Proof of afterlife

Proof of that some life will be felt after death:

Afterlife (life after death) is in the future, for sensations of any person, and, the future of this world is also in the future. We live and observe that the future is always coming and coming to us. Similarly, if God wills, the life of afterlife will also will be coming to every person.

Logically, the future of this world has not to come to us. Because, whichever law of physics we look at, it is just a theory, not a fact. All facts are in the past, not in the future. Basing on these facts from the past, people and scientists develop new theories, and then predict the facts of the future using these theories. The facts of the future do not come from the facts of the past immediately only by logic, but prognosticated using theories or hypotheses. What is coming immediately only by logic? Example of it: if assertion “A is a letter” is true and asserion “any letter is part of an alphabet” is true, idea “A is in the alphabet” logically follows from these. Now, to compare, try to think about the facts of the world: for example, look at the widely known force of gravity: imagine that you are conducting an experiment, you raise a pen and release it, and it falls. After it falls, its fall becomes a fact, true. This experiment has already been carried out not once, but many times. But, from trueness of ideas “the pen fell when it was released at 17:33” and “the pen fell when it was released at 17:34”, idea “the pen fell when it was released at 17:35” does not appear only by logic. Same situation is with other physical forces. Thus, logically, the laws of physics are not obliged to be executed in the future after 1 second from now, and at all, this point of time, after 1 second, of our world, is not obliged to come to us. However, we observe that it is coming and live inside this process. Afterlife is also in the future, and it will also come, if God wills.

Maybe our world consists of separate moments (frozen states of the world, matter). Between two neighbor such moments is a very small part of a second. But it is a tiny fraction of a second only for us, but actually it can be considered that there is a void between these two frozen states of matter, and we can assume that in fact this void lasts for some very long time. But we do not notice (do not sense) how long it lasts. Also, sometimes we do not notice how much time passes during sleep. Similarly, even if a long time passes between death and healing again (resurrection), it is not noticeable, since we do not live and feel in this segment. But I think that the other world is completely different, separate from our world.

We can not only go to another world after death, but at any moment (instant) of time, any individual person can be copied to another world, and even this whole world can disappear at any moment, collapse, and probably disappears in that way, but we remain not getting there.

From the point of view of a person who does not believe in God, our world is perhaps infinitely large, and somewhere someone sometime can resurrect a person after his death. According to science, our world is expected to die, and therefore our resurrection in our world may not happen, and it is not believeable that creatures of our world in future can copy a person from the past. But there must be an infinitely large number of other different, not connected to our, “parallel” worlds. And surely someone somewhere out there sometime will recreate a copy of you from the moment before death or from another moment in your life. A copy can be with accuracy up to your senses; inner small, invisible to the naked eye, particles of your body may be different. And you will be recreated not only once, but many times, since numbers of other worlds and of the possibilities for the recreation are infinite. So, life after death can be considered to exist with probability of more than 100%.

And in all places where you have not yet been recreated, you, as a mind, will be unconscious, you will not feel anything.

I am a Muslim, and this theory does not contradict Quran.

In these verses, I think, it is hinted that the end of the world can come at any moment:

(I will use Umm Muhammad (Sahih International) translation of Quran).

16:77. And to Allah belongs the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth. And the command for the Hour is not but as a glance of the eye or even nearer. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.

42:17. It is Allah who has sent down the Book in truth and [also] the balance. And what will make you perceive? Perhaps the Hour is near.

In ayah 20:15 is an explanation of why it is simply not written directly that the end of the world comes at every moment – because for some reason God hides that:

20:15. Indeed, the Hour is coming – I almost conceal it – so that every soul may be recompensed according to that for which it strives.

Here in these verses, perhaps, it is also meant that a person can be copied even before his death:

27:65. Say, “None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah , and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.”

4:157. And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. … 4:158. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

The idea of creatures that can resurrect people does not contradict the Quran either, because in the Quran things created by humans are considered created by God:

20:53. [It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants.

43:12. And who created the species, all of them, and has made for you of ships and animals those which you mount.

In the Qur’an about the distance to resurrection: there is no contradiction with the fact that people will be unconscious (probably mostly unexistent); it is not clearly written there that people will live in the grave, as it is written in some hadiths:

13:5. And if you are astonished, [O Muhammad] – then astonishing is their saying, “When we are dust, will we indeed be [brought] into a new creation?” Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.

23:99. [For such is the state of the disbelievers], until, when death comes to one of them, he says, “My Lord, send me back 23:100. That I might do righteousness in that which I left behind.” No! It is only a word he is saying; and behind them is a barrier until the Day they are resurrected.

40:45. So Allah protected him from the evils they plotted, and the people of Pharaoh were enveloped by the worst of punishment – 40:46. The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening. And the Day the Hour appears [it will be said], “Make the people of Pharaoh enter the severest punishment.”

Quran does not clearly state that the future of this world is only one. The word “fate” (“taqdir“) is made from the verb “to determine fate” (“qaddara”), and it, in turn, is made from the verb “can” (“qadara”) by a method of obtaining the verb with the meaning “to make so that it can”. “qaddara” means, in addition to “predetermine”, also “determine”, “evaluate”, “give (someone) opportunity to do (something)”, “predict, try to guess”. In Quran, the verb “qadara” also means “limit“. Therefore, I think that the concept of “predestination of fate” (“taqdir”, “qaddara”) in Quran can mean “limitation of possibilities”, and not “predestination up to smallest details”. This is very natural, for example, a specific athlete will not be able to jump higher than a certain height, in his/her this world life.

(This is translated by me from my text in Russian, with help of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

bug report for twitter

@Twitter, @TwitterSupport, for many years, i cannot agree with your handling of mentions and replies.

my blog can be viewed in 2 forms. in tweets and replies tab, all my tweets are visible. so, what is expected in the main page, which is under “tweets” heading? there should be tweets without replies. but, actually, there are tweets with replies but without mentions.

for example, see my “profile” page now. my post to googleplus is not visible, because it has a mention, even if it is not a reply. but my replies to that post are visible here, even though they are replies, (probably because they do not have mentions).

i have just sent these 3 messages, with url, also to twittersupport via private message

suggestion/feature request for google plus

@GooglePlus i would be happy to use your circles feature if i could make posts, and also feeds of posts, visible to circles, also accessible publicly, that feeds having ther urls, and linked from my “profile” page (ie from my main google+ blog, (which is already public) ).

for now, i need circles only for restricted feeding, publishing on feed pages, which happens only in short time after publishing, i do not want to restrict that posts for other access ways like browsing by links, finding by search engines, following a link from private message.

on feeding, i take time of people by my post, i do not want to waste time of some people, but if they come to that post by themselves, they have enough time for it.

i have just sent these 3 messages, with url, also to google plus feedback form

“words” are [scientifically] baseless things!

i have written 25 minutes ago to : :

“words” are [scientifically] baseless things!

where from they have come? just from spaces between them. who and why decided to put spaces there? i think they had not good proofs, else we would know that proofs. i know only theory about lexemes to put in dictionaries, and their word forms.

also “words” in grammar come from old grammars written in old times for latin, arabic, etc. but it is not authoritative source. you should know how much errors were in old sciences of chemistry, medicine, astronomy.

as i know apertium already does not stick with traditional words, for example, as i know, for turkic languages some words which are written separately are used as word modifier tags in apertium.

but still lemmas with modifier tags are used in apertium and as i know there is no way to show whether some another word is used with lemma only, or with lemma with some suffix(es)…

but i think real atoms of syntax are morphemes and it is an idea written by several authors in several books.

also i think that syntax and morpholgy should be redivided and renamed. one of them (syntax?) should include all trees in both of syntax and morphology. (similar idea is also suggested in a book). and part of morphology should go to a science named like “surface decoration of syntax trees”.

difference is in possible different priority/order of using morphemes. in many cases resulting meaning is similar, because in that cases a(bc) = (ab)c ; it can be written “a bc” but it can have meaning (ab)c and there can be not much practical problem if translation program uses it as a(bc), since a(bc) = (ab)c. for example “a” can be an adverb, “b” – a verb and “c” – gerund suffix. for example, “frankly speaking”.

i can give an example when this has practical differences. in turkic languages verb negation suffix is written sticked and in apertium it is also used as a tag. usually adverb is used with verb stem (ie to part without negation suffix) and negation is used to the phrase consisting of verb and adverb. for example: “кызу бармады” – “qozu barmado” in tatar is “did not go fast” and has structure “{{кызу бар}ма}ды” – “did not {go fast}”. but you cannot use this as a rule, similarly written sequence of morphemes can has also another structure: “бөтенләй эшләмәде” – “botonlay islamadi” means “(he/she/it/they) has not worked at all” and it has structure “{бөтенләй} {эшләмәде}” – “{did not work} {at all}” , or “{{бөтенләй} {эшләмә}}де” – “did {{not work} {at all}}”. ( alternatively it could have structure “{{{бөтенләй эшлә}мә}де}” and meaning “did not make wholly” – “did not {make wholly}”. )

to translate this correctly from tatar to english you should better use morphemes as atoms, as tree nodes instead of words, because you should find correct tree structure before you translate, and you should be able to set morphemes at correct places of tree. as i remember apertium does not use syntax trees at all for now, or uses them only for some language pairs, or you have some instrument for them and experimenting with them, but sets words as word forms in tree nodes.

probably there are also other examples with other suffixes. there is also imperative mood suffix in tatar language, with which i expect to find similar example, and i do not completely deny such problem with other suffixes like negation and gerund suffixes when translating from some language to some language.

About domains’ trailing dot

my comment at :

my reply to the text by the first link ( ):

Originally, as defined in RFC 1738 (§ 3.1), the “host” portion of a (Common Internet Scheme) URL was always and unequivocally a fully qualified domain name and the conventional mechanism for distinguishing fully-qualified domain names from non-fully-qualified domain names did not apply. Whether it was or, the host was intended to be the same.

— i think he is not right, i think “” was not allowed at all in urls according to rfc 1738, it is cited in the second text, and i cite it:

3.1. Common Internet Scheme Syntax
        The fully qualified domain name of a network host

and “” could not be used in http headers at that time, because rfc 1738 is of 1994 and host field appeared only with http 1.1 in 1997 (you can check in wikipedia).

so, indeed, only fqdn was left allowed in urls. i think, this was a error in rfc 1738, because in such way it made (tried to make) the “relative domains” feature useless. if it did not disallow it, they theoretically could be used in “a” tag hrefs in local scripted sites or static html documentation inside big companies that used relative domains, if browsers and servers supported it. but even if rfc 1738 disallowed them, people did not obey it: they continued to use top level domains in relative form ie without trailing dot, so this disallowing by rfc 1738 was not a big practical problem anyway, and people had and used an alternative to relative domains: they just made local top-level domains like “localhost” (and used and use them also without trailing dot).

then he says:

Unfortunately, in practice web browsers have always violated that specification and passed the “host” portion through the name qualification procedures of their DNS Client libraries when mapping the host name to a set of IP addresses. (For example, those that used the BIND DNS Client library would leave the RES_DNSRCH option set and would not append the final trailing dot if it was missing.)

— i think he meaned that hosts without trailing dot should be just thrown off as error, and only absolute domains (fqdn) should be passed to dns. i think probably browsers did pass all domains to dns because people used their custom local top level domains like “localhost”. and anyway, later in rfc 2396 published in 1998, the usage of top level domains in urls without trailing dots was allowed.

then the author (Jonathan de Boyne Pollard) cites rfc 2396 and regrets about it changed according to the established human behaviour ie de facto standarts, says that better would be if browsers obeyed rfc 1738, and recommends to all people to use only fqdn, in all places, as it was commanded by rfc 1738.

— but what would happen if people obeyed rfc 1738? urls like “” and “http://localhost/test.html” all had to be rewritten as “” and “http://localhost./test.html“. browser would have to either mark hosts without dots as error, or redirect on clicking them to full/absolute form of them. all people who configured local top-level domains like “localhost” would have to configure their servers to accept only requests for domains like “localhost.” , or accept and redirect [all urls inside] “localhost” to [corresponding urls in] “localhost.”. text like “localhost” would stay useful only when typing it in browser address bar, but that would be only very useless usage, and the relative domain feature is not needed for that, because browsers search for domains on typing. usage of them in html source would become useless because it would lead to that such links would not work, or clicking all links with “localhost” would move user to “localhost.” and it would be just extra redirect on every click (on such links). so, rfc 1738 would make the planned “relative domain” feature entirely useless. if some company used that feature, and used their relative domains in their local sites, and their urls with relative domains were not redirected to absolute form by browsers, so their sites worked normally, if they also obeyed rfc 1736, they would configure their servers to accept only fqdn, and they would have to either rewrite all their such urls with fqdn, or work with extra redirect on every click on such urls. if that companies liked having short domain like “team101” instead of “” in their address bars and html sources, they would have to start to use their custom internal top-level domains like “team101.” ie like “localhost.” instead of subdomains like “” (which could be used as just “team101” before they decided to obey rfc 1738).

and i have found out that the trailing dot, which was so strongly supported by rfc 1738, really appeared only after the standart without trailing dots! it appeared with rfc 1034 in 1987, it is cited in the second link, and i cite it:

Since a complete domain name ends with the root label, this leads to a
printed form which ends in a dot.  We use this property to distinguish between:
- a character string which represents a complete domain name
 (often called "absolute").  For example, "poneria.ISI.EDU."
- a character string that represents the starting labels of a
 domain name which is incomplete, and should be completed by
 local software using knowledge of the local domain (often
 called "relative").  For example, "poneria" used in the
 ISI.EDU domain.

rfc 1034 (of 1987) just declared all domains which were used, seems they all were without trailing dots, declared them all as becoming relative domains! but they still worked as before, so probably few people knew out about that, and continued to think that they are unambiguously requesting a unique real “” site when they use “” without trailing dot. so that has become an additional security breach in some cases: famous real could be spoofed by a subdomain administrator even if he was not given rights to make any local domain like “localhost.”. so, rfc 1034 also was not designed very well: seems its authors did not expect that maybe it will be {not widely known, so creating security breach}!

probably rfc 1738 (1994) tried finally to bring the idea of distinction between absolute and relative domains to wide audience and also fix that security breach after 6 years, {but by fixing the security breach by disallowing relative domains in urls it made relative domains useless, {but i think they probably were not used widely, probably only in some big companies}}. so, what would be [left] in result of rfc 1737, if it would be obeyed? – 1) relative domains declared in 1987 would become finally useless, so, trailing dot, designed to show absolute domain, also would become finally useless and redundant “legally” ie as defined by the rfcs! (but maybe they planned later re-allow relative domains in urls after many years, when wide audience (general public) start to know about the possibility of relative domains). 2) and rfc 1737, if it was obeyed, would also fix the security breach. – but even rfc 1034 would not create the security breach if it reached masses and it was widely understood that using relative domain is not safe! – so, main recipe to fix it was reaching the wide audience, and publishing one more rfc was just one of many ways to do it.

i think now that probably the relative domain feature has not become widely known after rfc 1034 (of 1987) because it was of too limited use: only in some big companies or providers’ local networks, and it was a feature with no practical value, because local networks could already make any local domain, so that feature was just for itself, it was in fact just a useless text in rfc that anybody should know and use without having any additional benefit! but people created the little security breach by widely ignoring the rfc, while browsers started to obey it.

i checked the relative domains feature yesterday, it works. (it is ok, because rfc 2396 (of 1998) re-allowed it after rfc 1034 (of 1987) denied, and later rfc 3986 (of 2005) still allows them). i added dns suffix in windows 10 – control panel – … – network device properties – ipv4 properties – additional – dns tab. when i added “” then opened “http://mail/” in firefox, it opened google’s server, but it was not configured to work with just “mail” in the http “host” header, so i got something like “404” page.

my reply to the text by the second link ( ):

he also cites the rule in rfc 1738 and says:

Unfortunately, the people implementing web browser clients appeared not to understand what this meant. When you access a web site, the value most web browsers put in the “Host:” field is what the user typed, not what the computer actually ended up using, after applying the DNS user’s searchlist to constuct a fully-qualified name from the partial name. For example, here are three different ways the user may refer to the host “” … When sending the “Host:” parameter to the web server, the web browser client puts in what the user typed (“”, “”, or “www”) instead of what the client ended up actually looking up in DNS (“” in all three cases). …

— this is not very true(correct), because rfc 1738 was very strict in this regard, and it disallowed relative domains in all urls, even if it is in browser’s address bar, and url itself is the [recommended] way of making any references to sites, even if people write it on paper, so it was not allowed to users to refer to that site in that 3 ways, by rfc 1738, if that users were going to think by it that they used URL!

and seems the author of this text (Stuart Cheshire) did not know about rfc 2396, so this text is outdated.

and what is the situation nowadays? rfc 3986 ( ) allows referring to absolute domain without trailing dot: it says ” The rightmost domain label of a fully qualified domain name in DNS may be followed by a single “.” ” and that it should be used if it is “necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain”. i think that due to de facto standarts it is almost never necessary, so wordpress can accept the de facto standart and redirect from address with trailing dot to the address without it.

my solution for triple talaq problem

my solution to triple talaq (triple divorce) problem in islam that i have written at at july 26 – 27, and i edited it at july 27 – august 4, and i have added something at 2017-05-06, and have added something and deleted something at 2017-06-03 :

after reading quran, many years ago, firstly i thought that waiting term (time) of 3 periods (menstruations) should be waited before second talaq can {be said and be effective}. when i read quran after that, i felt some ambiguity. nearly 1-2 months ago i have read somewhere that even umar ibn al-khattab allowed “triple divorce” (3 divorces said and accounted as performed within short time like 1 minute), and that now it is allowed in india, and that in some countries scholars decided to make some term of waiting after saying of one talaq until second talaq can be said and they put some random standart for it like one month.

further i will write “iddah” instead of “waiting term of 3 periods”, and you can see in last paragraph and in quran 65:4 that iddah is not always 3 periods (not always 3 menstruations).

i have read quran again to find, where is problem. and i have found that indeed there is a problem, an ambiguous place in quran. and i have chosen one of interpretations, and i think you should also choose same interpretation when you read arguments for different interpretations.

let’s read quran’s translation from 2:226 and i write my comments. i copy here from , default translation is “Sahih International”.

226: For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if they return [to normal relations] – then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 227: And if they decide on divorce – then indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

— 226-227 are about a long act, that, after it is done, i think, can be used to make divorce fastly, and, it is about what to do with such oath without term: after 4 month such oath without term is accounted as fullfilled.

228: Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

228: i see here is said: “husbands have more right to take them back”. but in some translations it is said other way:

228, muhammad asad translation: And the divorced women shall undergo, without remarrying, a waiting-period of three monthly courses: for it is not lawful for them to conceal what God may have created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And during this period their husbands are fully entitled to take them back, if they desire reconciliation; but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives [with regard to their husbands] are equal to the [husbands’] rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them [in this respect]. And God is almighty, wise.

i read a translation like this, without “more” – kuliev’s translation into russian. i think adding “more” does not make much change, and i do not want to think much about it, since i have decided to write my solution. later in this text i have writen about that this “more” has some usage.

— and, i interpret this this way:

  • the 3 periods are obligatory to talaq to happen after it is said, except of case said in 226-227
  • in connection with 226-227, i think, they mean that if husband said that he never will have sex with his wife, and then 4 months without having sex passed, “talaq” can be said and it happens immediately after saying.but what happens if he does not say talaq? can they live as married couple without having sex? (then, if they have such right, and husband continues not having sex but wants to be married with his wife, but his wife wants to divorce, does she have to make khula divorce?) or they do not have such right?, i.e. 226-227 should be interpreted even as that in such case after 4 months they automatically become divorced, even without saying talaq, or, husband must either say talaq or to say that he cancels his oath to not have sex?
  • i have seen today in some texts that in case three divorces only between same woman and man are done, iddah is not needed, and that is why the triple talaq was so desired by people. but i think, that iddah is needed even {after the intention to divorce {after 2 divorces already performed within same spouses, without marriage of the woman to another men between and after them}}, and it is required for both of wife and husband, and it is required even if the husband has 4 wifes. idea of this is that before the iddah has passed, neither the husband nor the wife are not divorced yet. you should see later, why i have selected/chose such interpretation.
  • as you can see, since it is said that the “divorced women” should wait iddah, the “divorced women” means “women who was said talaq to”, not “women who was said talaq to and had fullfilled iddah”. the word “mutallaqat” is used here at “divorced”, of same root with “talaq”. the “mutallaqat” in this ayat enters into reaction with “talaq” in the next ayats 229-230, because they are of same root. but meaning of “talaq” in 229-230 is ambiguous.

229: Divorce is twice. Then, either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of Allah . But if you fear that they will not keep [within] the limits of Allah , then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of Allah , so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah – it is those who are the wrongdoers.
230: And if he has divorced her [for the third time], then she is not lawful to him afterward until [after] she marries a husband other than him. And if the latter husband divorces her [or dies], there is no blame upon the woman and her former husband for returning to each other if they think that they can keep [within] the limits of Allah . These are the limits of Allah , which He makes clear to a people who know.

— here is ambiguity: what is “divorce” here? original word there is “talaq” in 229 and “tallaqaha” in 230. what is it? people may interpret it as saying “talaq”, or as saying “talaq” and waiting iddah fully (i also will name it “full divorce”). in 1st way of interpretation the immediate triple talaq is possible. i thought it is explained in quran, that it is not possible, but indeed such understanding is possible, i am going to show you, and, think, umar ibn al-khattab could not allow it, if it was impossible, etc (all that dispute and different decisions would not happen). the text “divorce is twice” enters into reaction with texts “divorced women” and “take them back” in the previous ayat 228. since the word “mutallaqat”, of same root with “talaq”, is used, for “divorced women”, in the previous ayat 228, seems people can understand that they are about same thing, and it means “to say talaq”, and not just people can understand it that way, but, since the ayat 228 is previous ayat, it is naturally used as definition of “talaq”, i.e. people feel that they should understand “talaq” in the same way as “mutallaqat” means in previous ayat.

and also note that “raddihinna” is used at “take back” in 228 and “imsaku” is used at “keep” in 229.

231: And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself. And do not take the verses of Allah in jest. And remember the favor of Allah upon you and what has been revealed to you of the Book and wisdom by which He instructs you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Knowing of all things.
232: And when you divorce women and they have fulfilled their term, do not prevent them from remarrying their [former] husbands if they agree among themselves on an acceptable basis. That is instructed to whoever of you believes in Allah and the Last Day. That is better for you and purer, and Allah knows and you know not.

there is no “[nearly]” in some translations, and in kuliev’s translation. for example, pickthall’s translation:

231: When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul. Make not the revelations of Allah a laughing-stock (by your behaviour), but remember Allah’s grace upon you and that which He hath revealed unto you of the Scripture and of wisdom, whereby He doth exhort you. Observe your duty to Allah and know that Allah is Aware of all things.

and i see that there is no such meaning of “nearly” in the original. seems this meaning was added in some translations to support the “1st”, the wrong interpretation of the triple talaq issue, because in such way they make the text about taking back after iddah be understood as text about taking back before iddah, so then it looks like there is no special and different text about taking back after iddah, so the fact and argument of that different terms are used in different cases and that different term is used when it is said about counting of divorces can be left unseen. you can see other english translations in .

— it is strongly said about saying “talaq” and waiting iddah fully here, and, word “tallaqtumu” is at “divorce”, and it means unambiguously “just saying talaq”. so, if we understood “talaq” and “tallaqaha” in 229-230 (ayats about counting “talaq”s) as “just saying talaq” (i think this is wrong interpretation), these ayats strengthens that interpretation, and if we understood “talaq” and “tallaqaha” in 229-230 as “saying talaq and waiting iddah fully” (i think this is correct interpretation), these ayats weakens that interpretation.

so, these, ayats 228, 231-232 are reason, why “talaq”, which is to be counted, which is in ayats 229-230, is understood as “just saying talaq”.

but there are also reasons to interpret “talaq” in 229-230, i.e. “talaq” that is to be counted, as “saying talaq and fullfilling iddah”:

  • saying three talaqs within a minute and counting them as three divorces is strange, stupid. with this theory (interpretation as just saying talaq in 229-230), it is possible to divorce and take back 2 times and divorce 3rd time even within a day, and even within a hour, and even within a minute (if it can be done just by saying “i take you back”, and that is probably ok). that does not sound good, there is no conrcete limit of shortness of time.
  • there are different terms (words) and text for “take back within iddah after saying talaq” and “take back after iddah has been fullfilled”, and the second type of taking back is mentioned in ayats about counting:
    • 228, this ayat is about taking back within iddah: “their husbands have more right to take them back” or “their husbands are fully entitled to take them back”. word for “taking back” is “raddihinna”.
    • 229, 231, 65:2 – these ayats about taking back after iddah: 229: “either keep [her] in an acceptable manner”, 231: “retain them according to acceptable terms” (“terms” here means “conditions”), “then retain them in kindness”. word for “taking back in acceptable manner” is “imsaku bimagrufi”, word for “retain them according to acceptable terms” is “amsikuhunna bimagrufi”.

    so, i interpret this this way: if husband takes his wife back within iddah, he can do that without problems and without barriers, and if husband wants to take back the woman after iddah, he should do that “bimagrufi” – “in kindness”. in kuliev translation it is translated as “in reasonable conditions”. similar translation is also in some english translations: as you see, in sahih international, and for example in muhammad asad’s: 229: “resumed in fairness”, 231: “retain them in a fair manner”, yusuf ali’s: 229: “hold together on equitable terms”, 231: “take them back on equitable terms” – see more at .

    see about more indications of difference of taking before and after iddah and their meaning below.

    as the term (word) “imsaku bimagrufi” is used both in 229 and 231, and also in 65:2, these ayats about same type of taking back. and 231 and 65:2 are unambiguously about taking back after iddah. so, 229 is also about taking back after iddah. so, only “full divorces” are counted in 229-230.

  • at ayat 227, as i said, i think, the word “talaq” means both “just saying talaq” and “full divorce”, because 4 months of waiting already passed, so, in 229-230 that could be used as definition and “full divorce” also could be possible meaning of “talaq”.
  • there are hadithes that clear that 3 “talaqs” in short time is 1 “talaq”, but they do not clear up whether it should be counted in case wife is taken back within iddah (for example after 1 month) and whether the iddah is required for husband after 3rd divorce without his wife’s marriage to other man after previous 2 divorces: there are many hadithes, i show 2 of 2 types of them as i have seen:
    • Sunan an-Nasa’i – The Book of Divorce – Chapter: Three Simultaneous Divorces And A Stern Warning Against That : :

      Makhramah narrated that his father said: “I heard Mahmud bin Labid say: ‘The Messenger of Allah was told about a man who had divorced his wife with three simultaneous divorces. He stood up angrily and said: Is the Book of Allah being toyed with while I am still among you? Then a man stood up and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, shall I kill him?'”

    • Sahih Muslim – The Book of Divorce – Chapter: Threefold Divorce – 2nd hadith : :

      Abu Sahba’ said to Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them): Do you know that three (divorces) were treated as one during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ), and that of Abu Bakr, and during three (years) of the caliphate of Umar (Allah be pleased with him)? Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) said: Yes.

  • interpretation as just saying talaq in 229-230 contradicts 2:228 where it is said “Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods”, with this theory she may lose that right.
  • quran 65:2 says about requrement of witnesses after 3 months so it regards only divorce with iddah passed and witnesses witnessed after iddah is passed as divorce, so counting of just saying of “talaq” in 2:229-230 for such serious restriction looks strange. and the 65:2 also denies the method of using human-selected time like 1 month to divorce can be counted.
  • this one is not a reason, but to strengthen arguments. the fact that the root t-l-q has different meanings – with or without iddah etc is ok, because usually words have different meanings and in this case it is also ok because since talaq is said with true intention it is going to be done fully.

difference of taking [ex-]wife back before and after iddah and their meaning:

as “bimagrufi” is translated as “on equitable terms” in some translations, i think it is about that the husband cannot take the woman back after iddah, but it is remarrying: new conditions of marriage can be put by the woman, and she can refuse. also the word “more” in translation at “And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation” in 228, and, so, maybe, there is such meaning in original, and lack of that word in 229 and 231 shows that the husband lacks the primary right to remarry the woman after iddah has passed. also, even without “more” in 228, ayats 229, 230, 65:2 lack the phrase “their husbands have right to take them back in this” (“ahaqqu” in arabic is of root “hqq” – to justify, to prove true, truth, right – ), that indicates that husbands have not absolute right to take them back after iddah [is fullfilled].


and, see quran 65:2 ( ) :

And when they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And bring to witness two just men from among you and establish the testimony for [the acceptance of] Allah . That is instructed to whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him a way out

it means that witnesses are required to witness that iddah is passed, and so divorce is “full”, ie, accomplished. and probably it means that witnesses are also needed to witness if taking wife back happens after iddah is passed; it is directly written just about taking back immediately after iddah has passed, but, if it is also about taking back, naturally it also means that taking back after longer time (for example, after several weeks) also requires witnesses. requirement of witnesses for fact of iddah is passed, and that maybe they are required also for taking back after that, also proofs that taking back after iddah is passed is like remarrying.

function of iddah

what is logic of iddah after saying talaq – as you see, it is not just to know out, whether the wife has baby, but it is also because the husband may change his mind, because he may lose his wife after iddah, and allah has ordered that waiting term (iddah), this is why i think that waiting the iddah after saying talaq is required even for husband at 3rd divorce and he already has 4 wifes. (alternative logic is that if a man has 4 wifes and divorces one of them [with intention] to marry another woman, in case it is the “3rd divorce” with her, since he cannot take the wife back, he need not wait the iddah, and so he can quickly marry another woman). (is there other function of 3 periods?)

iddah is not always 3 periods:

see quran 65:4 :

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him of his matter ease.

iddah can be more than 3 months – up to nearly 9 months, and, can be less than 3 months, if abortion happens before 3 months, abortion is counted because it is literally written “deliver their burdens” in quran.

how to know out camera’s true resolution

we have bought a 13 mp 5 mp cameras smartphone, leagoo alfa 2, from aliexpress, i have tested it, and discovered that it probably has 8 and 2 mp cameras. i have made photos with different image file size, and zoomed photos, and looked, whether detailedness increase with increased files size. you can see my test photos in .

i attach them here too, in blog post, and you can download original photos from the above link:

test of main (rear) camera:
2 mp:
5 mp:
8 mp:
10 mp:
12 mp:
13 mp:
– i see that there are no more new details after 8 mp.

test of front camera:
0.3 mp:
1 mp:
2 mp:
5 mp:
– i see that there are no more new details after 2 mp.