Meccan and Medinan

farati

Hello,

I have a theory. I think the Quran of Meccan period is for all times. While Medinan exusive for Muhammad. Example, chapter 9. It is a declaration of ultimatum. Hasn't anything to do with us. Meccan chapters deliver the value of Quran Message of truth of one God and a reminder for those who reason.
I also found out that all chapters of Medina start with - those who believe. Except for chapter Hajj, which is not surprising.
Folow the prophet is only in Medinan verses. Makes sense for his followers but not for us as Muhammad has passed away.
There are other examples of Medinan being Muhammad exclusive. All verses directed to Muhammad regarding wifes for example, are also Medinan.

I came to this after reading the Quran. A few months ago. Though not sure if I am correct - God knows best. Yesterday, I found out that a sudanese cleric, Mahmud Taha also preached the same principle in 1980's. He was hanged for apostasy.
Thoug there is a difference. He said Medinan are inappropriate to all times, except Muhammad (correct me if I am wrong). Whereas I think that Medinan reflect Muhammad's life and set examples for us to follow. For instance protecting yourself if attacked or that public humiliation is best punishment (Quranic example of flocking for adultery).

Jafar

I have another theory...

I think when the Quran was being 'canonized', the caliph or the scribes under the Caliph wrote things in the Quran which are

Not revealing at all
Far from the truth
Serve the interest of the Caliph very well

Do not idolize any books, serve God and God speaks to all of you through your conscience...
And definitely God's revelation has not ended..

farati

Doesn't really make sense. Do you have proof to support it?

If it is edited then why the Birmingham Quran shows the opposite? There is no thing in the Quran that even remotely supports the caliphate nor has it enough jurisdiction to manage an empire. The hadith do have this Arabic Culture and enough jurisdiction. Quran doesn't. Reasearch done by Dr Jonathan Brown proves it

Let me ask you. Why didn't Umar add Xaraj tax and many others to the Quran? He would do that and edit it to fit the Caliphate agenda? The truth is that only jizya (compensation for damage caused to the defender (Chaper 9)) is in the Quran and even it was used incorrectly.

Why doesn't the Quran include fiqf? It was clearly created by Umar. Why he did not put it in?

huruf

Some people do not accept nor are able to recognize that the Qur'an is indeed what it purports to say and if you acknowledge that for fact which is very easily proved, then you are told that you idolize a book, like saying that if a maths book says that number pi is what it is you idolize a math book.

For myself I have never worried about a n aya being madina o Makka, I think that the Qur'an gives all the context you need to know where or when what is dealt with applies.

Salaam

Novice

As I understand it, one of the reason to declare Meccan and Madnian chapters was to abrogate any verse that does not suits them. Beauty is that there is no agreement and every scholar has his own list of abrogated verses.

Peace

Man_of_Faith

Quran often even contradicts itself in the sectarian interpretation.