Inheritance according to Qur?an

huruf

I read the original, and I think that the kind of arguments you use either one sticks to the original or is a waste of time. You do not believe may trnaslation, because since there are all those millions out there who are so good and unromantic and think so, if I think different obviously I must be wrong.

I don't have so much time to go through all the sticks to the wheels that you put, besides having done it already many times, and there is so much repetition one can psychological stand. I do not need to win an argument and I don'tmhave the energy tio dispute all the non-arguments you bring into the fry. Like where in the qur'an syas Maryam is a prophet. Read it and you will see, may be, if you dare think something without permission from all those millions out there.

Salaam

Samira1234

Semantics does not mean knowing the meanings of individual words of a text. This thread is one example of making mockery of a language since only individual words are being translated while meanings and perceptions are conveyed by the grammar morphology and syntax.

So in other words at the end of the day the Quran is still perfect, may it sit on a throne high above a shelf. I am just saying. And we people, no matter how much we try to figure out the Quran from any angle, if the results produce disaster in the world, would end up being labelled as having wrong interpretations, being misogynistic, unjust, arrogant, or "sealed in mind or heart to understand Quran". And while the people are fighting down below, on whose interpretation is right, and who is being arrogant instead, the Quran would be staring down at us, smiling at us, thinking we are all fools.

How about opening the Quran from a humanistic, progressive, non-sexist, and just mindset, and if the Quran does not fit that mindset (being honest throughout and using honest interpretations, instead of using linguistic gymnastics or adding or deleting small words as necessary, such as I have come across a few times in Edip's translation), then one of the following is most likely true

There is something wrong in our method of interpretation
The Arabic dictionaries are messed up in some way
The Arabic text of the Quran has been distorted
The Quran is not from God (the hardest pill to swallow, and the most upsetting, internally deflating and disappointing one. Not to mention the most dangerous too, knowing that we live among sectarians who believe in penalty for blasphemy and apostasy)

I am still holding on that one of the first three may be true. Otherwise instead of splashing around in the mud with our debates (since all of which lead to mostly nowhere and do not produce due results in society), we need to move the Quran aside, and discuss reforms in society and in political laws without using religion. The people in this forum have enough brains and are humanistic too to come up with great ideas to progress our countries within a few years, without using Quran as a tool that they have to abide by. And hopefully slowly one by one start implementing the ideas, as far as they are possible. This is the path taken by secular countries, and they use more of spiritual values and mindset to make their judgements. Just saying.

Peace.

Samira1234

@huruf

I read the original, and I think that the kind of arguments you use either one sticks to the original or is a waste of time. You do not believe may trnaslation, because since there are all those millions out there who are so good and unromantic and think so, if I think different obviously I must be wrong.

Nobody is calling you wrong just because you may stand out against the majority. Although I have no idea how you are reading the Quran. Sharing with me would be helpful though. How do you translate the word "kafir"? How do you explain the apparent animosity in hundreds and hundreds of verses against the translated words of "disbelievers", "rejectors", "ingrates", etc? How do you translate 2282, on woman's half testimony? And according to the currently used Arabic dictionaries the inheritance laws are definitely unequal fractions given to the men and women, so how do you reconcile that without calling God a misogynist? Also you didn't answer regarding the language and logical error I had pointed out earlier.

Read it and you will see, may be, if you dare think something without permission from all those millions out there.

Please point out specifically where it may be mentioned. Or at least strongly hinted as. Otherwise I have to form a romanticised idea of the Quran's words and hope against hope there would be a prophetess indeed. All other males are clearly mentioned as rasool or nabi, so why not in Maryam's case too? And mentioning any other female's name, was it that difficult for the Creator? Now for every other name we have to depend upon the Bible for identification. Unlike in the men's cases. The Quran is the most patriarchal book I have seen so far, even unlike the books for Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The female deities in Hinduism are clearly mentioned. The prophetesses in the Bible are clearly mentioned. In the Quran even normal female names are not clearly mentioned, except for one, versus the many males' names being comfortably mentioned.

Peace.

truthseeker11

Peace huruf,

This post is my opinion only and is meant only to be intellectually stimulating and there is no need to reply. We should all verify and seek the truth as al-quran itself advises us. Please discard what I am posting if it does not appeal to your mind, reason or logic.

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?

Thank you for summarizing parts of al-quran that are not misogynistic and do not discriminate against women. These parts indeed seem to have been inspired by the infinite Creator. But what about those parts that are misogynistic and which do discriminate against women such as the inheritance verses? How can that part be inspired by the same infinite Creator?

One of the ways to verify if a book has a single source is to check its consistency. Part of al-quran is not misogynistic or discriminatory against women (such as creation of nafs from its zauj - both words non gender specific, and your examples above) but part of al-quran does seem misogynistic, unfair and discriminatory against women (such as inheritance verses). This seems to be a clear lack of consistency. The mathematical fractions and gender specific words in inheritance verses don't leave anything open to misinterpretation. How can both parts be from the same source?

We have to be intellectually honest with ourselves and be open to any possibility. Is it completely outside the realm of possibilities that some verses in al-quran could have been added or deleted or tampered with? (Please research the codices of al-quran). What proof do we have that the CURRENT Arabic text of al-quran (as opposed to the ORIGINAL Arabic text of al-quran) is inspired by the infinite Creator in its ENTIRETY and not even a single word has been added or deleted?

What is the fault of a nafs to have been born as a female and deserve a lesser share in inheritance?

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.

huruf

What do you think, Samira, prophets are fore? Are they honorary titles so that we may bend in front of important men, or are they sent by God for a certain purpose or to satisfy some need?

And wht about wicked males, are more wicked males in the Qur'an or wicked females?

And outside the Qur'an in the world are there more wicked men or wicked women. Or let us be more specific, are there more male murderers or more female murderers, more male rapers or more female rapers, more, more genociders male or more female? Is prophethood contagious? That is, the fact that there are many known prophets males, does it rub on all men so that they get a commission on it or are a bit prophet themselves by the fact that SOME males are prophets known by name? And what about monsters, does that make dishonour all males, because it lso rubs on them all?

As to Maryam there is not there the sura Al Anbia' (the prophets) where there is a relation of prophets, cited one after another, sayin g "and remember so and so, and is there not Maryam mentionned within that recount of prophets. And the same thing occurs again in the sura Al muminin (The believers) there is also a listing of prophets with deeds and there also comes Maryam mentioned. And you, who are so fond of having the names of people mentionned, why do you think we know not the name of any mother of prophets, or fathers for that matter, but not only is the name of 3isa's mother mentionned, but he is mentionned as his son almost every time, not her as her mother but he as her son. Why? and he is a prophet, but in his naming gladly admits to being known as son of hers?
What does that say?

Is anywhere int he Qur'an stated that the fact that there being a greater number of male prophets mentionned in the Qur'an should entitle males as such to mor eprerrogatives or privileges. It did not entitle the prophets to any favour or privilege or money whatever. Nor did it entitle Maryam to anything, except to cary out her mission, just as male pophets had to carry out their mission and many times to be persecuted.

So then why does God make some people prophet, to give all males something to boast about?

Why does God order us in 4.1 ittaqw Allah ... wal arham. Be conscious of God ... and of the wombs?

Do you know of anything else in the world that is mentionned in the Qur'an together with God of which we should be conscious? No, you do not, because there is no such a thing.

If the Qur'an is so misogynist why does it command us that with wombs and does not say a damned word about any interesting male part?

Your words, as far as I can appreciate, reveal an eminently worldly, success oriented outlook on life and the world, where if your name is in every mouth (or in the papers or tv) you are somebody and if not you are nothing. I guess that is modern compulsion for worldly success or not necessarily modern, but of all ages, but that has nothing to do with the preferences of God, nor with what human beings destiny is nor what God's way for them is.

Salaam

huruf

@huruf

Nobody is calling you wrong just because you may stand out against the majority. Although I have no idea how you are reading the Quran. Sharing with me would be helpful though. How do you translate the word "kafir"? How do you explain the apparent animosity in hundreds and hundreds of verses against the translated words of "disbelievers", "rejectors", "ingrates", etc? How do you translate 2282, on woman's half testimony? And according to the currently used Arabic dictionaries the inheritance laws are definitely unequal fractions given to the men and women, so how do you reconcile that without calling God a misogynist? Also you didn't answer regarding the language and logical error I had pointed out earlier.

Please point out specifically where it may be mentioned. Or at least strongly hinted as. Otherwise I have to form a romanticised idea of the Quran's words and hope against hope there would be a prophetess indeed. All other males are clearly mentioned as rasool or nabi, so why not in Maryam's case too? And mentioning any other female's name, was it that difficult for the Creator? Now for every other name we have to depend upon the Bible for identification. Unlike in the men's cases. The Quran is the most patriarchal book I have seen so far, even unlike the books for Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The female deities in Hinduism are clearly mentioned. The prophetesses in the Bible are clearly mentioned. In the Quran even normal female names are not clearly mentioned, except for one, versus the many males' names being comfortably mentioned.

Peace.

Like for Eve? And what have we got out of having a name Eve who is suposed to be the cause and guilt of the human fall, of the sin of all humanity? Do we need big names for that? Or to be told that because of her causing the fall,the woman causin g the fall, God decrees

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Great thing indeed. The most important thing in the world is that a name is known, so that the woman can be blamed by name. Great, -and told that se will crave for a male who in loving compensation will rule her.

Indeed, the Qur'an misogynistic but other books not so much. Really, really. For God's sake. After that opening anything goes.

And after seeing that so much of Qur'an has been hidden under prejudiced or self-seeking interpretations, the suggestion to modify de Qur'an is like having a shoe that is way too small and wrong shaped and being told to cut pieces of the foot so that it does not suffer when it gets inside the shoe. Fantastic.

The inheritance question I have not studied yet to my satisfaction and I m not going to say anything that I cannot uphold on the Qur'an. I do not feel that the resent understanding though is clear. To me it does not seems to fit seamlessly when all things are taken into account. Therefore, there are some things that we are not understanding.

Of course I do not want the Qur'an changed. Along many years I have kept solving all the riddles that I found concerning the Qur'an. Had it been changed there would have been no way to solve anything, and if we change something now, we will spoil the possibility of solving anything later on.

And besides, as is the Qur'an is so ffull of insights, so uncany...

Whoever does not like it, drop it but, please, do not "improve it". We can wait to get the jest out of it at the right pace.

May God bless our efforts.

Salaam

Mazhar

So in other words at the end of the day the Quran is still perfect, may it sit on a throne high above a shelf. I am just saying. And we people, no matter how much we try to figure out the Quran from any angle, if the results produce disaster in the world, would end up being labelled as having wrong interpretations, being misogynistic, unjust, arrogant, or "sealed in mind or heart to understand Quran". And while the people are fighting down below, on whose interpretation is right, and who is being arrogant instead, the Quran would be staring down at us, smiling at us, thinking we are all fools.

How about opening the Quran from a humanistic, progressive, non-sexist, and just mindset, and if the Quran does not fit that mindset (being honest throughout and using honest interpretations, instead of using linguistic gymnastics or adding or deleting small words as necessary, such as I have come across a few times in Edip's translation), then one of the following is most likely true

There is something wrong in our method of interpretation
The Arabic dictionaries are messed up in some way
The Arabic text of the Quran has been distorted
The Quran is not from God (the hardest pill to swallow, and the most upsetting, internally deflating and disappointing one. Not to mention the most dangerous too, knowing that we live among sectarians who believe in penalty for blasphemy and apostasy)

I am still holding on that one of the first three may be true. Otherwise instead of splashing around in the mud with our debates (since all of which lead to mostly nowhere and do not produce due results in society), we need to move the Quran aside, and discuss reforms in society and in political laws without using religion. The people in this forum have enough brains and are humanistic too to come up with great ideas to progress our countries within a few years, without using Quran as a tool that they have to abide by. And hopefully slowly one by one start implementing the ideas, as far as they are possible. This is the path taken by secular countries, and they use more of spiritual values and mindset to make their judgements. Just saying.

Peace.

Only the red point is relevant and true. Even those people who do not know how to read a book of their native language try interpreting Qur'aan by seeing the meanings in dictionaries. They naively forget that if they memorize the entire vacabulary of a language even then they cannot understand the message in a discourse unless they learn the grammar of that language.

You are commenting about Qur'aan while it seems you perhaps know not the meanings of this title of the Book. You evaluate Qur'aan even without knowing the criteria for evaluation of books. Please glance through a book in English avilable free on line "how to read a book"; and the criteria that renders a book great in timeline.

Experts and educationists suggest that the first rule in critical reading is that you must know what kind of a book is in your hand; and they say that we should know this as early in the process as possible, preferably before we begin to read. Many readers ignore titles and prefaces because perhaps they do not think it important to classify the book they are about to read. However, the author of a book facilitates its reader to know the kind of book he is being given by assigning it a title. Obviously, a descriptive and illustrative title will be considered the best for a reader to facilitate him immediately classify the book in hand.

Grand Qur'aan in the 21st Century

Noon_waalqalami

Red words are plural denoting 3 or 3+

One does not say ?if he is three? (unless about trinity).

411 ? so if kna/be (s/m) for said person brother so to mother his the sixth

If 3 or 3+ what about?
1 brother & mother
2 brothers & mother

No diacritical marks which is correct?
brethren
brothers
brother his

Semantics does not mean knowing the meanings of individual words of a text. This thread is one example of making mockery of a language since only individual words are being translated while meanings and perceptions are conveyed by the grammar morphology and syntax.

Dear Mazhar

Please drop the pompous attitude and if you have better meanings then use grammar, morphology, syntax; books, call a friend or whatever to distribute

2 daughters, husband, mother, and father?

Peace Noon,

I agree with Samira that inheritance laws in al-quran don't make any sense.

Can you please back this up from al-quran? Where does it say men have responsibility to support women? "Rijaal" as used in al-quran and classical Arabic does not mean only men but can also include women and "nisaa" does not mean only women but can also include men. This has been extensively discussed on this forum years ago by Samia and others. The "nisaa" men can also re-marry.

The inheritance verses make sense only if addressed to "rijaal" (men or women) in opposition to "nisaa" (men or women) but the presence of gender specific words such as "walad" and "umm" and "imra'a" makes it totally unfair and does not make any sense.

What if the "walad" is a "nisaa"? Why should he get more in that case? What if "umm" or "imra'a" is a "rajul"? Why should she get less in that case? Millions of women nowadays are "rijaal"

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.

Peace truthseeker11

Yes we discussed before and with cross-reference points to females; we?re still waiting proof otherwise?

2222 ? so abandon ye of al-nisaa/the womenfolk in the menstruation and not approach ye them (f/p)?

422 and not thou marry ye of whom married/had sex fathers yours from al-nisi/the womenfolk except what hence passed surely it be immorality and abomination and an evil way of

434 al-rijlu/the menfolk maintaining over al-nisi/the womenfolk in what favor the god some them over others and in what spend they of from wealth theirs?

Peace

Mazhar

Please drop the pompous attitude and if you have better meanings then use grammar, morphology, syntax; books, call a friend or whatever to distribute

2 daughters, husband, mother, and father?

According to Qur'aan, not according to whims and conjectures of people, it falls in the category Parent to off-springs

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.11k.gif

2 daughters are apportioned 2/3 of wealth of the deceased parent by Allah the Exalted, inalienably.
husband, mother, and father surviving are to be given according to the will of the deceased from the remaining 1/3rd.

Samira1234

@Mazhar

I saw this comment on another thread

Grand Qur'aan is a non-fiction book. It must be interpreted literally. When you do so, the time-frames mentioned therein are taken care.

Its title indicates that it is a living book, time-space wraped to a compact dot.

Grand Qur'aan is alive in time and space

You are going with the pre-assumption that the Quran is an 100% infallible Word of God, and EVERYBODY ELSE creating unexpected real world results by applying it have misunderstood it, because of their own character flaws, or that their interpretations are wrong. Seeing your interpretations, they are not hardly better as well, except a few times where you are playing interpretation acrobatics to soften the message of some of the verses or sugar-coating the meaning of certain verses. Or using one-sided reasoning to explain away some verses. We Muslims would end up having mud fights with each other for eternity in this way, and stare with horror at people who don't play any interpretation acrobatics or one-sided reasoning and apply the verses in their lives as they are.

I have suggested earlier that we hold onto our conscience, reasoning and using our five senses to see the real world and what is happening there. And we approach the Quran from a humanistic, progressive and just mindset, and see if the Quran matches up to that mindset or not. And then yes, take the Quran literally as it should be. And then decide regarding the Quran, and whether our own interpretation is off or not.

If no matter what interpretation is applied and the results are still backwards, unjust and even error-filled (I already said I spotted a few errors in the Quran; in grammar, language and logic, and also scientifically), then maybe there could be some tampering that occurred with the Arabic text. This would be a harder pill to swallow, since then a harder task would be laid for us.

If after a lot of time all else is a fail and the Quran is what it is, then why hold on to it so strongly? Some Muslims say they have an innate knowing regarding the authenticity of the Quran. I have it too. But if the Quran does not match up with proper real-world results, and instead regresses our mind back and creates pain for us, I don't see the point of trying to keep holding on. We can hold on to it's moral system where we cherry-pick the good parts into our lives, but get rid of the Quran as an actual guide then. I see no other choice. But this is a last option, by the way.

Mazhar

(I already said I spotted a few errors in the Quran; in grammar, language and logic, and also scientifically),

Please quote an example of each, refer Ayah.

Mazhar

One does not say ?if he is three? (unless about trinity).

411 ? so if kna/be (s/m) for said person brother so to mother his the sixth

If 3 or 3+ what about?
1 brother & mother
2 brothers & mother

No diacritical marks which is correct?
brethren
brothers
brother his

This is the point that I am trying to communicate you; unless you care for grammar your perceptions will be in vacum.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.11r.gif

It does not mean "if he is three". http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.178/36.gif It is plural and is NOMINATIVE. It is the subject noun of deficient perfect verb "Kana", and is about its fronted predicate. It means "However, if brothers and sisters of the deceased also existed, thereby, the One Sixth shall be the share apportioned for his Mother."

Samira1234

@huruf

What do you think, Samira, prophets are fore? Are they honorary titles so that we may bend in front of important men, or are they sent by God for a certain purpose or to satisfy some need?

Being a prophet is indeed an honorary title. And since all prophets have been men in the Quran, that could be a major reason why our religion looks so patriarchal, since they are mostly interpreted from a male point of view. A female would have given a feminine dimension to the religion and cleared up many pre-assumptions regarding women. Being in an ascended spiritual position of a prophet she would best do the job of explaining religion from a woman's point of view.

And wht about wicked males, are more wicked males in the Qur'an or wicked females?

It's not a secret that males are more prone to violence than women. See the percentage of men committing violence in the world and their numbers in prisons versus females, as a start. There are catty women indeed, but that still doesn't match up to a men's tendency of aggressiveness and coldness which can be apparent often.

And outside the Qur'an in the world are there more wicked men or wicked women. Or let us be more specific, are there more male murderers or more female murderers, more male rapers or more female rapers, more, more genociders male or more female?

You just clarified my point better. A male victim of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing who spoke extensively on his experience told the press that if there is to be a president of USA, it should be a woman, not just any woman but a woman who is nursing a baby. We women with our naturally higher empathetic nature would better serve to bring compassion and peace to countries which have ruthless male rulers creating war and destruction. Again, here also people need to be careful. Not all women are suited for leadership or have empathetic nature. The women who do have these qualities, they can bring peace to a country from a much needed feminine dimension. Take a look at the ex-prime minister of Iceland, as a very good example.

As to Maryam there is not there the sura Al Anbia' (the prophets) where there is a relation of prophets, cited one after another, sayin g "and remember so and so, and is there not Maryam mentionned within that recount of prophets. And the same thing occurs again in the sura Al muminin (The believers) there is also a listing of prophets with deeds and there also comes Maryam mentioned.

Thanks for pointing that out. She is indeed repeatedly mentioned, but then many a time along with her son. Although it is not mentioned explicitly that she was a messenger. But I get your point in a way.

If the Qur'an is so misogynist why does it command us that with wombs and does not say a damned word about any interesting male part?

That is a good thing in the Quran. It does have protection-oriented talk, which I am glad about. I just highlighted the misogynistic parts, but didn't blanket the misogyny over the entire Quran.

As a side note, Hadith also contains many protective statements regarding women. Such as the best of men are those who are the best towards their wives, a man who raises two or more daughters would be side-by-side with the prophet in Paradise, and Paradise lies in the feet of mothers. Also in a Sahih Hadith, the Prophet when some women were riding some animals to travel somewhere, telling companions to take care of the glass structures, in other words highlighting women's vulnerability hence their need for protection. Also that a woman should conveniently have male supporters when traveling. There are plenty of Hadith highlighting her need for protection and her delicacy. Also making it compulsory for a man to provide for her, but she has absolutely no need to do the same for another man. Then why do we Quranists brand Hadith as misogynistic? It's by seeing the overall content right, instead of cherry-picking accordingly? Anyway, I just thought of mentioning this that's all.

Your words, as far as I can appreciate, reveal an eminently worldly, success oriented outlook on life and the world, where if your name is in every mouth (or in the papers or tv) you are somebody and if not you are nothing. I guess that is modern compulsion for worldly success or not necessarily modern, but of all ages, but that has nothing to do with the preferences of God, nor with what human beings destiny is nor what God's way for them is.

I do have success-oriented vision. I think it is important. Even sub-consciously and emotionally things affect us. Although I didn't say to the point that a name should be broadcast everywhere or that person is nothing. However, when you are dealing with a scripture which is supposed to have timeless guidance for eternity, and considered as the best book which everybody else should take inspiration from, shouldn't such a writer, which that too is a God who understands human nature, be particularly careful regarding such matter? And how such matters can end up affecting people psychologically and emotionally? And give a subliminal message regarding patriarchy? And the subliminal message that only a HIGHLY exceptional person from the female gender is worth naming, because women are otherwise always a step behind men in a way, and there are plenty of men who have easily achieved that height of exception? Or that women are at the end only helpmates of men and not an equal figure who can have an equal status and privilege over specific matters? These things should have been counted on by a just God.

The Bible and other scriptures are misogynistic in their own way, I never denied that, very misogynistic in fact, but at least they lend the simple courtesy of mentioning females' names alongwith males. Imagine if a world-renowed and respected book was going to be released, regarding you and your husband. This book would be cherished by billions of people, for centuries. In that book you find you are only referred to as your husband's mate, whereas your husband is repeatedly mentioned by name. Wouldn't that disturb you and upset you thoroughly? Like why on earth was your name not mentioned equally? Is it because you have less to contribute? You would probably immediately demand a re-write of the book with your name properly inserted in. This is not asking for success orientation or those stuff, this is asking for a simple human courtesy, that's all.

Peace/

Samira1234

@huruf

And after seeing that so much of Qur'an has been hidden under prejudiced or self-seeking interpretations, the suggestion to modify de Qur'an is like having a shoe that is way too small and wrong shaped and being told to cut pieces of the foot so that it does not suffer when it gets inside the shoe. Fantastic.

The Quran needs an overwhelmingly large reformation. Aside from some beautiful universal messages and teachings, this book in many ways looks good in theory, but is a fail in reality. I appreciate our Muslims' higher level of modesty and chastity though, and that we try to follow our religion quite seriously. But then, look at other developed countries. Aside from the countries blessed with natural resources like oil, which of those countries are Muslim countries? In terms of women-friendly countries, which Muslim country do you see within the top twenty countries, which strongly adhere to the Quran only? So to a large extent our mindset is affected by the scripture we follow. This scripture is not applicable, not in this day and age, not in any day and age actually, except if an age was deeply unjust then the Quran could have improved the society to an extent.

Peace.

Samira1234

@Mazhar

I am still looking at other errors more carefully, although having issues with time management for now. For this case, 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..." '.

huruf

@Mazhar

I saw this comment on another thread

You are going with the pre-assumption that the Quran is an 100% infallible Word of God, and EVERYBODY ELSE creating unexpected real world results by applying it have misunderstood it, because of their own character flaws, or that their interpretations are wrong. Seeing your interpretations, they are not hardly better as well, except a few times where you are playing interpretation acrobatics to soften the message of some of the verses or sugar-coating the meaning of certain verses. Or using one-sided reasoning to explain away some verses. We Muslims would end up having mud fights with each other for eternity in this way, and stare with horror at people who don't play any interpretation acrobatics or one-sided reasoning and apply the verses in their lives as they are.

I have suggested earlier that we hold onto our conscience, reasoning and using our five senses to see the real world and what is happening there. And we approach the Quran from a humanistic, progressive and just mindset, and see if the Quran matches up to that mindset or not. And then yes, take the Quran literally as it should be. And then decide regarding the Quran, and whether our own interpretation is off or not.

If no matter what interpretation is applied and the results are still backwards, unjust and even error-filled (I already said I spotted a few errors in the Quran; in grammar, language and logic, and also scientifically), then maybe there could be some tampering that occurred with the Arabic text. This would be a harder pill to swallow, since then a harder task would be laid for us.

If after a lot of time all else is a fail and the Quran is what it is, then why hold on to it so strongly? Some Muslims say they have an innate knowing regarding the authenticity of the Quran. I have it too. But if the Quran does not match up with proper real-world results, and instead regresses our mind back and creates pain for us, I don't see the point of trying to keep holding on. We can hold on to it's moral system where we cherry-pick the good parts into our lives, but get rid of the Quran as an actual guide then. I see no other choice. But this is a last option, by the way.

This is like the french saying love is a Spanish inn there you eat whatever you brought in.

That is so, also with Qur'an and also with everything else in life.

Anybody intending that somebody else, "those (millions) ou there", whoever, will solve her or his problem, make life perfect for them, is in for a failure, a complete failure.

You get what you put in. If you expect that you will get a ride for free, that others are going to give you hapiness, solutions to your quests, you are in for a BIG disappointment. You will be disaappointed if you expect that from the Qur'an, your will be disappointed if you expect that from the Bible, from the upanishads, from the neighbour, from the millions out there...

Nobody is supposed to do that FOR YOU. If you want something, go and get it. And for that you do not need the approval or the permission of anybody. But by your writings I get the feeling of that very common thing of depending so much on others, being so mindful of what the "general feeling or view is".

No matter if you scream so much about women being mistreated, with that kind of discourse, you will be mistreated always, because as long as you are so worried about the treatment others give you, you are paying them hommage. Are they God? No? then why do you care, why do you give a damn? You also can treat them anyway, right? Why do you accept to be the one "treated"? Why don't you start to be a treater, of yourself in the first place?

Your problem as it seems to me is not the Qur'an, the problem is your submissive attitude. As if you are just looking to whom to submit so that you can receive approval from others. You will never get anywhere that way.

You keep mentionning all those that have said what the Qur'an says and opppose them to what I said. That seems to be a problem for you, but not for me. What do I care if most women are so needing of approval in order to feel legitimized by "society"? If they cannot give up approval, they will never be free, not to speak about equality. Equality to what? To those pushers who live for the rat race? Go ahead, and get that equality. But that kind of mentality is not one that promotes de interests of women. Nor of anybody, but most particularly not those of women.

The world is a mess, to start with, because it has disobeyed and mostly mistranslated God's command to be conscious of God and of the wombs. No, they have done just the oposite, they have attempted to take over the wombs. Humanity will pay for that till it learns to honour and be conscious of God and the wombs.

And the greatest humiliation is in you dear Bible the male, who will never give birth to anything, ruling over the giver of life. After that, what do you expect? And muslims have followed the bible, that is, their delusions, their shaytanic delusions, not the Qur'an. That is their problem. And Maryam was sent to say loud and clear that children do not need any male's permission to be born, that that gift is between God and woman, but muslims do not want to hear such a weird thing, and for others than muslims, that message does not exist.

Humanity is lost in its delusions, in wanting to hear whatever makes it easier for them, whatever panders more to their confused ego and ignorance, not whatever makes them truer.

You are barking at the wrong tree.

And however you keep on and on on the inheritance question about the misoginystic thing and all that, you still have not acknowledged what I wrote, that little word ("only&quot inserted in translations which is not in the original in aya 4.11, in spite of the fact that that changes everything. That shows that you do not want to find justice or liberation or whatever, but just beein able to cry and protest the awful things that the Qur'an does to women.

There are many people who pose as independent and feminist or contestatarians not because they want to be free and independent but because symply they enjoy posing in the role of the victim struggling (just a little) for the liberation of women or of whatever. It seems it gives so much pleasure... For that kind of thing, disparaging the Qur'an is quite appropriate nd brings much better dividends that most other "fights". Look at all those women who have taken up the profession of islam bashing and at the purported apostates of islam of both sexes whose profession is Qur'an bashing. I don't know how many employments are open for those jobs, but some people seem to make a living out of it and enjoy popularity, and ?waw! a name. Who cares if they do not know anything of what they blabber about as far as the Qur'an is concerned. But seemingly coming from a Mulism background gives all the science they need for the job.

May God bless those who struggle for truth and justice.

Salaam

Samira1234

@huruf

What do I care if most women are so needing of approval in order to feel legitimized by "society"? If they cannot give up approval, they will never be free, not to speak about equality. Equality to what? To those pushers who live for the rat race? Go ahead, and get that equality. But that kind of mentality is not one that promotes de interests of women. Nor of anybody, but most particularly not those of women.

I don't care about society. Society can still be managed, reasoned with, etc, to make them understand. I have noticed people by nature usually have a decent enough conscience and reasoning, which are usually layered with years of societal, cultural, and most importantly, religious conditioning. That is, provided they didn't have a very disturbed childhood to cope with, which also layers the conscience.

What I am concerned with is that if a source claims to be from God Himself, that source should show the fruits of God within too. And implementing the words in the scripture should produce good fruits in society too. That is why I am targeting the very scripture itself. It is easier to change people's mentality when their scripture reflects what others try to preach to them.

good_logic

Peace Samira.

I know you have many people interacting with you.Take your time to check the misconceptions. There is precedence for this type of "say" then what follows are GOD s words?

In all this cases "say" just means -proclaim/repeat my words...etc..

Why? because Mohammed cannot be the one who is saying the statement, if he was he would have added "my mercy, Iam...etc but the statement clarifies for us that it is GOD speaking ,hence "my servants refers to GOD.

3953
Say/Proclaim "O My servants who exceeded the limits, never despair of God's mercy. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, Most Merciful."

Look the statement carries on saying Obey your Lord,submit to Him...etc All the statement refers to GOD .Mohammed is just delivering/proclaiming that statement about GOD.
3954
You shall obey your Lord, and submit to Him totally, before the retribution overtakes you, then you cannot be helped.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Samira1234

@good logic

Hello and peace be upon you.

I just posted one simple error, because I know posting more would create more lengthy debates which I don't have time for currently.

3953
Say/Proclaim "O My servants who exceeded the limits, never despair of God's mercy. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, Most Merciful."

This requires a little more of eagle-eye. When God asked Muhammad to proclaim, why He said after that O MY servants, and then the rest of the verse reflecting accurate way of speaking from Muhammad's perspective? God should have told Muhammad to proclaim 'O Allah's servants'. The people were not Muhammad's servants, were they?

Mohammed is just delivering/proclaiming that statement about GOD.

So he should be careful on not saying 'O my servants' right? Otherwise the word 'Say' should not be present before this statement. This is an error of the Arabic text itself. Unless Arabic was supposed to be interpreted in a very different way than what we currently know of.

This reminds me of discussing the tashahud issue with Sunni Muslims where the large majority of them, educated or not, still refuses to acknowledge that any shirk is being done when they say 'Peace be upon you, O Prophet' during Salah, instead of 'Peace be upon the Prophet' or something similar.

Peace.

Samira1234

@huruf

You are talking on this part of 411 right

"CONCERNING your children, God enjoins upon you The male shall have the equal of two females' share; but if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what leave behind..."

So are you saying if there are two or more daughters, the ruling on males getting twice of that of females get abrogated, and the females regardless of other people, directly inherits 2/3 of the estate? This makes it confusing. So when is the ruling on males getting twice of that of females applicable? When there is only one daughter versus son/s?

What would the son/s inherit then?

Peace.