Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
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?
Being a prophet is indeed an honorary title. And since all prophets have been men in the Quran, that could be a major reason why our religion looks so patriarchal, since they are mostly interpreted from a male point of view. A female would have given a feminine dimension to the religion and cleared up many pre-assumptions regarding women. Being in an ascended spiritual position of a prophet she would best do the job of explaining religion from a woman's point of view.
And wht about wicked males, are more wicked males in the Qur'an or wicked females?
It's not a secret that males are more prone to violence than women. See the percentage of men committing violence in the world and their numbers in prisons versus females, as a start. There are catty women indeed, but that still doesn't match up to a men's tendency of aggressiveness and coldness which can be apparent often.
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?
You just clarified my point better. A male victim of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing who spoke extensively on his experience told the press that if there is to be a president of USA, it should be a woman, not just any woman but a woman who is nursing a baby. We women with our naturally higher empathetic nature would better serve to bring compassion and peace to countries which have ruthless male rulers creating war and destruction. Again, here also people need to be careful. Not all women are suited for leadership or have empathetic nature. The women who do have these qualities, they can bring peace to a country from a much needed feminine dimension. Take a look at the ex-prime minister of Iceland, as a very good example.
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.
Thanks for pointing that out. She is indeed repeatedly mentioned, but then many a time along with her son. Although it is not mentioned explicitly that she was a messenger. But I get your point in a way.
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?
That is a good thing in the Quran. It does have protection-oriented talk, which I am glad about. I just highlighted the misogynistic parts, but didn't blanket the misogyny over the entire Quran.
As a side note, Hadith also contains many protective statements regarding women. Such as the best of men are those who are the best towards their wives, a man who raises two or more daughters would be side-by-side with the prophet in Paradise, and Paradise lies in the feet of mothers. Also in a Sahih Hadith, the Prophet when some women were riding some animals to travel somewhere, telling companions to take care of the glass structures, in other words highlighting women's vulnerability hence their need for protection. Also that a woman should conveniently have male supporters when traveling. There are plenty of Hadith highlighting her need for protection and her delicacy. Also making it compulsory for a man to provide for her, but she has absolutely no need to do the same for another man. Then why do we Quranists brand Hadith as misogynistic? It's by seeing the overall content right, instead of cherry-picking accordingly? Anyway, I just thought of mentioning this that's all.
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.
I do have success-oriented vision. I think it is important. Even sub-consciously and emotionally things affect us. Although I didn't say to the point that a name should be broadcast everywhere or that person is nothing. However, when you are dealing with a scripture which is supposed to have timeless guidance for eternity, and considered as the best book which everybody else should take inspiration from, shouldn't such a writer, which that too is a God who understands human nature, be particularly careful regarding such matter? And how such matters can end up affecting people psychologically and emotionally? And give a subliminal message regarding patriarchy? And the subliminal message that only a HIGHLY exceptional person from the female gender is worth naming, because women are otherwise always a step behind men in a way, and there are plenty of men who have easily achieved that height of exception? Or that women are at the end only helpmates of men and not an equal figure who can have an equal status and privilege over specific matters? These things should have been counted on by a just God.
The Bible and other scriptures are misogynistic in their own way, I never denied that, very misogynistic in fact, but at least they lend the simple courtesy of mentioning females' names alongwith males. Imagine if a world-renowed and respected book was going to be released, regarding you and your husband. This book would be cherished by billions of people, for centuries. In that book you find you are only referred to as your husband's mate, whereas your husband is repeatedly mentioned by name. Wouldn't that disturb you and upset you thoroughly? Like why on earth was your name not mentioned equally? Is it because you have less to contribute? You would probably immediately demand a re-write of the book with your name properly inserted in. This is not asking for success orientation or those stuff, this is asking for a simple human courtesy, that's all.
Peace/
-
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 Quran needs an overwhelmingly large reformation. Aside from some beautiful universal messages and teachings, this book in many ways looks good in theory, but is a fail in reality. I appreciate our Muslims' higher level of modesty and chastity though, and that we try to follow our religion quite seriously. But then, look at other developed countries. Aside from the countries blessed with natural resources like oil, which of those countries are Muslim countries? In terms of women-friendly countries, which Muslim country do you see within the top twenty countries, which strongly adhere to the Quran only? So to a large extent our mindset is affected by the scripture we follow. This scripture is not applicable, not in this day and age, not in any day and age actually, except if an age was deeply unjust then the Quran could have improved the society to an extent.
Peace.
-
I am still looking at other errors more carefully, although having issues with time management for now. For this case, 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 saw this comment on another thread
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.
This is like the french saying love is a Spanish inn there you eat whatever you brought in.
That is so, also with Qur'an and also with everything else in life.
Anybody intending that somebody else, "those (millions) ou there", whoever, will solve her or his problem, make life perfect for them, is in for a failure, a complete failure.
You get what you put in. If you expect that you will get a ride for free, that others are going to give you hapiness, solutions to your quests, you are in for a BIG disappointment. You will be disaappointed if you expect that from the Qur'an, your will be disappointed if you expect that from the Bible, from the upanishads, from the neighbour, from the millions out there...
Nobody is supposed to do that FOR YOU. If you want something, go and get it. And for that you do not need the approval or the permission of anybody. But by your writings I get the feeling of that very common thing of depending so much on others, being so mindful of what the "general feeling or view is".
No matter if you scream so much about women being mistreated, with that kind of discourse, you will be mistreated always, because as long as you are so worried about the treatment others give you, you are paying them hommage. Are they God? No? then why do you care, why do you give a damn? You also can treat them anyway, right? Why do you accept to be the one "treated"? Why don't you start to be a treater, of yourself in the first place?
Your problem as it seems to me is not the Qur'an, the problem is your submissive attitude. As if you are just looking to whom to submit so that you can receive approval from others. You will never get anywhere that way.
You keep mentionning all those that have said what the Qur'an says and opppose them to what I said. That seems to be a problem for you, but not for me. What do I care if most women are so needing of approval in order to feel legitimized by "society"? If they cannot give up approval, they will never be free, not to speak about equality. Equality to what? To those pushers who live for the rat race? Go ahead, and get that equality. But that kind of mentality is not one that promotes de interests of women. Nor of anybody, but most particularly not those of women.
The world is a mess, to start with, because it has disobeyed and mostly mistranslated God's command to be conscious of God and of the wombs. No, they have done just the oposite, they have attempted to take over the wombs. Humanity will pay for that till it learns to honour and be conscious of God and the wombs.
And the greatest humiliation is in you dear Bible the male, who will never give birth to anything, ruling over the giver of life. After that, what do you expect? And muslims have followed the bible, that is, their delusions, their shaytanic delusions, not the Qur'an. That is their problem. And Maryam was sent to say loud and clear that children do not need any male's permission to be born, that that gift is between God and woman, but muslims do not want to hear such a weird thing, and for others than muslims, that message does not exist.
Humanity is lost in its delusions, in wanting to hear whatever makes it easier for them, whatever panders more to their confused ego and ignorance, not whatever makes them truer.
You are barking at the wrong tree.
And however you keep on and on on the inheritance question about the misoginystic thing and all that, you still have not acknowledged what I wrote, that little word ("only" inserted in translations which is not in the original in aya 4.11, in spite of the fact that that changes everything. That shows that you do not want to find justice or liberation or whatever, but just beein able to cry and protest the awful things that the Qur'an does to women.
There are many people who pose as independent and feminist or contestatarians not because they want to be free and independent but because symply they enjoy posing in the role of the victim struggling (just a little) for the liberation of women or of whatever. It seems it gives so much pleasure... For that kind of thing, disparaging the Qur'an is quite appropriate nd brings much better dividends that most other "fights". Look at all those women who have taken up the profession of islam bashing and at the purported apostates of islam of both sexes whose profession is Qur'an bashing. I don't know how many employments are open for those jobs, but some people seem to make a living out of it and enjoy popularity, and ?waw! a name. Who cares if they do not know anything of what they blabber about as far as the Qur'an is concerned. But seemingly coming from a Mulism background gives all the science they need for the job.
May God bless those who struggle for truth and justice.
Salaam
-
What do I care if most women are so needing of approval in order to feel legitimized by "society"? If they cannot give up approval, they will never be free, not to speak about equality. Equality to what? To those pushers who live for the rat race? Go ahead, and get that equality. But that kind of mentality is not one that promotes de interests of women. Nor of anybody, but most particularly not those of women.
I don't care about society. Society can still be managed, reasoned with, etc, to make them understand. I have noticed people by nature usually have a decent enough conscience and reasoning, which are usually layered with years of societal, cultural, and most importantly, religious conditioning. That is, provided they didn't have a very disturbed childhood to cope with, which also layers the conscience.
What I am concerned with is that if a source claims to be from God Himself, that source should show the fruits of God within too. And implementing the words in the scripture should produce good fruits in society too. That is why I am targeting the very scripture itself. It is easier to change people's mentality when their scripture reflects what others try to preach to them.
-
Peace Samira.
I know you have many people interacting with you.Take your time to check the misconceptions. There is precedence for this type of "say" then what follows are GOD s words?
In all this cases "say" just means -proclaim/repeat my words...etc..
Why? because Mohammed cannot be the one who is saying the statement, if he was he would have added "my mercy, Iam...etc but the statement clarifies for us that it is GOD speaking ,hence "my servants refers to GOD.
3953
Say/Proclaim "O My servants who exceeded the limits, never despair of God's mercy. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, Most Merciful."Look the statement carries on saying Obey your Lord,submit to Him...etc All the statement refers to GOD .Mohammed is just delivering/proclaiming that statement about GOD.
3954
You shall obey your Lord, and submit to Him totally, before the retribution overtakes you, then you cannot be helped.GOD bless you.
Peace. -
@good logic
Hello and peace be upon you.
I just posted one simple error, because I know posting more would create more lengthy debates which I don't have time for currently.
3953
Say/Proclaim "O My servants who exceeded the limits, never despair of God's mercy. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, Most Merciful."This requires a little more of eagle-eye. When God asked Muhammad to proclaim, why He said after that O MY servants, and then the rest of the verse reflecting accurate way of speaking from Muhammad's perspective? God should have told Muhammad to proclaim 'O Allah's servants'. The people were not Muhammad's servants, were they?
Mohammed is just delivering/proclaiming that statement about GOD.
So he should be careful on not saying 'O my servants' right? Otherwise the word 'Say' should not be present before this statement. This is an error of the Arabic text itself. Unless Arabic was supposed to be interpreted in a very different way than what we currently know of.
This reminds me of discussing the tashahud issue with Sunni Muslims where the large majority of them, educated or not, still refuses to acknowledge that any shirk is being done when they say 'Peace be upon you, O Prophet' during Salah, instead of 'Peace be upon the Prophet' or something similar.
Peace.
-
You are talking on this part of 411 right
"CONCERNING your children, God enjoins upon you The male shall have the equal of two females' share; but if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what leave behind..."
So are you saying if there are two or more daughters, the ruling on males getting twice of that of females get abrogated, and the females regardless of other people, directly inherits 2/3 of the estate? This makes it confusing. So when is the ruling on males getting twice of that of females applicable? When there is only one daughter versus son/s?
What would the son/s inherit then?
Peace.
-
Peace Samira.
GOD uses His own style. Qoran sets the parameters not the other way around.
GOD uses singular/plural/Lord/GOD/...etc Or mixes and matches. When you study the scripture ,you will find that "the context" is key.
Look, I am not debating with you by the way. It is futile. I agree with you that "each person has to check every detail and come to her/his own conclusion. I am satisfied there are "no contradictions" in Qoran
I happen to be on that journey for years. I now have -solid proof- that both, GOD exists and Qoran is the message from HIM.But remember each will have to go in search of their own "proofs"whichever way.
The worse scenario is when doubt/s remain one way or the other.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
I am still looking at other errors more carefully, although having issues with time management for now. For this case, 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..." '.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/39.53.gif
You, the Messenger pronounce universally and declaratively,
"O my those allegiants who have done excesses to their selves; you people should not loose hope for the Mercy of Allah the Exalted in consideration of your hitherto conduct.
It is a fact that Allah the Exalted forgives the slanders and sins , all collectively.
Indeed He the Exalted is the One Who is repeatedly Forgiving-Overlooking, and is the Fountain of Infinite Mercy.Allah the Exalted asked him to address and tell them a fact. You thought that the use of this particular word is exclusive for Allah the Exalted. You are wrong in this perception; please see the same possessive phrase with different suffixed pronoun for second person; masculine plural instead of first person, singular.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/024.%20An%20Noor/24.32.gif
-
You are talking on this part of 411 right
"CONCERNING your children, God enjoins upon you The male shall have the equal of two females' share; but if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what leave behind..."
So are you saying if there are two or more daughters, the ruling on males getting twice of that of females get abrogated, and the females regardless of other people, directly inherits 2/3 of the estate? This makes it confusing. So when is the ruling on males getting twice of that of females applicable? When there is only one daughter versus son/s?
What would the son/s inherit then?
Peace.
Nothing gets abbrogated. The ground relaities change, the fortunes change.
- Thereby, a married man or a married woman at the time of his or her death shall be in any of these states mutually exclusive
a). Leaving behind a daughter or daughters who may be girls and women depending upon the age the parent died.
b) Leaving behind a son or sons.
c) Leaving behind daughter and a son, or daughters and a son, or daughter/s and sons.
d) Leaving behind no progeny.
-
Hello Mazhar,
So you interpret the word instead of 'servant', as 'allegiant'. Are you sure the interpretation is accurate as to the Arabic text? Would you use the same word 'allegiant' for all the verses containing the same word?
2186 And if My servants ask you about Me, I am near answering the calls of those who call to Me. So let them respond to Me and believe in Me that they may be guided.
2759 Say "Praise be to God, and peace be upon His servants whom He has selected." Is God better, or that which you set up?
Peace.
-
You are talking on this part of 411 right
"CONCERNING your children, God enjoins upon you The male shall have the equal of two females' share; but if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what leave behind..."
So are you saying if there are two or more daughters, the ruling on males getting twice of that of females get abrogated, and the females regardless of other people, directly inherits 2/3 of the estate? This makes it confusing. So when is the ruling on males getting twice of that of females applicable? When there is only one daughter versus son/s?
What would the son/s inherit then?
Peace.
Look at this
4.11. He instructs as to your children to the male the same portion as that of the two females, and if there are more than two women, for them two thirds of the of what left (the decesed).
Several things
In this part "to the male the same portion as that of the two females"
Look at it carefully and forget what you have been told or what you, like a masochist, want to believe because you do not dare believe the opposite.
Does it say to the male double that of the female? No it does not. Does it say to the male the same as the sum of the two females? No it does not.
It says the portion of the two females.Now if you have two accounts, and put an amount, in each of the them, the sme amount, in each of them. and then comes somebody an tells you put in this other acount the same you have put in the other two. What do you understand? Answer that.
Then, immediately it goes on, and if there are more than two women... This is continuing from before, where we were given a number of females, which were two, we go on on to the next case, where there are more than two. Have we been told that the whole thing has changed and we are not talking any more concerning "Your children" but that we are talking only about females? Do you see any indication of that? I do not. As far as I can read, the discourse continuews to be about "Your children", so yes, indeed, if there are women over two, they get two thirds of the succession, the rest to be distributed, between those children that are not women, because we are still talking about "Your children".
Now, do not come and tell that the Qur'an this and that. That is what it says, if you want to think that you must punish yourself an pick for the Qur'an the worst idiocy you can imagine, do not blame the Qur'an, blame yourself or all those millions aout there that exert so much pressure in your mind that you do not dare to decide for yourself what yous hould understand. You is ruling you? The millions our there, the centuries of purported history and purported saying of purported knowers?
Would you have others believe that what is plainly written and said cannot be that, because so many peoppole cannot be wrong?
As to what would the son/s get, well I guess it is not that complicated, the only compplicated thing is that you do not allow yourself to trust what you read and be made laughable by the millions out there, who obviously are very comfortable with believe that the same portion given to each of two people is the same as the sum of that portion.
If it was the double that a male should get than the female, you can be trustful that there are means in Arabic to say that, exactly. But it does not say it.
Salaam
-
Nothing gets abbrogated. The ground relaities change, the fortunes change.
I do not understand. See this part of 411 verse carefully (I removed the bracket containing 'only'
"Allah instructs you concerning your children for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half."
What does it mean? Since you interpret the Quran literally. The sentence on daughters start with 'But'. Which means the previous statement on males inheriting twice of females gets abrogated apparently. Can you please try to make it clear for me? Thanks.
Peace.
-
Hello Mazhar,
So you interpret the word instead of 'servant', as 'allegiant'. Are you sure the interpretation is accurate as to the Arabic text? Would you use the same word 'allegiant' for all the verses containing the same word?
2186 And if My servants ask you about Me, I am near answering the calls of those who call to Me. So let them respond to Me and believe in Me that they may be guided.
2759 Say "Praise be to God, and peace be upon His servants whom He has selected." Is God better, or that which you set up?
Peace.
I hope you know the fact that collocates do effect the meanings of words in a sentence. He is not asked to address his personal servants. The following relative pronoun clarifies he is not addressing to his personal servants but allegiants who accept him as their rules, guide.
Root " " denotes a relational signification that can be translated as "slavery-servitude-allegiance-subject" in reference to his Master.
Subservience and allegiance to anyone other than one's creator and guide costs compromising one's self respect. But everything which is created is always subservient to the will and desire of its creator since the creator puts in it the built-in guidance for its every cell/component part to coherently function for the achievement of the purpose for which it was created. Human beings are given the freedom of choice, will and decision for the purpose that they behave rationally and submit by will affectionately and willingly to their Creator since they know that they were created, like everything around them, by the Creator. Therefore, like every thing around them they should also owe their allegiance and subservience to their Creator which will not cost them sacrifice of self respect and ego. When they submit to anyone other than their Creator and the appointed guide they in fact humiliate and degrade themselves.
-
I am confused. The verse says the male gets portion of two females, and if there are more than two females, they get 2/3 of the property. Can you demonstrate this in a real life case example as to how it would work?
And how to you interpret this part of the verse
"And if she is only one, then she will have one half."
Here for if she is only one, is it only one daughter as a child or only one daughter and some number of sons as well?
Peace.
-
I hope you know the fact that collocates do effect the meanings of words in a sentence. He is not asked to address his personal servants. The following relative pronoun clarifies he is not addressing to his personal servants but allegiants who accept him as their rules, guide.
So in the case of Allah we are servants, and in the case of Muhammad we are allegiants, and not personal servants? I am confused.
Peace.
-
I do not understand. See this part of 411 verse carefully (I removed the bracket containing 'only'
"Allah instructs you concerning your children for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half."
What does it mean? Since you interpret the Quran literally. The sentence on daughters start with 'But'. Which means the previous statement on males inheriting twice of females gets abrogated apparently. Can you please try to make it clear for me? Thanks.
Peace.
But translated for conjunction particle "Fa" CORE-MEANING a grammatical word used in the middle of or at the beginning of a sentence to introduce something that is true in spite of either being or seeming contrary to what has just been said
introducing opposing proposition used to introduce a statement that disagrees with something just said- conjunction
introducing further information used to introduce a clause or a new sentence that adds information such as background or reasoning - conjunction
except that used to introduce a dependent clause, e.g. a reason for doing or not doing something
Arabic conjunction particle "Fa" is used for sequence, cause and effect relations, apodosis clause. So "but" can be used.
Both the clauses are mentioning a different and exclusive to each other ground reality and instructions are accordinglt given.
The syntactic analysis is given at Para 21-22 of the link I had given earlier. For convenince
Inheritance according to injunctions in Grand Qur'aan - conjunction
-
I am confused. The verse says the male gets portion of two females, and if there are more than two females, they get 2/3 of the property. Can you demonstrate this in a real life case example as to how it would work?
And how to you interpret this part of the verse
"And if she is only one, then she will have one half."
Here for if she is only one, is it only one daughter as a child or only one daughter and some number of sons as well?
Peace.
No, please, read what I wrote and which as faithful translation as doable as far as I can jedge. It is not "portion of two females" it s the "portion of THE two females". The two females is a given and each gets a portion. The females are not counted as cattle, they are two specific individuals who each gets a portion.
You see, the Qur'an in the case of inheritance as in other things too, sets things as a function of females, that is set, and then the rest is fitted to that, which is the given factor.
So, if it is instructing regarding "your children, "awladicum" (all your children, daughters and sons) it does not change in the pararagraph to make it only one gender, nowhere is such change in the consideration introduced, it keeps to "awladicum" all along. You do not need to make any specification, becuse the basic factor are the females, the whole is settled as a function of them. So it does not matter what the rest is, it will be settled once the female part is settled. And since no distinction is made as to individual females or males, it is taken that the children of either sex will get each of them the same amount as the others. That is, of the two thirds alloted to the more than two females will be devided equally between them. As is previously done between the two females, which sets the measure since it is understood that the two females get the same amount or there wouldn't make sense to fix the amount for the male as the same as the amount of the two females.
And, again, where in the paragraph is it said that we have changed from dealing with "your children" (daughters and sons, whatever they are) and that we have started dealing only with the case of only daughters? There is no such thing, we are still with "your children".
And what is the problem. if you have a whole and then take two thirds, clearly there willbe one third left. If you take half there will be another half left. I am not a wheez at mathematics, but that far I can get, and anybody can get.
The problem is not hte Qur'an. The problem is not daring to think the "unthinkable", what? Poor overburdened males who really sacrifice their whole lives for the women will get less than them? Yes unthinkable. However to think that women who get the burden of given life and many times are abandoned by the selfscrificing males should get always or almost always half of what the males get that is perfectly thinkable, right? For God's sake, males are god...
No, the problem is not the Qur'an, the problem is the contumacious habit of not daring believe what it says, and instead try to "interpret" it. ?How could we let the Qur'an run riot with our beliefs?
You have the problem, Samira, not the Qur'an. Of course, you are not the only one who has a problem, far from that you are in plenty of company.
And that is one reason why I think God has allowed the rather irreligeous "west" to gain power, to open up a door from which honest belief in God and His revelation by sincere muslims may access to another stage of social conscience and humanity. God knows nd we do not. Praised be He and may He shower His guidance on us.
Salaam
-
So in the case of Allah we are servants, and in the case of Muhammad we are allegiants, and not personal servants? I am confused.
Peace.
A servant-subject is he who owes allegiance and servitude to his master. Servant is a limited word denoting a persons who serves some one else; a personal attendant to somebody is also called servant. So "allegiant" is a better word for Arabic 'abd" when referred with Allah the Exalted or the Messenger sas.