bits of info, making the case stronger hopefully, and a difference in starting point of the year.

It's possible we have finally resolved this issue

Feedback welcome, especially corrections.

peace m114, all,

I am writing an article on it currently. Here is an interesting snippet:

Quote:

Quran 9:1-2 mentions an acquittal/release from a treaty with some polytheists and tells them they have amnesty/ceasefire for 4 months/moons and then in 9:3 it mentions this announcement on the greatest day of the hajj or day of the greatest hajj (doesn't seem to matter which interpretation is chosen) but follows in 9:5 by saying when the plural inviolable months/moons have peeled/stripped-off/passed (see Project Root Llist for further evidence of the consecutive nature of this word "inSaLaKHha") then those who broke the treaty can be fought. Note the Arabic plural means 3 or more.
I initially thought The Quran was repeating the same acquittal/release in 9:1 in 9:3 again but I should have realised Quran's word precision is there for a reason. The 1st time it mentions 4 months, 2nd time it mentions when 3 or more inviolable months have peeled away. Also note how the beginning of each verse 9:3, 9:4 and 9:5 are linked to each other.
Thus the wording from 9:1-5 suggests the clear possibility that the 4 inviolable months/moons begin - then on the 2nd inviolable moon/month the hajj/homage periods can begin. This aligns with 2:197 which states "hajj are the months (plural: ashurun) well known". Remember the Arabic plural is 3 or more thus a minimum of 3 months/moons are allowed for hajj. If so this would match with 9:1-5.
The question then becomes what could be the first month/moon of the inviolable months/moons (if the last 3 are for the hajj)? The only other "named/described" month/moon given in Quran is "shahr ramadan" so this becomes the obvious candidate.

It just so happens when The Quran introduces "shahr ramadan" and then "al hajj" in chapter 2 it is in this order, i.e. ramadan first then discusses hajj.

We can prove from Quran that "al hajj" and "ramadan" do not coincide (i.e. same month/moon) because in the nights of abstinence one is allowed sexual relations with one's spouse (2:187) but when one is undertaking "al hajj" this is not allowed (2:197) and is only allowed after one fulfills/completes their hajj (which is a minimum of 2 days) see 2:203. Also see 2:196 in which abstinence is given as an option for expiation but this would make little sense if one was already abstaining/fasting in ramadan. And lastly exemption is given for abstinence if traveling but undertaking the hajj would likely involve traveling so seems a mixed message.

[The book and the wisdom (al kitab wa al hikma) argument: Traditionalist/Sunni Islam Vs Quran alone]

peace all,

https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/kitab-hikma.html

The book and the wisdom (al kitab wa al hikma) argument: Traditionalist/Sunni Islam Vs Quran alone

The argument goes like this: The Quran tells us prophet Muhammad was given the book (al kitab) and the wisdom (al hikma) and they say "al kitab" is The Quran and "al hikma" is separated by "wa" (and) so must be something else, which they take to mean the prophet's sunna. Thus using this as a Quranic justification for following the prophet's sunna, which they claim is documented in traditions (e.g. hadith), thus making those traditions a valid source of law.

There are a number of assumptions in this argument:
1) "al kitab" means the book
2) the kitab/book refers to The Quran
3) the conjunction "wa" (and) means a separate and distinct thing
4) "al hikma" refers to prophet Muhammad's sunna
5) this sunna is preserved/documented accurately
6) this documented sunna is authoritative i.e. must be obeyed

This article will address points 1-4.

https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/kitab-hikma.html

Click on link for full article. Feedback welcome, especially corrections.

peace Athman,

Apologies I only read your post today.
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.html

Re: 3-9
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Abraham-Sacrifice-Questions.html

Any reason you did not answer the other Qs?


Your use of "without warrant" is another way of saying "in my subjective opinion". I prefer evidenced examples from Quran to minimise subjectivity.

Your reply to Q3
You provide no Quranic example.

Re: Q4
It seems you understood perfectly. Please reconcile the submissive V coercive. Currently there is a conflict in the common view.

Re: Q5
57:27 uses the partitive, clearly implying some were true believers but most were not. In other words, my understanding would be God did not reward most because most innovated. So this does not qualify as an example.

Re: Q6
You claim in 37:103 X precedes Y but it uses conjunction "wa" / and. Could easily be argued it is simultaneous/clarifying, i.e. Quran is explaining what he did when he/they submitted. Of course this really only works for my view, not so for the common position.

Re: Q7
17:107 is taken by some(most?) as an idiom so it is not a good example. If you are claiming it is literal then do you prostrate upon the chin when you prostrate? If you say no then you will be going against your own understanding and a clear/literal example of the righteous in Quran. If you say yes you will likely contradict your understanding of 48:27. It seems you could get stuck.
Please see verbal idioms of Quran by mustansir mir, or lane's lexicon.

Re: Q8
So you take it as a "spiritual sacrifice" here, i.e. non-literal sacrifice? I assumed you only go with what dictionaries say which means this word is only used for literal physical sacrifice.
Even so it still doesn't quite fit "exchanged/ransomed him/son with a mighty spiritual sacrifice" because he wasn't really exchanged, he's still there with him/Abraham, together.

Re: Q9
You have no other Quranic example.


Apologies for the brevity of reply.

Another person, or audience, or person trying to come up with it, would decide.

Why is it logically flawed?

See:
https://misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=34

There is nothing to stop anyone adopting such a modification.

However the verses seem to be suggesting a specific targeting of believing women was occurring, when believers are not in the majority in this location. The hypocrites, those with disease in their hearts, and those who spread lies were likely targeting believing women then making out they did not know they were from such a group, so these verses discuss a way to be recognised as such, thus giving an ultimatum to expose the hypocrites.

Sorry, didn't see your post. I dont have resources but whatever claims are made i.e. 21 meanings of wa, then it should be backed up by examples.

Here are two more examples of clarifying, or making specific from a general, use of wa, 33:7, 2:98

peace m114,
I only saw your questions just now. You bring up some interesting points. I will need to ponder over this and study it more to see how it comes together.

peace Hajira,

Please see:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html
(it discusses divorce in Quran in detail)

Can women initiate divorce according to Quran?

Quotes from my posts on free-minds:

To my knowledge, the husband is the one who initiates divorce/talaq, however the wife can release herself from the marriage but it is not called talaq explicitly in Quran. In practice the end result is the same. It could be considered nomenclature for the time.

If a woman wanted divorce she can ask her husband to divorce her, but if the husband does not divorce her, she can inform the authority herself and request a release from marriage. Whilst different words are used the procedure is actually the same for both men/women, as the husband would also have to notify the authority if he wished to divorce.