What is Ka’aba as per the Qur’an?
-
I see your point about the immediate context of that verse being hunting and I agree that part is clear.
My concern is that 5:97 seems to expand beyond just hunting by bringing in terms like Bayt al-Haram, shahr al-haram, hadya, and qalaid, which are used elsewhere in the Quran within a broader and connected framework. So it feels less like everything is being defined purely by hunting, and more like a specific ruling is being linked back to an already established system.
Thats why I am cautious about redefining all these terms solely within one local context, especially when their usage across the Quran appears more consistent and interconnected.
Just sharing how I am seeing it.
Dear @Fusion:
My concern is that 5:97 seems to expand beyond just hunting by bringing in terms like Bayt al-Haram, shahr al-haram, hadya, and qalaid, which are used elsewhere in the Quran within a broader and connected framework. So it feels less like everything is being defined purely by hunting, and more like a specific ruling is being linked back to an already established system.
Verse 5:97 does NOT expand beyond hunting. 5:97 talks only about hunting. The topic of hunting starts from 5:94 and run up to 5:99. I reproduced 5:97 below.
God has set the ‘ankles’ (= ka’bata) a system sanctioned (= baytil-Harama) to be upheld for mankind, and the restricted period/months (= shahrul Harama), and guidelines (= hadya), and the indicators (= qolaa-ida). This is to let you know that God, He knows everything in the heavens and the earth and what is beneath the earth. And surely God is fully aware of everything. (5:97)
The terms such as Bayt al-Haram, shahr al-haram, hadya, and qalaid are translated there. When Bayt-as-haram is used elsewhere, it has the same meaning as ‘sanctioned system’. Shar-Haram is ‘restricted period’. Hadya is a derivative of HaDa, and means ‘to guide’, never meant ‘gift’. Qalaida is used only in 5:2 and 5:97, and it means ‘indicators’, never meant ‘garland’. All these terms are explained in the article. If you read it a couple of times, you would have understood it. I read it many times and cross-referenced with the Quran to understand their usages in other verses to make sure whether it is correct.
You stated that these terms are used elsewhere in the Quran within a broader and connected framework. Can you give some examples? How can you “feel less likely everything is being defined purely by hunting” without giving any example to support what you are talking about?
-
peace Shabir,
Can you clarify the following:- what is your evidence hunters/farmers or ancient cultures used the ankle bone/joint to determine the quality/health/age of a livestock animal?
- what is the most common methods used by them for (1) above?
- did you actually read all of my article https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html ?
- you seem quick to point out alleged inconsistency in my work (HRM/inviolable/restricted) when in your work you use the same word in opposite meanings lol. HRM as restricted V sanctioned = why is that?
-
peace Shabir,
Can you clarify the following:- what is your evidence hunters/farmers or ancient cultures used the ankle bone/joint to determine the quality/health/age of a livestock animal?
- what is the most common methods used by them for (1) above?
- did you actually read all of my article https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html ?
- you seem quick to point out alleged inconsistency in my work (HRM/inviolable/restricted) when in your work you use the same word in opposite meanings lol. HRM as restricted V sanctioned = why is that?
Dear @Wakas
- what is your evidence hunters/farmers or ancient cultures used the ankle bone/joint to determine the quality/health/age of a livestock animal?
- what is the most common methods used by them for (1) above?
- did you actually read all of my article https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html ?
- you seem quick to point out alleged inconsistency in my work (HRM/inviolable/restricted) when in your work you use the same word in opposite meanings lol. HRM as restricted V sanctioned = why is that?
Quran 5:95: O you who have believed, do not kill wildlife, which are restricted (= hurumun). And whoever of you kills it intentionally – the penalty is an equivalent of an animal to what he killed, determined (= had-yan – Root: Hu-Da = to guide) the maturity (= bhaligha) of its ankle (= Ka‘bati), as judged by two just men among you or an expiation: the feeding of needy people or self-discipline in abstention from hunting (= siyaman) to bear the burden of the penalty for his deed, that he may taste the consequence of his deed. God has pardoned what is past; but whoever returns (to violation), then God will take retribution from him. And God is Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution.
5:97 God has set the ‘ankles’ (= ka’bata) a system sanctioned (= baytil-Harama) to be upheld for mankind, and the restricted period/months (= shahrul Harama), and guidelines (= hadya), and the indicators (= qolaa-ida). This is to let you know that God, He knows everything in the heavens and the earth and what is beneath the earth. And surely God is fully aware of everything. (5:97)
- These verses talk about hunting, not farming. In 5:95, ankle is to be used as a guide (= hadyan) to check the maturity (= balagha) of the animal that is being killed. What it means is whether the animal you killed can stand and survive on its own (ie: whether its ankle matured enough to survive on its own). In 5:97: God has set the ankle, a system sanctioned. What it means is that God has set the ankle as the determining factor of an animal that is allowed to be killed (whether it can survive on its own).
I am a novice hunter, and I know that the law allows us only to kill animals that are matured. If someone kills an animal that is too young (or any that are restricted), he/she has to pay a penalty. In 5:95 and 5:97 God tells us the same thing. These hunting rules are identified in the verse as ‘qalaida’ (= indicators) for the hunters. There indicaters are made known to us via email, website, and also posted signs in certain hunting grounds. As for me, these verses are very much clear and make total sense. Even without being aware of these verses, most countries have implemented rules that are aligned with the Quran. We should be proud to talk about this to non-believers.
-
See 1. above
-
I checked the link. There are so many articles. If you can tell me which one to read, I will be happy to have a look.
-
Please note the above is not my work. I posted it here because I did a deep dive on it, and it makes total sense. That’s why I am defending it here. I understand that people in this forum are deep divers too. So, I thought, it would be a good idea to share it with everyone. I am sure, if you read a few times and try to comprehend it, you will agree with me.
With regards to the inconsistency with HRM: Well, everyone knows the word HRM means prohibited, sanctioned, or restricted. It has not been used to mean ‘sacred’ or ‘inviolable’. The Quran uses Qudus to mean sacred (59:23; 62:1). I just wanted to point out the inconsistency - no offence. Besides, the interpretation you gave for 5:95 and 5:97 is not clear and did not make much sense. It was inconclusive, that’s all. I will read it again.
-
I think the matter is more nuanced than simply saying the Quran is fully detailed, therefore nothing outside it has any role whatsoever in helping people understand or live it.
The Quran does describe itself in very powerful terms, and rightly so. It presents itself as guidance, clarification, criterion, mercy, and a reminder. But that does not automatically mean every individual in every time and place has always had equal access, equal capacity, equal literacy, equal language ability, equal leisure, and equal circumstances to study it the way many of us can today.
We are living in an age where a person can sit at home, open multiple translations, search roots, compare verses instantly, read historical discussions, and revisit passages repeatedly. That is a luxury many earlier generations simply did not have. For most ordinary people in earlier times, religion was not encountered as a private research project. It was encountered through recitation, communal life, sermons, practice, teachers, family, and the living moral atmosphere around them. Many may have known only portions of the Quran well, grasped its central truths, believed in God, lived by the message as best as they could, and died without ever conducting the kind of textual analysis that modern readers can do.
So when we speak of the Quran being complete, we should be careful not to turn that into a modern intellectual abstraction detached from how human beings actually receive guidance.
The Quran itself does not present engagement with revelation as a robotic or purely self-contained exercise. It repeatedly calls people to reflect, ponder, reason, and use their intellect. It also says to the Messenger that he was sent so that he may clarify to people what was revealed to them. It also acknowledges that within the revelation there are verses that are foundational and others that can become points of dispute or require deeper reflection. That alone should be enough to show that “the Quran is sufficient” does not mean “no explanation is ever needed” or “every reader in every era will derive everything directly and equally from the text without mediation.”
To say this is not to defend blind traditionalism. Nor is it to place tafsir, hadith, inherited law, or historical reports on the same level as the Quran. It is simply to recognize that revelation entered human history, addressed human communities, and was lived by human beings with changing conditions, languages, institutions, and problems. Once that is acknowledged, then explanation, interpretation, ijtihad, and even historical memory all have a place not as masters over the Quran, but as human attempts to understand and apply it.
In fact, I would argue that many of the problems in Muslim history did not come only from “too much outside material,” but also from the urge to reduce divine guidance into a rigid system of literal implementation without sufficient attention to purpose, context, moral reasoning, and the human condition. The Quran gives principles, direction, warnings, values, and a moral worldview. It is not a mechanical codebook for every conceivable scenario in every century. Human beings are not robots, and the Quran does not address them as robots. It addresses conscience, reason, justice, gratitude, restraint, mercy, and accountability.
So yes, the Quran is central. Yes, inherited fog should be questioned. But clearing the fog should not lead us to another extreme where history, lived transmission, explanation, and human interpretive effort are treated as if they have no role at all. The better approach, in my view, is to keep the Quran as the highest authority while still recognizing that people across history have understood and lived it through a combination of revelation, explanation, community, intellect, and circumstance.
That balance seems closer to both the Quran and human reality.
The danger is not only in adding to the Quran from outside, but also in imagining that the Quran was meant to function in history without explanation, reflection, lived practice, or human judgment. The text itself does not support that kind of reduction.
@Fusion said in What is Ka’aba as per the Qur’an?:
The danger is not only in adding to the Quran from outside, but also in imagining that the Quran was meant to function in history without explanation, reflection, lived practice, or human judgment. The text itself does not support that kind of reduction.
Peace Fusion,
I think we agree on far more than we disagree, and our differences are just a small part of the bigger picture. My detailed response to your post is in a separate thread. Please check out the OP there.
https://forum.free-minds.org/topic/24251/the-self-explanatory-nature-of-the-qur-an
-
GOD gave us the faculties, instinct and scripture. GOD taught us /Adam all the basics of our needs that exist naturally.
Therefore we are responsible /required to use all these for working out /living our life.
Qoran goes/is required to be used with our existing knowledge,our inbuilt instinct and the use of our faculties.
Therefore Qoran alone does not mean forget what we learn altogether, forget our instinct and do not use the faculties and just use Qoran.
Also using everything else except GOD s message is as incomplete a task as working in the dark and not using some light to see the whole picture
Qoran says to us listen to GOD and each other,including our instinct and our faculties , then follow what is "best" from the whole combination..
Otherwise how can GOD hold each one responsible for using the hearing,the vision and the brain given to them?
Qoran also tells that GOD s words have priority and authority( because of His unique status and knowledge. i.e Who tells you the truth better than GOD? And Follow these best instructions/commands/... .
Our understanding has to come from all the combinations that we use, putting GOD at the top of the list is only one of them ,although the most important.
So we check history, Science and compare and keep learning with GOD s help and support.
GOD bless you all.
Peace. -
Dear shabir,
It's possible you didn't understand my questions.-
you claim they can check if the animal can stand (and this is linked to the ankle somehow) - so is this God's sanctioned system you're referring to = the ability of the animal to stand up?
If so your view is refuted by the verse because it says it should be similar to what was killed. The mere ability to stand would give a massive range in age/quality of an animal e.g. ranging from few weeks to years.
Thus you are forced to find something specific about ankle use. Ideally clear and documented. -
you never answered
-
I provided a direct link to one article so I'm not sure why you think there were so many. Here it is again:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html -
No offence taken. You never answered though.
You claimed to have done a "deep dive" but I don't see that yet.
I havent even scrutinised the content yet. I'm just asking some basic preliminary questions. -
-
Dear shabir,
It's possible you didn't understand my questions.-
you claim they can check if the animal can stand (and this is linked to the ankle somehow) - so is this God's sanctioned system you're referring to = the ability of the animal to stand up?
If so your view is refuted by the verse because it says it should be similar to what was killed. The mere ability to stand would give a massive range in age/quality of an animal e.g. ranging from few weeks to years.
Thus you are forced to find something specific about ankle use. Ideally clear and documented. -
you never answered
-
I provided a direct link to one article so I'm not sure why you think there were so many. Here it is again:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html -
No offence taken. You never answered though.
You claimed to have done a "deep dive" but I don't see that yet.
I havent even scrutinised the content yet. I'm just asking some basic preliminary questions.Dear @Wakas
It's possible you didn't understand my questions.
Looks like I have misunderstood your 1st questions. Let me try again.
To check the maturity of a wild animal, observe the thickness of its ankles and appearance of the legs. Mature animals typically have thicker, more muscular legs, while younger animals will have thinner, tapering legs that show more definition.
-
See 1
-
I will find time to read it.
-
As I mentioned earlier, HRM and its derivatives are prohibition, restriction, and sanction (= as in restriction or penalty imposed to enforce compliance).
-
-
It seems you have to incorporate the leg because the ankle joint tells us little, and to my knowledge, has never been used (in any significant way) to determine the age/quality of a livestock animal. Seems impractical and weak.
Dear @Wakas,
It seems to me that you have already made up your mind, and whatever I tell will make no difference to you.
However, for me, it has become clear that the verses 5:94-97 specifically talk about hunting and its regulations, giving the ankle as the basic method to determine the maturity of an animal. Of course, this is not the only way, but just the basic.
As we know, the Quran was not given to teach us the anatomy of animals, but rather to guide us. Going into detail about the different methods of determining the maturity of an animal would deviate from the book's intended message.
Why confuse us with different methods, when one will work just as fine?
-
You are incorrect in your assumption. I go with the evidence. So far you presented ZERO evidence the ankle was used in any significant way, or even how it is a good method. Now you call it a "basic method" - so basic, no-one ever used it?
Secondly, I havent even scrutinised the translation you provided. I'm actually familiar with this understanding, read it many years ago in Aidid Safar's work. It's been discussed here before. Please use the forum search function.And in case it is not blatantly obvious, I'm not saying its incorrect, I'm saying evidence thus far is weak.
