Inheritance according to Qur?an

Samira1234

The ground realities vary for different families.

That is right. Which is why I mentioned a more fair distribution of inheritance in general which would prevent severe injustice for the majority of the range of cases would be good. And which is why fixating ratios for each person, and that too in unequal proportions for each gender in particular, for eternity for ALL circumstances, ALL types of societies, and ALL ages throughout is a bad idea.

In inheritance discourse, there is no consideration whether the men are actually providers for the women or not. That is the subject of marriage not inheritance.

Spot on. I have no idea why people keep bringing "women get provided by other men" type reasoning, without seeing the broad range of real world cases that are actually possible and is happening. I see real life cases which do not follow such ideal case, of women having in-built good and generous providers all of the time, is actually the majority.

Husband can inherit from the wealth of wife which obviously shows she was taking care of her own economic activities/status.

That's true. People's one-sided justifications seem laughable at times. I am sorry. I know everybody is on the same path. Most people here are good people, who are trying their best to understand and follow God's word. However, I read these lines of wisdom from a great spiritual teacher "Our thoughts, feelings and observance of real world evidence should be given higher priority than written words (such as in scripture), which can be more easily misunderstood and tampered with by human beings. Our thoughts, feelings and real world evidence are a more direct channel of God's expression than written words, which are actually the least reliable of all of them." I understand that many a time though it is easier said than done. Scripture can contain timeless wisdom for everybody, but it shouldn't be taken so much at face value at the cost of injustice to other people, and intentionally shutting off our conscience and reasoning to keep abiding by those words.

Peace.

hawk99

If the Quran is supposed to be a timeless piece of guidance for all mankind, reality should also reflect the result of such guidance as well. As in the implementation of the Quran should produce good fruit in society as well, and no solid injustice being caused to any party for whichever case, no matter what reasoning is applied. But then, I see the reverse being true in several of cases. Such as in the case of inheritance. If it was simply said in the Quran that off-springs, spouses, parents and potentially siblings (for absence of the immediate family) are to inherit shares and left at it, it would have been good. Then societies could choose to implement the ratios by themselves however they see fit. But actually specifying fixed ratios for each in the Quran, in an unequal manner between the sexes regardless of whether the men are actually providers for the women or not, is frankly, ridiculous. This is my opinion only.

I find the Quran having a more materialistic position at times instead of a more spiritual position which is actually expected from a God. Such as this verse

314 It has been adorned for people to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.

Mentioning desire of women and of having sons, and that they are made as the enjoyment of this world, is incredibly misogynistic. The verse should also have mentioned desire of men (which many of us women struggle from) and of having daughters as well. But then this verse takes a misogynistic and materialistic stand. There are many more verses like this which are incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic and totally unexpected from a just God. These look more like the words of men than of a God. I see similar statements being made in Hadith, but here people laughing them off and calling them evidently the made-up words by man.

If people try to defend these verses, that the desire of women is stronger in men hence mentioned singularly this way, and that people usually want sons rather than daughters, etc, then they should also try to defend the concept of hoor, and of having big-breasted companions (7833), both of the concepts which are carefully tackled around by the modern Quranist translations.

Unless such verses are completely re-translated, the Muslim world would remain forever patriarchal and misogynistic. And people would keep blaming one another for their problems rather than directly at the very source that they are trying to follow, and getting the due results.

Peace.

Peace Samira1234

What is your opinion of Islam?

What is your opinion of the Quran?

What is your opinion of Allah?

What I see so far in your posts are

Doubt
Disbelief
Know better than Allah
Disdain
Criticizing Allah
Unable to understand context

Hey guys!

I saw this video on Sam Harris commenting regarding the mindset of Muslims, and on Quran and Hadith.
He is a famous atheist by the way, who commented on
quite a lot of religions. I found his points to be quite honest and straightforward. What do you guys
have to say? I am very curious to know you guys' opinions. Thanks a lot!

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CeiO-v8D1E

To ask an atheist about the deen is akin to Asking a Nazi about Jews.

God bless

peace

Samira1234

@Mazhar

The Arabic sentence is a compound sentence. Qur'aan is infallible fact. Not all women are sexually attractive for a man.

I do not understand. The verse clearly says

314 It has been adorned for people to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.

I do not understand how this verse could have anything to do with inheritance. It is mentioning the general likes of people. And by the way, there are people who favour daughters more than sons. This verse is either meant for the ancient centuries or is a misinterpreted verse. I can't imagine a God speaking this way. And if people interpret it in a different way, I want to see how they broke down that particular word to come up with their interpretation.

Because of general tedency of having exceeding love for sons, the inheritance law in Qur'aan is not patrilineal.

How much more patrilineal can the inheritance laws be? Such as by not giving any share to women at all? If a person gives this reasoning to Western and European countries, or even a number of other non-Muslim countries, he or she should be prepared to get laughed at and removed out. I am sorry, I am just saying how it is. And no, not all non-Muslim countries have women who are forced to go to work, or are treated as sex objects. Muslims have to give any number of reasoning to abide by the words of the Quran which they cannot interpret in any other way.

@good logic

What is most unfair is to criticise Qoran and HIS author by relying on "corrupt" translations and opinions.

Also I am not defending GOD or Qoran, I am asking for fairness.

How can we expect to be fair if we still have certain "prejudices"/wrong motives...etc. We must start from a clean /sincere point.

Hello good logic, I understand your sincerity. I am trying to be fair as well. What I have seen, the Quranists first declared Hadith as being corrupt. Then they trying to squirm around certain verses which they could find an alternate meaning for, or a softer meaning. Then when they are stuck, and the words mean what they mean, they hold on to them like life and death, and will give any number of one-sided reasoning to justify them, and shut off a part of their conscience for them. This I do not find fair. I do not find them honest in this regard. The same words in another context besides the Quran would have gotten ousted already. And our countries will always remain backwards for as long as we have this kind of mindset, which I am worried about. I am just saying.

Peace.

Mazhar

I do not understand. The verse clearly says

314 It has been adorned for people to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.

The love of sensual excitements felt for some of the women has become alluring for people;

And having sons has become a longing for people.

So has become the desire to have a state of hoarded abundance of Gold and Silver;

And the marked-pedigree horses , and abundance of herbivore-mammals, and for plenty of harvesting lands.
This is the wealth-sustenance-provision of the transitory worldly life.

Mind it that Allah the Exalted grants the most appropriate return and abode by His Grace.

The first verb is passive, denoting something that has become alluring, whose proxy subject is sensual excitements and longing for sons; and love of wealth.
Allah the Exalted is telling about the general psyche of people. When this is pysche of majority of people, what makes you to believe that people will be just if things are left to them to decide about inheritance?

Noon_waalqalami

I find the Quran having a more materialistic position at times instead of a more spiritual position which is actually expected from a God. Such as this verse

314 ...

Peace, "instead of a more spirtual position" that's how you read?

314-17 beautified to the humankind love the lusts from the womenfolk and the sons and the heaps the stored up from the gold and the silver and the horses the branded and the cattle and the harvest such yours provision the life the world and the god before him best the place of return say shall I inform you in better from such yours to the those fear near lord theirs gardens flow from beneath it the springs eternally live therein and spouses purified and approval from the god and the god seer in the servants the ones are saying lord ours surely we believe we so forgive for us sins ours and save us punishment the fire the steadfast and the sincere and the obedient and the who spend and the who ask forgiveness in/by the dawn

Applicable then as now; interesting was actually thinking to get one of these today (the car lol).

http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-SHIBzBp9nNE/UEAmyN6o3gI/AAAAAAAAThE/MVf3RvqULaQ/s1600/9+%28Custom%29.jpg

good_logic

Peace Samira.

Thanks for your reply.
I suppose that is fair enough.

It is better to search for our own understanding of everything that is going to make a difference to how we live our lives.

Each of us will have to strive to satisfy their own mind. Living in doubt and/ or accepting nonsense are two bad options.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Samira1234

Hello hawk99,

Peace Samira1234

What is your opinion of Islam?

What is your opinion of the Quran?

What is your opinion of Allah?

I am a truth seeker at this point. I have been a devoutly religious Muslimah all my life. Although also highly curious and wanting to go to the heart of matters at times to get to the truth, instead of splashing around in the surface. Many of my relatives in my mother's side grew more religious after observing me. I had always wondered though why people call Islam the best religion, or the most peaceful religion, etc.

I am comfortable with a lot of parts of Islam. I wear the hijab (although I know it is not necessary), keep my modesty, etc. I went out to seek Islam's truth to find out how I can use the religion as a beacon of light to illuminate the world and humanity further. And to be more comfortable to teach Islam to my kids once I do get married and have kids.

I found a number of progressive and good teachings within Islam, which I abide by to be a better human being and person. But then to think of it, every religion has it's own set of unique good teachings. I need to see the whole picture to make a better informed decision regarding the religion.

I found contradiction between verse 2256 and chapter 9. Chapter 9 is clearly coercing polytheists in matters of faith. I do not know how to see it otherwise.

I had posted this earlier to another person regarding my issues with the Quran

"Yeah I have issues directly with the Quran, according to current interpretations at least. Seeing the hundreds and hundreds of verses cursing, mocking and threatening "unbelievers", "rejectors", "ingrates", to boil, cut, chop, roast and bake people simply for not believing (e,g verses 2219-22); the misogyny such as polygamy, half testimony, lesser inheritance, dealing with disloyal wives etc; racism regarding Arabs (997); giving freedom to choose religion and after that immediately threatening "rejectors" to hell for eternity hence using fear-based tactics (2256-257); cursing at Jews and Christians and telling Muslims not to take the rejectors as allies (930, 32; calling polytheists as impure (92; giving instructions how to mutilate the enemy during war (812); giving harsh punishments for adultery and lewdness (242, 415); Islam being incompatible with secularism and democracy (839, 459, 544); one time saying Allah misleads people by making their deeds pleasing to them, another time saying it is Satan who does the exact same thing (274, 1333, 643, 848, 1663); confusing verses regarding free will (1311, 1693, 26-7, 7178-179, 144, 48."

Also I am finding a few grammatical, language and logical errors slowly within the Quran. For example, this may look very simple, but we can't expect a God to make even such a simple language mistake

3953 Say "O My servants who transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of God. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, the Merciful."

The verse begins with 'Say', which means whatever is after that, is what Muhammad is supposed to be saying to his people. And the people he definitely didn't call them HIS servants. But this verse makes the language and logical error by saying "O MY servants..." immediately after the word "Say". It should have been written 'Say "O Allah's servants..." '.

That's one example. There is more as well.

Anyway, if taken literally the Quran with it's current interpretations most definitely cannot be the word of God. I am suspecting some tampering took place. Like it took place for the Old Testament. Either it got thoroughly misinterpreted, or the Arabic text itself got distorted. There are a couple of people I am chatting with who are also raising similar concerns and ideas. Otherwise after doing some more research, I might have to leave Islam. I have no choice. Just because I like some parts of the Quran doesn't mean I will try to ruin the lives of myself and others by holding on to it as a whole.

What I feel surprised though is how ardently Muslims would hold on to the Quran, no matter how absurd some things within might be. One person told me even if he had to kill his child to obey Allah's orders in the Quran, he would do so, because that is what Abraham did with his son. Um. He also told me that only God could decide how progressive or just a society could be, and I don't have a say to it over the text of God. Basically I feel many Muslims sacrifice a part of their conscience and reasoning to justify holding onto the Quran. A person told me it is because many Muslims have an innate feeling regarding the authenticity of the Quran, and many also want to hold on to a convenient organized moral system to abide by. Which is why they would get highly defensive and block off reasoning regarding the Quran.

To ask an atheist about the deen is akin to Asking a Nazi about Jews.

Even if atheism is illogical to me, the one advantage of being an atheist is that for the first time ever you get to have a cleaner conscience and reasoning minus the religious indoctrination. So they get to speak from a level of honesty and clearer mindset that is absent in many religious people. Which is why I appreciate listening to them. I don't agree with a lot of what the atheists may say. In case of Sam Harris, I agree with a number of his points, and I disagree with some others. In case of his commentary regarding Islam though, he made a lot of valid points, which is why I had posted the video earlier.

Anyway, these are just my words.

Peace.

Samira1234

@Noon

Applicable then as now; interesting was actually thinking to get one of these today (the car lol).

So according to you, there are two options either give women unequal rights, or give them equal rights and also treat them like sex objects. Maybe we can take a look at Iceland. Iceland is one of the countries in the world that has repeatedly topped lists on being one of the most women-friendly countries in the world, such as in terms of health, education, workplace, etc. Also Iceland is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing, for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbr?n Halld?rsd?ttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."

The country is now looking at restricting hardcore and violent porn, for the same reasons. It is frequently called one of the most feminist countries in the world. And it is a developed and peaceful country too. Australia is another country with advancing women's rights. Here is a video talking on them by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim woman, which would put a lot of Muslim countries to shame

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEc7kfPuUVU

Although I like Iceland's position better, at least for now. So yeah, giving more equal rights does not need to mean we need to start looking at women as sex objects. Or force them to work. Perhaps we Muslims can even set an example in terms of protecting women and also giving them equal rights. We don't need to go from one end to another end, but find more of a balance which creates minimal injustice to everyone involved.

Peace

Mazhar

Dear Noon, please reconcile calculations in respect of one sister

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.12f.gif

compare with 4176
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.176d.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.176PPP.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.176PPQ.gif

huruf

I am myself very, very doubtful about what has been made out traditionnally of the provisions of the Qur'an regarding inheritance. I daoubt very much that we have readlly made out what they relly say. It would be nothing new. There are many things that have been made out out of texts of the Qur'an that once one gets the initiative to look at them objectively and rigorously turn out to say even the opposite of the commongly admitted stance, even to make that stance as ridiculous as it really is.

I have nto bothered for a long time with inheritance questions, because I was too much conditionned and too dep in in the usual understanding to be able to make out anything independent. I do not take anything for guaranteed, but I do have the gut feeling that there is something else to it, something we just do not get because we are blinded, probably to something so plan that we do nto realise it, like witht he famous hidden letter under plain view.

There is no question that the "classical" view is unacceptable. -Besides, the logic that has been putported to underlie it and legitimize it is not such logical but blatant distortion or hypocritical attitude, depending ont he intention. For honest people must have been a reminder to mke an effort to redres whatever torts might occur because of that outlook. For les honest people it was a rainfall of goodies to eliminate competitors for inheritance.

The question is that when it is said that on the men falls the sustenance of the family, it is taken for granted that that works for absolutely every male and for no woman at all, and that therefore, all males, all of them, no exception are entitled to extra rights for inheritance and all women, no matter how burdened are "entitled" to be dispossessed in thesame amoun that their male comoetitors are "gidted" with those extra rights, even if a woman for instance, works from sun to sun and more, in the fields outside the home and then also in the home and no man works for her, even she workes for her men, etc. THAT STANCE IS A REAL JOKE. It bases the rights of males on theory and the forces the lack of rights on women who do not see at all at work the theory that they are supported for free by their men. A wholly win-win situation for them mles and a wholly lose-lose situation for women.

I must say I thank God there are no such inheritance laws in my country. If after being exploited by brothers many years in A life, now I was going to get half of what they get, I would indeed be very, very, very indignant. Which could have happenned. Because even the laws did not provide for that I have known of many cases in the past where parents distribute inheritance when alive and generously give everything away to males and women got very little or nothing, depending on the moral quality of the family members. So in fact, when one wants to be unfair, one can manage it even with fair laws, and I suppose it also works the other way, but of course the laws are there to sway those in the middle and give the average.

One thing is for sure, in aya 4.11 an "only" is inserted before "daughters" in translations which most certainly is not there. And that "only" is a give away of how the trick is going to be played out to divest women without much trouble. It is not the fault of the Qur'an but the fault of the mindsets of people, whether intentionnally or otherwise.

Salaam

Samira1234

Hello huruf,

I daoubt very much that we have readlly made out what they relly say. It would be nothing new. There are many things that have been made out out of texts of the Qur'an that once one gets the initiative to look at them objectively and rigorously turn out to say even the opposite of the commongly admitted stance, even to make that stance as ridiculous as it really is.

Yeah that's true. I would say the Quran in many ways reminds me of the Old Testament. I have spotted a number of linguistic gymnastics and deliberate misinterpretations in Edip's translation as well, to soften the harsh tone of the Quran, to completely change the meaning of certain words, and also add a word here and there or so.

Even a number of so-called scientific claims within the Quran are being steadily debunked already by rational critics.

I have nto bothered for a long time with inheritance questions, because I was too much conditionned and too dep in in the usual understanding to be able to make out anything independent.

That has been 100% my case as well. Religious indoctrination is difficult to deal with. Sometimes when people simply have not much choice, or are truth seekers at heart, they keep pushing against the tide in order to spot hidden truths, whatever they may be.

There is no question that the "classical" view is unacceptable. -Besides, the logic that has been putported to underlie it and legitimize it is not such logical but blatant distortion or hypocritical attitude, depending ont he intention. For honest people must have been a reminder to mke an effort to redres whatever torts might occur because of that outlook. For les honest people it was a rainfall of goodies to eliminate competitors for inheritance.

To a sensible, logical person who is not indoctrinated, a whole number of things in the Quran itself would start appearing irrational and unforgivingly unjust.

The question is that when it is said that on the men falls the sustenance of the family, it is taken for granted that that works for absolutely every male and for no woman at all, and that therefore, all males, all of them, no exception are entitled to extra rights for inheritance and all women, no matter how burdened are not "entitled" to be dispossessed in thesame amoun that their male comoetitors are "gidted" with those extra rights, even if a woman for instance, works from sun to sun and more, in the fields outside the home and then also in the home and no man works for her, even she workes for her men, etc. THAT STANCE IS A REAL JOKE.

Yeah. If that is not unjust and sexism in the face, I don't know what is.

the theory that they are supported for free by their men

You would see men telling women to be oh-so-grateful for the scraps of rights they get because they are being provided for, as though women don't do much otherwise.

I must say I thank God there are no such inheritance laws in my country. If after being exploited by brothers many years in A life, now I was going to get half of what they get, I would indeed be very, very, very indignant. Which could have happenned.

You are lucky. In my country we are stuck with such laws. My parents had some of the biggest fights on basis of such inheritance laws. Since we are only daughters, a share would go to my father's siblings as well, according to the law.

One thing is for sure, in aya 4.11 an "only" is inserted before "daughters" in translations which most certainly is not there. And that "only" is a give away of how the trick is going to be plqur'an but ayed out to divest women without much trouble.

I haven't seen that. I would take a look at it. It is mainly Edip's translation and a number of other modern Quran translations which do not put the word "only" in brackets, or put it in the first place.

It is not the fault of the Qur'an but the fault of the mindsets of people, whether intentionnally or otherwise.

We keep trying to defend the Quran. I used to blame people too but I stopped now. Why not see the Quran as to what it is? Using traditional Arabic dictionary, the Quran is actually harsher in it's original Arabic language. It's not people's fault; the Quran itself is a tedious and unclear book, which sometimes can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is quite confusing in general. It is absurd that over a billion Muslims would have wrong intentions regarding translating the Quran. Makes no sense. More likely they are confused regarding the book. Which means there is either something wrong in the method of interpretation, or the Arabic dictionaries are messed up, or is divinely inspired and modified later, or the Quran is not from God but made by man. Either one.

Man of Faith has a different way of interpreting the text, in a letter-by-letter way, which is what he said the Quran was originally intended to be translated as. He says the letters at the beginning of several Surahs are giveaway to that the Quran was supposed to be interpreted that way. If it wasn't for him and a couple others, I would have distanced myself from Islam already.

Peace.

hawk99

Peace Samira1234

Thank you for taking the time to reply. What I conclude at this juncture is your misunderstanding of the
Quranic text. Not in a restricted sense but in a broad sweeping conclusion of the message. Example,
the allegorical description of hell (e,g verses 2219-22) for those who feud (opponents) of Allah and
die in that state will not be close to Allah in the next life, neither do folks such as Sam Harris care to be
close to Allah, they prefer to be away from Allah, and that distance is hell in the next life. I Consider
your conclusions on many of the ayats you quoted also to be a misunderstanding of the Quran.

God bless you

peace

Samira1234

Hello hawk99,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. What I conclude at this juncture is your misunderstanding of the Quranic text.

That's a MAJOR misunderstanding there then. Not just from my side but countless other people's.

Example,
the allegorical description of hell for those who feud (opponents) of Allah and die in that state will not be
close to Allah in the next life, neither do folks such as Sam Harris care to be close to Allah, they prefer
to be away from Allah, and that distance is hell in the next life.

In other words you turned many of the Quran's words into metaphors and allegory. I don't know how you are translating the Quran though. The descriptions of Hell in the Quran are quite vivid and obvious, in every translation, even the foods the people in Hell would eat, and how they would be tortured. I really don't want to see any more of linguistic gymnastics being at play. People like Sam Harris are honest and clear in their explanations.

Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

@Noon

So according to you, there are two options either give women unequal rights, or give them equal rights and also treat them like sex objects.

Dear Samira -- according to me what/where exactly what are you saying?

Thread is on inheritance let's stay on topic; you brought up 314 and I posted rest of text.

Dear Mazhar -- let's not revolve in circles please answer simple question posted to you?

4176 so if be dual two (i.e. exactly two females) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)

If two sisters then explain exactly 3+ sisters?
If two sisters then explain exactly 2 daughters?

Likewise explain difference sister 412 and sister 4176 -- examples to distribute according to you which verses?

mother, 3 sisters, 2 daughters
mother, 2 sisters, 3 daughters

wife, 3 sisters, 2 daughters
wife, 2 sisters, 3 daughters

wife, mother, father, 3 sisters, 2 daughters
wife, mother, father, 2 sisters, 3 daughters

Mazhar

The country is now looking at restricting hardcore and violent porn, for the same reasons. It is frequently called one of the most feminist countries in the world.

This is also not a favour to women. This has created a problem for men. That is why they want to stop it.

Mazhar

Dear Mazhar -- let's not revolve in circles please answer simple question posted to you?

4176 so if be dual two (i.e. exactly two females) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)

If two sisters then explain exactly 3+ sisters?
If two sisters then explain exactly 2 daughters?

Dear not revolving in circles. I am not talking about daughters; I am talking about one sister mentioned in 412 and 4176. What is your formula 1/6th or 1/2?

hawk99

Hello hawk99,

That's a MAJOR misunderstanding there then. Not just from my side but countless other people's.

True

Hello hawk99,

In other words you turned many of the Quran's words into metaphors and allegory.

Not many.

See 14/18, 2/26, 13/35, 24/35, 24/40, 29/41, 47/15,

God bless you

peace

Noon_waalqalami

Dear not revolving in circles. I am not talking about daughters; I am talking about one sister mentioned in 412 and 4176. What is your formula 1/3rd or 1/2?

412 if kalala with child/son sister = 1/6
4176 if kalala case no child sister = 1/2

see distribution summary posted earlier...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg360442#msg360442

Peace

Samira1234

@Noon

Dear Samira -- according to me what/where exactly what are you saying?

Thread is on inheritance let's stay on topic; you brought up 314 and I posted rest of text.

The verse 314 on desire of women and of sons is misogynistic, and also only acknowledges men in the verse. Women also struggle from desire of men. And people can want to have daughters as well, not just sons. The desire of sons being a part of man, and lust for women being strong in men and hence worth quoting singularly, means God made people misogynistic by nature and patriarchal. And women's desire for men are not worth quoting as well on, since it is apparently more negligible comparatively. Basically such wording in the verse looks nonsensical. Sorry, just saying it like it is.

@Mazhar

This is also not a favour to women. This has created a problem for men. That is why they want to stop it.

It is the women and feminist organizations in Iceland who promoted closing strip clubs and regulating hardcore and violent porn. Men never raised such issues themselves. The reason was not religious or because men raised it, but for purely feminist reasons. They even said men just have to deal with it because of such limits being put by law, and on that women are not sex objects after all. It is the only country in the world to have such reasoning for putting such laws, which is that too non-religious.

@hawk99

Why did you quote those hand-picked verses? There are many other verses which clearly state the evident punishment in a lake of fire in the Hereafter. What do you have to say on verses 2219-22, 6930-37, 4443-48? Those are some fearful verses themselves, with clear descriptions regarding treatment in Hell, and the food served there. Please talk on the verses I quoted, instead of other verses and turning everything into allegories.

Peace.

huruf

We keep trying to defend the Quran. I used to blame people too but I stopped now. Why not see the Quran as to what it is? Using traditional Arabic dictionary, the Quran is actually harsher in it's original Arabic language. It's not people's fault; the Quran itself is a tedious and unclear book, which sometimes can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is quite confusing in general. It is absurd that over a billion Muslims would have wrong intentions regarding translating the Quran. Makes no sense. More likely they are confused regarding the book. Which means there is either something wrong in the method of interpretation, or the Arabic dictionaries are messed up, or is divinely inspired and modified later, or the Quran is not from God but made by man. Either one.

Man of Faith has a different way of interpreting the text, in a letter-by-letter way, which is what he said the Quran was originally intended to be translated as. He says the letters at the beginning of several Surahs are giveaway to that the Quran was supposed to be interpreted that way. If it wasn't for him and a couple others, I would have distanced myself from Islam already.

Peace.

I completely disagree on this. I defend the Qur'an 100% and it is not the Qur'an IT IS PEOPLE and their short sightedness or blindness or self-inderest or self delusions what is wrong.

Do they think that god has got a special relationship with males like that between USA and Israel? There is no such thing and I am sorry if you have got sold on a figment of Qur'an to "male" size, but I am afraid that would be it, a figment.

The Qur'an hs not yet dissapointed me as to my aspirations for truth and for justice, but I see that many women are caught in a circle of anger where they vent their frustrations on a book which clearly they do not understand. Because if they understood, they would stop being angry and start feeling self assured and at peace with themselves. God is not their enemy, nor their task master, but their steadfastest friend. God loves women. Look, look in the Qur'an for an equivalent of the temptress Eve, cause of the Fall, for for an obscure virgin Mary. The Maryam in the Qur'an is not presented as a virgin butas a prophet and as a real courageous and noble woman, not a word of anger in the Qur'an against women. Not one. The harshest you get is about the wife of Abu lahab, and then the husband gets even worse. Noe even about Lut's or Nuh's wives are harsh words spent beyond stating sparsely the facts that they choose to stay behind.

Look at the events between yusuf and his boss's wife and the women. Even though she tries to seduce him, no harsh word against her nor against the women who are charmed by Yusuf. You read and you feel that God rather than angry with them, in fact understands them nd does not blame them. And by the way, you see the exampple of a man who makes women fall because of his beauty, but no woman ever does that to any man in the Qur'an and in spite of it you get all that crap about hijab for the sake of male virtue. Who does that? The Qur'an? and you get angry with the Qur'an and not with people.. What do you need?

As to science... There is nothing wrong with the Qur'an unless of course you should want that it got uptdated very year with the latest scientifical terminology in English for its text. And what for, it si much better than that. Thos who do wrong are those who try to match it with the latest Discovery, which may be a real one or just a provisional one or a fashion. That again is not the Qur'an fault, but people's fault. And also the fault of people that think that if they do not understand everything in the qur'an, which at this stage in develo,pment we alredy know EVERYTHING, y we do no readily see in the Qur'an with oroper scientifical modern terms, then it is wrong...

Some common sense is not out of place most of the time, with the Qur'an, with science or purported science or with whatever...

Salaam