Inheritance according to Qur?an

hawk99

Peace Samira1234

Thanks for replying,

I see so far you have not answered my points of view in my last post.

Peace Samira1234

Here I refer to 2219-22

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

You do not have to insert "Mathal" in every verse about hell because hell is already
understood to be allegorical.

Much like you do not have to say Samira1234 every time I refer to you.

The verses on hell are crystal clear. A number of matters I have mentioned here apart from hell are also quite clear.

Again, Please supply verses or word meaning other than allegory in regards to hell.

God bless you

peace

Samira1234

Hello hawk99,

Um, can you show me how you translated those specific verses I showed in my last posts? Only then I can understand your point better.

Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

@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.

Dear Samira -- topic is on inheritance, no need to be sorry we are here to discuss any and all topics albeit not this thread.

1230 and said nis'watun/women (i.e. few of from the community) in the town woman the mighty seeking to seduce youth hers about himself hence infatuated her love surely we surely see her in misguidance clear

2212 beautified to the those disregard they of the life the world and are mocking from the ones believe they of and the ones fear/mindful they of over them day the resurrection and the god provides whom wills without measure

314-17
beautified to the humankind love the desires from (i.e. subset of things follows)...
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/mindful 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

1/2 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.gif

Then 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

Peace Mazhar,

4176 kalala case (no child) it is the same as for 1+ brothers, examples
We know 411 no child 1/6 mother if brother thus kalala can have mother.

411 ? so if kna/be (s/m) for said person ikh'watun/brother so to mother said person the sixth
4176 ? not for him waladun/offspring (child) and for him sister so for her half what left and he he inheritor hers if not yakun/that be for her waladun/offspring (child)?

1/6 mother, 5/6 brother
1/6 mother, 5/6 (2 brothers 5/12 each)
1/6 mother, 5/6 (3 brothers 5/18 each)

1/2 mother, 1/2 sister
1/2 mother, 1/2 (2 sisters 1/4 each)
1/2 mother, 1/2 (3 sisters 1/6 each)

4176
? and if be they of (2+) ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk
so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)

1 @21 ratio (1+ brother/s & 1+ sister/s) for all mixed
1/6 mother + 5/6 @21 ratio (1+ brother/s & 1+ sister/s)

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar,

4176 kalala case (no child) it is the same as for 1+ brothers, examples
We know 411 no child 1/6 mother if brother thus kalala can have mother.

411 ? so if kna/be (s/m) for said person ikh'watun/brother so to mother said person the sixth
4176 ? not for him waladun/offspring (child) and for him sister so for her half what left and he he inheritor hers if not yakun/that be for her waladun/offspring (child)?

1/6 mother, 5/6 brother
1/6 mother, 5/6 (2 brothers 5/12 each)
1/6 mother, 5/6 (3 brothers 5/18 each)

1/2 mother, 1/2 sister
1/2 mother, 1/2 (2 sisters 1/4 each)
1/2 mother, 1/2 (3 sisters 1/6 each)

4176
? and if be they of (2+) ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk
so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)

Red words are plural denoting 3 or 3+

huruf

@huruf

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

?Do you read the Qur'an in Aravic or in translation?

Salaam

Samira1234

@huruf

I use a number of Quran translations. I can understand classical Arabic to some extent only. Otherwise I try to find meanings of specific words online. What about you?

truthseeker11

Peace Noon,

I agree with Samira that inheritance laws in al-quran don't make any sense.

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

Can you please back this up from al-quran? Where does it say men have responsibility to support women? "Rijaal" as used in al-quran and classical Arabic does not mean only men but can also include women and "nisaa" does not mean only women but can also include men. This has been extensively discussed on this forum years ago by Samia and others. The "nisaa" men can also re-marry.

The inheritance verses make sense only if addressed to "rijaal" (men or women) in opposition to "nisaa" (men or women) but the presence of gender specific words such as "walad" and "umm" and "imra'a" makes it totally unfair and does not make any sense.

What if the "walad" is a "nisaa"? Why should he get more in that case? What if "umm" or "imra'a" is a "rajul"? Why should she get less in that case? Millions of women nowadays are "rijaal"

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.

Mazhar

@huruf

I use a number of Quran translations. I can understand classical Arabic to some extent only. Otherwise I try to find meanings of specific words online. What about you?

Semantics does not mean knowing the meanings of individual words of a text. This thread is one example of making mockery of a language since only individual words are being translated while meanings and perceptions are conveyed by the grammar morphology and syntax.

huruf

I read the original, and I think that the kind of arguments you use either one sticks to the original or is a waste of time. You do not believe may trnaslation, because since there are all those millions out there who are so good and unromantic and think so, if I think different obviously I must be wrong.

I don't have so much time to go through all the sticks to the wheels that you put, besides having done it already many times, and there is so much repetition one can psychological stand. I do not need to win an argument and I don'tmhave the energy tio dispute all the non-arguments you bring into the fry. Like where in the qur'an syas Maryam is a prophet. Read it and you will see, may be, if you dare think something without permission from all those millions out there.

Salaam

Samira1234

Semantics does not mean knowing the meanings of individual words of a text. This thread is one example of making mockery of a language since only individual words are being translated while meanings and perceptions are conveyed by the grammar morphology and syntax.

So in other words at the end of the day the Quran is still perfect, may it sit on a throne high above a shelf. I am just saying. And we people, no matter how much we try to figure out the Quran from any angle, if the results produce disaster in the world, would end up being labelled as having wrong interpretations, being misogynistic, unjust, arrogant, or "sealed in mind or heart to understand Quran". And while the people are fighting down below, on whose interpretation is right, and who is being arrogant instead, the Quran would be staring down at us, smiling at us, thinking we are all fools.

How about opening the Quran from a humanistic, progressive, non-sexist, and just mindset, and if the Quran does not fit that mindset (being honest throughout and using honest interpretations, instead of using linguistic gymnastics or adding or deleting small words as necessary, such as I have come across a few times in Edip's translation), then one of the following is most likely true

There is something wrong in our method of interpretation
The Arabic dictionaries are messed up in some way
The Arabic text of the Quran has been distorted
The Quran is not from God (the hardest pill to swallow, and the most upsetting, internally deflating and disappointing one. Not to mention the most dangerous too, knowing that we live among sectarians who believe in penalty for blasphemy and apostasy)

I am still holding on that one of the first three may be true. Otherwise instead of splashing around in the mud with our debates (since all of which lead to mostly nowhere and do not produce due results in society), we need to move the Quran aside, and discuss reforms in society and in political laws without using religion. The people in this forum have enough brains and are humanistic too to come up with great ideas to progress our countries within a few years, without using Quran as a tool that they have to abide by. And hopefully slowly one by one start implementing the ideas, as far as they are possible. This is the path taken by secular countries, and they use more of spiritual values and mindset to make their judgements. Just saying.

Peace.

Samira1234

@huruf

I read the original, and I think that the kind of arguments you use either one sticks to the original or is a waste of time. You do not believe may trnaslation, because since there are all those millions out there who are so good and unromantic and think so, if I think different obviously I must be wrong.

Nobody is calling you wrong just because you may stand out against the majority. Although I have no idea how you are reading the Quran. Sharing with me would be helpful though. How do you translate the word "kafir"? How do you explain the apparent animosity in hundreds and hundreds of verses against the translated words of "disbelievers", "rejectors", "ingrates", etc? How do you translate 2282, on woman's half testimony? And according to the currently used Arabic dictionaries the inheritance laws are definitely unequal fractions given to the men and women, so how do you reconcile that without calling God a misogynist? Also you didn't answer regarding the language and logical error I had pointed out earlier.

Read it and you will see, may be, if you dare think something without permission from all those millions out there.

Please point out specifically where it may be mentioned. Or at least strongly hinted as. Otherwise I have to form a romanticised idea of the Quran's words and hope against hope there would be a prophetess indeed. All other males are clearly mentioned as rasool or nabi, so why not in Maryam's case too? And mentioning any other female's name, was it that difficult for the Creator? Now for every other name we have to depend upon the Bible for identification. Unlike in the men's cases. The Quran is the most patriarchal book I have seen so far, even unlike the books for Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The female deities in Hinduism are clearly mentioned. The prophetesses in the Bible are clearly mentioned. In the Quran even normal female names are not clearly mentioned, except for one, versus the many males' names being comfortably mentioned.

Peace.

truthseeker11

Peace huruf,

This post is my opinion only and is meant only to be intellectually stimulating and there is no need to reply. We should all verify and seek the truth as al-quran itself advises us. Please discard what I am posting if it does not appeal to your mind, reason or logic.

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?

Thank you for summarizing parts of al-quran that are not misogynistic and do not discriminate against women. These parts indeed seem to have been inspired by the infinite Creator. But what about those parts that are misogynistic and which do discriminate against women such as the inheritance verses? How can that part be inspired by the same infinite Creator?

One of the ways to verify if a book has a single source is to check its consistency. Part of al-quran is not misogynistic or discriminatory against women (such as creation of nafs from its zauj - both words non gender specific, and your examples above) but part of al-quran does seem misogynistic, unfair and discriminatory against women (such as inheritance verses). This seems to be a clear lack of consistency. The mathematical fractions and gender specific words in inheritance verses don't leave anything open to misinterpretation. How can both parts be from the same source?

We have to be intellectually honest with ourselves and be open to any possibility. Is it completely outside the realm of possibilities that some verses in al-quran could have been added or deleted or tampered with? (Please research the codices of al-quran). What proof do we have that the CURRENT Arabic text of al-quran (as opposed to the ORIGINAL Arabic text of al-quran) is inspired by the infinite Creator in its ENTIRETY and not even a single word has been added or deleted?

What is the fault of a nafs to have been born as a female and deserve a lesser share in inheritance?

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.

huruf

What do you think, Samira, prophets are fore? Are they honorary titles so that we may bend in front of important men, or are they sent by God for a certain purpose or to satisfy some need?

And wht about wicked males, are more wicked males in the Qur'an or wicked females?

And outside the Qur'an in the world are there more wicked men or wicked women. Or let us be more specific, are there more male murderers or more female murderers, more male rapers or more female rapers, more, more genociders male or more female? Is prophethood contagious? That is, the fact that there are many known prophets males, does it rub on all men so that they get a commission on it or are a bit prophet themselves by the fact that SOME males are prophets known by name? And what about monsters, does that make dishonour all males, because it lso rubs on them all?

As to Maryam there is not there the sura Al Anbia' (the prophets) where there is a relation of prophets, cited one after another, sayin g "and remember so and so, and is there not Maryam mentionned within that recount of prophets. And the same thing occurs again in the sura Al muminin (The believers) there is also a listing of prophets with deeds and there also comes Maryam mentioned. And you, who are so fond of having the names of people mentionned, why do you think we know not the name of any mother of prophets, or fathers for that matter, but not only is the name of 3isa's mother mentionned, but he is mentionned as his son almost every time, not her as her mother but he as her son. Why? and he is a prophet, but in his naming gladly admits to being known as son of hers?
What does that say?

Is anywhere int he Qur'an stated that the fact that there being a greater number of male prophets mentionned in the Qur'an should entitle males as such to mor eprerrogatives or privileges. It did not entitle the prophets to any favour or privilege or money whatever. Nor did it entitle Maryam to anything, except to cary out her mission, just as male pophets had to carry out their mission and many times to be persecuted.

So then why does God make some people prophet, to give all males something to boast about?

Why does God order us in 4.1 ittaqw Allah ... wal arham. Be conscious of God ... and of the wombs?

Do you know of anything else in the world that is mentionned in the Qur'an together with God of which we should be conscious? No, you do not, because there is no such a thing.

If the Qur'an is so misogynist why does it command us that with wombs and does not say a damned word about any interesting male part?

Your words, as far as I can appreciate, reveal an eminently worldly, success oriented outlook on life and the world, where if your name is in every mouth (or in the papers or tv) you are somebody and if not you are nothing. I guess that is modern compulsion for worldly success or not necessarily modern, but of all ages, but that has nothing to do with the preferences of God, nor with what human beings destiny is nor what God's way for them is.

Salaam

huruf

@huruf

Nobody is calling you wrong just because you may stand out against the majority. Although I have no idea how you are reading the Quran. Sharing with me would be helpful though. How do you translate the word "kafir"? How do you explain the apparent animosity in hundreds and hundreds of verses against the translated words of "disbelievers", "rejectors", "ingrates", etc? How do you translate 2282, on woman's half testimony? And according to the currently used Arabic dictionaries the inheritance laws are definitely unequal fractions given to the men and women, so how do you reconcile that without calling God a misogynist? Also you didn't answer regarding the language and logical error I had pointed out earlier.

Please point out specifically where it may be mentioned. Or at least strongly hinted as. Otherwise I have to form a romanticised idea of the Quran's words and hope against hope there would be a prophetess indeed. All other males are clearly mentioned as rasool or nabi, so why not in Maryam's case too? And mentioning any other female's name, was it that difficult for the Creator? Now for every other name we have to depend upon the Bible for identification. Unlike in the men's cases. The Quran is the most patriarchal book I have seen so far, even unlike the books for Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The female deities in Hinduism are clearly mentioned. The prophetesses in the Bible are clearly mentioned. In the Quran even normal female names are not clearly mentioned, except for one, versus the many males' names being comfortably mentioned.

Peace.

Like for Eve? And what have we got out of having a name Eve who is suposed to be the cause and guilt of the human fall, of the sin of all humanity? Do we need big names for that? Or to be told that because of her causing the fall,the woman causin g the fall, God decrees

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Great thing indeed. The most important thing in the world is that a name is known, so that the woman can be blamed by name. Great, -and told that se will crave for a male who in loving compensation will rule her.

Indeed, the Qur'an misogynistic but other books not so much. Really, really. For God's sake. After that opening anything goes.

And after seeing that so much of Qur'an has been hidden under prejudiced or self-seeking interpretations, the suggestion to modify de Qur'an is like having a shoe that is way too small and wrong shaped and being told to cut pieces of the foot so that it does not suffer when it gets inside the shoe. Fantastic.

The inheritance question I have not studied yet to my satisfaction and I m not going to say anything that I cannot uphold on the Qur'an. I do not feel that the resent understanding though is clear. To me it does not seems to fit seamlessly when all things are taken into account. Therefore, there are some things that we are not understanding.

Of course I do not want the Qur'an changed. Along many years I have kept solving all the riddles that I found concerning the Qur'an. Had it been changed there would have been no way to solve anything, and if we change something now, we will spoil the possibility of solving anything later on.

And besides, as is the Qur'an is so ffull of insights, so uncany...

Whoever does not like it, drop it but, please, do not "improve it". We can wait to get the jest out of it at the right pace.

May God bless our efforts.

Salaam

Mazhar

So in other words at the end of the day the Quran is still perfect, may it sit on a throne high above a shelf. I am just saying. And we people, no matter how much we try to figure out the Quran from any angle, if the results produce disaster in the world, would end up being labelled as having wrong interpretations, being misogynistic, unjust, arrogant, or "sealed in mind or heart to understand Quran". And while the people are fighting down below, on whose interpretation is right, and who is being arrogant instead, the Quran would be staring down at us, smiling at us, thinking we are all fools.

How about opening the Quran from a humanistic, progressive, non-sexist, and just mindset, and if the Quran does not fit that mindset (being honest throughout and using honest interpretations, instead of using linguistic gymnastics or adding or deleting small words as necessary, such as I have come across a few times in Edip's translation), then one of the following is most likely true

There is something wrong in our method of interpretation
The Arabic dictionaries are messed up in some way
The Arabic text of the Quran has been distorted
The Quran is not from God (the hardest pill to swallow, and the most upsetting, internally deflating and disappointing one. Not to mention the most dangerous too, knowing that we live among sectarians who believe in penalty for blasphemy and apostasy)

I am still holding on that one of the first three may be true. Otherwise instead of splashing around in the mud with our debates (since all of which lead to mostly nowhere and do not produce due results in society), we need to move the Quran aside, and discuss reforms in society and in political laws without using religion. The people in this forum have enough brains and are humanistic too to come up with great ideas to progress our countries within a few years, without using Quran as a tool that they have to abide by. And hopefully slowly one by one start implementing the ideas, as far as they are possible. This is the path taken by secular countries, and they use more of spiritual values and mindset to make their judgements. Just saying.

Peace.

Only the red point is relevant and true. Even those people who do not know how to read a book of their native language try interpreting Qur'aan by seeing the meanings in dictionaries. They naively forget that if they memorize the entire vacabulary of a language even then they cannot understand the message in a discourse unless they learn the grammar of that language.

You are commenting about Qur'aan while it seems you perhaps know not the meanings of this title of the Book. You evaluate Qur'aan even without knowing the criteria for evaluation of books. Please glance through a book in English avilable free on line "how to read a book"; and the criteria that renders a book great in timeline.

Experts and educationists suggest that the first rule in critical reading is that you must know what kind of a book is in your hand; and they say that we should know this as early in the process as possible, preferably before we begin to read. Many readers ignore titles and prefaces because perhaps they do not think it important to classify the book they are about to read. However, the author of a book facilitates its reader to know the kind of book he is being given by assigning it a title. Obviously, a descriptive and illustrative title will be considered the best for a reader to facilitate him immediately classify the book in hand.

Grand Qur'aan in the 21st Century

Noon_waalqalami

Red words are plural denoting 3 or 3+

One does not say ?if he is three? (unless about trinity).

411 ? so if kna/be (s/m) for said person brother so to mother his the sixth

If 3 or 3+ what about?
1 brother & mother
2 brothers & mother

No diacritical marks which is correct?
brethren
brothers
brother his

Semantics does not mean knowing the meanings of individual words of a text. This thread is one example of making mockery of a language since only individual words are being translated while meanings and perceptions are conveyed by the grammar morphology and syntax.

Dear Mazhar

Please drop the pompous attitude and if you have better meanings then use grammar, morphology, syntax; books, call a friend or whatever to distribute

2 daughters, husband, mother, and father?

Peace Noon,

I agree with Samira that inheritance laws in al-quran don't make any sense.

Can you please back this up from al-quran? Where does it say men have responsibility to support women? "Rijaal" as used in al-quran and classical Arabic does not mean only men but can also include women and "nisaa" does not mean only women but can also include men. This has been extensively discussed on this forum years ago by Samia and others. The "nisaa" men can also re-marry.

The inheritance verses make sense only if addressed to "rijaal" (men or women) in opposition to "nisaa" (men or women) but the presence of gender specific words such as "walad" and "umm" and "imra'a" makes it totally unfair and does not make any sense.

What if the "walad" is a "nisaa"? Why should he get more in that case? What if "umm" or "imra'a" is a "rajul"? Why should she get less in that case? Millions of women nowadays are "rijaal"

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.

Peace truthseeker11

Yes we discussed before and with cross-reference points to females; we?re still waiting proof otherwise?

2222 ? so abandon ye of al-nisaa/the womenfolk in the menstruation and not approach ye them (f/p)?

422 and not thou marry ye of whom married/had sex fathers yours from al-nisi/the womenfolk except what hence passed surely it be immorality and abomination and an evil way of

434 al-rijlu/the menfolk maintaining over al-nisi/the womenfolk in what favor the god some them over others and in what spend they of from wealth theirs?

Peace

Mazhar

Please drop the pompous attitude and if you have better meanings then use grammar, morphology, syntax; books, call a friend or whatever to distribute

2 daughters, husband, mother, and father?

According to Qur'aan, not according to whims and conjectures of people, it falls in the category Parent to off-springs

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.11k.gif

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.

Samira1234

@Mazhar

I saw this comment on another thread

Grand Qur'aan is a non-fiction book. It must be interpreted literally. When you do so, the time-frames mentioned therein are taken care.

Its title indicates that it is a living book, time-space wraped to a compact dot.

Grand Qur'aan is alive in time and space

You are going with the pre-assumption that the Quran is an 100% infallible Word of God, and EVERYBODY ELSE creating unexpected real world results by applying it have misunderstood it, because of their own character flaws, or that their interpretations are wrong. Seeing your interpretations, they are not hardly better as well, except a few times where you are playing interpretation acrobatics to soften the message of some of the verses or sugar-coating the meaning of certain verses. Or using one-sided reasoning to explain away some verses. We Muslims would end up having mud fights with each other for eternity in this way, and stare with horror at people who don't play any interpretation acrobatics or one-sided reasoning and apply the verses in their lives as they are.

I have suggested earlier that we hold onto our conscience, reasoning and using our five senses to see the real world and what is happening there. And we approach the Quran from a humanistic, progressive and just mindset, and see if the Quran matches up to that mindset or not. And then yes, take the Quran literally as it should be. And then decide regarding the Quran, and whether our own interpretation is off or not.

If no matter what interpretation is applied and the results are still backwards, unjust and even error-filled (I already said I spotted a few errors in the Quran; in grammar, language and logic, and also scientifically), then maybe there could be some tampering that occurred with the Arabic text. This would be a harder pill to swallow, since then a harder task would be laid for us.

If after a lot of time all else is a fail and the Quran is what it is, then why hold on to it so strongly? Some Muslims say they have an innate knowing regarding the authenticity of the Quran. I have it too. But if the Quran does not match up with proper real-world results, and instead regresses our mind back and creates pain for us, I don't see the point of trying to keep holding on. We can hold on to it's moral system where we cherry-pick the good parts into our lives, but get rid of the Quran as an actual guide then. I see no other choice. But this is a last option, by the way.

Mazhar

(I already said I spotted a few errors in the Quran; in grammar, language and logic, and also scientifically),

Please quote an example of each, refer Ayah.

Mazhar

One does not say ?if he is three? (unless about trinity).

411 ? so if kna/be (s/m) for said person brother so to mother his the sixth

If 3 or 3+ what about?
1 brother & mother
2 brothers & mother

No diacritical marks which is correct?
brethren
brothers
brother his

This is the point that I am trying to communicate you; unless you care for grammar your perceptions will be in vacum.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.11r.gif

It does not mean "if he is three". http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.178/36.gif 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."