Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
@Noon
Applicable then as now; interesting was actually thinking to get one of these today (the car lol).
So according to you, there are two options either give women unequal rights, or give them equal rights and also treat them like sex objects. Maybe we can take a look at Iceland. Iceland is one of the countries in the world that has repeatedly topped lists on being one of the most women-friendly countries in the world, such as in terms of health, education, workplace, etc. Also Iceland is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing, for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbr?n Halld?rsd?ttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."
The country is now looking at restricting hardcore and violent porn, for the same reasons. It is frequently called one of the most feminist countries in the world. And it is a developed and peaceful country too. Australia is another country with advancing women's rights. Here is a video talking on them by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim woman, which would put a lot of Muslim countries to shame
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEc7kfPuUVU
Although I like Iceland's position better, at least for now. So yeah, giving more equal rights does not need to mean we need to start looking at women as sex objects. Or force them to work. Perhaps we Muslims can even set an example in terms of protecting women and also giving them equal rights. We don't need to go from one end to another end, but find more of a balance which creates minimal injustice to everyone involved.
Peace
-
Dear Noon, please reconcile calculations in respect of one sister
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 -
I am myself very, very doubtful about what has been made out traditionnally of the provisions of the Qur'an regarding inheritance. I daoubt very much that we have readlly made out what they relly say. It would be nothing new. There are many things that have been made out out of texts of the Qur'an that once one gets the initiative to look at them objectively and rigorously turn out to say even the opposite of the commongly admitted stance, even to make that stance as ridiculous as it really is.
I have nto bothered for a long time with inheritance questions, because I was too much conditionned and too dep in in the usual understanding to be able to make out anything independent. I do not take anything for guaranteed, but I do have the gut feeling that there is something else to it, something we just do not get because we are blinded, probably to something so plan that we do nto realise it, like witht he famous hidden letter under plain view.
There is no question that the "classical" view is unacceptable. -Besides, the logic that has been putported to underlie it and legitimize it is not such logical but blatant distortion or hypocritical attitude, depending ont he intention. For honest people must have been a reminder to mke an effort to redres whatever torts might occur because of that outlook. For les honest people it was a rainfall of goodies to eliminate competitors for inheritance.
The question is that when it is said that on the men falls the sustenance of the family, it is taken for granted that that works for absolutely every male and for no woman at all, and that therefore, all males, all of them, no exception are entitled to extra rights for inheritance and all women, no matter how burdened are "entitled" to be dispossessed in thesame amoun that their male comoetitors are "gidted" with those extra rights, even if a woman for instance, works from sun to sun and more, in the fields outside the home and then also in the home and no man works for her, even she workes for her men, etc. THAT STANCE IS A REAL JOKE. It bases the rights of males on theory and the forces the lack of rights on women who do not see at all at work the theory that they are supported for free by their men. A wholly win-win situation for them mles and a wholly lose-lose situation for women.
I must say I thank God there are no such inheritance laws in my country. If after being exploited by brothers many years in A life, now I was going to get half of what they get, I would indeed be very, very, very indignant. Which could have happenned. Because even the laws did not provide for that I have known of many cases in the past where parents distribute inheritance when alive and generously give everything away to males and women got very little or nothing, depending on the moral quality of the family members. So in fact, when one wants to be unfair, one can manage it even with fair laws, and I suppose it also works the other way, but of course the laws are there to sway those in the middle and give the average.
One thing is for sure, in aya 4.11 an "only" is inserted before "daughters" in translations which most certainly is not there. And that "only" is a give away of how the trick is going to be played out to divest women without much trouble. It is not the fault of the Qur'an but the fault of the mindsets of people, whether intentionnally or otherwise.
Salaam
-
Hello huruf,
I daoubt very much that we have readlly made out what they relly say. It would be nothing new. There are many things that have been made out out of texts of the Qur'an that once one gets the initiative to look at them objectively and rigorously turn out to say even the opposite of the commongly admitted stance, even to make that stance as ridiculous as it really is.
Yeah that's true. I would say the Quran in many ways reminds me of the Old Testament. I have spotted a number of linguistic gymnastics and deliberate misinterpretations in Edip's translation as well, to soften the harsh tone of the Quran, to completely change the meaning of certain words, and also add a word here and there or so.
Even a number of so-called scientific claims within the Quran are being steadily debunked already by rational critics.
I have nto bothered for a long time with inheritance questions, because I was too much conditionned and too dep in in the usual understanding to be able to make out anything independent.
That has been 100% my case as well. Religious indoctrination is difficult to deal with. Sometimes when people simply have not much choice, or are truth seekers at heart, they keep pushing against the tide in order to spot hidden truths, whatever they may be.
There is no question that the "classical" view is unacceptable. -Besides, the logic that has been putported to underlie it and legitimize it is not such logical but blatant distortion or hypocritical attitude, depending ont he intention. For honest people must have been a reminder to mke an effort to redres whatever torts might occur because of that outlook. For les honest people it was a rainfall of goodies to eliminate competitors for inheritance.
To a sensible, logical person who is not indoctrinated, a whole number of things in the Quran itself would start appearing irrational and unforgivingly unjust.
The question is that when it is said that on the men falls the sustenance of the family, it is taken for granted that that works for absolutely every male and for no woman at all, and that therefore, all males, all of them, no exception are entitled to extra rights for inheritance and all women, no matter how burdened are not "entitled" to be dispossessed in thesame amoun that their male comoetitors are "gidted" with those extra rights, even if a woman for instance, works from sun to sun and more, in the fields outside the home and then also in the home and no man works for her, even she workes for her men, etc. THAT STANCE IS A REAL JOKE.
Yeah. If that is not unjust and sexism in the face, I don't know what is.
the theory that they are supported for free by their men
You would see men telling women to be oh-so-grateful for the scraps of rights they get because they are being provided for, as though women don't do much otherwise.
I must say I thank God there are no such inheritance laws in my country. If after being exploited by brothers many years in A life, now I was going to get half of what they get, I would indeed be very, very, very indignant. Which could have happenned.
You are lucky. In my country we are stuck with such laws. My parents had some of the biggest fights on basis of such inheritance laws. Since we are only daughters, a share would go to my father's siblings as well, according to the law.
One thing is for sure, in aya 4.11 an "only" is inserted before "daughters" in translations which most certainly is not there. And that "only" is a give away of how the trick is going to be plqur'an but ayed out to divest women without much trouble.
I haven't seen that. I would take a look at it. It is mainly Edip's translation and a number of other modern Quran translations which do not put the word "only" in brackets, or put it in the first place.
It is not the fault of the Qur'an but the fault of the mindsets of people, whether intentionnally or otherwise.
We keep trying to defend the Quran. I used to blame people too but I stopped now. Why not see the Quran as to what it is? Using traditional Arabic dictionary, the Quran is actually harsher in it's original Arabic language. It's not people's fault; the Quran itself is a tedious and unclear book, which sometimes can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is quite confusing in general. It is absurd that over a billion Muslims would have wrong intentions regarding translating the Quran. Makes no sense. More likely they are confused regarding the book. Which means there is either something wrong in the method of interpretation, or the Arabic dictionaries are messed up, or is divinely inspired and modified later, or the Quran is not from God but made by man. Either one.
Man of Faith has a different way of interpreting the text, in a letter-by-letter way, which is what he said the Quran was originally intended to be translated as. He says the letters at the beginning of several Surahs are giveaway to that the Quran was supposed to be interpreted that way. If it wasn't for him and a couple others, I would have distanced myself from Islam already.
Peace.
-
Peace Samira1234
Thank you for taking the time to reply. What I conclude at this juncture is your misunderstanding of the
Quranic text. Not in a restricted sense but in a broad sweeping conclusion of the message. Example,
the allegorical description of hell (e,g verses 2219-22) for those who feud (opponents) of Allah and
die in that state will not be close to Allah in the next life, neither do folks such as Sam Harris care to be
close to Allah, they prefer to be away from Allah, and that distance is hell in the next life. I Consider
your conclusions on many of the ayats you quoted also to be a misunderstanding of the Quran.God bless you
peace
-
Hello hawk99,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. What I conclude at this juncture is your misunderstanding of the Quranic text.
That's a MAJOR misunderstanding there then. Not just from my side but countless other people's.
Example,
the allegorical description of hell for those who feud (opponents) of Allah and die in that state will not be
close to Allah in the next life, neither do folks such as Sam Harris care to be close to Allah, they prefer
to be away from Allah, and that distance is hell in the next life.In other words you turned many of the Quran's words into metaphors and allegory. I don't know how you are translating the Quran though. The descriptions of Hell in the Quran are quite vivid and obvious, in every translation, even the foods the people in Hell would eat, and how they would be tortured. I really don't want to see any more of linguistic gymnastics being at play. People like Sam Harris are honest and clear in their explanations.
Peace.
-
@Noon
So according to you, there are two options either give women unequal rights, or give them equal rights and also treat them like sex objects.
Dear Samira -- according to me what/where exactly what are you saying?
Thread is on inheritance let's stay on topic; you brought up 314 and I posted rest of text.
Dear Mazhar -- let's not revolve in circles please answer simple question posted to you?
4176 so if be dual two (i.e. exactly two females) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
If two sisters then explain exactly 3+ sisters?
If two sisters then explain exactly 2 daughters?Likewise explain difference sister 412 and sister 4176 -- examples to distribute according to you which verses?
mother, 3 sisters, 2 daughters
mother, 2 sisters, 3 daughterswife, 3 sisters, 2 daughters
wife, 2 sisters, 3 daughterswife, mother, father, 3 sisters, 2 daughters
wife, mother, father, 2 sisters, 3 daughters -
The country is now looking at restricting hardcore and violent porn, for the same reasons. It is frequently called one of the most feminist countries in the world.
This is also not a favour to women. This has created a problem for men. That is why they want to stop it.
-
Dear Mazhar -- let's not revolve in circles please answer simple question posted to you?
4176 so if be dual two (i.e. exactly two females) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
If two sisters then explain exactly 3+ sisters?
If two sisters then explain exactly 2 daughters?Dear not revolving in circles. I am not talking about daughters; I am talking about one sister mentioned in 412 and 4176. What is your formula 1/6th or 1/2?
-
Hello hawk99,
That's a MAJOR misunderstanding there then. Not just from my side but countless other people's.
True
Hello hawk99,
In other words you turned many of the Quran's words into metaphors and allegory.
Not many.
See 14/18, 2/26, 13/35, 24/35, 24/40, 29/41, 47/15,
God bless you
peace
-
Dear not revolving in circles. I am not talking about daughters; I am talking about one sister mentioned in 412 and 4176. What is your formula 1/3rd or 1/2?
412 if kalala with child/son sister = 1/6
4176 if kalala case no child sister = 1/2see distribution summary posted earlier...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg360442#msg360442Peace
-
@Noon
Dear Samira -- according to me what/where exactly what are you saying?
Thread is on inheritance let's stay on topic; you brought up 314 and I posted rest of text.
The verse 314 on desire of women and of sons is misogynistic, and also only acknowledges men in the verse. Women also struggle from desire of men. And people can want to have daughters as well, not just sons. The desire of sons being a part of man, and lust for women being strong in men and hence worth quoting singularly, means God made people misogynistic by nature and patriarchal. And women's desire for men are not worth quoting as well on, since it is apparently more negligible comparatively. Basically such wording in the verse looks nonsensical. Sorry, just saying it like it is.
This is also not a favour to women. This has created a problem for men. That is why they want to stop it.
It is the women and feminist organizations in Iceland who promoted closing strip clubs and regulating hardcore and violent porn. Men never raised such issues themselves. The reason was not religious or because men raised it, but for purely feminist reasons. They even said men just have to deal with it because of such limits being put by law, and on that women are not sex objects after all. It is the only country in the world to have such reasoning for putting such laws, which is that too non-religious.
Why did you quote those hand-picked verses? There are many other verses which clearly state the evident punishment in a lake of fire in the Hereafter. What do you have to say on verses 2219-22, 6930-37, 4443-48? Those are some fearful verses themselves, with clear descriptions regarding treatment in Hell, and the food served there. Please talk on the verses I quoted, instead of other verses and turning everything into allegories.
Peace.
-
We keep trying to defend the Quran. I used to blame people too but I stopped now. Why not see the Quran as to what it is? Using traditional Arabic dictionary, the Quran is actually harsher in it's original Arabic language. It's not people's fault; the Quran itself is a tedious and unclear book, which sometimes can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is quite confusing in general. It is absurd that over a billion Muslims would have wrong intentions regarding translating the Quran. Makes no sense. More likely they are confused regarding the book. Which means there is either something wrong in the method of interpretation, or the Arabic dictionaries are messed up, or is divinely inspired and modified later, or the Quran is not from God but made by man. Either one.
Man of Faith has a different way of interpreting the text, in a letter-by-letter way, which is what he said the Quran was originally intended to be translated as. He says the letters at the beginning of several Surahs are giveaway to that the Quran was supposed to be interpreted that way. If it wasn't for him and a couple others, I would have distanced myself from Islam already.
Peace.
I completely disagree on this. I defend the Qur'an 100% and it is not the Qur'an IT IS PEOPLE and their short sightedness or blindness or self-inderest or self delusions what is wrong.
Do they think that god has got a special relationship with males like that between USA and Israel? There is no such thing and I am sorry if you have got sold on a figment of Qur'an to "male" size, but I am afraid that would be it, a figment.
The Qur'an hs not yet dissapointed me as to my aspirations for truth and for justice, but I see that many women are caught in a circle of anger where they vent their frustrations on a book which clearly they do not understand. Because if they understood, they would stop being angry and start feeling self assured and at peace with themselves. God is not their enemy, nor their task master, but their steadfastest friend. God loves women. Look, look in the Qur'an for an equivalent of the temptress Eve, cause of the Fall, for for an obscure virgin Mary. The Maryam in the Qur'an is not presented as a virgin butas a prophet and as a real courageous and noble woman, not a word of anger in the Qur'an against women. Not one. The harshest you get is about the wife of Abu lahab, and then the husband gets even worse. Noe even about Lut's or Nuh's wives are harsh words spent beyond stating sparsely the facts that they choose to stay behind.
Look at the events between yusuf and his boss's wife and the women. Even though she tries to seduce him, no harsh word against her nor against the women who are charmed by Yusuf. You read and you feel that God rather than angry with them, in fact understands them nd does not blame them. And by the way, you see the exampple of a man who makes women fall because of his beauty, but no woman ever does that to any man in the Qur'an and in spite of it you get all that crap about hijab for the sake of male virtue. Who does that? The Qur'an? and you get angry with the Qur'an and not with people.. What do you need?
As to science... There is nothing wrong with the Qur'an unless of course you should want that it got uptdated very year with the latest scientifical terminology in English for its text. And what for, it si much better than that. Thos who do wrong are those who try to match it with the latest Discovery, which may be a real one or just a provisional one or a fashion. That again is not the Qur'an fault, but people's fault. And also the fault of people that think that if they do not understand everything in the qur'an, which at this stage in develo,pment we alredy know EVERYTHING, y we do no readily see in the Qur'an with oroper scientifical modern terms, then it is wrong...
Some common sense is not out of place most of the time, with the Qur'an, with science or purported science or with whatever...
Salaam
-
@Noon
The verse 314 on desire of women and of sons is misogynistic, and also only acknowledges men in the verse. Women also struggle from desire of men. And people can want to have daughters as well, not just sons. The desire of sons being a part of man, and lust for women being strong in men and hence worth quoting singularly, means God made people misogynistic by nature and patriarchal. And women's desire for men are not worth quoting as well on, since it is apparently more negligible comparatively. Basically such wording in the verse looks nonsensical. Sorry, just saying it like it is.
It is the women and feminist organizations in Iceland who promoted closing strip clubs and regulating hardcore and violent porn. Men never raised such issues themselves. The reason was not religious or because men raised it, but for purely feminist reasons. They even said men just have to deal with it because of such limits being put by law, and on that women are not sex objects after all. It is the only country in the world to have such reasoning for putting such laws, which is that too non-religious.
Why did you quote those hand-picked verses? There are many other verses which clearly state the evident punishment in a lake of fire in the Hereafter. What do you have to say on verses 2219-22, 6930-37, 4443-48? Those are some fearful verses themselves, with clear descriptions regarding treatment in Hell, and the food served there. Please talk on the verses I quoted, instead of other verses and turning everything into allegories.
Peace.
Arn't you contradicting yourslef?
Why does the Qur'an point that out about the craving for women sons, and so one, because that is one of the failures of wonrg males, who see women as a mark of success, and not as sentient beings, or sons as equally a mark of success and not their progeny and charge... You get angry against the Qur'an whether it does what you yourself would want to do ot not.
Be logical a little and not so prejudiced. You are prpecisely suporting those you pretend you are struggling against. You are telling them that they are right, that they have all foundation for doing what they do.
Salaam
-
I completely disagree on this. I defend the Qur'an 100% and it is not the Qur'an IT IS PEOPLE and their short sightedness or blindness or self-inderest or self delusions what is wrong.
Do they think that god has got a special relationship with males like that between USA and Israel? There is no such thing and I am sorry if you have got sold on a figment of Qur'an to "male" size, but I am afraid that would be it, a figment.
You are romanticising on the Quran's words, and it's opinion regarding women. Apparently over a billion people, many of them being good people, are ALL misogynistic, for translating the Quran in a certain way. Edip actually tried to make it more feminist, but his softening of the Quran's original Arabic text, adding extra words, even changing some of the words become apparent for a more eagle-eyed reader.
How would you interpret the inheritance and the half testimony verses otherwise?
By the way another misogynistic example I can point there is a list of names of males in the Quran, but not a single female's name apart from Maryam is present. Only one female name versus a list of males' names. All other names that we know of, even of Eve, is due to the Bible. Women are usually called "wife of...", "daughter of...", "queen of...", etc. Even the queen of Sheba in Surah Naml is not called by name. People try to excuse this by saying women's chastity is being protected here. Which is quite irrational, since Maryam's name is repeated 34 times in the Quran and there is even a surah named under her. Which actually makes it more detrimental, since apparently her chastity is not bothered about.
Some say the past was patriarchal. Well, apparently in this regard the ancient religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, were non-patriarchal, since they equally mentioned men and women's names and each one's contributions. Even the Bible has names of female prophetesses, which the Quran doesn't. And this is worrisome regarding the Quran, since it is supposed to be a scripture for all of eternity.
And where did you get that Maryam is a Prophet? Is it mentioned in the Quran?
The Qur'an hs not yet dissapointed me as to my aspirations for truth and for justice
The overall content has disappointed me quite miserably. By the way I didn't make too many verses as allegories, so I am not sure on other readers' points of view. In your case you seem to be cherry-picking the verses that make sense to you, and see the rest with rose-coloured lenses.
Because if they understood, they would stop being angry and start feeling self assured and at peace with themselves.
I wish someone would rationally make me understand, regarding the whole of the Quran's verses, such as on women's position. In that case they would also change the mindset of countless other people.
As to science... There is nothing wrong with the Qur'an unless of course you should want that it got uptdated very year with the latest scientifical terminology in English for its text. And what for, it si much better than that. Thos who do wrong are those who try to match it with the latest Discovery, which may be a real one or just a provisional one or a fashion.
A number of Quran's critics have already debunked a number of the Quran's verses regarding it's scientific claims. By the way what Muslims do, they see existing science, and then try to match it up with the Quran's verses, and then claim science. I have been seeing how minor words have been changed over time to suit the existing science.
The Quran has some of the most unclear verses ever possible, which can be interpreted in a number of ways. Why not make things crystal clear, instead of sounding allegorical or severely unclear, hence confusing people? And by the way if the Quran contained so much science, Muslims were supposed to be the foremost among science in the world, isn't it? But we see the reverse. They are among the most backwards in science, and instead learn from the so-called "kafir" people. And their claims on the non-Muslims taking science from the Quran is also bogus.
Be logical a little and not so prejudiced. You are prpecisely suporting those you pretend you are struggling against. You are telling them that they are right, that they have all foundation for doing what they do.
I am looking at the Quran more objectively, instead of the rose-coloured lens that I did all my life, and that the Quran is perfect, the Muslims are not. And with such notions we blame each other, foster hatred for others, and wage war against each other throughout the centuries, each claiming to be right and the other one wrong. While throughout people like in the West or Europe go about their business and actually discover and invent science and take responsibility in their own hands to create progressive societies and justice. Even the concept of human rights came from the West. I believe the Muslims are holding onto too much of the Quran in it's existing interpretations and hence having the disasters befall them. The first step is to stop putting the blame on each other (a lot of us are decent people after all who are quite rational), see the Quran for what it is, and then decide what to do about it.
Peace.
-
By the way what do you have to say on this? 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..." '.
I have had a number of Muslims defending the verse. Their defending reminds me of Sunnis defending regarding their shirk committed when they recite 'Peace be upon YOU, O Prophet' instead of 'Peace be upon the Prophet' during tashahud during contact prayer. One word can change the meaning of an entire sentence. There are more similar errors as well.
-
412 if kalala with child/son sister = 1/6
4176 if kalala case no child sister = 1/2see distribution summary posted earlier...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg360442#msg360442Peace
Hence below is the only two attribute definition which does not contradict!
IF kalala no spouse & no daughter/s! (412 if son else use 4176 no child)
1/6 mother + 1/3 father + 1/2 (4176) sister/s = 1
1/6 father + 1/6 (412) brother + 2/3 son = 1
4176 (father + siblings mixed 21 ratio) = 11/2 is for ONE sister not sisters in 4176 first part.
You say the two feminine means two daugthers not two sisters
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.176f.gifThen what you give to siblings who are few brothers and sisters
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.176g.gif -
Why did you quote those hand-picked verses? There are many other verses which clearly state the evident punishment in a lake of fire in the Hereafter. What do you have to say on verses 2219-22, 6930-37, 4443-48? Those are some fearful verses themselves, with clear descriptions regarding treatment in Hell, and the food served there. Please talk on the verses I quoted, instead of other verses and turning everything into allegories.
Peace Samira1234
Thanks for replying,
Here I refer to 2219-22
Peace Samira1234
Thank you for taking the time to reply. What I conclude at this juncture is your misunderstanding of the
Quranic text. Not in a restricted sense but in a broad sweeping conclusion of the message. Example,
the allegorical description of hell (e,g verses 2219-22) for those who feud (opponents) of Allah and
die in that state will not be close to Allah in the next life, neither do folks such as Sam Harris care to be
close to Allah, they prefer to be away from Allah, and that distance is hell in the next life. I Consider
your conclusions on many of the ayats you quoted also to be a misunderstanding of the Quran.So according to you sometimes hell is "Mathal" (allegorical) in some verses and whatever you say it is in
other verses? Please supply verses or word meaning other than allegory in regards to hell.Please research 3/7
2/24.......... Men are the fuel of hell? nope
God bless you
peace
-
Hello hawk99,
How would you individually translate verses of 2219-22, 6930-37, 4443-48? They are clearly displaying the picture of Hell. I can show more verses talking on Hell with all it's glory. Just saying.
And what's with this emphasis on belief/disbelief? One can say they believe in Allah, and go to Paradise after spending some time in Hell for their misdeeds. Others who disbelieve would go to Hell for eternity, and their deeds are useless, such as seeing verses in 1418 and 2257. What kind of God is this, so obsessed with people's belief/disbelief in him? I thought the earth was less than a quark's size compared to the rest of the universe? But we see this God foaming with rage over simple belief/disbelief. And using severe name-calling for them, calling them worse than cattle, and foaming especially in matters of shirk, which is the worst sin in Allah's eyes (even above murder, oppression, rape, etc).
Even the reason this God created us is solely for us to worship him (5156). If seeing all this if this is not a needy God who needs our worship, I don't know what to say otherwise. More than serving humanity we need to believe in this God and worship him to make him the most happy.
Please know I am a truth seeker at this point. I am only after the truth of a matter. Whatever it may be.
Peace.
-
So according to you sometimes hell is "Mathal" (allegorical) in some verses and whatever you say it is in
other verses? Please supply verses or word meaning other than allegory in regards to hell.Please research 3/7
Why research 3/7? The verses on hell are crystal clear. A number of matters I have mentioned here apart from hell are also quite clear.
On 224,
224 And if you cannot do this; and you will not be able to do this; then beware the Fire whose fuel is people and stones, it has been prepared for the rejecters.
Yeah, people are the fuel of hell, that hell probably burns more with people in it. See these verses too
2511 But they have denied the Hour, and We have prepared for those who deny the Hour a flaming Fire.
2512 When it sees them from a far place, they hear it raging and roaring.677 When they are cast therein, they hear its furor as it boils.
678 It almost explodes from rage. Whenever a group is thrown therein, its keepers would ask them "Did you not receive a warner?"How on earth can you consider these verses as allegories?
Peace