Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
@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.
-
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.
-
Peace Samira.
GOD uses His own style. Qoran sets the parameters not the other way around.
GOD uses singular/plural/Lord/GOD/...etc Or mixes and matches. When you study the scripture ,you will find that "the context" is key.
Look, I am not debating with you by the way. It is futile. I agree with you that "each person has to check every detail and come to her/his own conclusion. I am satisfied there are "no contradictions" in Qoran
I happen to be on that journey for years. I now have -solid proof- that both, GOD exists and Qoran is the message from HIM.But remember each will have to go in search of their own "proofs"whichever way.
The worse scenario is when doubt/s remain one way or the other.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
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..." '.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/39.53.gif
You, the Messenger pronounce universally and declaratively,
"O my those allegiants who have done excesses to their selves; you people should not loose hope for the Mercy of Allah the Exalted in consideration of your hitherto conduct.
It is a fact that Allah the Exalted forgives the slanders and sins , all collectively.
Indeed He the Exalted is the One Who is repeatedly Forgiving-Overlooking, and is the Fountain of Infinite Mercy.Allah the Exalted asked him to address and tell them a fact. You thought that the use of this particular word is exclusive for Allah the Exalted. You are wrong in this perception; please see the same possessive phrase with different suffixed pronoun for second person; masculine plural instead of first person, singular.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/024.%20An%20Noor/24.32.gif
-
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.
Nothing gets abbrogated. The ground relaities change, the fortunes change.
- Thereby, a married man or a married woman at the time of his or her death shall be in any of these states mutually exclusive
a). Leaving behind a daughter or daughters who may be girls and women depending upon the age the parent died.
b) Leaving behind a son or sons.
c) Leaving behind daughter and a son, or daughters and a son, or daughter/s and sons.
d) Leaving behind no progeny.
-
Hello Mazhar,
So you interpret the word instead of 'servant', as 'allegiant'. Are you sure the interpretation is accurate as to the Arabic text? Would you use the same word 'allegiant' for all the verses containing the same word?
2186 And if My servants ask you about Me, I am near answering the calls of those who call to Me. So let them respond to Me and believe in Me that they may be guided.
2759 Say "Praise be to God, and peace be upon His servants whom He has selected." Is God better, or that which you set up?
Peace.
-
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.
Look at this
4.11. He instructs as to your children to the male the same portion as that of the two females, and if there are more than two women, for them two thirds of the of what left (the decesed).
Several things
In this part "to the male the same portion as that of the two females"
Look at it carefully and forget what you have been told or what you, like a masochist, want to believe because you do not dare believe the opposite.
Does it say to the male double that of the female? No it does not. Does it say to the male the same as the sum of the two females? No it does not.
It says the portion of the two females.Now if you have two accounts, and put an amount, in each of the them, the sme amount, in each of them. and then comes somebody an tells you put in this other acount the same you have put in the other two. What do you understand? Answer that.
Then, immediately it goes on, and if there are more than two women... This is continuing from before, where we were given a number of females, which were two, we go on on to the next case, where there are more than two. Have we been told that the whole thing has changed and we are not talking any more concerning "Your children" but that we are talking only about females? Do you see any indication of that? I do not. As far as I can read, the discourse continuews to be about "Your children", so yes, indeed, if there are women over two, they get two thirds of the succession, the rest to be distributed, between those children that are not women, because we are still talking about "Your children".
Now, do not come and tell that the Qur'an this and that. That is what it says, if you want to think that you must punish yourself an pick for the Qur'an the worst idiocy you can imagine, do not blame the Qur'an, blame yourself or all those millions aout there that exert so much pressure in your mind that you do not dare to decide for yourself what yous hould understand. You is ruling you? The millions our there, the centuries of purported history and purported saying of purported knowers?
Would you have others believe that what is plainly written and said cannot be that, because so many peoppole cannot be wrong?
As to what would the son/s get, well I guess it is not that complicated, the only compplicated thing is that you do not allow yourself to trust what you read and be made laughable by the millions out there, who obviously are very comfortable with believe that the same portion given to each of two people is the same as the sum of that portion.
If it was the double that a male should get than the female, you can be trustful that there are means in Arabic to say that, exactly. But it does not say it.
Salaam
-
Nothing gets abbrogated. The ground relaities change, the fortunes change.
I do not understand. See this part of 411 verse carefully (I removed the bracket containing 'only'
"Allah instructs you concerning your children for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half."
What does it mean? Since you interpret the Quran literally. The sentence on daughters start with 'But'. Which means the previous statement on males inheriting twice of females gets abrogated apparently. Can you please try to make it clear for me? Thanks.
Peace.
-
Hello Mazhar,
So you interpret the word instead of 'servant', as 'allegiant'. Are you sure the interpretation is accurate as to the Arabic text? Would you use the same word 'allegiant' for all the verses containing the same word?
2186 And if My servants ask you about Me, I am near answering the calls of those who call to Me. So let them respond to Me and believe in Me that they may be guided.
2759 Say "Praise be to God, and peace be upon His servants whom He has selected." Is God better, or that which you set up?
Peace.
I hope you know the fact that collocates do effect the meanings of words in a sentence. He is not asked to address his personal servants. The following relative pronoun clarifies he is not addressing to his personal servants but allegiants who accept him as their rules, guide.
Root " " denotes a relational signification that can be translated as "slavery-servitude-allegiance-subject" in reference to his Master.
Subservience and allegiance to anyone other than one's creator and guide costs compromising one's self respect. But everything which is created is always subservient to the will and desire of its creator since the creator puts in it the built-in guidance for its every cell/component part to coherently function for the achievement of the purpose for which it was created. Human beings are given the freedom of choice, will and decision for the purpose that they behave rationally and submit by will affectionately and willingly to their Creator since they know that they were created, like everything around them, by the Creator. Therefore, like every thing around them they should also owe their allegiance and subservience to their Creator which will not cost them sacrifice of self respect and ego. When they submit to anyone other than their Creator and the appointed guide they in fact humiliate and degrade themselves.
-
I am confused. The verse says the male gets portion of two females, and if there are more than two females, they get 2/3 of the property. Can you demonstrate this in a real life case example as to how it would work?
And how to you interpret this part of the verse
"And if she is only one, then she will have one half."
Here for if she is only one, is it only one daughter as a child or only one daughter and some number of sons as well?
Peace.
-
I hope you know the fact that collocates do effect the meanings of words in a sentence. He is not asked to address his personal servants. The following relative pronoun clarifies he is not addressing to his personal servants but allegiants who accept him as their rules, guide.
So in the case of Allah we are servants, and in the case of Muhammad we are allegiants, and not personal servants? I am confused.
Peace.
-
I do not understand. See this part of 411 verse carefully (I removed the bracket containing 'only'
"Allah instructs you concerning your children for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half."
What does it mean? Since you interpret the Quran literally. The sentence on daughters start with 'But'. Which means the previous statement on males inheriting twice of females gets abrogated apparently. Can you please try to make it clear for me? Thanks.
Peace.
But translated for conjunction particle "Fa" CORE-MEANING a grammatical word used in the middle of or at the beginning of a sentence to introduce something that is true in spite of either being or seeming contrary to what has just been said
introducing opposing proposition used to introduce a statement that disagrees with something just said- conjunction
introducing further information used to introduce a clause or a new sentence that adds information such as background or reasoning - conjunction
except that used to introduce a dependent clause, e.g. a reason for doing or not doing something
Arabic conjunction particle "Fa" is used for sequence, cause and effect relations, apodosis clause. So "but" can be used.
Both the clauses are mentioning a different and exclusive to each other ground reality and instructions are accordinglt given.
The syntactic analysis is given at Para 21-22 of the link I had given earlier. For convenince
Inheritance according to injunctions in Grand Qur'aan - conjunction
-
I am confused. The verse says the male gets portion of two females, and if there are more than two females, they get 2/3 of the property. Can you demonstrate this in a real life case example as to how it would work?
And how to you interpret this part of the verse
"And if she is only one, then she will have one half."
Here for if she is only one, is it only one daughter as a child or only one daughter and some number of sons as well?
Peace.
No, please, read what I wrote and which as faithful translation as doable as far as I can jedge. It is not "portion of two females" it s the "portion of THE two females". The two females is a given and each gets a portion. The females are not counted as cattle, they are two specific individuals who each gets a portion.
You see, the Qur'an in the case of inheritance as in other things too, sets things as a function of females, that is set, and then the rest is fitted to that, which is the given factor.
So, if it is instructing regarding "your children, "awladicum" (all your children, daughters and sons) it does not change in the pararagraph to make it only one gender, nowhere is such change in the consideration introduced, it keeps to "awladicum" all along. You do not need to make any specification, becuse the basic factor are the females, the whole is settled as a function of them. So it does not matter what the rest is, it will be settled once the female part is settled. And since no distinction is made as to individual females or males, it is taken that the children of either sex will get each of them the same amount as the others. That is, of the two thirds alloted to the more than two females will be devided equally between them. As is previously done between the two females, which sets the measure since it is understood that the two females get the same amount or there wouldn't make sense to fix the amount for the male as the same as the amount of the two females.
And, again, where in the paragraph is it said that we have changed from dealing with "your children" (daughters and sons, whatever they are) and that we have started dealing only with the case of only daughters? There is no such thing, we are still with "your children".
And what is the problem. if you have a whole and then take two thirds, clearly there willbe one third left. If you take half there will be another half left. I am not a wheez at mathematics, but that far I can get, and anybody can get.
The problem is not hte Qur'an. The problem is not daring to think the "unthinkable", what? Poor overburdened males who really sacrifice their whole lives for the women will get less than them? Yes unthinkable. However to think that women who get the burden of given life and many times are abandoned by the selfscrificing males should get always or almost always half of what the males get that is perfectly thinkable, right? For God's sake, males are god...
No, the problem is not the Qur'an, the problem is the contumacious habit of not daring believe what it says, and instead try to "interpret" it. ?How could we let the Qur'an run riot with our beliefs?
You have the problem, Samira, not the Qur'an. Of course, you are not the only one who has a problem, far from that you are in plenty of company.
And that is one reason why I think God has allowed the rather irreligeous "west" to gain power, to open up a door from which honest belief in God and His revelation by sincere muslims may access to another stage of social conscience and humanity. God knows nd we do not. Praised be He and may He shower His guidance on us.
Salaam
-
So in the case of Allah we are servants, and in the case of Muhammad we are allegiants, and not personal servants? I am confused.
Peace.
A servant-subject is he who owes allegiance and servitude to his master. Servant is a limited word denoting a persons who serves some one else; a personal attendant to somebody is also called servant. So "allegiant" is a better word for Arabic 'abd" when referred with Allah the Exalted or the Messenger sas.
-
I am as confused as I could get regarding inheritance. I feel like I am rolling around in the mud with only mud in sight.
And that is one reason why I think God has allowed the rather irreligeous "west" to gain power, to open up a door from which honest belief in God and His revelation by sincere muslims may access to another stage of social conscience and humanity. God knows nd we do not. Praised be He and may He shower His guidance on us.
God did not let the West gain power, the West with their mindset and thinking gained power for themselves. Some of the Muslim countries are more blessed with their overload of natural resources. Yet due to having Muslim mindset from the scripture, the countries do not progress more than what would have been possible. See countries like Singapore. They built their country from scratch and is now a developed country, mainly for their mindset. The West adopted spiritual values from the 10 Commandments of Moses and teachings from the New Testament of Jesus, who first brought the teaching of The "Golden Rule", on 'do unto others what you would want for yourself', which I see nearly absent or hypocritical at times in the Quran in it's current interpretations, which gave them the opportunity to write on human rights and having a better conscience. I appreciate our Muslims' sense of modesty and chastity though.
Looks like for a long time we Muslims would have to look up to the West to teach us on human rights, and even give us human rights by migrating to the West or seeking their help, which many Muslims do already.
Peace.
-
Go ahead, forget God and create the Church of the Divine West, and the divine bible with the devil Eve and its racists horrors and genocides.
Good luck.
Who are you trying to delude? For God's sake you seem to be swallowing the christianist bullshit. Those same that killed millions of women in the fire because they were witches. Who did away with any disidents by the harshest means, who very recently sent millions upon millions to death in two great wars, and destroyed Palestine and somalia, and iraq and Libya.
Go and suck up to them and good luck.
Salaam
-
The spiritual values and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are basically good ones. If the Christians cherry-pick his teachings only, the fruit would be good more or less. And it's not just the West, even the European countries and mostly founded on similar values and teachings. Sweden managed to deflect war in it's country during World War 2 through peaceful means. Scandinavian countries are all mostly peaceful. It's their mindset more than anything else which contributed to their current state of country. Iceland can easily be taken as a symbol for feminism, while being the developed and peaceful country it is.
Go ahead, forget God and create the Church of the Divine West, and the divine bible with the devil Eve and its racists horrors and genocides.
I wonder if the Muslims think and behave the same way when they migrate to the West and look up to them to give them their human rights, which they enforced in the first place.
I still have no idea how you interpreted the inheritance verse. An example of your theoretical explanation would be helpful.
Peace.
-
the divine bible with the devil Eve
Good you pronounced her name properly. Instead of calling her "the devil Adam's mate".
-
Samaria, spare us, or at least me, your tricks aat moving posts and acting like the Qur'an is shit and christianity and Bible this and the Bible that. You make sorry fake with those things. If yu are interested in the Qur'an, discuss it loyaly, which you have not done yet. If what you ar einterested in is in spiting poison against the Qur'an and even God, go ahead andmake a laughing stock of yourself, but do not expect to get a better answer than what you give.
Your rants against the Qur'an and against other things yoou are so kin in discrediting and you ever so sweetness and sweet Jesus and that pop christian crap hope give you some profit in some respect, as to respect itself I doubt they willg et you any, but I also doubt that it is respect you are after or after being taken seriously.
-
There are a number of very good and beautiful teachings in the Quran. I appreciate that. But there seems to be an overwhelmingly large number of non-spiritual type teachings, which concerns me regarding the scripture. Just read Surah al-Anfal, al-Tawbah and al-Masad as examples. When contrasted with such types of teachings I appreciate the character and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament at a number of places. The Quran seems to be missing that spiritual depth within it. And no, I am not a Christian simply for appreciating Jesus.
I am just a truth seeker at this point, that's all.
Peace.