Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
StopS
But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.
Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.
I don't understand how inserting Arabic "exposes" anyone. Look at the page you offered.
in the event of his having a child
if he have a son
if he has a child
if the deceased left children
if he would have a child
if you have children
if he had a son
if he has children
if the deceased leaves children
if for him was a child (son)
if you have children
his having left a child
if he has childrenI can continue for some time and anyone will see that the classical understanding has always been children.
Can this be wrong? Yes.
Would it make sense to substitute children with son?
Now it gets technical. I need to now construct different models to test this. And this is what apologists like Noon rely on the laziness of people like me. I am sure I can construct examples which will render this model useless, but I don't really need to, because it serves only one single purpose to make more rulings exempt so that the portions or beneficiaries can be freely distributed. That's the magic trick.The more you remove from strict Koranic rulings and shift into the hands of humans, the more you can shift and wangle as desired. The consequence is the result you see in the online Islamic calculators which provide the most preposterous combinations which no longer have anything in common with the Koranic rules. Is it intellectually honest? In my eyes no!
-
I can continue for some time and anyone will see that the classical understanding has always been children.
Can this be wrong? Yes.
Would it make sense to substitute children with son?
Now it gets technical. I need to now construct different models to test this. And this is what apologists like Noon rely on the laziness of people like me. I am sure I can construct examples which will render this model useless, but I don't really need to, because it serves only one single purpose to make more rulings exempt so that the portions or beneficiaries can be freely distributed. That's the magic trick.Why do you call me names like apologist and trickster yet at same time admit you are lazy to study?
Everything I posted is according to Qur'an while majority scholars are ignorant who lack basic logic.These are few examples of poor comprehension, bad logic/study, and none use of cross-reference.
Cutting off hands for theft nowhere stated in Qur'an...
538 and the male thief and the female thief so cut off aydiyahum for their hands
(i.e. cut off their means to perpetrate crime which trailing alif only usage their hands denotes to/for)4176 al-kalla they are clueless only conjecture use funny math that you are familiar with.
Listen to this conspiracy ranter saying it means "daughter in law" and wrote a book on subject.http//quranconference.nd.edu/lecture-abstracts
David S. Powers ?BNF 328a and the Mystery of al-Kalala?The word kalala occurs twice in the Quran, first in Quran 412b and again in 4176. Although little-known today, even among native speakers of Arabic, this word was of great interest to the first Muslims. ?Umar b. al-Khattab, for example, is reported to have said that he would rather know the meaning of this word than possess a sum of money equal to the poll-tax levied on the fortresses of Byzantium. One might say that the meaning of kalala was a mystery. I will propose a solution to this mystery based upon examination of Biblioth?que Nationale de France 328a, a Quran codex written in the Hijazi script some time in the second half of the 1st century AH. Paleographic and codicological evidence indicates that the consonantal skeleton of Q. 412b was revised, with the result that the meaning of the sub-verse underwent a radical transformation. The revision of v. 12b, in turn, made it appear as if the inheritance rules contained in vv. 11-12 of surat al-nisa" are incomplete. This problem was solved by adding supplementary legislation at the end of surat al-nisa" ?what is now Q. 4176, the second verse in which the word kalala occurs.
Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/11/default.htm
You have problem with my showing readers which words are being translated exactly or what's your point?
Back to topic; it's clear from math which all fits logically and also from basic speech...
411 and if knat/is (feminine singular) one so for her the half
411 if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/sonpeace,
AFAIK "untha" is for females, hence my comment. Girls could be covered under waladun/children. I have not studied it, so cant say.
IF you have studied it AND shown it does not work, can you provide one clear example? This would then take this theory off the table.
Background
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11583.0Peace Wakas,
It would also exclude all young siblings from inheriting and verse 4176 ties the two together...
4176... so if knat/they are (feminine dual) two so to them the two thirds from what left and if they were ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) men/males wanis and females so to the male like share the two (feminine) clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing
-
Nisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.
Nothing gets excluded from inheritance. The word used is "Women". It has no singular, just plural with diminuiive "few women". It is nowhere used for female of any age since age starts from birth to death. It solely denotes women. A person leaving behind property could be one when his daughters are already women. Moreover, as you pointed out, they are handed over inheritance only when they become women-a female having become mature to enter marriage bond. The opposite gender of her is Man not boy or child.
-
peace,
It would also exclude all young siblings from inheriting and verse 4176 ties the two together...
4176... so if knat/they are (feminine dual) two so to them the two thirds from what left and if they were ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) men/males wanis and females so to the male like share the two (feminine) clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing
It could be that since they are incapable of managing they do not inherit. What I was after was an example, that would disprove the theory. One or two will suffice.
-
Salaam,
Because of this thread I wanted to study this subject.
But I got stuck already in the beginning of the verse.
I don?t understand why is translated everywhere as 2/3.
From other words I learned that when a couple is mentioned it finishes with ?ayni?.
So I expected here ?thulathayni? instead of ?thulathaa?.Also please check verse 7320
"... "
2 times the word thulatha is mentioned first time it?s translated as 2/3 and second time as 1/3. Does anybody know why?here are the other occurences from the corpusquran site
Nominal
(1) Noun
(41115) thuluth two thirds
(41142) l-thuluthu (is) one third
(41273) l-thuluthi the third
(417630) l-thuluthni two thirds
(73208 ) thuluthayi two-thirds(2) Time adverb
(732011) wathuluthahu and a third of itSalaam,
Bender -
It is a dual noun with Noon dropped for reason of being first-annexed noun of Possessive Phrase, Ma-Relative Pronoun is the Annexer.
Salaam brother,
I am not sure if I understood correctly.
What is the difference then with 4176 "... ..." looks to me almost the same.
and why is in 7320 no Noen?
7320 "... "Do you know any similar ayaat where this Noen is missing?
Salaam and thanks,
Bender -
This is Possessive Phrase, therefore following the rule the Noon- of dual noun is dropped as is dropped the Noon of plural in such construction. This is same word -two third. It is Nominative indicated by alif. When it is genitive you see it since it is preceded by Preposition. is the sign of genitive. Here too Noon of dual is dropped because of Possessive construct.
is singular in Possessive Phrase.
I hope it clarifies.
-
Nothing gets excluded from inheritance. The word used is "Women". It has no singular, just plural with diminuiive "few women". It is nowhere used for female of any age since age starts from birth to death. It solely denotes women. A person leaving behind property could be one when his daughters are already women. Moreover, as you pointed out, they are handed over inheritance only when they become women-a female having become mature to enter marriage bond. The opposite gender of her is Man not boy or child.
Peace Mazhar -- I?ll leave rijal and nisa un-translated and extrapolate their meaning from verses and keeping a child?s or orphans inheritance safe until they mature does not say inheritance is only for adults and warns those in their care not eat their wealth ? i.e. the shares were already assigned although not yet distributed.
Example mother and sister (age 2)
4176 al-kallati if person died is not to person waladun/child born and has sister so for her half (no mention of nisa)
1 ? 1/2 sister (fixed) = 1/2 mother (variable) no son/brother
The above is an orphan case (fatherless child) comes with dire warning the shares belong to her.
46 and test the orphans until when reached the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth
410 indeed the ones who eat wealth the orphans injustice surely eat in their bellies a fire and they will be burned a blaze
This is Possessive Phrase, therefore following the rule the Noon- of dual noun is dropped as is dropped the Noon of plural in such construction. This is same word -two third. It is Nominative indicated by alif. When it is genitive you see it since it is preceded by Preposition. is the sign of genitive. Here too Noon of dual is dropped because of Possessive construct.
is singular in Possessive Phrase.
I hope it clarifies.
Peace Bender and thank you for the question and Mazhar for the clarification which to put in simple speech/practice ...
411 so if are nis above two so for them 2/3
4176 so if knat/they were (feminine dual) two so to them the third each (1/3 + 1/3)
7320 third twice (1/3 x 2) the night and half of it (1/2 x 1) and third of it (1/3 x 1)
-
This is Possessive Phrase, therefore following the rule the Noon- of dual noun is dropped as is dropped the Noon of plural in such construction. This is same word -two third. It is Nominative indicated by alif. When it is genitive you see it since it is preceded by Preposition. is the sign of genitive. Here too Noon of dual is dropped because of Possessive construct.
is singular in Possessive Phrase.
I hope it clarifies.
Salaam,
nope
If I would give this sentence (wich is not Quran) to an arab scholar would he then know that I am talking here about 2/6 instead of 1/6?
"... ..."Also do you have another ayaat for reference?
Salaam and thanks,
Bender -
Peace Bender and thank you for the question and Mazhar for the clarification which to put in simple speech/practice ...
411 so if are nis above two so for them 2/3
4176 so if knat/they were (feminine dual) two so to them the third each (1/3 + 1/3)
7320 third twice (1/3 x 2) the night and half of it (1/2 x 1) and third of it (1/3 x 1)
Salaam Noon,
Next thing what I found hmm
why only this part (thulathaa) is without AL in 411, thus undefined?
all the other parts have AL. -
Salaam,
nope
If I would give this sentence (wich is not Quran) to an arab scholar would he then know that I am talking here about 2/6 instead of 1/6?
"... ..."Also do you have another ayaat for reference?
Salaam and thanks,
BenderIt is okay to say it to me. Don't say it to a mathematician like Noon. Give it a second thought what you have said and laugh it out. Thanks.
-
It is okay to say it to me. Don't say it to a mathematician like Noon. Give it a second thought what you have said and laugh it out. Thanks.
Salaam,
I know exactly what I said. And I believe you also know what my point is. We are not talking about the math.
So can you please tell me what you read there? -
Salaam Noon,
Next thing what I found hmm
why only this part (thulathaa) is without AL in 411, thus undefined?
all the other parts have AL.Salaam Bender,
the eight
the sixth
the fourth
the third
the halfNo such word as the two third more like third parts; see history of fractions...
http//www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/lffract.pdf
It could be that since they are incapable of managing they do not inherit. What I was after was an example, that would disprove the theory. One or two will suffice.
Peace Wakas,
923 and Who created the male wal-unth and the female
Example husband, two sons ages 10, 21 and three daughters ages 2, 14, 19
411 to the male like share the two (feminine)
412 so if kna is for them walad/son so for you the fourthObviously husband gets 1/4 and children remainder regardless of age 2, 10, 14 etc.
1 - 1/4 husband (fixed) = 3/4 children (variable) 21 ratio male to femaleWhat if husband and three daughters ages 2, 14, 19 ? why cannot all inherit as before?
411 so if are nisan above two so for them two thirds
1 ? 2/3 (three daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 husband (variable) no son and there is child/bornWhat if husband and later the oldest son died brother age 10 and three sisters ages 2, 14, 19
4176 ... and if they were ikh'watun rijalan wanis so to the male like share the two (feminine)21 ratio male to female same as when they were under the children category.
-
Salaam Bender,
the eight
the sixth
the fourth
the third
the halfNo such word as the two third more like third parts; see history of fractions...
http//www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/lffract.pdf
Salaam Noon,
The Quran has it's own rules.
"... ..."see also that 412 and 4176 begin with NISF without AL, but the parts after that are with AL.
Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam Noon,
The Quran has it's own rules.
"... ..."see also that 412 and 4176 begin with NISF without AL, but the parts after that are with AL.
Salaam,
BenderSalaam Bender,
Yes we know there is half or the half or third or the third or kalala or the kalala, etc.
What I'm relaying to you is that there is no such word as two third or the two third.Have you read the article? http//www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/lffract.pdf
See prior examples; it's third two or the third each or third parts which add to 2/3 we translate as such.
411 so if are nis above two so for them 2/3
4176 so if knat/they were (feminine dual) two so to them the third each (1/3 + 1/3)
7320 third twice (1/3 x 2) the night and half of it (1/2 x 1) and third of it (1/3 x 1)
-
Salaam,
I know exactly what I said. And I believe you also know what my point is. We are not talking about the math.
So can you please tell me what you read there?How naive. You did not give a second thought to realize your simplicity in having asked such question. You say 1/6 + 1/6= 2/6. Thereby you coined a dual word for it.
Qur'aan also deals with people when they are so simple. Note carefully how Qur'aan is teaching you simple mathematics alongwith Arabic
Again see your proposition
1/6 + 1/6= 2/6-------it is
1/3 one third. -
How naive. You did not give a second thought to realize your simplicity in having asked such question. You say 1/6 + 1/6= 2/6. Thereby you coined a dual word for it.
Qur'aan also deals with people when they are so simple. Note carefully how Qur'aan is teaching you simple mathematics alongwith Arabic
Again see your proposition
1/6 + 1/6= 2/6-------it is
1/3 one third.At the risk of being called naive and simple
Is this what the Arabic in the Koran says
= 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 = 1/3?
Google translate says Every one of them gets one-sixth
-[ giveup -
Salaam Bender,
Yes we know there is half or the half or third or the third or kalala or the kalala, etc.
What I'm relaying to you is that there is no such word as two third or the two third.Have you read the article? http//www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/lffract.pdf
See prior examples; it's third two or the third each or third parts which add to 2/3 we translate as such.
Salaam Noon,
I took a quick look at the article. But that was not my point.
InshaAllah I will study this a bit better and come back to you.Salaam,
Bender -
How naive. You did not give a second thought to realize your simplicity in having asked such question. You say 1/6 + 1/6= 2/6. Thereby you coined a dual word for it.
Qur'aan also deals with people when they are so simple. Note carefully how Qur'aan is teaching you simple mathematics alongwith Arabic
Again see your proposition
1/6 + 1/6= 2/6-------it is
1/3 one third.Salaam,
What you don't understand or refuse to understand is that I am not intrested in the math.
I took 6 because that was the first number I saw in 411Let's try it again now with a prime, inshaAllah you will now focus on my question instead of the math.
"... ..."
If an arab reads this, what does he read here
1/5 or 2/5 or n/5 where 2<n<5 or does he read parts of 1/5 where parts is any number >1 thus it could also be 17 x 1/5InshaAllah you will now focus on what I am asking instead of being the smart guy.
And I will appreciate it if you can give me a verse from The Quran where this concept is supported.Salaam,
Bender
