Dear Noon waalwalami,

Your theory did make sense. However there is one weak point of it; how do you prove that ma taraka/what is left doesn't refer to a whole of what is left by the dead. This word at the end clearly points that it's about whole that is left

Thank you Noon waalqalami. I really liked your explanation because this "error" was what kept me in distance the most in the whole Quran. If I'll ever be in paradise that will be thanks to you. Although i still have some questions

1. what does " what left" stands for in the line for situation when there are above two girls. It's also used in other verses and there it stands for inheritage, not ratio.

2. What is exactly meaning of " " at the beginning of the same line mentioned before? Is it exactly "else if"? I couldn't find meaning in internet(I cannot really find good arabic dictionary online for studying Quran)

3. " lildhakari/to the male " Is singular isn't it? I wonder if your division is right. It seems to be not practical nor just that if you have a lot of brothers then you take less than your sister. I guess Quran commands to be more inherited by boys due to the fact that in actually all the societies man is main provider of family. Woman takes dowry and isn't obligated(as man is) to provide for partner. So what i think is that Quran might propose just ratio(with the example of one son) and we should follow it, no matter how many children there are. So it would look like that
   x-number of girls
   y-number of boys

x=<2y then each girl will take half of what a boy get
x>2y then all the girls will get 2/3 of what boys get

1 son
1,2 sisters -> each get half of what son got
3,4,5.... sisters -> they get 2/3 of what son got

2 sons
1,2,3,4 sisters -> each get half of what one son got
5,6,7,8...... sisters -> they get 2/3 of what sons got

3 sons
1,2,3,4,5,6 sisters -> each get half of what one son got
7,8,9,10,11,12...... sisters -> they get 2/3 of what sons got

etc.

OR(I don't know which one due to my language but both makes sense)

x-number of girls
y-number of boys

x=<2y then each girl will take half of what a boy get
x>2y then all the girls will get twice(2/3 for girls, 1/3 for boys) of what boys get

1 son
1,2 sisters -> each get half of what son got
3,4,5.... sisters -> they get twice of what son got

2 sons
1,2,3,4 sisters -> each get half of what one son got
5,6,7,8...... sisters -> they get twice of what sons got

3 sons
1,2,3,4,5,6 sisters -> each get half of what one son got
7,8,9,10,11,12...... sisters -> they get twice of what sons got

etc.

If " lildhakari/to the male" is singular then Quran if fact depicts only one situation; when there is one boy and depending on how many sisters he has Quran says how we should divide money. With this example of justly* division we can divide money to children in any situation(with formula given above). And the spirit, logic etc. of Quran's example is kept. Your proposition on the other hand looks kind of like an arbitrary formula and it's hard to find why it's look like that(instead of just giving every children same money if in some situations girl takes more and in some boys). And then again I don't know arabic so maybe my proposition is just wrong.

• Some might argue that giving more to boys than girls is unjust but as we see in situation with one son for God it is just indeed. And I kind of agree with that. In almost all societies during all history(including today's western Europe) man is the one financially resposible for family and and that's why he would get more. I guess that's just human nature and that's why God commands so. It's hard to marry for a poor man in poor societies but woman usually don't have such problems no matter of their wealth. So man's money would somehow crucial for the wealth of family and woman's money would be an "extra income". So by God's command in more than 60% of situations just decision is giving a boy twice as many as to girl. However sometimes among sibling girls might be overrepresented(more than twice the number of the boys) and then "minimum" inheritage is saved(because no difference if there are 3 sisters or 10) for the boy(money with which he is obligated to provide for family) and girls need to share what's left for them. If there would be 1 brother and 10 sisters, the man would get almost nothing even though he is financially responsible for his family, doesn't get any dowry etc.

I know it wouldn't be popular among feminists but there are things I don't like neither in Quran but God knows best.

Thanks for your reply. I got your explanation now. However I still have questions; why do you claim that 2/3(of 2+ daugthers inheritage) is ratio to male inheritage and not a 2/3 of whole inheritage?

so for them (f/p) thuluth/third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left

This part implies it's 2/3 of the whole and not a ratio to male. Very same word is used is used more like here

wali-abawayhi/and to parents two said person to each one of them dual the sixth of what left

and for you half what left

And many times more.

411 ykumu/instructs you the god in/concerning awldikum/offspring yours lildhakari/to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (f/d) so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk (daughters) fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (f) falahunna/so for them (f/p) thuluth/third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left and if knat/be she (f/s) widatan/one (f/s) so for her (i.e. daughter) al-ni'fu/the half wali-abawayhi/and to parents two said person to each one of them dual the sixth of what left if be for said person waladun/offspring so if not that be for said person waladun/offspring and inherit said person abawhu/parents dual said person (if both parents are alive) so to mother said person the third so if be for said person sibling so to mother said person the sixth from after instruction/will instructs in it or judgment fathers yours wa-abnukum/and children yours not thou knowing which of them closer to you benefit of obligation from the god surely the god be knowledgeable wisdom of

412 and for you half what left azwjukum/spouses yours if not that be for them (f/p) waladun/offspring so if be for them waladun/offspring so for you the fourth of what left they (f/p) from after instruction/will instructs they (f/p) in it or judgment and for them the fourth of what left you if not that be for you waladun/offspring so if be for you waladun/offspring so to them the eight of what left you from after instruction/will thou making in it or judgment and if be rajulun/man inherits kalala (sibling heir; no spouse; no child) or im'ra-atun/woman and to said person brother or ukh'tun/sister so to each one of them dual the sixth so if be they of more from such so they partners in the third from after instruction/will instructs in it or judgment other than harmful instruction/will from the god and the god knower tolerant

4176 seek ruling your say the god gives ruling you in/concerning al-kalala (the sibling heir; no spouse; no child) if person perished not is for said person waladun/offspring and for said person ukh'tun/sister so for her half what left and he inherits her if not that be for her waladun/offspring so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. exactly two sisters) falahum/so to them dual (f/d) al-thuluthni/the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) of what left and if be they of ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+ sisters) falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (f) shows the god for you lest stray ye of and the god in every thing knower

Sorry Noon waalqalami that I am such a pain in the ass but I really want to understand it and I still don't get your explanation.

so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk (daughters) fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (f) falahunna/so for them (f/p) thuluth/third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left

So three daughters are to be given 2/3 of the inheritance.

wali-abawayhi/and to parents two said person to each one of them dual the sixth of what left if be for said person waladun/offspring

So parents get 1/3 of inheritance since there are offsprings(3 daughters)

so if be for you waladun/offspring so to them the eight of what left you from after instruction/will

So if there is wife(and there are children) she should get 1/8 of inheritance.

All those sums up to 9/8. More than one. So where is my misunderstanding? I cannot get your explanation no matter how many times i read that.

Peace McKenna36,

The quagmire was kalala and case of when there are exactly two daughters and likewise three+ sisters?

Only way to resolve was 411 mixed gender children; 412 same gender sibling/s; 4176 mixed gender siblings.

In addition kalala refers to an indirect heir (sibling/s) who only inherit if there is no spouse and no child/walad (4176).

I am not sure if I understand you well brother. Please confirm; so basically your claim is that in order to solve this problem we should assume that 411 is for mixed gender children, 412 for same gender children and 4176 for mixed gender children again? On what basis do you claim so? I don't know arabic but looking at english translation there is no such distinction as you claim

Peace good logic

Don't confuse me with pacifist, I am not the one and I don't think pacifism is the right way to go. However according to resources first muslims crossed the limits of self-defence too far.

1. Let me make it easier and write what is NOT peaceful(makes also the concept of Divine justice ununderstandable for me);

"Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region."

"the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in Kedar and Benth. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest."

"The Arabs gained countrol of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. "

There are more.

2. The concept of world, God and everything depicted in Quran.

Peace mmkhan
I've read that, it's interesting. However do you claim that man mentioned in my non-muslim resources who is called there as Muhammad and is leader of Arabs isn't a Messanger of God who brought Quran? Where is Quran coming from then? Who and when wrote it?

@Friend with an arabic nickname I am not here to compare islam to other religions so the fact that others religions did evil isn't a justify for Islam.

@hicham9 That's not really relevant to my problem.

@mmkhan I don't think it's really possible. Since Quran mentions Muhammad by his name and praise him as a good man you cannot really remove him from Islam. Also it would be beyond logic to choose as a Messanger a person who would not be a good example of how to believe. Anyway answering your question; if I remove those stories from Islam I see it as a system which advocates for peace if possible but clearly war is an important and often prefered solution in case of injustice or any aggressive attitude of an enemy.

Hi guys!
I don't want to read all the 53 pages so let's make it short; did we finally find a solution(logical solution!) for that error?

Hi everyone,
First I would like to point that I am not here to argue or troll but I am very intersted in finding the truth(so the real God or the lack of him) and Quran-only islam really draw my strong attention. However, I try to be as critical as possible and whenever I find something controversial I try to challange(after own research of course) people who know the topic and might be smarter than me, therefore are able to straighten my supposedly false views. I will be really pleased to find out in those discussion that I am mistaken.

So my problem for now is that claim of Quran-only muslims, that islam is is rather peaceful religion is false in my opinion. Quran itself provide lines promoting both peace and war. Therefore it's quite open to interpration. I've read peaceful interpretions and they are quite covincing. However, we cannot lie to ourselves and the best way to examine how to interpret those verses is looking at the practices of Muhammad and first muslims. To check that we have to look for historic resources and we have two kinds of them

1. Muslims resources Hadits etc. I know they were collected many years after the Muhammad therefore many of them are fake but still they are rather not completely out of touch with reality there have to be some truth in them and they do depict attitude's of those times. And hadiths suggesting that slaying people took place.

2. Non-muslim resources

The oldest surviving resource is a poorly preserved report of syriac christian about conquest. Report comes from 637

"... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) Emesa , and many villages were ruined with killing by Muhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives from Galilee as far as Bth and those Arabs pitched camp beside and we saw everywhe and oive oil which they brought and them. And on the tth of May went Srius]... cattle from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them and on the tenth the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus many some 10,000. And at the turn ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year nseven there gathered in Gabitha the Romans and great many people were ki omans, some fifty thousand "

The text from bracket's is added by scholars since the document is poorly preserved.

text from 640

"AG 945, indiction VII On Friday, 4 February, at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

AG 947, indiction IX The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in Kedar and Benth. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest."

Text from 660

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet , a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you

Another text from 660

Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader (mdabbrn&#257 was Muhammad (mhmd). Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent against them countless troops, but the Arabs routed them all and even killed Rustam. Yazdgird shut himself up in the walls of Mahoze and finally escaped by flight. He reached the country of the Huzaye and Mrwnaye, where he ended his life. The Arabs gained countrol of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Byzantine king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than 100,000 of them.

Text from 687

Having let their dispute run its course, after much fighting had taken place between them, the Westerners, whom they call the sons of ?Ammy, gained the victory, and one of their number, a man called M?awy , became king controlling the two kingdoms, of the Persians and of the Byzantines. Justice flourished in his time, and there was great peace in the regions under his control; he allowed everyone to live as they wanted. For they held, as I have said above, an ordinance, stemming from the man who was their guide (mhaddyn&#257, concerning the people of the Christians and concerning the monastic station. Also as a result of this man's guidance (mhaddynt&#257 they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions (ma?lmnt&#257 of Muhammad, who was their instructor (t?r&#257, to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws.

This one is extra interesting because it's suggesting that already the first muslims who were learning from Muhammad himself were more like sunni's not quran-only muslims.

We should also keep on mind that during the first years of islam the empire spread wide by the conqests
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#/media/FileMap_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg

To sum up; both possible resources(muslim and non-muslims) suggest similiar thing; that Muhammad together with first muslims were attacking, conqesting and what's most important; slaying people. While conquering lands could be somehow justified(especially quoting " Justice flourished in his time, and there was great peace in the regions under his control; he allowed everyone to live as they wanted.&quot slaying monks and civilians cannot. So is islam(and Muhhamad himself) cruel religion? If all resources suggests that Muhammad started cruel wars isn't talking about peace on islam lying to your own? While the radical sunnis are those who practice islam exactly how it should be practiced?

---

Resource
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html

Hi everyone! I am new here. I decided to make my own account instead of just lurking to ask you guys for help.

I will be missing six days during this year's Ramadan due to the "trip"(not really but I will far from home anyway and conditions will be really to bad to keep Ramadan). My question is about 2184

2184 A number of days. Whoever of you is ill or traveling, then the same number from different days; and as for those who can do so but with difficulty, they may redeem by feeding the needy. Whoever does good voluntarily, it is better for him. If you fast, it is better for you if you knew.

The thing I don't know is if I can start making up those six days before the month of Ramadan or I should do that after. Can someone who speaks arabic check if the Quran allows to choose anyday or it should be after the actuall Ramadan. Some english translations says that "the same number of days" after

I would like to start Ramadan from tommorow(three days before Ramadan) if possible.

Greetings!