Inheritance according to Qur?an

Noon_waalqalami

Noon, I know you spend a lot of time trying to figure out these quranic ayahs letter by letter. I do not criticize your work. I appreciate your will and your intellect. I criticize the writer behind these verses, who would give instructions which make no sense in a civilized progressive world which acknowledges human rights, and is sexist and unrealistic in the share-giving. Surely a just, compassionate and merciful God would have had come up with better than this? Instead of creating such laws and carving them in stone for eternity?

Peace Samira1234 -- which are sexist and unrealistic "from after a will one dictates believes is fair" or if one neglects duty to write a will?

411
instructs you the god in awldikum/offspring yours lildhakari/to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)

so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above two (f/d) so for them (f/p i.e. 3+) third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left

and if knat/be she (f/s) widatan/one (f/s) so for her al-ni'fu/the half

wali-abawayhi/and to parents dual said person to each one from them dual the sixth from what left if kna/be (m/s) for said person waladun/offspring (son) so if not yakun that be for said person waladun/offspring (child) wawarithahu/and bestows to inherit said person parents dual said person so to mother said person the third so if kna/be (s/m) for said person ikh'watun/brother so to mother said person the sixth from after will instructs in it or judgment

fathers yours and sons yours not thou knowing which of them closer to you benefit of obligation from the god surely the god be knowledgeable wisdom of

412
and for you half what left azwjukum/spouses yours if not yakun that be for them waladun/offspring (child) so if kna/be (m/s) for them waladun/offspring (son) so for you the fourth from what left they from after will made they in it or judgment

and for them the fourth from what left you if not yakun that be for you waladun/offspring (child) so if kna/be (s/m) for you waladun/offspring (son) so to them the eight from what left you from after will thou making in it or judgment

and if kna/be (m/s) rajulun/man yrathu/he bestows to inherit kalalatan (spouse-less without daughter) or im'ra-atun/woman and to said person brother or sister so to each one from them dual the sixth so if kn/be they of (2+) more from such so they partners in the third from after will instructs in it or judgment other than harmful will from the god and the god knower tolerant

4176
they seek ruling your say the god gives ruling you in al-kalalati (the spouseless without daughter) if im'ru-on/person perished not for him waladun/offspring (child) and for him sister so for her half what left and he yarithuh/he inheritor hers if not yakun that be for her waladun/offspring (child)

so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left

and if kn /be they of (2+) ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)

shows the god for you lest/that stray ye of and the god in every thing knower

http//oi60.tinypic.com/4g2lbb.jpg

Samira1234

@Noon

Peace Samira1234 -- which are sexist and unrealistic "from after a will one dictates believes is fair" or if one neglects duty to write a will?

There are may be several reasons why a person may fail to write a will. Accidental death, being unsure over property distribution and facing a sudden death, etc. The highest priority should be given to the spouse and kids, and also a portion to parents. Here the wife gets 1/4th or even 1/8th share if she has kids. Is that fair to him as a wife? And why should a wife get half share compared to husband? That's clearly sexist. Women being frequently left vulnerable due to life situations, raising children and being homemakers, can be left more vulnerable due to these distributions.

And have you taken this portion of verse into account in your calculations

"...But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate..."

That's another example of sexism in regards to daughters.

Sons get twice that of daughters, no matter what, no matter what at all. Whether the children are married, unmarried, rich, poor, widow, etc. That's another example of sexism.

What if a person only left a spouse as a heir and nobody else? How will the distribution take place?

Seeing your fractions, I know you put a lot of work into them, but they look like you are trying to force fractions into being a complete 1, regardless of the actual justice behind the distributions.

Frankly these shares look outdated, like an ancient inheritance distribution. Bringing ancient patriarchal laws into a timeless society carved in stone. That is a form of injustice by itself.

Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

@Noon

There are may be several reasons why a person may fail to write a will. Accidental death, being unsure over property distribution and facing a sudden death, etc. The highest priority should be given to the spouse and kids, and also a portion to parents. Here the wife gets 1/4th or even 1/8th share if she has kids. Is that fair to him as a wife? And why should a wife get half share compared to husband? That's clearly sexist. Women being frequently left vulnerable due to life situations, raising children and being homemakers, can be left more vulnerable due to these distributions.

Yes fair, men have responsibility to support women and wife may re-marry thus major portion is left to children.

And have you taken this portion of verse into account in your calculations

"...But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate..."

Yes I've taken into account "every" combination including these three situations...

and if be she (f/s) wahidatan/one (f/s) so for her the half
so if be dual (f/d) ith'natayni/two (f/d) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
so if be (f/p) nisaan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (f) so for them third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left

That's another example of sexism in regards to daughters.

What's sexist about daughters alone getting major share?

Sons get twice that of daughters, no matter what, no matter what at all. Whether the children are married, unmarried, rich, poor, widow, etc. That's another example of sexism.

Correct, sons are responsible for their mother and/or their sisters until they marry.
Again, if don't like it then don't be lazy with excuses write a will, a partial will, etc.

What if a person only left a spouse as a heir and nobody else? How will the distribution take place?

Distribution is same if only son or only mother or only father or only sister or only brother; sole inheritor receives the whole; none to contest; no need for distribution laws; to divide something needs minimum two participants.

Seeing your fractions, I know you put a lot of work into them, but they look like you are trying to force fractions into being a complete 1, regardless of the actual justice behind the distributions.

Frankly these shares look outdated, like an ancient inheritance distribution. Bringing ancient patriarchal laws into a timeless society carved in stone. That is a form of injustice by itself.

Please show an example I'm not adhering to the text and forcing the whole?
What's modern justice women portrayed as sex objects and forced to work?

Peace

Mazhar

4176 ... and he inheritor hers if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child) so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left

Dear, there is no daughter in 4176. Daughter and daughters are mentioned in 411.

It is about sisters

Noon_waalqalami

Dear, there is no daughter in 4176. Daughter and daughters are mentioned in 411.

It is about sisters

Dear Mazhar,

Why assume "the two sisters" written thus al-ukh'tayni

When it clearly states -- IF NO CHILD ELSE IF TWO FEMALES?

if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child)
else if knat/be dual (f) ith'natayni/two females

Again, research exactly "two daughters" and "three or more sisters" and "two or more brothers" no child?

Mazhar

Dear Mazhar,

Why assume "the two sisters" written thus al-ukh'tayni

When it clearly states -- IF NO CHILD ELSE IF TWO FEMALES?

if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child)
else if knat/be dual (f) ith'natayni/two females

Again, research exactly "two daughters" and "three or more sisters" and "two or more brothers" no child?

two sisters is not assumption; two daughters is certainly assumption. Firstly a man-kalala died without a surviving son but one sister is surviving who gets half; similarly if the deceased were this sister without a son his brother will get half. And in case instead of one sister they were two sisters of this man the share will be two third; and if they were brothers and sisters in plural number the share will remain two third and distributed in ratio 21.
Particle Fa connects the sentence with single sister sentence.

Dear Noon, please see the difference

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.12f.gif

compare with 4176
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.176d.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.176PPP.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.176PPQ.gif

Samira1234

@Noon

Yes fair, men have responsibility to support women and wife may re-marry thus major portion is left to children.

That's one-sided reasoning being used here. What about cases where the daughters are grown, can support themselves or get married and the mother is old and/or disabled (like my family's case)? Mother deserves at least quarter to half share, isn't it? That is why a fairer share for everyone should be there to prevent severe injustice for all potential cases.

We live in a Sunni country so writing a will is difficult here. So we have to abide by the Divine Law.

sole inheritor receives the whole; none to contest; no need for distribution laws; to divide something needs minimum two participants.

Where did you get that from? Is it from the Quran itself?

Peace.

Mazhar

That's one-sided reasoning being used here. What about cases where the daughters are grown, can support themselves or get married and the mother is old and/or disabled (like my family's case)? Mother deserves at least quarter to half share, isn't it? That is why a fairer share for everyone should be there to prevent severe injustice for all potential cases.

We live in a Sunni country so writing a will is difficult here. So we have to abide by the Divine Law.

Salamun alaiki.

Grand Qur'aan is for entire humanity in time line; for men of ordinary prudence, as well for scholars and intelligentsia. Therefore, all its injunctions regarding conduct and relationships need necessarily be simple and understandable for majority, who understand simple mathematics but not advanced calculators and algebra etc. Therefore, we need not act like Diophantus, Hero of Alexandria, or al-Khw?rizm? to understand the injunctions given in the Qur'aan about division and distribution of inheritance since it is mentioned succinctly and explicitly in simple terms. The legal stakeholders for whom Allah the Exalted has apportioned mandatory shares in inheritance are the following

(a) Off-springs of parents;

(b) Parents of offsprings;

(c) Spouses;

(3) Siblings; brothers and sisters

Other blood relatives like grand progeny and adopted or under patronage collateral child-person are not allocated any share but it is left to the discretion of deceased to bequeath for them in the left over.

Inheritance from siblings when died kalala]Inheritance Grand Qur'aan, disapproving patrilineal inheritance, declared daughter not Son as the central theme of Inheritance

Samira1234

Hello Mazhar,

If the Quran is supposed to be a timeless piece of guidance for all mankind, reality should also reflect the result of such guidance as well. As in the implementation of the Quran should produce good fruit in society as well, and no solid injustice being caused to any party for whichever case, no matter what reasoning is applied. But then, I see the reverse being true in several of cases. Such as in the case of inheritance. If it was simply said in the Quran that off-springs, spouses, parents and potentially siblings (for absence of the immediate family) are to inherit shares and left at it, it would have been good. Then societies could choose to implement the ratios by themselves however they see fit. But actually specifying fixed ratios for each in the Quran, in an unequal manner between the sexes regardless of whether the men are actually providers for the women or not, is frankly, ridiculous. This is my opinion only.

I find the Quran having a more materialistic position at times instead of a more spiritual position which is actually expected from a God. Such as this verse

314 It has been adorned for people 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.

Mentioning desire of women and of having sons, and that they are made as the enjoyment of this world, is incredibly misogynistic. The verse should also have mentioned desire of men (which many of us women struggle from) and of having daughters as well. But then this verse takes a misogynistic and materialistic stand. There are many more verses like this which are incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic and totally unexpected from a just God. These look more like the words of men than of a God. I see similar statements being made in Hadith, but here people laughing them off and calling them evidently the made-up words by man.

If people try to defend these verses, that the desire of women is stronger in men hence mentioned singularly this way, and that people usually want sons rather than daughters, etc, then they should also try to defend the concept of hoor, and of having big-breasted companions (7833), both of the concepts which are carefully tackled around by the modern Quranist translations.

Unless such verses are completely re-translated, the Muslim world would remain forever patriarchal and misogynistic. And people would keep blaming one another for their problems rather than directly at the very source that they are trying to follow, and getting the due results.

Peace.

Mazhar

But actually specifying fixed ratios for each in the Quran, in an unequal manner between the sexes regardless of whether the men are actually providers for the women or not, is frankly, ridiculous. This is my opinion only.

The ground realities vary for different families. Leaving everything at the judgment of testator, rights of some would be at jeapardy. In inheritance discourse, there is no consideration whether the men are actually providers for the women or not. That is the subject of marriage not inheritance. Husband can inherit from the wealth of wife which obviously shows she was taking care of her own economic activities/status.

good_logic

Peace Samira.

Qoran has two roles. It guides and misguides!!!!

Please allow me to highlight a big misconception you have with Qoran(verse 3!4)

This verse addresses "people" who are both genders. So the views you gave in your post are a "misconception" and a lot of misunderstandings?

Think about it ,GOD is addressing "females" as well,so He cannot mean what you suggested.

I have conversed with you in the past. Please also allow me to suggest to you to study Qoran and seek the help of HIS author only, not any translator/other...That is if you want to.

What is most unfair is to criticise Qoran and HIS author by relying on "corrupt" translations and opinions.

Also I am not defending GOD or Qoran, I am asking for fairness.

How can we expect to be fair if we still have certain "prejudices"/wrong motives...etc. We must start from a clean /sincere point.

Then we can produce our own conclusions after our own checks/hard effort/expertise/studies...etc

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Mazhar

314 It has been adorned for people 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.

Erroneous translation, by not considering syntax, will obviously lead to framing of erroneous perceptions.

In my link it is rather the reason for allocating inheritance.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.14PPP.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.14PPQ.gif

The love of sensual excitements felt for some of the women has become alluring for people;

And having sons has become a longing for people.

The Arabic sentence is a compound sentence. Qur'aan is infallible fact. Not all women are sexually attractive for a man.

Because of general tedency of having exceeding love for sons, the inheritance law in Qur'aan is not patrilineal.

Grand Qur'aan, disapproving patrilineal inheritance, declared daughter not Son as the central theme of Inheritance

Noon_waalqalami

two sisters is not assumption; two daughters is certainly assumption. Firstly a man-kalala died without a surviving son but one sister is surviving who gets half; similarly if the deceased were this sister without a son his brother will get half. And in case instead of one sister they were two sisters of this man the share will be two third; and if they were brothers and sisters in plural number the share will remain two third and distributed in ratio 21.
Particle Fa connects the sentence with single sister sentence.

Dear Mazhar,

If two sisters then explain exactly 3+ sisters?
If two sisters then explain exactly 2 daughters?

Last part 4176 is case (no child) mixed siblings 21 ratio any combination...

1 brother 1 sister
1 brother 2 sisters
1 brother 3+ sisters

2 brothers 1 sister
2 brothers 2 sisters
2 brothers 3+ sisters

3+ brothers 1 sister
3+ brothers 2 sisters
3+ brothers 3+ sisters

Not sure where you get "the share will remain two third and distributed in ratio 21" when it precisely states...

4176 so if be dual two (i.e. exactly two females) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)

@Noon

That's one-sided reasoning being used here. What about cases where the daughters are grown, can support themselves or get married and the mother is old and/or disabled (like my family's case)? Mother deserves at least quarter to half share, isn't it? That is why a fairer share for everyone should be there to prevent severe injustice for all potential cases.

We live in a Sunni country so writing a will is difficult here. So we have to abide by the Divine Law.

Where did you get that from? Is it from the Quran itself?

Dear Samira1234 what if this what if that ? play me world's smallest violin. Albania or Bangladesh, figure it out take care of your mother.

Likewise Qur?an warns of dire consequences messing with inheritance ?don?t even think about it!?

46 and test ye of the bereaved until when attained they the marriage so if perceive you from them rational so deliver ye of to them wealth theirs and not eats/consumes ye it wastefully and hastily of lest/that grow up they of and who be ample of so should refrain and who be in need of so let eat/consume in the right so when deliver you to them wealth theirs so witnesses ye of on/over them and sufficient in the god reckoner of
47 to the menfolk share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the womenfolk share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large share of obligatory
48 and when comes the division possessors the relatives/near and the bereaved and the needy so provide ye them from it and speak ye of for them speech of rightful
49 and let fear/be mindful/concerned the ones in case left they of from behind them descendant weak fear/concerned they of over them so let fear/be mindful they of the god and to says they of speech of appropriate
410 surely the ones eating/consuming wealth the bereaved injustice of only eating/consuming in interior of body theirs fire of and shall be burning blaze of
411 instructs you the god in awldikum/offspring yours ...

Samira1234

The ground realities vary for different families.

That is right. Which is why I mentioned a more fair distribution of inheritance in general which would prevent severe injustice for the majority of the range of cases would be good. And which is why fixating ratios for each person, and that too in unequal proportions for each gender in particular, for eternity for ALL circumstances, ALL types of societies, and ALL ages throughout is a bad idea.

In inheritance discourse, there is no consideration whether the men are actually providers for the women or not. That is the subject of marriage not inheritance.

Spot on. I have no idea why people keep bringing "women get provided by other men" type reasoning, without seeing the broad range of real world cases that are actually possible and is happening. I see real life cases which do not follow such ideal case, of women having in-built good and generous providers all of the time, is actually the majority.

Husband can inherit from the wealth of wife which obviously shows she was taking care of her own economic activities/status.

That's true. People's one-sided justifications seem laughable at times. I am sorry. I know everybody is on the same path. Most people here are good people, who are trying their best to understand and follow God's word. However, I read these lines of wisdom from a great spiritual teacher "Our thoughts, feelings and observance of real world evidence should be given higher priority than written words (such as in scripture), which can be more easily misunderstood and tampered with by human beings. Our thoughts, feelings and real world evidence are a more direct channel of God's expression than written words, which are actually the least reliable of all of them." I understand that many a time though it is easier said than done. Scripture can contain timeless wisdom for everybody, but it shouldn't be taken so much at face value at the cost of injustice to other people, and intentionally shutting off our conscience and reasoning to keep abiding by those words.

Peace.

hawk99

If the Quran is supposed to be a timeless piece of guidance for all mankind, reality should also reflect the result of such guidance as well. As in the implementation of the Quran should produce good fruit in society as well, and no solid injustice being caused to any party for whichever case, no matter what reasoning is applied. But then, I see the reverse being true in several of cases. Such as in the case of inheritance. If it was simply said in the Quran that off-springs, spouses, parents and potentially siblings (for absence of the immediate family) are to inherit shares and left at it, it would have been good. Then societies could choose to implement the ratios by themselves however they see fit. But actually specifying fixed ratios for each in the Quran, in an unequal manner between the sexes regardless of whether the men are actually providers for the women or not, is frankly, ridiculous. This is my opinion only.

I find the Quran having a more materialistic position at times instead of a more spiritual position which is actually expected from a God. Such as this verse

314 It has been adorned for people 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.

Mentioning desire of women and of having sons, and that they are made as the enjoyment of this world, is incredibly misogynistic. The verse should also have mentioned desire of men (which many of us women struggle from) and of having daughters as well. But then this verse takes a misogynistic and materialistic stand. There are many more verses like this which are incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic and totally unexpected from a just God. These look more like the words of men than of a God. I see similar statements being made in Hadith, but here people laughing them off and calling them evidently the made-up words by man.

If people try to defend these verses, that the desire of women is stronger in men hence mentioned singularly this way, and that people usually want sons rather than daughters, etc, then they should also try to defend the concept of hoor, and of having big-breasted companions (7833), both of the concepts which are carefully tackled around by the modern Quranist translations.

Unless such verses are completely re-translated, the Muslim world would remain forever patriarchal and misogynistic. And people would keep blaming one another for their problems rather than directly at the very source that they are trying to follow, and getting the due results.

Peace.

Peace Samira1234

What is your opinion of Islam?

What is your opinion of the Quran?

What is your opinion of Allah?

What I see so far in your posts are

Doubt
Disbelief
Know better than Allah
Disdain
Criticizing Allah
Unable to understand context

Hey guys!

I saw this video on Sam Harris commenting regarding the mindset of Muslims, and on Quran and Hadith.
He is a famous atheist by the way, who commented on
quite a lot of religions. I found his points to be quite honest and straightforward. What do you guys
have to say? I am very curious to know you guys' opinions. Thanks a lot!

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CeiO-v8D1E

To ask an atheist about the deen is akin to Asking a Nazi about Jews.

God bless

peace

Samira1234

@Mazhar

The Arabic sentence is a compound sentence. Qur'aan is infallible fact. Not all women are sexually attractive for a man.

I do not understand. The verse clearly says

314 It has been adorned for people 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.

I do not understand how this verse could have anything to do with inheritance. It is mentioning the general likes of people. And by the way, there are people who favour daughters more than sons. This verse is either meant for the ancient centuries or is a misinterpreted verse. I can't imagine a God speaking this way. And if people interpret it in a different way, I want to see how they broke down that particular word to come up with their interpretation.

Because of general tedency of having exceeding love for sons, the inheritance law in Qur'aan is not patrilineal.

How much more patrilineal can the inheritance laws be? Such as by not giving any share to women at all? If a person gives this reasoning to Western and European countries, or even a number of other non-Muslim countries, he or she should be prepared to get laughed at and removed out. I am sorry, I am just saying how it is. And no, not all non-Muslim countries have women who are forced to go to work, or are treated as sex objects. Muslims have to give any number of reasoning to abide by the words of the Quran which they cannot interpret in any other way.

@good logic

What is most unfair is to criticise Qoran and HIS author by relying on "corrupt" translations and opinions.

Also I am not defending GOD or Qoran, I am asking for fairness.

How can we expect to be fair if we still have certain "prejudices"/wrong motives...etc. We must start from a clean /sincere point.

Hello good logic, I understand your sincerity. I am trying to be fair as well. What I have seen, the Quranists first declared Hadith as being corrupt. Then they trying to squirm around certain verses which they could find an alternate meaning for, or a softer meaning. Then when they are stuck, and the words mean what they mean, they hold on to them like life and death, and will give any number of one-sided reasoning to justify them, and shut off a part of their conscience for them. This I do not find fair. I do not find them honest in this regard. The same words in another context besides the Quran would have gotten ousted already. And our countries will always remain backwards for as long as we have this kind of mindset, which I am worried about. I am just saying.

Peace.

Mazhar

I do not understand. The verse clearly says

314 It has been adorned for people 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 love of sensual excitements felt for some of the women has become alluring for people;

And having sons has become a longing for people.

So has become the desire to have a state of hoarded abundance of Gold and Silver;

And the marked-pedigree horses , and abundance of herbivore-mammals, and for plenty of harvesting lands.
This is the wealth-sustenance-provision of the transitory worldly life.

Mind it that Allah the Exalted grants the most appropriate return and abode by His Grace.

The first verb is passive, denoting something that has become alluring, whose proxy subject is sensual excitements and longing for sons; and love of wealth.
Allah the Exalted is telling about the general psyche of people. When this is pysche of majority of people, what makes you to believe that people will be just if things are left to them to decide about inheritance?

Noon_waalqalami

I find the Quran having a more materialistic position at times instead of a more spiritual position which is actually expected from a God. Such as this verse

314 ...

Peace, "instead of a more spirtual position" that's how you read?

314-17 beautified to the humankind love the lusts from the womenfolk and the sons and the heaps the stored up from the gold and the silver and the horses the branded and the cattle and the harvest such yours provision the life the world and the god before him best the place of return say shall I inform you in better from such yours to the those fear near lord theirs gardens flow from beneath it the springs eternally live therein and spouses purified and approval from the god and the god seer in the servants the ones are saying lord ours surely we believe we so forgive for us sins ours and save us punishment the fire the steadfast and the sincere and the obedient and the who spend and the who ask forgiveness in/by the dawn

Applicable then as now; interesting was actually thinking to get one of these today (the car lol).

http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-SHIBzBp9nNE/UEAmyN6o3gI/AAAAAAAAThE/MVf3RvqULaQ/s1600/9+%28Custom%29.jpg

good_logic

Peace Samira.

Thanks for your reply.
I suppose that is fair enough.

It is better to search for our own understanding of everything that is going to make a difference to how we live our lives.

Each of us will have to strive to satisfy their own mind. Living in doubt and/ or accepting nonsense are two bad options.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Samira1234

Hello hawk99,

Peace Samira1234

What is your opinion of Islam?

What is your opinion of the Quran?

What is your opinion of Allah?

I am a truth seeker at this point. I have been a devoutly religious Muslimah all my life. Although also highly curious and wanting to go to the heart of matters at times to get to the truth, instead of splashing around in the surface. Many of my relatives in my mother's side grew more religious after observing me. I had always wondered though why people call Islam the best religion, or the most peaceful religion, etc.

I am comfortable with a lot of parts of Islam. I wear the hijab (although I know it is not necessary), keep my modesty, etc. I went out to seek Islam's truth to find out how I can use the religion as a beacon of light to illuminate the world and humanity further. And to be more comfortable to teach Islam to my kids once I do get married and have kids.

I found a number of progressive and good teachings within Islam, which I abide by to be a better human being and person. But then to think of it, every religion has it's own set of unique good teachings. I need to see the whole picture to make a better informed decision regarding the religion.

I found contradiction between verse 2256 and chapter 9. Chapter 9 is clearly coercing polytheists in matters of faith. I do not know how to see it otherwise.

I had posted this earlier to another person regarding my issues with the Quran

"Yeah I have issues directly with the Quran, according to current interpretations at least. Seeing the hundreds and hundreds of verses cursing, mocking and threatening "unbelievers", "rejectors", "ingrates", to boil, cut, chop, roast and bake people simply for not believing (e,g verses 2219-22); the misogyny such as polygamy, half testimony, lesser inheritance, dealing with disloyal wives etc; racism regarding Arabs (997); giving freedom to choose religion and after that immediately threatening "rejectors" to hell for eternity hence using fear-based tactics (2256-257); cursing at Jews and Christians and telling Muslims not to take the rejectors as allies (930, 32; calling polytheists as impure (92; giving instructions how to mutilate the enemy during war (812); giving harsh punishments for adultery and lewdness (242, 415); Islam being incompatible with secularism and democracy (839, 459, 544); one time saying Allah misleads people by making their deeds pleasing to them, another time saying it is Satan who does the exact same thing (274, 1333, 643, 848, 1663); confusing verses regarding free will (1311, 1693, 26-7, 7178-179, 144, 48."

Also I am finding a few grammatical, language and logical errors slowly within the Quran. For example, 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..." '.

That's one example. There is more as well.

Anyway, if taken literally the Quran with it's current interpretations most definitely cannot be the word of God. I am suspecting some tampering took place. Like it took place for the Old Testament. Either it got thoroughly misinterpreted, or the Arabic text itself got distorted. There are a couple of people I am chatting with who are also raising similar concerns and ideas. Otherwise after doing some more research, I might have to leave Islam. I have no choice. Just because I like some parts of the Quran doesn't mean I will try to ruin the lives of myself and others by holding on to it as a whole.

What I feel surprised though is how ardently Muslims would hold on to the Quran, no matter how absurd some things within might be. One person told me even if he had to kill his child to obey Allah's orders in the Quran, he would do so, because that is what Abraham did with his son. Um. He also told me that only God could decide how progressive or just a society could be, and I don't have a say to it over the text of God. Basically I feel many Muslims sacrifice a part of their conscience and reasoning to justify holding onto the Quran. A person told me it is because many Muslims have an innate feeling regarding the authenticity of the Quran, and many also want to hold on to a convenient organized moral system to abide by. Which is why they would get highly defensive and block off reasoning regarding the Quran.

To ask an atheist about the deen is akin to Asking a Nazi about Jews.

Even if atheism is illogical to me, the one advantage of being an atheist is that for the first time ever you get to have a cleaner conscience and reasoning minus the religious indoctrination. So they get to speak from a level of honesty and clearer mindset that is absent in many religious people. Which is why I appreciate listening to them. I don't agree with a lot of what the atheists may say. In case of Sam Harris, I agree with a number of his points, and I disagree with some others. In case of his commentary regarding Islam though, he made a lot of valid points, which is why I had posted the video earlier.

Anyway, these are just my words.

Peace.