Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
Apart from you and me, huruf, the majority of those who call themselves Muslim actually find authority in that sectarian interpretation where men are over women and inheritance is like noonwaalqalami prints out and obviously my mission is to unbalance that unquestionable faith they have in that interpretation and not leave Quran altogether. From time to time I also come with reports on the progress of my research by delving into the rightful interpretation of Quran too.
-
Have you read atetively Noon's posts,because he has changed his views sevral times nd I don't think he has closed the question, and that is why there is his thread pinned in order to contribute to it, so I do not think he is attached to any male favouring, except whatever is left always in anybody from too long ingrained absorbed "inital facts".
Myself I amnot sure that I understand always the way he sets his ideas in printing.But what noon says is neither here nor there because that is not the question concerning what you wrote. You yourslf wrote a if you thought the female hostile interppretation of usual juriprudence was right in its interpretation of the Qur'a. So the question is whether you say that the Qur'an favour males over females regarding inheritance.
Salaam
-
I am not really blaming him, it was an example right here, but he still makes a difference between male and female with his belief in the interpretation even if he has been working on some sort of more deep-down analysis which unfortunately still stays within similar proportions as the standard version.
When comparing what it allegedly says with logic it seems not to add up unless women truly are worth less which they obviously are not. That is something to keep in mind.
I am not expecting anything but flawless logic when I am reading something inspired by Rabb. I cannot call the sectarian interpretation of Quran as flawless logic. Would it not be that I found it is a lousy interpretation I would have abandoned it for sure. Something must be sound both now and millennia ago.
Be well
Amenuel -
Huruf,
From how I read what you wrote it seems you keep seriously misinterpreting the English I write, i.e from the replies I get, because the replied understanding is misrepresented as something I have never written.
So the question is whether you say that the Qur'an favour males over females regarding inheritance.
The answer, answered more than once already, is NO. Not my interpretation of it anyways, albeit if I read any traditional translation including Monotheist translation it is impossible to understand something other than that men are above women.
Be well
Amenuel -
This is the sectarian interpretation of Quran and I do not argue that the real interpretation of Quran argues that.
Who gets to decide what is the ultimate and only correct and acceptable interpretation? According to which and whose criteria?
Does the historical and cultural context and reality of the people who directly received those 'revelations' have any meaning or relevance when interpreting the Qur'an?
Quran does NOT favor men over women, only a flawed sectarian interpreted one does.
Then why must women obey their husbands? This is merely one out of countless examples to disprove the claim that the Qur'an does not favour men. It obviously does in its literal meanings.
PS I'm not hostile to you, you seem to be a very nice dude
-
Peace Bender,
There are verses about being able to have sexual relations with "those whom our right hands possess".
Peace Recluse,
I don't know about you but I have only 1 right hand and it possess 5 fingers.
History shows this was common practice 1400 years ago when the Qur'an was revealed...
No, this shows that your understanding is flawed.
Or do you think the Qur'an was revealed to the people of Norway in 2016?
Yes, i believe it is revealed to people of Norway of 2016 and people of Chili in 3234
But there are no "slaves" in Norway. The Norwegians must be thinking; why is the Qur'an talking about slaves? What slaves, where ? And "Those whom your right hand possess", what on earth is that rotfl
There are people here on this forum who are from Scandinavian countries who do not think that, because they are smart enough to not let themselves get indoctrinated by the interpretation of sexual obsessed people.
Anyway, why should I apply your understanding and not the established and historical understanding of the "entire ummah" for 1400 years ?
Were ALL Islamic thinkers, Islamic scholars, Arabic language specialists, ulema, fukaha, madhabs / schools of thought and others throughout history complete morons ??? You know better than ALL of them? Or were ALL OF THEM devious/evil people who were enemies of the Qur'an?Because I believe my understanding and the understanding of a lot of people here is much better than the established and historical understanding of the "entire ummah".
So because you said that verse 3918 should be universally applied...
3918 "Those who listen to all that is said, and follow the best of it it is they whom God has graced with His guidance, and it is they who are endowed with insight" (your translation)
It means thus that you are not on the right track, as you insist to choose over and over again the inferior understanding over what is better.I know your CONSCIENCE is telling you that what the Qur'an says is immoral so it MUST be saying something else... that's good because unlike most Sunnis and Shias you have a conscience. You are not inhumane. But is it honesty to always change the meanings of the Qur'an as you please?
RED Not change it to what pleases me, that is what sexual obsessed people do and other evil people.
But change it to what I think is best. If someone comes with a better understanding than mine then I would be a fool not to accept his/her understanding over mine.To subject the Qur'an to endless interpretations? I thought the Qur'an was easy to understand? Who has the authority to decide the "real" meanings? And if there is no consensus, how can we follow any of it? brickwall
3918 is as you said universal, so apply that, strive for what is better in everything, including how to understand the quran.
Salaam,
Bender -
Peace Recluse,
I don't know about you but I have only 1 right hand and it possess 5 fingers.
No, this shows that your understanding is flawed.
Yes, i believe it is revealed to people of Norway of 2016 and people of Chili in 3234
There are people here on this forum who are from Scandinavian countries who do not think that, because they are smart enough to not let themselves get indoctrinated by the interpretation of sexual obsessed people.Because I believe my understanding and the understanding of a lot of people here is much better than the established and historical understanding of the "entire ummah".
So because you said that verse 3918 should be universally applied...
3918 "Those who listen to all that is said, and follow the best of it it is they whom God has graced with His guidance, and it is they who are endowed with insight" (your translation)
It means thus that you are not on the right track, as you insist to choose over and over again the inferior understanding over what is better.
RED Not change it to what pleases me, that is what sexual obsessed people do and other evil people.
But change it to what I think is best. If someone comes with a better understanding than mine then I would be a fool not to accept his/her understanding over mine.
3918 is as you said universal, so apply that, strive for what is better in everything, including how to understand the quran.Salaam,
Benderbravo bravo bravo
-
@ Bender )
Your are too emotional and display very strong signs of blind faith.
Your reaction shows that you are horrified even by the very thought that you could be wrong.
It scares the living daylights outta you. You most probably think that you would or could become a kafir, if you thought too much....
... Destined for eternal hellfire by the Merciful God... )
Anyway, I must respectfully disagree; my understanding of the Qur'an is absolutely not less than people here, trust me..
I've been reading the Qur'an for many years, the Qur'an is nothing new to me...I could give you so many verses proving without a doubt that the Qur'an is not universal...
But you (like most people here who adhere to certain dogmas) would twist all their meanings, albeit with good intention, and thus, the discussion would lead nowhere..
So let's simply agree to disagree..
Peace )
-
Who gets to decide what is the ultimate and only correct and acceptable interpretation? According to which and whose criteria?
The one who made Quran written obviously decided what it is supposed to say.
It was medieval clerics who decided the "ultimate" and "only correct and acceptable interpretation" and spread it. The first interpreters did not even grasp what it was supposed to say so it never was interpreted in the first place. As long as people are just following what others have said regarding its interpretation no one will discover it either.
And the real deciphering of the passages tell a completely different story. It is very different. I have deciphered a small fraction of it as was intended by its author. One will definitely find more answers to their existence and remedies to pass along in this world to the next stage of existence. I am showing this in the forum here and there but few seem interested albeit there are some who are actually interested from time to time.
I have only deciphered about 300 verses and they convey so much information that I know the greater picture of what everything is about.
Does the historical and cultural context and reality of the people who directly received those 'revelations' have any meaning or relevance when interpreting the Qur'an?
Roots of Arabic more or less exclusively stem from Aramaic, the roots mean basically the same. The meanings of words are independent of culture and reality of people since they have a strict meaning conveyed by their usually trilateral root system constructed from three letter in formation. Depending on which letter and which "slot" in a word they tell something differently as the magnitude and action perspective and mode of application changes. An Arabic word can never change meaning, even if it has passed 5000 years. If it does in culture that is because they misuse the word, applying it improperly.
Take Jiim-Nun-(Nun), for example, it morphologically means "Outer/Lower Integrity" and a useful definition in a lexicon is body/skin/dress/outer layer. Al-Jinn means "the bodily", referring to everything related to the just the bodily. If a person is al-jinn it means the person is very worldly in their perception such as the servant of Solomon in a passage of Quran.
When using al-anas wa al-jinn you refer to the spiritual and the bodily.
Then why must women obey their husbands? This is merely one out of countless examples to disprove the claim that the Qur'an does not favour men. It obviously does in its literal meanings.
Using a traditional mode of deciphering using implemented grammar rules it is difficult to find another answer. I once months ago deciphered the infamous 434 verse and I just found a completely different topic which spoke about locating particularly potent people and helping them.
The sectarian interpretation of Quran does obviously favor men over women. I do not deny this. Even if you change the interpretation of 434 into not meaning wife beating it is still misogynistic as long as you cannot find out that the whole understanding of Arabic as it is known is completely south.
PS I'm not hostile to you, you seem to be a very nice dude
I am trying to be kind even to people who are hostile and trying to share information with them. However I can sense when communication is futile and I usually just ignore to answer. I am not supposed to feel disturbed in my peace on my journey to help people help themselves. I also sense it is inefficient to reason with people without open ears. If one is not ready they will not be receptive. Better be brief and perchance something wakes them up later.
Sometimes I feel it is easier to communicate logically when Quran is not a barrier between me and the other person due to some flimsy medieval men's fault, so often I delve into logic alone detached from Quran or using logic to break the delusion Quran is coherent and sane in how people understand it. Usually when you go sufficiently deep into the cause of something everything or most regarding the faith suddenly comes out completely illogical, such as eternal Hell.
Be well
Amenuel -
RFegarding inheritance, neither daughters nor sisters inherited less thn their brothers during the omayad, it was with the coming of the abasids that that was changed.So no,not even at the beginning did the ppople get it wrong or did any clever scholar imose such a ridiculous view. But there came with the succession of the abasids the need to oust a woman for inheritance so they brought a new "understanding" of he corresponding ayas.
It is a myth also that all the time and all the muslims scholar or not did agree with wht is pushed today as the "total conssus or ever existing consensus. Differences of opinion also concerning anything to do with women have existed. But today they want tobury those and the ignorants swallow it.
Salaam
-
The one who made Quran written obviously decided what it is supposed to say.
This is the main fallacy of the whole "Qur'an alone" movement. The Qur'an, or any other book, can't be fully understood by mere self-reference. All books require some sort of reference from outside sources. If this is not the case, it's impossible to verify or compare it to anything to see whether it is true. The notion of "complete internal self-reference" is a fallacy, unless one is satisfied with mere blind faith.
It was medieval clerics who decided the "ultimate" and "only correct and acceptable interpretation" and spread it. The first interpreters did not even grasp what it was supposed to say so it never was interpreted in the first place. As long as people are just following what others have said regarding its interpretation no one will discover it either.
By 'first interpreters', do you mean prophet Muhammed and his closest companions?
They didn't have to interpret anything because they were literally "living" those verses of the Qur'an...
Another imporant point I forgot; although it's possible (even likely) that some of the interpretation problems happen because of our misunderstandings, it's not possible that all these problems can be blamed on every reader's limited knowledge. No human has unlimited knowledge after all. That means that the Qur'an is only as good as the reader's interpretation.
Someone who is traditional or dogmatic will have no problem with immoral or inconsistent teachings. On the other hand, someone who has strong morals will interpret those same verses very differently. So in the end, it is actually our own conscience that is interpreting those verses. That's one of the reasons why I always say that there is no such thing as "true Islam". Because true Islam is your own conscience and sincerity. All the books in the world, including the Qur'an, cannot even come close to your own conscience when deciding what is right and what is wrong.
Peace
-
@ Bender )
Your are too emotional and display very strong signs of blind faith.
Your reaction shows that you are horrified even by the very thought that you could be wrong.
It scares the living daylights outta you. You most probably think that you would or could become a kafir, if you thought too much....
... Destined for eternal hellfire by the Merciful God... )
Hi,
)
Anyway, I must respectfully disagree; my understanding of the Qur'an is absolutely not less than people here, trust me..
I've been reading the Qur'an for many years, the Qur'an is nothing new to me...So it should be not hard for you to tell me what word exactly is slave in the quran.
If it's not asking too much then please enlighten me.I could give you so many verses proving without a doubt that the Qur'an is not universal...
Sure you could but the fact is that you did not.
But you (like most people here who adhere to certain dogmas) would twist all their meanings, albeit with good intention, and thus, the discussion would lead nowhere..
But we are lucky to have you here to correct us and show us the correct meaning.
So let's simply agree to disagree..
Peace )
sure
peace
-
There you are Bender, you got psychanalized and I am sure tht Recluse is not going to charge you anything. At least I know he has not charged me.
Aren't we lucky?
Salaam
Hi,
RED Yes he really embarrassed me by exposing my inner feelings '(
Just a tip, be careful, he can do the same to you yes
-
By 'first interpreters', do you mean prophet Muhammed and his closest companions?
They didn't have to interpret anything because they were literally "living" those verses of the Qur'an...
Then why hearsay on inheritance is all over the place e.g. meaning of kalala -- have you looked into it?
Abu Talha reported 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on Friday and made a mention of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he also made a mention of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and then said I do not leave behind me any problem more difficult than that of Kalala. I did not refer to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more repeatedly than in case of the problem of Kalala, and he (the Holy Prophet) never showed more annoyance to me than in regard to this problem, so much so that he struck my chest with his fingers and said 'Umar, does the verse revealed in summer season, at the end of Sura al-Nisa' not suffice you? Hadrat 'Umar (then) said If I live I would give such verdict about (Kalala) that everyone would be able to decide whether he reads the Qur'an or he does not.
http//oi58.tinypic.com/i26moj.jpg
and not I inherit al-majd/the glory al-taleed/the glorious kalala
Anonymous Poet proclaimed
surely, a father protects more wrathfully his offspring ?http//oi62.tinypic.com/sfwg7k.jpg
and patron al-kalalati not gets angry
According to the poet a parent is protective of his children not so the kalala.
Clearly it states that parents inherit together with siblings i.e. kalala case...
411
so if not that be for said person offspring and inherit said person parents dual said person (if both parents alive) so to mother said person the thirdso if be for said person ikh'watun/siblings {3+ brothers (use 412) or 2+ brothers & sister or 1+ brothers & 2+ sisters (use 4176)} so to mother said person the sixth
see inheritance summary...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg385440#msg385440
Peace
-
Recluse,
Let us respect that this is not the topic of this thread even if I would be eager to reply.
Be well
Amenuel -
I take tis opportunity to commend Noon' dedication to this social question of inheritanc in Qura'nic terms.
I must acknowledge hat when it comes to making parts for each individual and circumstance, with all its mathematical work, I am not up to it. But that is my own circumstance and does not mean that do not appreciate this work of going through the whole exercise, I do appreciate it. Somebody has to do it even when some or many people do not find it useful. Many things we love and even need are not "useful" but still exist and complete the universe we live in making it habitable and besides, we never know when something seemingly useless may become suddenly or gradually useful.
Salaam
-
-
If you don't answer you will burn in Hell for all eternity.
Yes right, Allah benefits so much from letting me burn in Hell forever.