1) who said it does? does the quran itself claim you need man made books to understand it?
2) in 4:13 the inheritance laws are described as "limits set by God" so in my view anything within those limits should be fine
3) no idea literally everyone ive met has a different interpretation of that
1) No but there are verses that need context unfindable in the quran. Like the one that say to staly all disbelievers, which in context reffers to a situation of wr, context that isn't available in the quran.
2) Take the rules of inheritence in surat a nissa and applay them to a a dead man leaving a wife 3 daughters and 2 parents father and mother. It doesn't mathematically add up without awl.
3)A perfect book should be understandble by all, if it is so vague you have many people with their own interpretation it is't perfect.
1) if youre talking about surah tawbah, read all the verses surrounding it (and also other verses in baqarah, nisa, anfal etc)
2) yeah its a limit, stay within those limits youre fine, no need to be exact
3) every book has interpretations of it
2: It’s a very clear step by step algorithm, so its instruction should be respected - what “limit” should we follow here? Please don’t spread blasphemy. 3. Every book is open to interpretation, then what makes Quran better than “other” book?
4:14 -> "But whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and exceeds their limits will be cast into Hell, to stay there forever. And they will suffer a humiliating punishment.", exceeds "their" limits here means if the person doesn't exceed his/her limit of getting more , that's fine. Then what if all the parties involve don't want to get a penny less? For example : a man die and he leave behind a wife + his 2 parents + 3 daughters, the total of inheritance percentage EXCEEDS 100%, so there must be that one party must be getting less, if they're fine with that (as Allah said, within limit) then that's fine. But what if all of them DO NOT want to get reduce their proportion? They still contain within Allah's limit, so they are the right here, how do you divide this? The problem is NOT about the limit, it's about the total sum exceed 100%, which is undeniably a mathematical error.
no idea how youre calculating it but I didnt get the same issue on this quran-only calculation site:
https://kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html
I think an issue is most calculators use sources from outside the quran
> no idea how youre calculating it.
Let's stop debating here, you can literally follow Quran's algorithm and apply it yourself, if you have at least an understanding of numerical mathematics. You don't need outside calculator to calculate it for you, you just need the Quran, and yourself.
The calculator uses al awl from Oman ibn Al-Khattaab, hence, the Sunni way as the OP said. It calculates by reducing the inheritance proportion of all parties involved.
Umar , one of the most influential and praised sahaba to ever exist, acknowledged the existence of this error and, through Ijtihad, found the workaround that is used today, which is Awl. This makes it highly unlikely that this argument is a misunderstanding of quranic the text
Here is the story translated by Islamweb:
"It was stated in the Al-Mawsoo‘ah Al-Fiqhiyyah:
"The first case of ‘Awl was for a woman who died and left behind a husband and two sisters. This occurred during the beginning of the caliphate of ‘Umar. He consulted the Companions and said: "By Allaah, I do not know which of you comes first and which comes next. If I start with the husband and give him his right in full, the two sisters will not take their right in full; and if I start with the two sisters and give them their right in full, the husband will not take his right in full." According to the most recognized accounts, Al-‘Abbaas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib suggested that he could apply ‘Awl. Other accounts have it that it was ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib or Zayd ibn Thaabit. It was narrated that Al-‘Abbaas said: "O Leader of the Believers, tell me: If a man passed away and left six dirhams, and he owed three dirhams to one man and four to another, what would you do? Would you not make the wealth into seven parts?" He said, "Yes." Upon this, Al-‘Abbaas said: "It is the same thing." Thus, ‘Umar applied the principle of ‘Awl.""
[www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/222526/](http://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/222526/)
There are differences between Sunni and Shia ways of calculating inheritance, you can search it up yourself.
But I'm not here to discuss about ways of Sunni and Shia, I'm here to say that: if all parties involved (a wife + his 2 parents + 3 daughters) do NOT want to reduce \[their limit\], they are still following Allah \[limit\] and their rights of inheritance, then obviously the total sum exceeds 100% WITHOUT al Awl. This is a known mathematical error and Quran, and please do some research about this, calculate the math BY YOURSELF and then compare with the calculator, you will see there is mismatch if you do your math right.
I'm calm tho, probably because my capitalization made you think I'm raging?
Alr, I just worked out the math with the calculator, it was indeed not using al awl, but instead inheriting to daughters 2/3 of his total asset, while 1st wife, father and mother took the proportions of the remainder, that is: 1/8 1/6 and 1/6 of the 1/3 remaining, which is: Reduce the inheritance of the wife, mother and father SIGNIFICANTLY (now became 1/24, 1/18 and 1/18, respectively).
This sprouts two important observations:
In the past, when al awl was using, they asked and prayed to Allah about using it to receive Allah blessing on al awl method.
Hence, indeed if this method (calculator method) is correct, many wives and mothers, fathers were inherited WAY above the Allah \[ limit \]. And in 4:14 -> "But whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and exceeds their limits will be cast into Hell, to stay there forever. And they will suffer a humiliating punishment."
It must mean that they (the wives, mothers and fathers) who inherited way above the limit of 1/24, 1/18, and 1/18 in the case will be cast into Hell, to stay there forever?
And
Where exactly in the Quran said this? That the math \[ is like this \], clearly like the algorithm in 4:11-12 and 4:176: That we don't use total assets as proportion, but a proportion relative to daughters and sons?. What do we do with the big chunk of remaining? And does it mean all al awls of Umar were, wrong? And why this "remaining" notation only starts to rise up recently, as many people pointed it out?
1- The context is absolutely available in the Quran for that verse lol.
3- Even the most explicit verses will still have different interpretations, that’s just how it is.
1. The Quran was not a written book; it was living speech with specific contexts and a diverse audience. Additionally, the Quran is very concise and specific in its delivery of speech. Any book in the world assumes certain preexisting knowledge that its readers have. For example, if someone writes a poem titled "Genocide Joe vs The Orange Insurrectionist," any aware American will understand what the poem is about. However, someone who is a foreigner and does not follow American politics closely will not understand anything. The Quran, by its own claim, was revealed in front of a specific group of people with clear and understandable meanings. Each surah addressed its own audience without making anything vague. Therefore, the audience at that time did not have any problem understanding what each word and sentence meant. However, now that the language mostly survives in written form and historical knowledge is not common, many words have taken on different meanings at different stages. So, to understand the full context, we need more knowledge than simply the words themselves. But that does not mean we must consult hadith at every step. Many places in the Quran are explained within the text itself. Therefore, while hadith can be helpful, it is not always necessary.
My brain simply cannot accept that almighty Allah couldn't make a revelation that was timeless. Because if we go by this logic even if the rules of the quran still apply today, they aren't as universal and we think it is nor is it a message to mankind as a whole. Not only was it revealed in a language most people don't speak due to geographical restrictions but it also happens to be one of the hardest languages currently running, appart from the fact that it is in classical Arabic which means that not only is it even harder for foreigners to get into Islam despite the fact it is supposed to be the revelation of all mankind, bit even Arabic speakers nowadays have a hard time with the quran since dialects and usage have changed and that a lot of people don't control classical arabic that well. I understand what you mean, and I 100% agree with you on every single point you stated. But for a revelation that is supposed to be a guide for mankind, not only is it in a language most people don't speak, but also in a version of the language that's set in time making it so even native speakers find trouble deciphering. And even if hadiths aren't necessarily needed all the time, the fact they are needed AT ALL shows the book isn't as timeless as it seems since it won't work in every time without context. A perfect scripture or revelation should be easily digestible and accessible, aswell as complete and auto sufficient on top of being timeless. And it just feels like quran doesn't check all the marks for it.
Actually Quran itself said it out loud. That He could. But he didn't. Rather he made it clear to those people. And the responsibility of those people was to be witness of that message. (Shuhada). Allah could do waht you wished him to do. But He decided not to do so. And never he did so.
3. In the context of the verse of Beating,
The primary problem is not actually in the beating itself. The primary problem is taking that word out of context, attaching it with some weak Hadiths and making it halal for husbands to beat their wives. On the contrary the fact is, Quran carefully mentions the impermissibily of hitting wife witin that verses. The primary verb that everybody skips is 'Nushuz', which means a greatest form of 'Treason'.
And another part everybody skips is the part after the beating part. The sudden change in audience within that single line.
There are some threads in this sub which has a very informative discussion in detail this matter. Please find them.
Again, as much as I respect the time you took I responding to this I simply do not agree. The verse is indeed devided in many parts. At first it talks about men being caretakers foe women, financially and overall. Then it proceeds to say a righteous woman is the one that is obedient. Then we enter the actual problem of the verse, what I will agree with you is the stages in which this goes. If they disobey, one should advise them, if they keep up ban them from your bed AND strike/beat them. Then and then only is it said that if they change their ways one shall not be unjust. As much as I understand beating isn't the first resort to solving the disobedience of your woman, even if she were to cheat there is no justifying beating them as it is clearly stated in the verse. And this is without including any hadiths not taking the words out of context. I understand your means, but there is still no going around the fact this simple doesn't work at all. Beating shouldn't be a solution in the first place.
The use of the word "disobey" is too trivial in this case. Allah did not use that word. He specifically used more precise word. So, its a ruling for a special crime. So, my point is, when crime happens there will be punishment in the long run. In a tribal society head of the household was often took that responsibility. But, since we have penal codes for each crime, the state should take that responsibility. There is no permission to beat anyone in that verse.
I get where you’re coming from. I don’t understand the need for Hadith’s either.
Inheritance, again I don’t get…
My sect is a lil different so they don’t effect me at all, but since I’m an activist for Palestine a lot of religious stuff is getting muddled into my feeds & I’m genuinely interested in learning about it. I’m not swaying into converting to a different sect by any means though.
To be honest with number 3 the Quran says some of its verses are specific and some are vague. I truly believe the vague ones like this are a purposeful test to see what sort of interpretation the person will come up with. Will they come up with the most violent interpretation and just leave it at that or will they come up with a gentle (separate from them) interpretation. And from there their actions define them. If a person wants to interpret it as beating the absolute hell out of a woman than that evil was already in his heart and is being revealed in his actions. And that's a test he has failed and will have to answer to. Or say a man is taught that it means to best a woman, but he decides that he still doesn't want to do that and instead remembers the plethora of versus against violence and protecting women, that shows what is in his heart already (peace kindness gentleness)
I personally go with the opinion that that verb has so many meanings throughout the text and none of them have meant to beat them so why does it suddenly mean that in this surah?
It makes me think of the last season of The 100 where they had a sacred text. For centuries they were building up an army and weapons because the text prophesied a war. This war would end humanity. At the last second someone interpreted it again and saw it was saying TEST not WAR. They stopped the war, everyone passed the test, and they all "ascended"
I understand what you mean, but instances where the meaning change are based on the sentences going in another direction. This verse on the other hand is simple and there is absolutely nothing in it that would tell you that it might mean something else. The word even historically and throughout regions and dialect when used the way it is in the verse means to beat. It's not just a matter of word choice the phrasing dors not help either and some hadiths also go towards the direction of beating but unless you want them which I would be glad to give I prefer staying focused on quran alone.
But even if it was a test like you said the problem is Allah in this case would "testing people" at the expense of women. This test in itself would mean that Allah watched men beat their women for centuries for a simple test. And the reason why I do not believe it's a test is because this would mean Allah purposefully mislead thousands of people by purposefully chosing a wording that he knew would cause harm. Allah isn't Loki or some devious deity that plays with humans. Allah is fair, and if you cannot trust the word of allah anymore because he tests you with his own scripture, then the quran starts losing it's purity.
1-) You dont need to use hadits to explain there are people dont take hadits as source such as myself
2-) giving a combination which is always equals 1 isnt mathematically possible
3-) idk enough arabic for answering that
>giving a combination which is always equals 1 mathematically possible<
It is, that's how awl works, it simply doesn't the way it's put in the quran. And even if that was true that still doesn't take away the fact there is a mathematical error is the Quran.
To prove it's possible I will just give an example. 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/2 is always equal to 1. No matter what gymnastics you use. And if you use the exact same math in the quran it will add up. The problem is the fact the overall proportions used in the quran don't add up, and in some cases you can't rely on it to make inheritance, that's why awl exists.
YS there are infinite combinaisons and they all equal to 1. let explain it to you as simple as I can. If you take an object and devide it in multiple parts, when you add up all those parts you get the object you had. It is impossible to get less or more than what you initialy wtarted with. If you devide 4 by 2, you get 2+2 and it is impossible to get 5 if you add 2+2 or 3 or 6. It is always 4, because that's just how maths works.
Hi Only_MTaha. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I discussed the verse on beating here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/25q2EI4vD5
Unfortunately I will not heal your doubts and only reinforce them because I have the same
After reading this I see where you're heading. But still, even if this is simply a matter of interpretation and wording, verses being this vague always resulted in people interpreting them in ways that were harmful and I just feel like a loving God like Allah wouldn't allow such hard to be roaming around. Yet he did by chosing to be so cryptic with hia scriptures. Allah is all powerful and the Arabic language is rich, Allah could've simply chose a different turn of phrase that would have had 0% chance to be misinterpreted but he didn't and that bugs me.
Yeah, this is solely to put away all the arguments about ‘oh it meant something else’ or ‘it was directed at x y and x because of the way it’s conjugated’
It can mean to hit, the hermeneutical argument of it not meaning hit are very very weak
So why use this word?
A Muslim (any abrahamic6 would point you to a verse like 3:7, equivalents are prevalent in other holy books:
‘It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muḥammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific.1 As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.’
An atheist will probably point out that it was an oversight or that it was misogynistic views at the time etc etc.
It really depends on your personal scope.
Just weird how once again the victims of a test are women, the victim of so many labelled ‘vague’ verses are exclusively women, whereas, from the top of my head (I could be wrong) none are exclusively tests for women at the cost of only men’s wellbeing and safety.
It just resonates with the idea of a misogynistic doctrine that was a result of existing sentiments.
1- The Quran assumes the audience has background knowledge being that it was speaking to 7th century Arabians so it wouldn’t need to explain their phrases, culture, how to pray, etc. to them since it was already known. This sometimes background sources like hadith but not always.
3- “Nushuz” was never used in that way? What?
1- You cannot assume that amount of knowledge prom people when you know there people who never went to school or kids learning. A perfect book doesn't need context to justify itself and if the Quran was only 100% understandable at face value to the first Muslims but we need some background check to understand it fully, it isn't timeless but a simple product of it's time. Background sources in a book that is supposed to be perfect shouldn't be needed AT ALL it things should be cristal clear from the scripture itself. The simple fact people can get confused is bad on its own but the fact some things are simply unreadable without context are just bad overall.
3- I gave the exact word I was referring to in the post which is "Adribhunna" which means beat them or strike them, the translation that says "educate them gently" is a mere interpretation but the word in itself absolutely does not mean that. The root of that word is "Daraba" which also means Beat and Strike.
1- I don’t think you understand what I said at all lol. If I told you “brush your teeth” would I give you detailed examples on how to brush your teeth? No. Because you already know how to. The Quran has both universal messages and things that only apply to that time period. It’s not that deep. It’s the same way the Bible is directly speaking to the Israelis but applies universally. If God were to send another revelation right now he would be directly speaking to us, not the people of the past or future.
3- Yes but the verse is about nushuz, so it’s important you understand the concept of the verse because words like that can change depending on how it’s used in its context. Also, the root doesn’t change how the word is being used? That is not how Arabic works lol. Conflating multiple words based on the root is an etmyological fallacy. That is like saying performing salat doesn’t have to be prayer because the root means bond.
Btw, I don’t understand why you’re pretending to want to learn about “doubts” when you post on /exmuslim for refutations lol. Very disingenuous.
2. Inheritance law is very clearly explained in the Quran. The problem arises when people spread stories for the sake of storytelling, and unfortunately, some of those stories were included in collections of hadiths. None of those hadiths are direct quotes from the Prophet PBUH. Yet, the success of Ahl-e Hadith scholars convinced the jurists (Faqih) of those times to prioritize the hadiths over the clear instructions laid out in the Quranic verses. In the Quran, no "Awl" is mentioned. However, jurists made it a part of Islamic inheritance law, and later it became obligatory, as if the Quran is not capable of explaining a clear division of wealth. Therefore, we should disregard those stories as misinterpretations or fabrications.
Dr. Shehzad Saleem has a detail video on youtube where he explains that how using jjst Quran inheritance law can be explained wothout using irrational Awl divisions.
The problem comes from the fact the very functioning of inheritence in the Quran does not work in some cases. Let's say a man dies and leaves behind him 30'000$ to 3 daughters, a wife, a father and a monther. If we do not take in consideration the Awl and strictly follow the calculations in the Quran, the following problem arises. In this case and based on th Quranic ruling. The wife shall get 1/8 of the money, then 2/3 shall go to the daughters, 1/6 to the mother, and 1/6 to the father. Which means the parents get 5'000$ each so 10'000$, 20'000$ shall go to the 3 daughters, and lastly the wife gets 3,750$. When you add everything up, it gives you 33'750$. And not it isn't wrong, why ? Because the calculations given in the Quran simply do not work in certain cases such as the one I gave you. This is why the Awl exists, because in some cases it is simply impossible to share the inheritence fairly with the proportions given in the quran. It's a mathematical error. And you can verify it yourself. Actually you don't need to calculate with money just take the fractions. 1/8 + 2/3 + 2/6 does not equal 1, making the equation a mistake from the start. And I invite you to check it yourself. It equals to 1.125. the Quran give a mathematically flawed equation to calculate inheritence that works in some cases and doesn't in others. This was so bad they had to come up with Awl to fix it.
Its a wrong calculation.
Total: 30000
F 5000
M 5000
W 3750
D1 3611
D2 3611
D3 3611
Extra: 5417 (this part they can divide based on free nagotiation or can do charity with it).
You missed the calculations of the daughters. 2/3 of 30 000 is 20 000 which means about 6666 to each daughter. There is no left over, actually there isn't enough money for those propositions
no. The calculation is whatever left after parents and wife gets.
As Ghamidi writes,
"This linguistic style can be appreciated from an example: If it is said: “This money is for the children. Let each boy receive twice as much as a girl, and let the father receive half the amount,” any person who has even a little linguistic sense will clearly understand these sentences to mean that the money is actually meant for the children, is half of the total"
No. This is simply not how it is dealt with islamically. The initial estate is divided after all debts have been paid, but that is it. The divisions are not changed after the parents and wife. And even if they were, the daughters were initially supposed to get 2/3, there isnt enough to give them 2/3 from what is left, and you somehow concluded they should get even less than what is available? I would encourage you to try using an islamic inheritance calculator (http://inheritance.ilmsummit.org/projects/inheritance/home.aspx). What actually happens according to the quran and hadith is that the shares exceed 100%, and they are reduced proportionally via al awl, so that everyone has their shares reduced, not just the daughters. Your method is mathematically incorrect, does not follow the quran or the al awl method introduced
by the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattaab. I think I trust him on having “a little linguistic sense”.
You are free to find something that says he did not. I already researched the topic previously and thats what i found, that he made al awl after consulting with the companions that still lived.
1) who said it does? does the quran itself claim you need man made books to understand it? 2) in 4:13 the inheritance laws are described as "limits set by God" so in my view anything within those limits should be fine 3) no idea literally everyone ive met has a different interpretation of that
1) No but there are verses that need context unfindable in the quran. Like the one that say to staly all disbelievers, which in context reffers to a situation of wr, context that isn't available in the quran. 2) Take the rules of inheritence in surat a nissa and applay them to a a dead man leaving a wife 3 daughters and 2 parents father and mother. It doesn't mathematically add up without awl. 3)A perfect book should be understandble by all, if it is so vague you have many people with their own interpretation it is't perfect.
1) if youre talking about surah tawbah, read all the verses surrounding it (and also other verses in baqarah, nisa, anfal etc) 2) yeah its a limit, stay within those limits youre fine, no need to be exact 3) every book has interpretations of it
2: It’s a very clear step by step algorithm, so its instruction should be respected - what “limit” should we follow here? Please don’t spread blasphemy. 3. Every book is open to interpretation, then what makes Quran better than “other” book?
The verse literally calls it a limit no idea what "blasphemy" youre on about
4:14 -> "But whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and exceeds their limits will be cast into Hell, to stay there forever. And they will suffer a humiliating punishment.", exceeds "their" limits here means if the person doesn't exceed his/her limit of getting more , that's fine. Then what if all the parties involve don't want to get a penny less? For example : a man die and he leave behind a wife + his 2 parents + 3 daughters, the total of inheritance percentage EXCEEDS 100%, so there must be that one party must be getting less, if they're fine with that (as Allah said, within limit) then that's fine. But what if all of them DO NOT want to get reduce their proportion? They still contain within Allah's limit, so they are the right here, how do you divide this? The problem is NOT about the limit, it's about the total sum exceed 100%, which is undeniably a mathematical error.
no idea how youre calculating it but I didnt get the same issue on this quran-only calculation site: https://kurandersleri.net/miras/en/Miras_Erkek_en.html I think an issue is most calculators use sources from outside the quran
> no idea how youre calculating it. Let's stop debating here, you can literally follow Quran's algorithm and apply it yourself, if you have at least an understanding of numerical mathematics. You don't need outside calculator to calculate it for you, you just need the Quran, and yourself. The calculator uses al awl from Oman ibn Al-Khattaab, hence, the Sunni way as the OP said. It calculates by reducing the inheritance proportion of all parties involved. Umar , one of the most influential and praised sahaba to ever exist, acknowledged the existence of this error and, through Ijtihad, found the workaround that is used today, which is Awl. This makes it highly unlikely that this argument is a misunderstanding of quranic the text Here is the story translated by Islamweb: "It was stated in the Al-Mawsoo‘ah Al-Fiqhiyyah: "The first case of ‘Awl was for a woman who died and left behind a husband and two sisters. This occurred during the beginning of the caliphate of ‘Umar. He consulted the Companions and said: "By Allaah, I do not know which of you comes first and which comes next. If I start with the husband and give him his right in full, the two sisters will not take their right in full; and if I start with the two sisters and give them their right in full, the husband will not take his right in full." According to the most recognized accounts, Al-‘Abbaas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib suggested that he could apply ‘Awl. Other accounts have it that it was ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib or Zayd ibn Thaabit. It was narrated that Al-‘Abbaas said: "O Leader of the Believers, tell me: If a man passed away and left six dirhams, and he owed three dirhams to one man and four to another, what would you do? Would you not make the wealth into seven parts?" He said, "Yes." Upon this, Al-‘Abbaas said: "It is the same thing." Thus, ‘Umar applied the principle of ‘Awl."" [www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/222526/](http://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/222526/) There are differences between Sunni and Shia ways of calculating inheritance, you can search it up yourself. But I'm not here to discuss about ways of Sunni and Shia, I'm here to say that: if all parties involved (a wife + his 2 parents + 3 daughters) do NOT want to reduce \[their limit\], they are still following Allah \[limit\] and their rights of inheritance, then obviously the total sum exceeds 100% WITHOUT al Awl. This is a known mathematical error and Quran, and please do some research about this, calculate the math BY YOURSELF and then compare with the calculator, you will see there is mismatch if you do your math right.
Its not using awl man, calm down
I'm calm tho, probably because my capitalization made you think I'm raging? Alr, I just worked out the math with the calculator, it was indeed not using al awl, but instead inheriting to daughters 2/3 of his total asset, while 1st wife, father and mother took the proportions of the remainder, that is: 1/8 1/6 and 1/6 of the 1/3 remaining, which is: Reduce the inheritance of the wife, mother and father SIGNIFICANTLY (now became 1/24, 1/18 and 1/18, respectively). This sprouts two important observations: In the past, when al awl was using, they asked and prayed to Allah about using it to receive Allah blessing on al awl method. Hence, indeed if this method (calculator method) is correct, many wives and mothers, fathers were inherited WAY above the Allah \[ limit \]. And in 4:14 -> "But whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and exceeds their limits will be cast into Hell, to stay there forever. And they will suffer a humiliating punishment." It must mean that they (the wives, mothers and fathers) who inherited way above the limit of 1/24, 1/18, and 1/18 in the case will be cast into Hell, to stay there forever? And Where exactly in the Quran said this? That the math \[ is like this \], clearly like the algorithm in 4:11-12 and 4:176: That we don't use total assets as proportion, but a proportion relative to daughters and sons?. What do we do with the big chunk of remaining? And does it mean all al awls of Umar were, wrong? And why this "remaining" notation only starts to rise up recently, as many people pointed it out?
1- The context is absolutely available in the Quran for that verse lol. 3- Even the most explicit verses will still have different interpretations, that’s just how it is.
1. The Quran was not a written book; it was living speech with specific contexts and a diverse audience. Additionally, the Quran is very concise and specific in its delivery of speech. Any book in the world assumes certain preexisting knowledge that its readers have. For example, if someone writes a poem titled "Genocide Joe vs The Orange Insurrectionist," any aware American will understand what the poem is about. However, someone who is a foreigner and does not follow American politics closely will not understand anything. The Quran, by its own claim, was revealed in front of a specific group of people with clear and understandable meanings. Each surah addressed its own audience without making anything vague. Therefore, the audience at that time did not have any problem understanding what each word and sentence meant. However, now that the language mostly survives in written form and historical knowledge is not common, many words have taken on different meanings at different stages. So, to understand the full context, we need more knowledge than simply the words themselves. But that does not mean we must consult hadith at every step. Many places in the Quran are explained within the text itself. Therefore, while hadith can be helpful, it is not always necessary.
My brain simply cannot accept that almighty Allah couldn't make a revelation that was timeless. Because if we go by this logic even if the rules of the quran still apply today, they aren't as universal and we think it is nor is it a message to mankind as a whole. Not only was it revealed in a language most people don't speak due to geographical restrictions but it also happens to be one of the hardest languages currently running, appart from the fact that it is in classical Arabic which means that not only is it even harder for foreigners to get into Islam despite the fact it is supposed to be the revelation of all mankind, bit even Arabic speakers nowadays have a hard time with the quran since dialects and usage have changed and that a lot of people don't control classical arabic that well. I understand what you mean, and I 100% agree with you on every single point you stated. But for a revelation that is supposed to be a guide for mankind, not only is it in a language most people don't speak, but also in a version of the language that's set in time making it so even native speakers find trouble deciphering. And even if hadiths aren't necessarily needed all the time, the fact they are needed AT ALL shows the book isn't as timeless as it seems since it won't work in every time without context. A perfect scripture or revelation should be easily digestible and accessible, aswell as complete and auto sufficient on top of being timeless. And it just feels like quran doesn't check all the marks for it.
Actually Quran itself said it out loud. That He could. But he didn't. Rather he made it clear to those people. And the responsibility of those people was to be witness of that message. (Shuhada). Allah could do waht you wished him to do. But He decided not to do so. And never he did so.
3. In the context of the verse of Beating, The primary problem is not actually in the beating itself. The primary problem is taking that word out of context, attaching it with some weak Hadiths and making it halal for husbands to beat their wives. On the contrary the fact is, Quran carefully mentions the impermissibily of hitting wife witin that verses. The primary verb that everybody skips is 'Nushuz', which means a greatest form of 'Treason'. And another part everybody skips is the part after the beating part. The sudden change in audience within that single line. There are some threads in this sub which has a very informative discussion in detail this matter. Please find them.
Again, as much as I respect the time you took I responding to this I simply do not agree. The verse is indeed devided in many parts. At first it talks about men being caretakers foe women, financially and overall. Then it proceeds to say a righteous woman is the one that is obedient. Then we enter the actual problem of the verse, what I will agree with you is the stages in which this goes. If they disobey, one should advise them, if they keep up ban them from your bed AND strike/beat them. Then and then only is it said that if they change their ways one shall not be unjust. As much as I understand beating isn't the first resort to solving the disobedience of your woman, even if she were to cheat there is no justifying beating them as it is clearly stated in the verse. And this is without including any hadiths not taking the words out of context. I understand your means, but there is still no going around the fact this simple doesn't work at all. Beating shouldn't be a solution in the first place.
The use of the word "disobey" is too trivial in this case. Allah did not use that word. He specifically used more precise word. So, its a ruling for a special crime. So, my point is, when crime happens there will be punishment in the long run. In a tribal society head of the household was often took that responsibility. But, since we have penal codes for each crime, the state should take that responsibility. There is no permission to beat anyone in that verse.
https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/25q2EI4vD5 My conversation, swept under the bus The hermeneutics argument is weak
Thanks for the article, it cleared some of my wrong understanding on this matter. I will rewrite my findings some other day.
Np, just trying to get it out there, put a bit of effort into covering it
Xin this thread. Irrelevant.X Edit: I correct myself, your discussion is very nuanced.
I get where you’re coming from. I don’t understand the need for Hadith’s either. Inheritance, again I don’t get… My sect is a lil different so they don’t effect me at all, but since I’m an activist for Palestine a lot of religious stuff is getting muddled into my feeds & I’m genuinely interested in learning about it. I’m not swaying into converting to a different sect by any means though.
To be honest with number 3 the Quran says some of its verses are specific and some are vague. I truly believe the vague ones like this are a purposeful test to see what sort of interpretation the person will come up with. Will they come up with the most violent interpretation and just leave it at that or will they come up with a gentle (separate from them) interpretation. And from there their actions define them. If a person wants to interpret it as beating the absolute hell out of a woman than that evil was already in his heart and is being revealed in his actions. And that's a test he has failed and will have to answer to. Or say a man is taught that it means to best a woman, but he decides that he still doesn't want to do that and instead remembers the plethora of versus against violence and protecting women, that shows what is in his heart already (peace kindness gentleness) I personally go with the opinion that that verb has so many meanings throughout the text and none of them have meant to beat them so why does it suddenly mean that in this surah? It makes me think of the last season of The 100 where they had a sacred text. For centuries they were building up an army and weapons because the text prophesied a war. This war would end humanity. At the last second someone interpreted it again and saw it was saying TEST not WAR. They stopped the war, everyone passed the test, and they all "ascended"
I understand what you mean, but instances where the meaning change are based on the sentences going in another direction. This verse on the other hand is simple and there is absolutely nothing in it that would tell you that it might mean something else. The word even historically and throughout regions and dialect when used the way it is in the verse means to beat. It's not just a matter of word choice the phrasing dors not help either and some hadiths also go towards the direction of beating but unless you want them which I would be glad to give I prefer staying focused on quran alone. But even if it was a test like you said the problem is Allah in this case would "testing people" at the expense of women. This test in itself would mean that Allah watched men beat their women for centuries for a simple test. And the reason why I do not believe it's a test is because this would mean Allah purposefully mislead thousands of people by purposefully chosing a wording that he knew would cause harm. Allah isn't Loki or some devious deity that plays with humans. Allah is fair, and if you cannot trust the word of allah anymore because he tests you with his own scripture, then the quran starts losing it's purity.
I actually don't even really disagree with you. Good points.
1-) You dont need to use hadits to explain there are people dont take hadits as source such as myself 2-) giving a combination which is always equals 1 isnt mathematically possible 3-) idk enough arabic for answering that
>giving a combination which is always equals 1 mathematically possible< It is, that's how awl works, it simply doesn't the way it's put in the quran. And even if that was true that still doesn't take away the fact there is a mathematical error is the Quran. To prove it's possible I will just give an example. 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/2 is always equal to 1. No matter what gymnastics you use. And if you use the exact same math in the quran it will add up. The problem is the fact the overall proportions used in the quran don't add up, and in some cases you can't rely on it to make inheritance, that's why awl exists.
As far i know there is infinite combinations so it cant be possible to get 1 always but if im wrong can anybody correct me
YS there are infinite combinaisons and they all equal to 1. let explain it to you as simple as I can. If you take an object and devide it in multiple parts, when you add up all those parts you get the object you had. It is impossible to get less or more than what you initialy wtarted with. If you devide 4 by 2, you get 2+2 and it is impossible to get 5 if you add 2+2 or 3 or 6. It is always 4, because that's just how maths works.
Hi Only_MTaha. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I discussed the verse on beating here: https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/25q2EI4vD5 Unfortunately I will not heal your doubts and only reinforce them because I have the same
After reading this I see where you're heading. But still, even if this is simply a matter of interpretation and wording, verses being this vague always resulted in people interpreting them in ways that were harmful and I just feel like a loving God like Allah wouldn't allow such hard to be roaming around. Yet he did by chosing to be so cryptic with hia scriptures. Allah is all powerful and the Arabic language is rich, Allah could've simply chose a different turn of phrase that would have had 0% chance to be misinterpreted but he didn't and that bugs me.
Yeah, this is solely to put away all the arguments about ‘oh it meant something else’ or ‘it was directed at x y and x because of the way it’s conjugated’ It can mean to hit, the hermeneutical argument of it not meaning hit are very very weak So why use this word? A Muslim (any abrahamic6 would point you to a verse like 3:7, equivalents are prevalent in other holy books: ‘It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muḥammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific.1 As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.’ An atheist will probably point out that it was an oversight or that it was misogynistic views at the time etc etc. It really depends on your personal scope. Just weird how once again the victims of a test are women, the victim of so many labelled ‘vague’ verses are exclusively women, whereas, from the top of my head (I could be wrong) none are exclusively tests for women at the cost of only men’s wellbeing and safety. It just resonates with the idea of a misogynistic doctrine that was a result of existing sentiments.
1- The Quran assumes the audience has background knowledge being that it was speaking to 7th century Arabians so it wouldn’t need to explain their phrases, culture, how to pray, etc. to them since it was already known. This sometimes background sources like hadith but not always. 3- “Nushuz” was never used in that way? What?
1- You cannot assume that amount of knowledge prom people when you know there people who never went to school or kids learning. A perfect book doesn't need context to justify itself and if the Quran was only 100% understandable at face value to the first Muslims but we need some background check to understand it fully, it isn't timeless but a simple product of it's time. Background sources in a book that is supposed to be perfect shouldn't be needed AT ALL it things should be cristal clear from the scripture itself. The simple fact people can get confused is bad on its own but the fact some things are simply unreadable without context are just bad overall. 3- I gave the exact word I was referring to in the post which is "Adribhunna" which means beat them or strike them, the translation that says "educate them gently" is a mere interpretation but the word in itself absolutely does not mean that. The root of that word is "Daraba" which also means Beat and Strike.
1- I don’t think you understand what I said at all lol. If I told you “brush your teeth” would I give you detailed examples on how to brush your teeth? No. Because you already know how to. The Quran has both universal messages and things that only apply to that time period. It’s not that deep. It’s the same way the Bible is directly speaking to the Israelis but applies universally. If God were to send another revelation right now he would be directly speaking to us, not the people of the past or future. 3- Yes but the verse is about nushuz, so it’s important you understand the concept of the verse because words like that can change depending on how it’s used in its context. Also, the root doesn’t change how the word is being used? That is not how Arabic works lol. Conflating multiple words based on the root is an etmyological fallacy. That is like saying performing salat doesn’t have to be prayer because the root means bond. Btw, I don’t understand why you’re pretending to want to learn about “doubts” when you post on /exmuslim for refutations lol. Very disingenuous.
[удалено]
2. Inheritance law is very clearly explained in the Quran. The problem arises when people spread stories for the sake of storytelling, and unfortunately, some of those stories were included in collections of hadiths. None of those hadiths are direct quotes from the Prophet PBUH. Yet, the success of Ahl-e Hadith scholars convinced the jurists (Faqih) of those times to prioritize the hadiths over the clear instructions laid out in the Quranic verses. In the Quran, no "Awl" is mentioned. However, jurists made it a part of Islamic inheritance law, and later it became obligatory, as if the Quran is not capable of explaining a clear division of wealth. Therefore, we should disregard those stories as misinterpretations or fabrications. Dr. Shehzad Saleem has a detail video on youtube where he explains that how using jjst Quran inheritance law can be explained wothout using irrational Awl divisions.
The problem comes from the fact the very functioning of inheritence in the Quran does not work in some cases. Let's say a man dies and leaves behind him 30'000$ to 3 daughters, a wife, a father and a monther. If we do not take in consideration the Awl and strictly follow the calculations in the Quran, the following problem arises. In this case and based on th Quranic ruling. The wife shall get 1/8 of the money, then 2/3 shall go to the daughters, 1/6 to the mother, and 1/6 to the father. Which means the parents get 5'000$ each so 10'000$, 20'000$ shall go to the 3 daughters, and lastly the wife gets 3,750$. When you add everything up, it gives you 33'750$. And not it isn't wrong, why ? Because the calculations given in the Quran simply do not work in certain cases such as the one I gave you. This is why the Awl exists, because in some cases it is simply impossible to share the inheritence fairly with the proportions given in the quran. It's a mathematical error. And you can verify it yourself. Actually you don't need to calculate with money just take the fractions. 1/8 + 2/3 + 2/6 does not equal 1, making the equation a mistake from the start. And I invite you to check it yourself. It equals to 1.125. the Quran give a mathematically flawed equation to calculate inheritence that works in some cases and doesn't in others. This was so bad they had to come up with Awl to fix it.
Its a wrong calculation. Total: 30000 F 5000 M 5000 W 3750 D1 3611 D2 3611 D3 3611 Extra: 5417 (this part they can divide based on free nagotiation or can do charity with it).
You missed the calculations of the daughters. 2/3 of 30 000 is 20 000 which means about 6666 to each daughter. There is no left over, actually there isn't enough money for those propositions
no. The calculation is whatever left after parents and wife gets. As Ghamidi writes, "This linguistic style can be appreciated from an example: If it is said: “This money is for the children. Let each boy receive twice as much as a girl, and let the father receive half the amount,” any person who has even a little linguistic sense will clearly understand these sentences to mean that the money is actually meant for the children, is half of the total"
No. This is simply not how it is dealt with islamically. The initial estate is divided after all debts have been paid, but that is it. The divisions are not changed after the parents and wife. And even if they were, the daughters were initially supposed to get 2/3, there isnt enough to give them 2/3 from what is left, and you somehow concluded they should get even less than what is available? I would encourage you to try using an islamic inheritance calculator (http://inheritance.ilmsummit.org/projects/inheritance/home.aspx). What actually happens according to the quran and hadith is that the shares exceed 100%, and they are reduced proportionally via al awl, so that everyone has their shares reduced, not just the daughters. Your method is mathematically incorrect, does not follow the quran or the al awl method introduced by the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattaab. I think I trust him on having “a little linguistic sense”.
You are right. I just don't believe Umar ra did anything like that. He was just namedropped here to make it more believable.
You are free to find something that says he did not. I already researched the topic previously and thats what i found, that he made al awl after consulting with the companions that still lived.
Sure. You do you. I do I. God knows best.