Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
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?
-
Please don't take offence, if you know above point please analyse the aforementioned Ayahs according to accepted norms of translating a text.
Salaam, OK we're all here if you have better then apply answer questions?
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 021642 AM
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.Explain (no will) he was suddenly hit in the head with a brick?
Explain which part states exactly two daughters get 2/3?
Explain be consistent (no will) 2 sons, husband, mother, father?Please use verses #'s for benefit of others state exactly which Arabic word/s you are translating as what in English.
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 025131 AM
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."Are you sure it's plural applicable to either sex and have you cross-referenced all occurrences without dialectic marks?
Then distribute (no will) hit with a brick 2 daughters, mother, 1 sister, 1 brother
Again, explain which verses you are applying and which Arabic word/s you are translating as what?
In addition fill in template below (no will), do same for husband and...
2 daughters, 3+ daughters, 2+ sons, 2 sisters, 3+ sisters, 2+ brothersmother father 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 sister
mother father 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter 1 son 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 son wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 sister 1 brother
father 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter 1 son wife
mother father 1 daughter 1 son 1 sister
mother father 1 daughter 1 son 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter wife 1 sister
mother father 1 daughter wife 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 son wife 1 sister
mother father 1 son wife 1 brother
mother father 1 son 1 sister 1 brother
mother father wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 sister
mother 1 daughter 1 son wife 1 brother
mother 1 daughter 1 son 1 sister 1 brother
mother 1 daughter wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter 1 son
mother father 1 daughter wife
mother father 1 daughter 1 sister
mother father 1 daughter 1 brother
mother father 1 son wife
mother father 1 son 1 sister
mother father 1 son 1 brother
mother father wife 1 sister
mother father wife 1 brother
mother father 1 sister 1 brother
mother 1 daughter 1 son wife
mother 1 daughter 1 son 1 sister
mother 1 daughter 1 son 1 brother
mother 1 daughter wife 1 sister
mother 1 daughter wife 1 brother
mother 1 daughter 1 sister 1 brother
mother 1 son wife 1 sister
mother 1 son wife 1 brother
mother 1 son 1 sister 1 brother
mother wife 1 sister 1 brother
father 1 daughter 1 son wife
father 1 daughter 1 son 1 sister
father 1 daughter 1 son 1 brother
father 1 daughter wife 1 sister
father 1 daughter wife 1 brother
father 1 daughter 1 sister 1 brother
father 1 son wife 1 sister
father 1 son wife 1 brother
father 1 son 1 sister 1 brother
father wife 1 sister 1 brother
1 daughter 1 son wife 1 sister
1 daughter 1 son wife 1 brother
1 daughter 1 son 1 sister 1 brother
1 daughter wife 1 sister 1 brother
1 son wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother father 1 daughter
mother father 1 son
mother father wife
mother father 1 sister
mother father 1 brother
mother 1 daughter 1 son
mother 1 daughter wife
mother 1 daughter 1 sister
mother 1 daughter 1 brother
mother 1 son wife
mother 1 son 1 sister
mother 1 son 1 brother
mother wife 1 sister
mother wife 1 brother
mother 1 sister 1 brother
father 1 daughter 1 son
father 1 daughter wife
father 1 daughter 1 sister
father 1 daughter 1 brother
father 1 son wife
father 1 son 1 sister
father 1 son 1 brother
father wife 1 sister
father wife 1 brother
father 1 sister 1 brother
1 daughter 1 son wife
1 daughter 1 son 1 sister
1 daughter 1 son 1 brother
1 daughter wife 1 sister
1 daughter wife 1 brother
1 daughter 1 sister 1 brother
1 son wife 1 sister
1 son wife 1 brother
1 son 1 sister 1 brother
wife 1 sister 1 brother
mother father
mother 1 daughter
mother 1 son
mother wife
mother 1 sister
mother 1 brother
father 1 daughter
father 1 son
father wife
father 1 sister
father 1 brother
1 daughter 1 son
1 daughter wife
1 daughter 1 sister
1 daughter 1 brother
1 son wife
1 son 1 sister
1 son 1 brother
wife 1 sister
wife 1 brother
1 sister 1 brother -
An example of gender neutral word in English would be "students" which includes men and women. The context would determine what gender it refers to.
The students were having periods/menstruation ----- clearly students include only females.
The students were reading books ----- clearly students include males and females.Peace truthseeker11 -- pertaining to inheritance nisa/students whatever refers to females...
411 ... so if kunna/be they (feminine plural) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (females) falahunna/so for them (feminine plural) third dual (2/3) what left
4176... and if kn/be they of ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (females)
Dear Noon,
Kindly concentrate on what I stated. Your premise is imaginative, nothing to do with injunctions of Qur'aan. Please dirstly say something about those points, you might realize where lies the fault.
OK Mazhar, it's all imaginative 1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3...
-
OK Mazhar, it's all imaginative 1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3...
Dear what you wish not to see is that a condition clause is exclusive to another conditional clause. If you were little aware of legal parlance, you cannot jumble up all the conditional clauses and their apodosis clause and start making them one for all clauses.
-
@Noon
"to the male similitude apportion the two (females)"
Which means the distribution, when two females and one male, is equal for all of them?
Perhaps although there are problems when applying consistently with 4176
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.
Salaam huruf, yes do miss sister Samia as well which comes to mind our conversations...
411 have to ask where are instructions for exactly 2 daughters?
4176 we have to ask where are the instructions for 3+ sisters?She did point out they were there exactly two 411 and 3+ in 4176 thus an alternative reading/view would be
411 instructs you the god in awldikum/offspring yours
1 daughter 1/2 fixed 1 son 1/2 - 411 and if be she one so for her the half
2 daughters 1/4 each 1 son 1/2 - 411 to the male similitude apportion the two females
3 daughters 2/3 fixed 1 son 1/3 - 411 so if be nisan over two (f) so for them (f) 2/31 daughter 1/2 fixed 2 sons 1/4 each
2 daughters 1/5 each 2 sons 2/5 each
3 daughters 2/3 fixed 2 sons 1/6 each (nisa case 3+ females)1 daughter 1/2 fixed 3 sons 1/6 each
2 daughters 1/8 each 3 sons 1/4 each
3 daughters 2/3 fixed 3 sons 1/9 each (nisa case 3+ females)4176 they seek ruling your say the god gives ruling you in al-kalalati
1 sister 1/2 fixed 1 brother 1/2 - 4176 and for him sister so for her half
2 sisters 2/3 fixed 1 brother 1/3 - 4176 so if be dual two (f) so to them dual (f) the third each (2/3)
3 sisters 1/5 each 1 brother 2/5 - 4176 so to the male similitude apportion the two females1 sister 1/2 fixed 2 brothers 1/4 each
2 sisters 2/3 fixed 2 brothers 1/6 each
3 sisters 1/6 each 2 brothers 1/3 each (nisa case 3+ females)1 sister 1/2 fixed 3 brothers 1/6 each
2 sisters 2/3 fixed 3 brothers 1/9 each
3 sisters 1/9 each 3 brothers 2/9 each (nisa case 3+ females)Peace
-
Peace Truthseeker.
I am still unclear. Look is "My "Ibaadi"( servants or whatever you translate the word as...) in the verse implying GOD s or Muhammed s?
Also you say this
Lastly, even God allegedly wants us to follow the best of what has been sent down from God
3955 And follow the best of what has been sent down to you from your Lord, before the retribution comes to you suddenly when you least expect it.
This implies that God does not want us to follow ALL that is sent down from God but only the best and which implies that some of what God has sent down is not the best and should not be followed! God is perhaps not confident about all of what God sent down?????? Is this God really the infinite Creator whose EVERY inspiration is perfection and the best??????
Wrong understanding of GOD wants you to follow all of it .
simply means Follow the best path that is pointed out for you by your Lord, before the retribution overtakes you suddenly when you least expect it.(Not follow some and leave some?)GOD bless you .
Peace.