Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
There is nothing sexist or violent about 434 whatsoever if you understand Riyaal and Nisaa as men and women. Sometimes it's hard even for true believers to distance themselves from loved ones, family even when their persistence in "fahisha" is threatening the belief of that believing person itself. God tells us not to make this mistake.
Apparently this distancing from loved one is only in the case of woman being disloyal, not the man. Seeing this verse
4128 If a woman senses disloyalty or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and lead a righteous life, God is fully aware of everything you do.
If the disloyalty part in 434 was equally applicable for both men and women, it would have made more sense. But then it doesn't, because it is only one-sided regarding the parts on advice-giving, separating of beds, and finally separating for a time being.
Peace.
-
Apparently this distancing from loved one is only in the case of woman being disloyal, not the man. Seeing this verse
4128 If a woman senses disloyalty or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and lead a righteous life, God is fully aware of everything you do.
If the disloyalty part in 434 was equally applicable for both men and women, it would have made more sense. But then it doesn't, because it is only one-sided regarding the parts on advice-giving, separating of beds, and finally separating for a time being.
Peace.
It has nothing to do with disloyalty at all.
-
Peace good logic,
Peace Truthseeker.
What you say is not clear to me.
Please explain your post and the verses?
GOD bless you.
Peace.Suppose you have a friend by the name of Abraham. Your friend Abraham meets me and gives me a message to give to you. His message is
O my friend "good logic", please call me soon. I have a problem.
When I meet you, I say/proclaim his message to you. I tell you that Abraham has a message for you and I can either say to you
"O my friend "good logic", please call me soon. I have a problem" quoting Abraham's exact words.
Or I can say to you
"O Abraham's friend "good logic", please call Abraham soon. Abraham has a problem".
But it will be poor grammar and can cause misunderstanding if I say to you
"O my friend "good logic", please call Abraham soon. Abraham has a problem".
In the first sentence I kept the message in the first person throughout, quoting Abraham directly. In the second sentence I kept the message in third person throughout. In the third sentence however I started the message in the first person, quoting Abraham, but then in mid sentence I flipped to third person. This is poor grammar, and can cause a misunderstanding as to who is talking to whom. The person should be consistent throughout the message.
Please ignore and discard any of what I said if it doesn't appeal to your mind, reason, or logic because I am certain you have the divine love and light in you and your intentions are pure.
Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you. Thank you for radiating your love and light upon all of us.
-
There is the Qur'aan boys club run riot. Everything revoves around men. The Qur'an cannot utter a word or speak about women without it revolving around men and for their sake. It gets really trying.
The first sentence in 4.34 is similar in construction to this one
9.71. 9.71, The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. (71
It is like in 3.34. Al rijal qawwamuna in general kif things are the way the should. Just as in this 9.71 the believing men and the believing women are protectors one of another. That is, that is what they should be if nothing prevents it. It is a general proclamation, that is, that is what they should be if they are following God's injonctions.
It is the same kind of clause as in 4.34. That is, if things are the way they should men should support and and maintain women.
And I do not get what that "bestowed some of them over others comes from". There is a reciprocal clasu which says that
Men are supporters or maintainers of women on account of that in which God has favoured the ones over the others (that is favoured the men over the women and the women over the men, reciprocal clause, it is not saying that it has favoured some men more than others, but that each sex is reciprocally favoured in something over the other, and that on account of that men are to support women from their (of the men) wealth.
So yes, it is a general duty for men to support women from their wealth. Just as it is a general duty for believing men and believing women to be protectors of one another; enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise.
Salaam
-
There we go again.
4.34 is nto about husbands and wives but about men and women in general, married or unmarried related or unrelated. And the aya is nto addressed to any jusband whatsover but to the community of believers, just as all the preceeding ayas, they are address to
Ya ayuha alladhina amanu, that is ?Oh believers! (men and women), the community. It is the community who is told to do whatever it is told, not any husband or any wives. And there is no talk at all of any husband or wife in 4.34, but of women and men in general.
Like I said, there it goes the boys club again run riot. What do women exist for if it is not as a fuction of them, the gods, the men. ?WAW!
Salaam
-
Peace be upon you,
I disagree with your interpretation of Nisaa and Riyaal. The argument you are using is wrong. 434 does not speak about all men being the protectors of all women. Read the entire verse "because Allah has bestowed SOME OF THEM over others". Clearly this part makes it impossible to understand the verse as speaking about all men and all women. It's not hard to find out this verse is speaking about a special case in which a woman is living from the wealth/protection of a man. It's not a general rule. It's a specific case. Some men/women are living in such an agreement. In such a special case, God is giving us advice what to do if the woman living from the man's wealth is persistent in fahisha in order to protect him.
There are many issues with your understanding of riyaal and nisaa that leads to more contradiction. You're not the first trying to redefine those two words just because some of the flawed interpretations appear to be sexist. But that's only a problem with a wrong understanding not with the Quranic text itself.
There is nothing sexist or violent about 434 whatsoever if you understand Riyaal and Nisaa as men and women. Sometimes it's hard even for true believers to distance themselves from loved ones, family even when their persistence in "fahisha" is threatening the belief of that believing person itself. God tells us not to make this mistake.
Peace.
Thank you for sharing your understanding but there are still some inherent problems.
- If only some men were bestowed over others then it is not correct to make a generalized statement that "men are supporters of women". The statement in that case should have been "some men are supporters of some women because .....". The infinite Creator is not expected to generalize a fact when it is applicable only to a subset.
I cannot say "men are smokers" if only "some men are smokers". That is illogical and against the scientific principle as well.
- What about the fact that some women are bestowed over some men? That would make the general statement "men are supporters of women" non factual, incorrect, and false. The infinite Creator cannot be expected to make a non factual, incorrect or false statement in any possible scenario.
Please ponder and reflect upon this, and feel free to discard if the above does not appeal to your mind, reason or logic. Being one with each other and serving others is more important than what our current understandings are at this point in time and space and this stage of our spiritual evolution.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you. Thanks once again for radiating your love and light upon all of us.
-
Peace be upon you,
Thank you for sharing your understanding but there are still some inherent problems.
- If only some men were bestowed over others then it is not correct to make a generalized statement that "men are supporters of women". The statement in that case should have been "some men are supporters of some women because .....". The infinite Creator is not expected to generalize a fact when it is applicable only to a subset.
Can you point me to the arabic word that proves this is a generalization and not just a special clause? If I say "men supporting women because some of them are wealthy and others are not" I'm not generalizing anything. Neither is Quran generalizing anything here. Keep also in mind Quran clearly states men and women are equal so one has to take the gender roles in it as interchangeable and only illustrative.
I cannot say "men are smokers" if only "some men are smokers". That is illogical and against the scientific principle as well.
- What about the fact that some women are bestowed over some men? That would make the general statement "men are supporters of women" non factual, incorrect, and false. The infinite Creator cannot be expected to make a non factual, incorrect or false statement in any possible scenario.
First of all there is no "are" in that verse. It doesn't say "men are" it rather says "men who protect/protectors of women". As I explained earlier, the verse fully allows to interchange the nisaa and riyaal as they are equal.
-
It is all continuation of the same sentence but FIRST PERSON CHANGES TO THIRD PERSON IN SAME SENTENCE. This kind of inconsistency cannot be expected from the infinite Creator, and those who blindly accept this grammatical inconsistency are actually mocking the infinite Creator.
Thank you very much truthseeker11 for this point. I tried to show something similar as well but couldn't explain as well as you. This is not the first time I have seen this.
I am confused regarding some other verses. If somebody can correct me it would be good. Here is are the errors I feel
- 43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who are agreeable to you of the women two, and three, and four.
It's supposed to be two OR three OR four. Why say 'and' instead of 'or'?
And this verse
- 2265 Did you not see that God commits to you what is on the earth? And the ships sail in the sea with His permission. And He holds the sky so that it would not collapse upon the earth, except by His permission. Indeed, God is Kind towards the people, Merciful.
Allah holding the sky so that it would not collapse upon the earth? That's strange and unscientific. Now some people interpret 'Samah' as a metaphor for celestial bodies. I doubt it though. In modern translation a number of Arabic words have become metaphors.
- 314 It has been adorned for mankind to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.
The word 'Nas' is translated as 'mankind'. Some translators may interpret it as 'men', which is false. Hence the verse talks on MANKIND having the adornment of desire for women. Is it that women are not considered even human beings hence being mentioned this way, as the desire for women is mentioned in PEOPLE, and not just men? So the men are the ones being considered as people, and women are not people? This is a big blunder in the language.
Some modern Quran translators softened the tone of some of the Quran's Arabic words. As an example
242 The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding the system of God if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
The translators chose the word 'punishment' as a translation for the Arabic word ?Azabahuma? which is a big error. The exact meaning of the word azabahuma is ?the torture of both of them?. So much for merciful God. I had always suspected this 100 lashes was not just for public humiliation, as Edip put it, but both public humiliation and real physical pain to the person as well, hence collectively being torture for that person. And Allah does not only sanction torture, but He is also concerned that the human feeling of the people who implement His orders might succumb to their feelings, hence they are warned against it (do not be taken by pity for them in the system of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day), by mentioning the Last Day.
I guess I may be creating some serious provokes. Sorry guys. I told you I am a truth seeker at this point.
Peace.
-
And there is no talk at all of any husband or wife in 4.34, but of women and men in general.
Yes, you are right. The verse though says "...As for those females from whom you fear disloyalty..." and nothing regarding men from whom women fear disloyalty. What do women do when they fear disloyalty from the men? The same thing? Doesn't look like it though. Unless you can break it down and explain to me.
Peace.
-
Understanding nushuz/fahisha as disloyalty or promiscuity one can expect from misogynist traditionalists who think the Quran is a sexual rulebook but this is a quranist forum is it not?
-
Quran translators translate 'nushooz' as disobedience and 'fahisha' as lewdness. How would you translate it then?
I gotta sleep now. It is 603 am here lol.
-
Peace be upon you,
If I say "men supporting women because some of them are wealthy and others are not" I'm not generalizing anything.
Yes, you are generalizing if you say that.
Men addicted because some men smoke. Clearly a generalization.Keep also in mind Quran clearly states men and women are equal so one has to take the gender roles in it as interchangeable and only illustrative.
It doesn't say "men are" it rather says "men who protect/protectors of women". As I explained earlier, the verse fully allows to interchange the nisaa and riyaal as they are equal.
-
Then you should use a gender neutral English word for rijaal rather than "men" for it to be interchangeable.
-
It doesn't say "who" either. If it does say "who" then the sentence is not complete. Men who ..... women because ...... then what about those men?
Men who smoke because they are addicted. Incomplete sentence.
- Qawwamuna is not a verb so you cannot say men who protect women. "Men who protectors women" is not grammatically correct in English.
You cannot say "men who smoker".
Please ponder and reflect on all the ramifications of your understanding. This is off topic so no more comments from me on this issue.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you in service and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.
-
-
Peace be upon you,
Yes, you are generalizing if you say that.
Men addicted because some men smoke. Clearly a generalization.Well if you think that's a generalization then the problem is not Quran but your understanding of linguistics.
- Then you should use a gender neutral English word for rijaal rather than "men" for it to be interchangeable.
There is no need to do so as Quran clearly states men and women are equal and Quran does not contradict.
- It doesn't say "who" either. If it does say "who" then the sentence is not complete. Men who ..... women because ...... then what about those men?
Men who smoke because they are addicted. Incomplete sentence.
Correct it says "Men protectors women". Leaving misunderstanding an open option for those who like to find proof for their misogynistic ways. That's not unintended
- Qawwamuna is not a verb so you cannot say men who protect women. "Men who protectors women" is not grammatically correct in English.
Quran is in arabic. It's irrelevant what is possible linguistically in English.
You cannot say "men who smoker".
In Arabic you can. It's even suggested you do so if your plan is to distinct believers from disbelievers with how you state your verses.
-
Quran translators translate 'nushooz' as disobedience and 'fahisha' as lewdness. How would you translate it then?
I gotta sleep now. It is 603 am here lol.
Well I encourage you to look up some occurrences of fahisha in Quran after you get some sleep. There is a verse that gives some examples of what it can consist of. Lewdness or disobedience towards another human being is not one of them. Have a good sleep.
-
some linguistic and logical arguments the verse can't possibly be understood as a general rule
- not everyone has wealth, therefor not everyone can spend from their wealth (exception)
- not everyone who has wealth spends from it to 'protect' others (exception)
- women can protect men (exception)
- not all men are bestowed by Allah over others (exception)
- women can be bestowed by Allah over others (exception)
Add to this the understanding men and women are equal. How on earth can you suggest interpreting this as a general rule? It can only be an illustrative example of what to do in the situation you as a believer (regardless of gender) are confronted with the one you protect (regardless of gender) turning to nushuz (fahisha) IF you are protecting someone from your wealth. Not even a hint towards gender roles in this verse.
-
Peace Samira,
I think it will reach a much wider audience and will be more helpful to you in your quest for the truth if you start a new general thread relevant to the issues you have raised about the quran, instead of posting your general findings and questions in inheritance thread. Just a suggestion!
May the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.
-
Peace be upon you,
some linguistic and logical arguments the verse can't possibly be understood as a general rule
- not everyone has wealth, therefor not everyone can spend from their wealth (exception)
- not everyone who has wealth spends from it to 'protect' others (exception)
- women can protect men (exception)
- not all men are bestowed by Allah over others (exception)
- women can be bestowed by Allah over others (exception)
Add to this the understanding men and women are equal. How on earth can you suggest interpreting this as a general rule? It can only be an illustrative example of what to do in the situation you as a believer (regardless of gender) are confronted with the one you protect (regardless of gender) turning to nushuz (fahisha) IF you are protecting someone from your wealth. Not even a hint towards gender roles in this verse.
Exactly! Despite all the evidence that it is not a generalization, you keep mistranslating the relevant words and making it a generalization by using gender specific words such as "men" for "rijaal" and "women" for "nisaa".
The classical Arabic words "rijaal" and "nisaa" are gender neutral and do not mean men or women only respectively. Kindly be intellectually honest with yourself and stop mistranslating those words as gender specific English words and presto there will be no more inconsistency in the verse.
Samia who is an Arabic linguistics expert has already given proof and linguistic analysis that "rijaal" cannot mean "men" only and "nisaa" cannot mean "women" only in al-quran. If you disagree with that then you can study and continue the discussion of meaning of those words with Samia in the relevant thread I referenced earlier. I will repost the link because looks like you missed it
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597307.0
When discussions become repetitive it is time to quit!
I leave you in the love and light of the infinite Creator.
-
Samia who is an Arabic linguistics expert has already given proof and linguistic analysis that "rijaal" cannot mean "men" only and "nisaa" cannot mean "women" only in al-quran. If you disagree with that then you can study and continue the discussion of meaning of those words with Samia in the relevant thread I referenced earlier. I will repost the link because looks like you missed it
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597307.0
Sister Samia is NOT a linguistic nor she claims to be. To say Nisa and Rijjal can refer to both men and women is but conjecture and misconceived notion. I had to ask her a delicacy since she was the only moderator who knew Arabic grammar. Thereat, she agreed;
Quote
Re What is the difference between "Nissa, Amraat and Azwaj"
? Reply #38 on October 30, 2008, 041550 AM ?Quote Quote from Mazhar on October 29, 2008, 020315 AM
Sister I requested you to explain for my knowledge about hamza issue.Sorry for the belated reply.
You are right in believing that "nisaa'" is a possible plural of "nuun seen wau", with the wau coming at the end of the word and following an extra alif, then it will be changed into a hamza.
But if we already have this plural in (niswa), why would the language cut another plural with the same meaning? Seebawayh tried to solve this problem by stating that "niswa" is for a fewer number of women, and "nisaa'" is for many. But we know this is incorrect, since the qur'aan stated (nisaa'an more than two), which is the minimum plural.Grand Qur'aan has used Niswatun as diminutive noun to show few women in Chapter 12.
-
nisaa' is the same word form as rijaal, both are plurals.
rijaal is used as plural for men, but obviously in the Qur'an itself its meaning, and that of the singular, rajul, is nto restricted to males, it depends on the context.
Nisaa' is used as a plural for women. My view is that it can be used also with other meanings, but which is which equally would depend on the context.
The context, in Arabic, is in fact what actualises the meaning of words, of any word, because concepts in Arabic ar attached to roots, and it is the actual apppearance of whatever word which will give it the value for that context.
General, if it fits, wear it. If it does not fit, don't. To justify the meaning of a word, the whole setting of it must be in agreement with the given meaning, if it is not, then, no bargaining as to whether the word means this or that. If it does nto fit it does not mean anything. The whole sentence or paragraph must sustain and be sustained with the meaning, if not, then we are wrong.
As to sister Samia, I miss her indeed and I learnt a lot reading her contributions. She was also very polite and ready to help. Not that I always agreed with her, but that was another of her good points, it did not annoy her int he least.
Other than that, nisaa' goes to the root n-s-', just as rijaal goes to the root r-j-l
rijaal - nisaa'
Salaam
-
rijaal is used as plural for men, but obviously in the Qur'an itself its meaning, and that of the singular, rajul, is nto restricted to males, it depends on the context.
Nisaa' is used as a plural for women. My view is that it can be used also with other meanings, but which is which equally would depend on the context.
Can you quote just one instance where you can take it otherwise?