Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
Peace Noon,
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
The proof and extensive linguistic analysis has already been given by Samia years ago
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597307.0
RJL means to walk on foot.
Rijaal is plural of RJL and are those who walk on foot (includes men and women). It includes men and women who walk on foot and earn a livelihood and make money.NS' means to leave behind.
Nisaa is plural of NS' and are those left behind (includes men and women). It includes men and women who stay back at home.Rijaal and nisaa are gender neutral words. THE CONTEXT DETERMINES WHAT GENDER THESE PLURAL WORDS MEAN IN AL-QURAN.
In 2222 and 422 nisaa refers to women according to context.
In 434 nisaa refers to men and women who stay back at home and rijaal refers to men and women who walk on foot to earn a livelihood.434 Those who walk on foot (men and women) are maintainers/supporters of those who are left behind (men and women)
If it means "men are supporters of women", then it would mean "ALL men are supporters of ALL women", which is TOTALLY INCORRECT and a FALSE STATEMENT. According to your translation the infinite Creator has no idea that some women also support some men and you are attributing this falsehood to the infinite Creator or it will be a proof that this verse is a fabrication and not inspired by the infinite Creator.
An example of gender neutral word in English would be "students" which includes men and women. The context would determine what gender it refers to.
The students were having periods/menstruation ----- clearly students include only females.
The students were reading books ----- clearly students include males and females.So clearly you cannot justify the misogyny, injustice, and discrimination against women in inheritance verses based on your false translation of 434.
Please discard the above if it does not appeal to your mind, reason or logic. I will not make any further comments on this issue. I leave you in the love and light of the infinite Creator.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you.
-
"Allah did not open your heart to it since you are so arrogantly holding onto your biased opinions", something of this sort.
Perhaps the reason I asked my "provoking-type" questions is to see other people's responses to them, and whether they feel the same about them as I do. And if they have an answer for them I would be welcome to them to learn more, as long as they made sense.
Peace Samira1234
Thank you for responding to my post
I for one cannot identify with you because, my deen is not about what others think! My deen is about
guidance and salvation. That is why such questions like is hell literal or allegorical is irrelevant because
hell is an awful destination no matter what. If you want guidance Allah offers you that in Quran, If you want
to figure out the hoopoe and Sulayman that's your choice. The question is what do you want?
The reason I said see 3/7 is because you have to decide what is important to you.He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -
they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose
hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by
seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound
instruction say We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding
really heed.God bless you
peace
-
The reason I said see 3/7 is because you have to decide what is important to you.
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -
they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose
hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by
seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound
instruction say We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding
really heed.Such casual translations do create confusion. The book that serves as guide in timeline can never contain any allefgorical substance. First type of Aayat verbal passages are mentioned by Passive Participle of Form-IV; while other Aayat are mentioned by Active Participle Form-VI. Both are explicit in meanings and perception they convey.
Miscellany of Grand Qur'aan Format and Organization
-
Peace be upon all of you,
@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.
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?
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.
Just to add, if what "good logic" said is true, then the same verse and subsequent verses should have continued in the same person
3953 Say O My servants who transgressed against themselves, do not despair of MY MERCY. For I forgive all sins. I AM the Forgiver, the Merciful
3954 And repent to ME, and submit to ME, before the retribution comes to you. Then you cannot be helped.
3955 And follow the best of what has been sent down to you from ME, before the retribution comes to you suddenly when you least expect it.Currently the Arabic text clearly shows an inconsistency in person IN THE SAME SENTENCE
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.
3954 And repent to your Lord, and submit to Him, before the retribution comes to you. Then you cannot be helped.
3955 And follow the best of what has been sent down to you from your Lord, before the retribution comes to you suddenly when you least expect it.It is all continuation of the same sentence but FIRST PERSON CHANGES TO THIRD PERSON IN SAME SENTENCE. This kind of inconsistency cannot be expected from the infinite Creator, and those who blindly accept this grammatical inconsistency are actually mocking the infinite Creator.
I am error prone in my 3rd density/dimensional existence but the infinite Creator is perfection.
By the way, what's up with repeated "before the retribution comes to you"? Why not "before death comes to you"?
Lastly, even God allegedly wants us to follow the best of what has been sent down from God
3955 And follow the best of what has been sent down to you from your Lord, before the retribution comes to you suddenly when you least expect it.
This implies that God does not want us to follow ALL that is sent down from God but only the best and which implies that some of what God has sent down is not the best and should not be followed! God is perhaps not confident about all of what God sent down?????? Is this God really the infinite Creator whose EVERY inspiration is perfection and the best??????
Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you all.
-
Peace Noon,
The proof and extensive linguistic analysis has already been given by Samia years ago
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597307.0
Re What is the difference between "Nissa, Amraat and Azwaj"
? Reply #38 on October 30, 2008, 041550 AM ?Quote Quote from Mazhar on October 29, 2008, 020315 AM
Sister I requested you to explain for my knowledge about hamza issue.Sorry for the belated reply.
You are right in believing that "nisaa'" is a possible plural of "nuun seen wau", with the wau coming at the end of the word and following an extra alif, then it will be changed into a hamza.
But if we already have this plural in (niswa), why would the language cut another plural with the same meaning? Seebawayh tried to solve this problem by stating that "niswa" is for a fewer number of women, and "nisaa'" is for many. But we know this is incorrect, since the qur'aan stated (nisaa'an more than two), which is the minimum plural.
You may like to read further about the rules of all letters changing at this linkhttp//zahra1.com/Nah_Em_7att_balagah/E-e3lall.html
-
Peace Truthseeker.
What you say is not clear to me.
Please explain your post and the verses?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace Noon,
The proof and extensive linguistic analysis has already been given by Samia years ago
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597307.0
RJL means to walk on foot.
Rijaal is plural of RJL and are those who walk on foot (includes men and women). It includes men and women who walk on foot and earn a livelihood and make money.NS' means to leave behind.
Nisaa is plural of NS' and are those left behind (includes men and women). It includes men and women who stay back at home.Rijaal and nisaa are gender neutral words. THE CONTEXT DETERMINES WHAT GENDER THESE PLURAL WORDS MEAN IN AL-QURAN.
In 2222 and 422 nisaa refers to women according to context.
In 434 nisaa refers to men and women who stay back at home and rijaal refers to men and women who walk on foot to earn a livelihood.434 Those who walk on foot (men and women) are maintainers/supporters of those who are left behind (men and women)
If it means "men are supporters of women", then it would mean "ALL men are supporters of ALL women", which is TOTALLY INCORRECT and a FALSE STATEMENT. According to your translation the infinite Creator has no idea that some women also support some men and you are attributing this falsehood to the infinite Creator or it will be a proof that this verse is a fabrication and not inspired by the infinite Creator.
An example of gender neutral word in English would be "students" which includes men and women. The context would determine what gender it refers to.
The students were having periods/menstruation ----- clearly students include only females.
The students were reading books ----- clearly students include males and females.So clearly you cannot justify the misogyny, injustice, and discrimination against women in inheritance verses based on your false translation of 434.
Please discard the above if it does not appeal to your mind, reason or logic. I will not make any further comments on this issue. I leave you in the love and light of the infinite Creator.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you.
I disagree with your interpretation of Nisaa and Riyaal. The argument you are using is wrong. 434 does not speak about all men being the protectors of all women. Read the entire verse "because Allah has bestowed SOME OF THEM over others". Clearly this part makes it impossible to understand the verse as speaking about all men and all women. It's not hard to find out this verse is speaking about a special case in which a woman is living from the wealth/protection of a man. It's not a general rule. It's a specific case. Some men/women are living in such an agreement. In such a special case, God is giving us advice what to do if the woman living from the man's wealth is persistent in fahisha in order to protect him.
There are many issues with your understanding of riyaal and nisaa that leads to more contradiction. You're not the first trying to redefine those two words just because some of the flawed interpretations appear to be sexist. But that's only a problem with a wrong understanding not with the Quranic text itself.
There is nothing sexist or violent about 434 whatsoever if you understand Riyaal and Nisaa as men and women. Sometimes it's hard even for true believers to distance themselves from loved ones, family even when their persistence in "fahisha" is threatening the belief of that believing person itself. God tells us not to make this mistake.
Peace.
-
There is nothing sexist or violent about 434 whatsoever if you understand Riyaal and Nisaa as men and women. Sometimes it's hard even for true believers to distance themselves from loved ones, family even when their persistence in "fahisha" is threatening the belief of that believing person itself. God tells us not to make this mistake.
Apparently this distancing from loved one is only in the case of woman being disloyal, not the man. Seeing this verse
4128 If a woman senses disloyalty or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and lead a righteous life, God is fully aware of everything you do.
If the disloyalty part in 434 was equally applicable for both men and women, it would have made more sense. But then it doesn't, because it is only one-sided regarding the parts on advice-giving, separating of beds, and finally separating for a time being.
Peace.
-
Apparently this distancing from loved one is only in the case of woman being disloyal, not the man. Seeing this verse
4128 If a woman senses disloyalty or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and lead a righteous life, God is fully aware of everything you do.
If the disloyalty part in 434 was equally applicable for both men and women, it would have made more sense. But then it doesn't, because it is only one-sided regarding the parts on advice-giving, separating of beds, and finally separating for a time being.
Peace.
It has nothing to do with disloyalty at all.
-
Peace good logic,
Peace Truthseeker.
What you say is not clear to me.
Please explain your post and the verses?
GOD bless you.
Peace.Suppose you have a friend by the name of Abraham. Your friend Abraham meets me and gives me a message to give to you. His message is
O my friend "good logic", please call me soon. I have a problem.
When I meet you, I say/proclaim his message to you. I tell you that Abraham has a message for you and I can either say to you
"O my friend "good logic", please call me soon. I have a problem" quoting Abraham's exact words.
Or I can say to you
"O Abraham's friend "good logic", please call Abraham soon. Abraham has a problem".
But it will be poor grammar and can cause misunderstanding if I say to you
"O my friend "good logic", please call Abraham soon. Abraham has a problem".
In the first sentence I kept the message in the first person throughout, quoting Abraham directly. In the second sentence I kept the message in third person throughout. In the third sentence however I started the message in the first person, quoting Abraham, but then in mid sentence I flipped to third person. This is poor grammar, and can cause a misunderstanding as to who is talking to whom. The person should be consistent throughout the message.
Please ignore and discard any of what I said if it doesn't appeal to your mind, reason, or logic because I am certain you have the divine love and light in you and your intentions are pure.
Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you. Thank you for radiating your love and light upon all of us.
-
There is the Qur'aan boys club run riot. Everything revoves around men. The Qur'an cannot utter a word or speak about women without it revolving around men and for their sake. It gets really trying.
The first sentence in 4.34 is similar in construction to this one
9.71. 9.71, The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. (71
It is like in 3.34. Al rijal qawwamuna in general kif things are the way the should. Just as in this 9.71 the believing men and the believing women are protectors one of another. That is, that is what they should be if nothing prevents it. It is a general proclamation, that is, that is what they should be if they are following God's injonctions.
It is the same kind of clause as in 4.34. That is, if things are the way they should men should support and and maintain women.
And I do not get what that "bestowed some of them over others comes from". There is a reciprocal clasu which says that
Men are supporters or maintainers of women on account of that in which God has favoured the ones over the others (that is favoured the men over the women and the women over the men, reciprocal clause, it is not saying that it has favoured some men more than others, but that each sex is reciprocally favoured in something over the other, and that on account of that men are to support women from their (of the men) wealth.
So yes, it is a general duty for men to support women from their wealth. Just as it is a general duty for believing men and believing women to be protectors of one another; enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise.
Salaam
-
There we go again.
4.34 is nto about husbands and wives but about men and women in general, married or unmarried related or unrelated. And the aya is nto addressed to any jusband whatsover but to the community of believers, just as all the preceeding ayas, they are address to
Ya ayuha alladhina amanu, that is ?Oh believers! (men and women), the community. It is the community who is told to do whatever it is told, not any husband or any wives. And there is no talk at all of any husband or wife in 4.34, but of women and men in general.
Like I said, there it goes the boys club again run riot. What do women exist for if it is not as a fuction of them, the gods, the men. ?WAW!
Salaam
-
Peace be upon you,
I disagree with your interpretation of Nisaa and Riyaal. The argument you are using is wrong. 434 does not speak about all men being the protectors of all women. Read the entire verse "because Allah has bestowed SOME OF THEM over others". Clearly this part makes it impossible to understand the verse as speaking about all men and all women. It's not hard to find out this verse is speaking about a special case in which a woman is living from the wealth/protection of a man. It's not a general rule. It's a specific case. Some men/women are living in such an agreement. In such a special case, God is giving us advice what to do if the woman living from the man's wealth is persistent in fahisha in order to protect him.
There are many issues with your understanding of riyaal and nisaa that leads to more contradiction. You're not the first trying to redefine those two words just because some of the flawed interpretations appear to be sexist. But that's only a problem with a wrong understanding not with the Quranic text itself.
There is nothing sexist or violent about 434 whatsoever if you understand Riyaal and Nisaa as men and women. Sometimes it's hard even for true believers to distance themselves from loved ones, family even when their persistence in "fahisha" is threatening the belief of that believing person itself. God tells us not to make this mistake.
Peace.
Thank you for sharing your understanding but there are still some inherent problems.
- If only some men were bestowed over others then it is not correct to make a generalized statement that "men are supporters of women". The statement in that case should have been "some men are supporters of some women because .....". The infinite Creator is not expected to generalize a fact when it is applicable only to a subset.
I cannot say "men are smokers" if only "some men are smokers". That is illogical and against the scientific principle as well.
- What about the fact that some women are bestowed over some men? That would make the general statement "men are supporters of women" non factual, incorrect, and false. The infinite Creator cannot be expected to make a non factual, incorrect or false statement in any possible scenario.
Please ponder and reflect upon this, and feel free to discard if the above does not appeal to your mind, reason or logic. Being one with each other and serving others is more important than what our current understandings are at this point in time and space and this stage of our spiritual evolution.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you. Thanks once again for radiating your love and light upon all of us.
-
Peace be upon you,
Thank you for sharing your understanding but there are still some inherent problems.
- If only some men were bestowed over others then it is not correct to make a generalized statement that "men are supporters of women". The statement in that case should have been "some men are supporters of some women because .....". The infinite Creator is not expected to generalize a fact when it is applicable only to a subset.
Can you point me to the arabic word that proves this is a generalization and not just a special clause? If I say "men supporting women because some of them are wealthy and others are not" I'm not generalizing anything. Neither is Quran generalizing anything here. Keep also in mind Quran clearly states men and women are equal so one has to take the gender roles in it as interchangeable and only illustrative.
I cannot say "men are smokers" if only "some men are smokers". That is illogical and against the scientific principle as well.
- What about the fact that some women are bestowed over some men? That would make the general statement "men are supporters of women" non factual, incorrect, and false. The infinite Creator cannot be expected to make a non factual, incorrect or false statement in any possible scenario.
First of all there is no "are" in that verse. It doesn't say "men are" it rather says "men who protect/protectors of women". As I explained earlier, the verse fully allows to interchange the nisaa and riyaal as they are equal.
-
It is all continuation of the same sentence but FIRST PERSON CHANGES TO THIRD PERSON IN SAME SENTENCE. This kind of inconsistency cannot be expected from the infinite Creator, and those who blindly accept this grammatical inconsistency are actually mocking the infinite Creator.
Thank you very much truthseeker11 for this point. I tried to show something similar as well but couldn't explain as well as you. This is not the first time I have seen this.
I am confused regarding some other verses. If somebody can correct me it would be good. Here is are the errors I feel
- 43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who are agreeable to you of the women two, and three, and four.
It's supposed to be two OR three OR four. Why say 'and' instead of 'or'?
And this verse
- 2265 Did you not see that God commits to you what is on the earth? And the ships sail in the sea with His permission. And He holds the sky so that it would not collapse upon the earth, except by His permission. Indeed, God is Kind towards the people, Merciful.
Allah holding the sky so that it would not collapse upon the earth? That's strange and unscientific. Now some people interpret 'Samah' as a metaphor for celestial bodies. I doubt it though. In modern translation a number of Arabic words have become metaphors.
- 314 It has been adorned for mankind to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.
The word 'Nas' is translated as 'mankind'. Some translators may interpret it as 'men', which is false. Hence the verse talks on MANKIND having the adornment of desire for women. Is it that women are not considered even human beings hence being mentioned this way, as the desire for women is mentioned in PEOPLE, and not just men? So the men are the ones being considered as people, and women are not people? This is a big blunder in the language.
Some modern Quran translators softened the tone of some of the Quran's Arabic words. As an example
242 The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding the system of God if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
The translators chose the word 'punishment' as a translation for the Arabic word ?Azabahuma? which is a big error. The exact meaning of the word azabahuma is ?the torture of both of them?. So much for merciful God. I had always suspected this 100 lashes was not just for public humiliation, as Edip put it, but both public humiliation and real physical pain to the person as well, hence collectively being torture for that person. And Allah does not only sanction torture, but He is also concerned that the human feeling of the people who implement His orders might succumb to their feelings, hence they are warned against it (do not be taken by pity for them in the system of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day), by mentioning the Last Day.
I guess I may be creating some serious provokes. Sorry guys. I told you I am a truth seeker at this point.
Peace.
-
And there is no talk at all of any husband or wife in 4.34, but of women and men in general.
Yes, you are right. The verse though says "...As for those females from whom you fear disloyalty..." and nothing regarding men from whom women fear disloyalty. What do women do when they fear disloyalty from the men? The same thing? Doesn't look like it though. Unless you can break it down and explain to me.
Peace.
-
Understanding nushuz/fahisha as disloyalty or promiscuity one can expect from misogynist traditionalists who think the Quran is a sexual rulebook but this is a quranist forum is it not?
-
Quran translators translate 'nushooz' as disobedience and 'fahisha' as lewdness. How would you translate it then?
I gotta sleep now. It is 603 am here lol.
-
Peace be upon you,
If I say "men supporting women because some of them are wealthy and others are not" I'm not generalizing anything.
Yes, you are generalizing if you say that.
Men addicted because some men smoke. Clearly a generalization.Keep also in mind Quran clearly states men and women are equal so one has to take the gender roles in it as interchangeable and only illustrative.
It doesn't say "men are" it rather says "men who protect/protectors of women". As I explained earlier, the verse fully allows to interchange the nisaa and riyaal as they are equal.
-
Then you should use a gender neutral English word for rijaal rather than "men" for it to be interchangeable.
-
It doesn't say "who" either. If it does say "who" then the sentence is not complete. Men who ..... women because ...... then what about those men?
Men who smoke because they are addicted. Incomplete sentence.
- Qawwamuna is not a verb so you cannot say men who protect women. "Men who protectors women" is not grammatically correct in English.
You cannot say "men who smoker".
Please ponder and reflect on all the ramifications of your understanding. This is off topic so no more comments from me on this issue.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you in service and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.
-
-
Peace be upon you,
Yes, you are generalizing if you say that.
Men addicted because some men smoke. Clearly a generalization.Well if you think that's a generalization then the problem is not Quran but your understanding of linguistics.
- Then you should use a gender neutral English word for rijaal rather than "men" for it to be interchangeable.
There is no need to do so as Quran clearly states men and women are equal and Quran does not contradict.
- It doesn't say "who" either. If it does say "who" then the sentence is not complete. Men who ..... women because ...... then what about those men?
Men who smoke because they are addicted. Incomplete sentence.
Correct it says "Men protectors women". Leaving misunderstanding an open option for those who like to find proof for their misogynistic ways. That's not unintended
- Qawwamuna is not a verb so you cannot say men who protect women. "Men who protectors women" is not grammatically correct in English.
Quran is in arabic. It's irrelevant what is possible linguistically in English.
You cannot say "men who smoker".
In Arabic you can. It's even suggested you do so if your plan is to distinct believers from disbelievers with how you state your verses.