Messages

I agree but I think you may find this translation of 47:4 more accurate:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1
see 17

So, when you encounter those who have rejected/concealed, then put forth /bring about the captives (RiQaB); until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

It details the evidence as to why.

####

Also see:
https://misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=29
Conclusion, quote:
As can clearly be seen, taking all of the above verses of The Quran into account, it would lead to a gradual reduction in slave numbers and eventually abolish slavery.

It is commonly claimed that all the companions of the prophet were reliable/trustworthy, or some hadith scholars say only some are and it is determined on an individual basis.

However in the 1st fitna (civil war) there was allegedly tens of thousands of companions fighting and killing each other.

Narrated by Abu Bakrah:
The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"When two Muslims fight each other with their swords, both the killer and the one who is killed will be in Hell."
The companions asked, "O Messenger of Allah, this is understandable for the killer, but why the one who is killed?"
The Prophet replied, "Because he was eager to kill his companion."

Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari (Book 87, Hadith 29 / Hadith 31 in some editions) - Sahih Muslim (Book 1, Hadith 113) - need to verify this.

So if they believe in the above hadith this means tens of thousands of companions are going to hell.... so how can they take hadith from them? Was one side right and one side wrong? Both wrong? Does God send reliable/trustworthy Muslims to hell? I dont recall a Traditional Muslim scholar saying many companions are in hell - how do they reconcile it?


So this seems to conflict with their methods.


1st fitna e.g. battle of the camel
Ali et al V Aisha et al

From chatgpt:

The **Battle of the Camel**, fought in 656 CE near Basra, was one of the pivotal battles of the **First Fitna** (the first Islamic civil war). The battle was between forces loyal to **Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib** and those led by **Aisha bint Abi Bakr**, supported by **Talha ibn Ubayd Allah** and **Zubair ibn al-Awwam**, two prominent companions of Prophet Muhammad. Here's a list of notable figures who participated on both sides:

### **Forces of Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib:**
1. **Ali ibn Abi Talib** – Fourth Caliph and cousin/son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad (commander of the army).
2. **Hasan ibn Ali** – Son of Ali and grandson of Prophet Muhammad.
3. **Husayn ibn Ali** – Son of Ali and grandson of Prophet Muhammad.
4. **Ammar ibn Yasir** – Veteran companion of the Prophet and staunch supporter of Ali.
5. **Malik al-Ashtar** – Trusted general and close ally of Ali.
6. **Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr** – Son of Abu Bakr and loyal supporter of Ali.
7. **Qays ibn Sa'd ibn Ubadah** – Governor of Egypt under Ali and military commander.

---

### **Forces of Aisha, Talha, and Zubair:**
1. **Aisha bint Abi Bakr** – Widow of Prophet Muhammad and daughter of Abu Bakr (she played a key political role but did not fight physically).
2. **Talha ibn Ubayd Allah** – Prominent companion of the Prophet and early convert to Islam (killed in the battle).
3. **Zubair ibn al-Awwam** – Cousin of Prophet Muhammad and one of the ten promised Paradise (left the battlefield before the main clash but was later killed).
4. **Abdullah ibn al-Zubair** – Son of Zubair and grandson of Abu Bakr, fought bravely to protect Aisha.
5. **Marwan ibn al-Hakam** – Former Umayyad official, fought against Ali's forces, reportedly responsible for shooting Talha.
6. **Umm al-Qirfa's descendants** – Some tribal leaders from Quraysh and allied tribes.

---

### **Key Points to Remember:**
- **The battle was named after Aisha's camel**, which she rode during the confrontation, becoming the focal point around which the fiercest fighting took place.
- **Zubair ibn al-Awwam withdrew** from the battle after a conversation with Ali, recalling the Prophet's prophecy about Zubair fighting unjustly against Ali. However, he was later killed in an unrelated incident.
- **Talha ibn Ubayd Allah was mortally wounded**, reportedly by an arrow shot by Marwan ibn al-Hakam, despite being on the same side, due to political grudges.


The **Battle of the Camel** involved thousands of participants from various tribes and regions, but historical sources focus on key figures, particularly prominent companions of Prophet Muhammad and tribal leaders. Here's a more **exhaustive list** of notable participants, divided by their allegiances:

---

## **Forces of Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib** (The Caliphate Army)
- **Ali ibn Abi Talib** – Commander-in-chief, fourth Caliph.
- **Hasan ibn Ali** – Son of Ali, Prophet Muhammad's grandson.
- **Husayn ibn Ali** – Son of Ali, Prophet Muhammad's grandson.
- **Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah** – Son of Ali from Khawla bint Ja'far (not Fatimah's son).
- **Ammar ibn Yasir** – Senior companion, loyal supporter of Ali.
- **Malik al-Ashtar al-Nakha'i** – Fearless military commander, close to Ali.
- **Qays ibn Sa'd ibn Ubadah** – Chief of the Ansar, governor of Egypt under Ali.
- **Adiyy ibn Hatim al-Tai** – Famous for his generosity pre-Islam, supporter of Ali.
- **Ashtar ibn Qais al-Kindi** – Commander from Yemen.
- **Sahl ibn Hunayf** – Veteran companion, played a key role in Basra.
- **Ubaydullah ibn Abbas** – Ali's cousin, fought bravely in the battle.
- **Abdullah ibn Ja'far al-Tayyar** – Nephew of Ali, son of Ja'far ibn Abi Talib.
- **Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr** – Son of Abu Bakr, staunch supporter of Ali.
- **Hujr ibn Adi al-Kindi** – Loyal follower of Ali, known for piety.
- **Sa'sa'ah ibn Suhan** – Orator and supporter from Bahrain.
- **Abdullah ibn Abbas** – Cousin of the Prophet and Ali, renowned scholar.
- **Abu Ayyub al-Ansari** – Veteran of many battles, supporter of Ali.

---

## **Forces of Aisha, Talha, and Zubair (The Opposition Army)**
- **Aisha bint Abi Bakr** – Wife of the Prophet, political leader (did not fight physically).
- **Talha ibn Ubayd Allah** – Early convert, famous companion, mortally wounded in battle.
- **Zubair ibn al-Awwam** – Cousin of the Prophet, withdrew before main battle, later killed.
- **Abdullah ibn al-Zubair** – Son of Zubair, fierce fighter protecting his mother Aisha.
- **Marwan ibn al-Hakam** – Influential Umayyad, reportedly responsible for Talha's death.
- **Hakim ibn Jabalah al-Abdi** – Tribal leader opposing Ali, killed in battle.
- **Abdullah ibn Amir** – Former governor of Basra under Uthman, funded the army.
- **Umm al-Qirfa's descendants** – Notable tribal elements from Quraysh supporting Aisha.
- **Yazid ibn Harith** – Commanded troops from Basra.
- **Al-Ahnaf ibn Qays** – Initially neutral, later leaned toward Ali's camp.
- **Abdullah ibn Zama'a** – Early Meccan Muslim, supporter of Aisha's side.
- **Amr ibn al-As** (allegedly involved in political maneuvering, though not present in battle).

---

## **Neutral or Non-Combatant Figures:**
- **Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas** – Refused to participate, maintained neutrality.
- **Abdullah ibn Umar** – Refused to fight, stayed neutral.
- **Muhammad ibn Maslamah** – Also remained neutral.
- **Abu Musa al-Ash'ari** – Advised against fighting, promoted peace.

---

### **Key Tribal Affiliations:**
- **Banu Hashim:** Largely supported Ali.
- **Banu Umayyah:** Split, with Marwan leading factions against Ali.
- **Banu Taym and Banu Asad:** Supported Aisha and Talha.
- **Ansar of Medina:** Mostly supported Ali, though divided.
- **Basran Tribes (Abd al-Qays, Banu Bakr):** Many supported Aisha, while some defected to Ali.

---

### **Casualties:**
The battle was extremely bloody, with estimates of **over 10,000 casualties** from both sides. The fighting was intense, particularly around the camel of Aisha, which became the rallying point until Ali ordered it to be brought down to end the bloodshed.

Since you did not comment on my reply I decline to comment on 24:33.

I want to see evidence you are sincere, thinking and have actually studied Quran.

e.g.

If a mountaineer says K2 is the most difficult mountain to climb - and another mountaineer says it is Annapurna - how do we determine the veracity of their claim?

What is the objective criteria if any? What is the subjective criteria?
What if the weather changes day to day?

#####

What if the point is there is no true objective criteria but making the attempt to climb them will demonstrate to the climber the gravity of the task, the extreme difficulty, the extreme challenge and make them think... maybe, just maybe the claim could be true.

1) Where did you get your subjective criteria?

2) Name any book on earth that fulfils your criteria?

3) If you cannot provide an answer to (2) then feel free to make up such a book and describe it for us.

4) Can you tell us what Quran says about each of the criteria you have listed? This will give us an idea on how much you have studied this.

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.