Inheritance according to Qur?an

Mazhar

you're getting more absurd with each post; how many different words are you translating as son!
now be sincere don't run away from questions asked of you -- translate 2233 consistently as son?

2233
biwaladihā/in (due to) offspring/child (masculine noun) hers
biwaladihi/in (due to) offspring/child (masculine noun) his

likewise it was asked of you to simply allocate to parent and daughters -- you ran!

likewise it was asked of you to translate 6100-101 "in context" and you ran away!
stop polluting the thread with absurdities ascribing to the almighty having daughters.

peace!

Strange to blame me is getting absurd.

There are 29 instances where http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.083/14.gif is used as son and with masculine verbs. And you are quoting one instance where a prepositional phrase with possessive phrase is used along with a feminine active participle for mother and Passive participle for the man who is made begetter by her wife who is in the process of divorce.

Noon_waalqalami

Strange to blame me is getting absurd.

There are 29 instances where http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.083/14.gif is used as son and with masculine verbs. And you are quoting one instance where a prepositional phrase with possessive phrase is used along with a feminine active participle for mother and Passive participle for the man who is made begetter by her wife who is in the process of divorce.

Again, offspring! Consistent all occurrences not flip ignorantly!
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wld#(41133)

Why so difficult for you to translate write the word offspring/child?

2233 and the mothers breastfeed they awladahunna/children theirs
not made to suffer parent (maternal) biwaladiha/in (due to) child hers
and not parent (paternal) to him biwaladihi/in (due to) child his
and if intends you that another breastfeed they of awladakum/children yours

411 instructed you the god in awladikum/children yours to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two females

6100-101 and make they of to god associates of the jinn and creation them and attribute they of to him banina/sons wabanatin/and daughters in other than knowledge glorified be he and exalted he of what attributing originator the skies and the land how being to him waladun/offspring and not it be to him companion his and creation each thing and he in each thing knower

3133 O you the humankind heeds ye of lord yours and fears ye of day of not availed parent about waladihi/offspring his

That is the reason all translations are horrid (including yours), inconsistent, parroting mistakes by ignorant who cannot comprehend nor add simple distributions (e.g. spouse, parent/s, and daughter/s) and main reason the missionaries are trouncing you/them all over the place and internet especially on inheritance verses and causing much doubt. Hence reason for this thread which you are spamming every post with absurdness adding no value and ignorantly attributing the unforgivable to the almighty having daughters e.g. l-lata wal-uza and manat!

Again, to translate numerous occurrences erroneously as son does not rule out having daughters!

Peace!

huruf

The "difficulty" arises from ignoring the rethorice gender as explained and named by our corum fellow UQ in an aticle qhich he shared with us and ignoring the grammatical fact the same form is used for the rethoric gender as the masculine gender, but they are distinct. To be masculine gender it would have exclude the possibility of the presence of any thing or creature of feminine grammatical gender, because if there is the possiblity of just one, then it is not masculine but rethoric. That happens in many languages.

Obvioulsy, even those who insist on "masculine", "masculine", to death, know that, it is too common and to obvious to ignore, but they choose for their own "reasons" to insist on masculine. If they did not they might loose some masculinity, it seems.

That is the ptitiful state of some self called muslims, more interested in this childish posturing than in real deep and honest knowledge.

Salaam

The_Sardar

Sister Huruf is referring to this https//1drv.ms/b/s!AkotlTY_voT4qgKZ70i1zHEjGxxS

Mazhar

The "difficulty" arises from ignoring the rethorice gender as explained and named by our corum fellow UQ in an aticle qhich he shared with us and ignoring the grammatical fact the same form is used for the rethoric gender as the masculine gender, but they are distinct. To be masculine gender it would have exclude the possibility of the presence of any thing or creature of feminine grammatical gender, because if there is the possiblity of just one, then it is not masculine but rethoric. That happens in many languages.

Obvioulsy, even those who insist on "masculine", "masculine", to death, know that, it is too common and to obvious to ignore, but they choose for their own "reasons" to insist on masculine. If they did not they might loose some masculinity, it seems.

That is the ptitiful state of some self called muslims, more interested in this childish posturing than in real deep and honest knowledge.

Salaam

Does the rhetoric gender has any relevance to specific noun http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.083/14.gif. http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.083/2.gif.

Yusuf, Musa, Easa as Waladun does not mean rhetorical gender.

Mazhar