Quran: Nothing Contextual About It
Submitted by Khalil Fariel on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 08:05
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionKhaliL FarieL
There is always the plight of context argument with Islam’s holy text; the Quran. The apologetic version is “Quran cannot be interpreted and understood except with its context.” This paraphrasing is constantly presented by Islamic apologists whenever any argument against the violent verses within the text is raised.
But the way Islam justifies the divine origin of Quran automatically excludes it from the use of historical method of exegesis. There is this dilemma for Muslims to face. The text in fact is contextual as understood by Muslim explanation of its historical formation. But it is not a version of facts Muslims want to subscribe to when they are fomented to believe in the interminable status of the text. The Quran is meant for the whole of humanity is the undisputed Muslim belief. This belief continues on as the book is pertinent to the end of times.
Is not it implausible to believe in the infinite relevance of the Quran and at the same time raise objections and criticisms by embarking on a context smoke screen? Should Muslims not give up the context excuse if they want to use the the Quran as a text whose relevance is extended to the end of times?
There is only an affirmative answer to these questions. Let us see why context argument is logically fallacious and defective for obvious reasons:
If the argument is that the Quran is contextual:
1. It encompasses the whole of the Quran thus effectively spoiling any assay of extracting certain verse or verses from the text and arguing the extracts are excused from context. If the Quran is contextual, the entire constituents of the text will be dumped to a certain backdrop or call it context.
2. It constricts the whole of the Quran to a certain limited bound. And within this limit the Quran cannot conserve timeless bearing. For example, the “Codex of Aeschines” (c.390-c.322 BCE) or “Codex of Hammurabi” are only understood in their historical context. Consequently they do not have any applicability in the existing time. Similarly, the Quran will be locked up in the milieu of history without having any gravity other than a history book.
3. It is incongruous to impose such a notion on the Quran owing to the collective Muslim credence; the text is meant for the whole of humanity. Muslims believe the Quran, though revealed to their prophet in a specific seventh century context, is meant for the whole of humanity to the end of times. Such a book cannot be confined in the necropolis of history. Mankind did not cease to exist with the prophet, and there is more to come. The Quran should influence the survived, enduring and forthcoming generations.
From the three obvious flaws of the context argument, it can be pondered that the Quran cannot be tied on a context if the Muslim objective is to thumb it as a book for the whole of mankind without considering "time". As we say; contextual argument dictates reclining to history which will be deadly for the Quran because history does not stand up to the evolving time, or to the entire humanity. The exact historical context of the Quran is the life history of a man who lived in the seventh century Arabian Desert, or it is the last 23 or years of Muhammad that formed a Quran. This way of explaining the Quran will not help Muslims reach the conclusion: the text is meant for eternity. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is considered by Muslims as the final messenger of Allah so; his words and deeds have unceasing bearing. The Quran being the sum total of his words (or to concord with Muslims’ belief the summation of words god revealed to Muhammad) can not be a mere historical book by any chance. This will be more pronounced after knowing the theological context of the text. Since the Quran can not be subtracted from Islam, both have to be considered synonymous. If there is Islam, there should be the Quran too. If Islam is the reflection of Prophet Muhammad’s life and his teachings, the Quran too is the same. This theological context is more underpinning the contention that the Quran is not bound to any context but it is relevant to all times to all people. In fact if to accord to Muslims’ belief, we are all living in the context of Quran. Let us see how: The Quran is the words of God. There is not even a single word in this text that doesn’t belong to God- Allah. Mostly Allah spoke as the first person, sometimes as second person, and infrequently as third person too. But let the style vary, it is always Allah who is speaking. And the Muslim belief is: Allah is omnipresent. He cannot be constricted to any limit. Allah is eternal and so are human beings, because when Allah created Adam the first man and sent him to earth as his delegate, he bestowed a convoluted feature of this omnipresence to the creation. That is death is not the end of human beings. They have to resurrect one day to prepare for an eternal life. Be it in paradise, or in eternal hell, the life is there and it is eternal. So, human beings are eternal according to the Islamic credo. When facts about the god of Islam remains thus, it should be considered that any message this god sends to this delegate should necessarily have the above said characteristic of being eternal, because it is Allah who communicates, and he messages his delegate. These messages are everlasting, because they emanate from an everlasting source and at the receiving end there is his delegate who is also an eternal being. Let us come back to the Quran: Allah spoke to a seventh century Arab in the latter’s language. And all of what he said to this prophet is recorded to fructify a Quran. To sum it up, Allah sent his last message to this same prophet, then stopped speaking downright. Because god sent his last message and promised to preserve it forever, and he will not speak any more until the day of resurrection. He will not send any prophet, since sending a prophet will stir him up again. This is the end. God sent his final messenger, and even though he did not endow immortality to the messenger, he blessed the message with immortality. So, the Quran, Islam’s holy text is not a pushover. It is the ultimate message of god. There is nothing to add or subtract in it. All of its components are divine, equally divine. All are applied to all and all. In conclusion, if there is a command in the Quran, there is no need to look for its historical context since humanity from the formation of Quran to the end of times are living in the context of the text. It is the Muslim belief. God, Gabriel, and Muhammad, three key figures who formed the Quran have infinite relevance, so the making of the Quran too necessarily possesses the quality of being interminably relevant. If this is the common Muslim belief pertaining to Quran, there is no room for a context excuse in its case. Thus, the context excuse in the case of Quran is flawed in its fundamentals. [To reach the author, click the link below:] http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=12167#p12167
Whether qrand is the final
Whether qrand is the final message or not is not the issue.The issue of importance is this. Is qrand a message from the imbecile to the imbeciles for the imbeciles only? the resounding yes would be the answer.Stupid moslems can follow the idiotic allah and imbecile mohammad.the problem is the imbeciles want every one to follow the idiot allh and th e peodphile cretin rapist mohammad.thats where the difficulty arises.
islam is nothing but a
islam is nothing but a religion of sexist racist fascist and if ur sexual harmones toned up like 24/7 and if u want to f--- a woman,without having to hangaround her after your sexual acts are over, and worries she is not a prostitute u might catch up some STDS then nothing better to approach then Mahmooud and use his trainings/teachings to f-- all 2 leg creatures having female sexual organs....
if u want to make love to a woman then read hindu scriptures(kama sutra) and if u want to fuck multiple woman with the problem of premature ejaculation and forced to cum inside a woman,then read queeran...
Quote from article: "This is
Quote from article:
"This is the end. God sent his final messenger, and even though he did not endow immortality to the messenger, he blessed the message with immortality."
Gasp! Does this mean we are all stuck with Mo?
O Allah, please change your mind, be merciful and send us another messenger. The last one you "sent" did a very bad job and only brought misery, oppression and death. Thank you.
Finally someone has driven
Finally someone has driven the wedge home. Everytime I have a debate with my so called Moderate Muslim friends they always bring up this line of reasoning that the Quran has to be taken into context.
They quite convinietly forget that the Qur'an is supposed to be the uncreated word of allah which was supposed to be last til time eternal. Hence evert word of the Qur'an is valid til the end of times.
So to say that people take the Quranic verses out of context is a very pitiful form of apology. This the strategy used by hishonest appologists in the West to create an impression that certain suras of the quran donot hold true for today's date.
I really like the way you
I really like the way you approached the dilemma of eternality Vs contextuality of the message. deep tought!!
However, isn't it wrong to think or argue that a book as complicated as the Quran can be approached in a such Black/white dimension. most issues in life are neither white or black rather gray. therefore, Maybe, parts of the Quran dealt with timely matters contextual to 7th century Arabia while other parts explain universal matters such as liberty, human rights, and so on.
Alan Rabi says Maybe, parts
Alan Rabi says
Maybe, parts of the Quran dealt with timely matters contextual to 7th century Arabia while other parts explain universal matters such as liberty, human rights, and so on.
A wrong assumption based on ignorance of facts of Islam. The Quran was the first thing that allah had created, according to Islamic texts. Furthermore it is written in the Quran that it has been sent as a guidance for humanity for all times.
However, isn’t it wrong to think or argue that a book as complicated as the Quran can be approached in a such Black/white dimension
Wrong. The Quran is not complicated. Quran itself testifies to this fact in one of the Suras. Its confusing and repetitive. As far interpreting the Quran is concerned, its not open for interpretation. Anything in the quran has to be interpreted in the light of the Sunnah and the tafsir.
Maybe, parts of the Quran dealt with timely matters contextual to 7th century Arabia while other parts explain universal matters such as liberty, human rights, and so on.
There is no mention of liberty, human and so on , anywhere in the Quran.
-the right to learn -the
-the right to learn
-the right to own,
-the right to be safe
-the right to inherit
For both man and women
I read about all these rights in a translation of the quran. it is very interresting to know that such rights were available to mankind in a time when woman were still considered as merchandise in all of europe. these rights are very similar to those found in the american constitution a document drafted 1000 years later.
Just a tought!!
Alan What about these rights
Alan
What about these rights now?
Do women have similar rights? Did you hear about girls schools blown up recently in Islamic paradises?
Assuming these rights were granted at a time when other parts of the world meted out worse treatment to women, they are obviously backward now.
So is koran contemporary?Does it need revision?
-the right to learn -the
-the right to learn
-the right to own
-the right to be safe
-the right to inherit
Surah and ayat please! Again, how can any sane person provide this argument? Do we need loads of holy books to get our rights? Moreover, I can see why there is a lot of human rights in Saudi Arabia, cradle of Islam, for both men and women (the right to drive, the right to justice, etc)
Well, are you trying to blame
Well, are you trying to blame the divine or to blame a way of life (in case you don't believe in what's divine)
for what mankind have made of it. it has always been the human incompetence to follow guidelines the reason of human misery. huge difference between what Jesus preached and what the Roman catholic empire applied. huge difference between what moses preached and what Israel has done. try to apply this principle to Mohammed and Saudi Arabia. I hope U'd get it.
-the right to learn -the
-the right to learn
-the right to own,
-the right to be safe
-the right to inherit
-the right to learn
-the right to own,
-the right to be safe
-the right to inherit
For both man and women
Did you also read the following:
-Anhilation of non-muslims
-calling jews swine and apes
-calling the earth as flat
-the low status of women
-dhimmitude
-hatred towards christians and jews
-hundreds of gramatical mistakes
-matematical errors
-scientific errors
-hate speech
-war mongering
-mutilation
besides have you heard of Cyrus. He was an Iranian king, who had declared the first charter of human rights, almost 2500 years back and almost 1100 years before muhammad was born. he accorded equal rights to all the citizens of his state. He gave respect and the arimation that no shall be insulted on the basis of his or her religion.
Just a thought!!!
I think the king you're
I think the king you're talking about is Hammourabbi NOT Cyrus. and he was Iraki by modern day nomination, not Iranian. Please provide proof of the following.
-Anhilation of non-muslims
-calling jews swine and apes
-calling the earth as flat
-the low status of women
-hundreds of gramatical mistakes
-matematical errors
-scientific errors
-hate speech
-war mongering
-mutilation
I wanna see proofs from books not Fox News please!!!
No need to question my sanity Mr PROUDCHRISTIAN. let's maintain a level of respect please.
Well, are you trying to blame
Well, are you trying to blame the divine or to blame a way of life (in case you don’t believe in what’s divine)
First of all the Quran is not divinely ordained, nor is any other book for that matter. If you claim otherwise the onus of proving the divinity of the quran falls on you, allan.
Secondly you claim that Saudi Arabia is not implementing Islamic law is wrong. can you prove that its not implementing Islamic law? Prove what you have said. Infact Saudi Arabia is the best example of Islamic law in use.....
little contradiction here.
little contradiction here.
is the saudi ruling family Righteous or just a bunch of hypocrites. we've got to answer this question first then move on to the second question which is are they applying it rightfully?
-can you trust George Bush with Social Welfare?
-George Bush is a christian. therefore, christianity cannot be trusted with Social welfare
- blame MARX and DAS CAPITAL for what STALIN did to his people.
this is the reasoning you're doing guys. very biased and outright manipulative.
Get the answer!!
is the saudi ruling family
is the saudi ruling family Righteous or just a bunch of hypocrites
You are trying to divert to issue. The point is that Saudi Arabia follows the Islamic Sharia and to the T. What the Saud family does is something else. Ruling elite, especially in theorcracies never follow the laws. By the way theocracy is the only Islamic form of government.
can you trust George Bush with Social Welfare?
-George Bush is a christian. therefore, christianity cannot be trusted with Social welfare
- blame MARX and DAS CAPITAL for what STALIN did to his people.
Drivel. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Gorge Bush is not a theocratic leader. He was a democratically elected leader. Unlike Theocracies, there is mechanism in place in democracies.
By the way USA is a secular state. The religion of the person ruling USA does not matter, as his religion has nothing to do with the the state is governed.
There are multiple checks and balances in Democracy which are absent in theocraries.
this is the reasoning you’re doing guys. very biased and outright manipulative.
I wonder you get frustrated
I wonder you get frustrated of the Soudis hypocricy as always Islam produces hypocricy. The first hypocrite was muhamad. Allah orders a limit of four wives but he bypasses his decrees and marry dozens plus wives. What to expect from mohammedans?
Just look at how asinine they
Just look at how asinine they are these so called human rights of the quran:
-the right to learn: do I have to check any holy book for this right? My secular government which pays for my education is far superior to allah who orders “O ye who believe (Muslims). Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.” (Sura 5:101).
-the right to own: To own what? Slaves? Four wives?
-the right to be safe: Under dhimmitude?
-the right to inherit: I cant hold my breath!
Jesus didn’t want to die. He
Jesus didn’t want to die. He was crying on the cross to his Creator Eloi (Allah in Arabic):
Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)
His Creator Allah saved him from his enemies:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (Quran 4:157-158)
The Islamic Solution of the
The Islamic Solution of the Christian Holy Trinity:
Father = God the Creator;
Son (Jesus) = Prophet of God (Matthew 21:11, Luke 24:19);
Holy Ghost = Arch Angel Gabriel.
So, the mystery of the Holy Trinity is solved!
Alan Rabbi - the taqiyya
Alan Rabbi - the taqiyya Muslim pretending to be a learned rabbi, says
"the right to learn"
Yeah right! Unless if you are female, then you have the right to have acid thrown at your face and to have your school bombed.
"the right to own"
Yeah right! If you are a Muslim male, then you have the right to own women sex-slaves and 4 wifes. Any Muslima trying to claim the same right to own 4 husbands or even one sex-boy is stoned or whipped for adultery and fornication.
"the right to be safe.'
Yeah right! Unless if you are an infidel. And if you wish to be Christian or Jewish, then you have to pay for the privilege to be a second class citizen.
"the right to inherit"
Yeah right! Unless if you are female, then you only get a fraction of what your male relatives inherit.
By the way, how come Muhammad's first Khatija wife was so wealthy if women were not allowed to own property before Islam?
As for your questions on comment # 12, all the answers are in your Quran. Try reading your Quran again, this time without the rose-colored glasses! If you are too lazy to look it up, don't expect us to do so for you. If you are really seeking answers that is!
Makes you think doesn't it?
12. Alan Rabbi Says: I think
12. Alan Rabbi Says: I think the king you’re talking about is Hammourabbi NOT Cyrus. and he was Iraki by modern day nomination, not Iranian. Please provide proof of the following.
-Anhilation of non-muslims
-calling jews swine and apes
-calling the earth as flat
-the low status of women
-hundreds of gramatical mistakes
-matematical errors
-scientific errors
-hate speech
-war mongering
-mutilation
I wanna see proofs from books not Fox News please!!!
And here it is; proofs not from any old book but from Allah's book itself.
And they are not proofs but commands to be obeyed to the letter of the law.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm
Why did Muhhamad rape a 9
Why did Muhhamad rape a 9 year old child? Exactly what thoughts must have passed the mind of Abu Bakr, when his child was getting raped a man 5 times her age.Perhaps we will never know the answers to these questions.
#22 Muhammad was making up
#22
Muhammad was making up for lost time. He married a woman 15 years his senior and he was the laughing stock of Mecca and his tribe. He waited until she died and he married as many babies and young women as he could. He was a greedy allah. The Quran is filled with Muhammad's sexual fantasies and cruel satanic evils.
Why is a god interested in a woman's vagina or which man is on top.
proudchristian Says: [-the
proudchristian Says:
[-the right to inherit: I cant hold my breath!]
You need to go to toilet to release your breath!
The Quran is the only religious Book where women have the right to inherit (4:7).
ibrahim, It is as though you
ibrahim,
It is as though you are asking your dad, "Why did you rape my mum to produce me, dad!"
Hazrat Ayesha was a beloved wife of the Final Prophet of God.
Jesus cried in arabic!!!
Jesus cried in arabic!!! thats from the mouth of a mohammedan.Is he that dump? so what is next?
As for inheritance law of
As for inheritance law of Koran .Your freaking pimp godallah doesnt even know how to add up.
According to the Qur'an, Allah gives the following rules in regard to dividing of the inheritance:
4:11
Allah charges you, concerning your children:
to the male the like of the portion of two females,
and if they be women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves,
but if she be one then to her a half;
and to his parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children;
but if he has no children, and his heirs are his parents,
a third to his mother,
or if he has brothers, to his mother a sixth,
after any bequest he may bequeath, or any debt.
Your fathers or your sons -
you know not which out of them is nearer in profit to you.
So Allah apportions; surely Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
4:12
And for you a half of what your wives leave, if they have no children;
but if they have children, then for you of what they leave a fourth,
after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt.
And for them a fourth of what you leave, if you have no children;
but if you have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth.
after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt.
If a man or woman have no heir direct [i.e. children or parents],
but have a brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth;
but if they are more numerous than that, they share equally a third,
after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt not prejudicial;
a charge from Allah. Allah is All-knowing, All-clement.
4:176
They will ask thee for a pronouncement.
Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs.
If a man perishes having no children,
but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves,
and he is her heir if she has no children.
If there be two sisters,
they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves;
if there be brothers and sisters,
the male shall receive the portion of two females.
Allah makes clear to you, lest you go astray;
Allah has knowledge of everything.
This whole text looks rather difficult to me, but that is a common feature of nearly all legal texts. I chose the translation by Arberry because Yusuf Ali was even more difficult to follow. When things are complex it is always good to start with easy examples. Here that means, just a few people to distribute the inheritance among.
There are numerous simple cases which are not clear how to deal with them at all, since they are not covered under the instructions given. For example, if I have only one daughter, verse 4:11 says that she gets half [seemingly no matter who else might inherit]. The verse also states the general rule that a son inherits double of what a daughter inherits. Does that mean an only son would get all? Even if there are still parents which should also get a share? Also, it is regulated that one daughter would get half, and more than two daughters will [equally] share in 2/3. How much would two daughters get among them? The average between 1/2 and 2/3? [There is actually controversy, and in Sunni law, the vast consensus is to understand "more than two" to mean "two or more" even though that is not what the Arabic says. Therefore two daughters would get 2/3 of the estate. Only "Ibn Abbas, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), is of the view that two daughters have to get one half share, equal to one daughter's share." (Kavakci, "Islamic Inheritance Law", p. 22)] But since these cases are just not directly dealt with in the Qur'an, let us not speculate about it and only look at the cases for which we are explicitely given instructions and see whether these are consistent.
* Supposed I was already a widower and have only one daughter. When I die my one daughter gets half according to verse 11. What happens to the rest?
* Similar is the situation in which I have one daughter and one or more wives: My daughter gets 1/2 (S. 4:11), my wives share 1/8 (S. 4:12), i.e. 5/8 are distributed. What happens to the other 3/8 of the estate? This example does does not raise a new question, but it is very important because that is the situation at Muhammad's own death, leaving one daughter (Fatimah) and several wives. Amazingly, Muhammad's wealth is not distributed according to the Qur'an!
The problem becomes clearer when we add a brother. In the Qur'an, siblings are only mentioned as heirs when no children exist. In this case Sunni and Shia have gone different ways what to do with the surplus. Shias will give all to the daughter (see #2740), Sunnis will give the rest to the nearest male relative, in this case the brother. Both are true to the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not say what to do in this and many other cases. The instructions are incomplete.
Other examples of the Shia / Sunni difference:
If a man leaves a wife and the two parents. The Shia will give the wife 1/4 and then distribute the remainder as 1/3 for the mother and 2/3 for the father, i.e. they will receive 1/4 and 1/2 of the original estate (see #2741). Sunnis will give the wife 1/4, the mother 1/3 and the father as the nearest male relative the rest, i.e. 5/12. This is not a contradiction to the Qur'an, since no verse is directly contradicted in either method, but it shows that the Qur'an is far from clear in its instructions.
A widower leaves his father and one daughter. According to the Qur'an, the father receives 1/6, the daughter receives 1/2. The remaining 1/3 is given to the daughter by the Shia (see #2743), while it is received by the father as the "universal heir" in the Sunni jurisprudence. For the Sunni law see Dr. Kavakci, "Islamic Inheritance Law", p. 16.
The Shia will give a wife 1/8, the only daughter 7/8, and the sister nothing, while in Sunni law the wife will 1/8, the daughter 1/2, and the sister as universal heir will receive 3/8 (the baqi) (see Dr. Kavakci, page 52).
# Suppose my wife has no relatives at all [e.g. being a war orphan] and she dies before we are blessed with any children. According to verse 12, I get half of her property. Who gets the other half of her property? Only half of the inheritance is regulated according to the Qur'an.
The same situation with switched roles, my wife would get a quarter, but who gets the other 3/4 of my property?
Note: See the link to the actual Islamic law (Shia version) at the end of the document. If there is only one heir, then this heir gets everything. But this is NOT consistent with what the Qur'an actually says. What is the point of the Qur'an giving specific rules if they are not obeyed (because they are just not workable)? Some Sunni schools would put the surplus into the state treasury, if there is no male relative to take the rest.
One step more difficult. Suppose we do have children.
# I die and leave my wife and one daughter but I have no other relatives, which means that my daughter gets 1/2 = 4/8 [verse 11] and my wife gets 1/8 [verse 12] leaving again 3/8 unaccounted for.
In all these [and several more such] cases the question is: Who gets the rest? I agree this can be taken care of by donating it to charities or the local Masjid. But the problem is the Qur'an does not tell us what to do with it. Can the rest also be distributed among the wife and children? But that procedure would make their shares different from what has been specified in the Qur'an! What is the point of specifying clear shares and then abandoning the instructions? Anyway, as long as the shares add up to less than one, things can be settled still "relatively easily." People get at least the share they are supposed to get [according to the Qur'an]. More problematic is the following certainly not uncommon situation:
# If I (as the male head of the family) die and leave behind (in the order given in the verses above):
3 daughters, both parents, my wife, then they will receive
2/3 (2/9 each) 1/3 (1/6 each) 1/8 according to
verse 11 verse 11 verse 12 which adds up to
2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 1 + 1/8
Where is the extra 1/8 going to come from? Is the local Muslim community [the "fund for balancing out the inheritance shares that don't add up"] going to pay it? After all, if they would be getting the left-overs from the cases when the sum is less than one in the examples above, that would only be fair.
Shia solve this problem by paying the spouses first, i.e. the wife receives 1/8 and then the other shares are taken from the remainder (which adds up correctly), see #2778 in this Shia legal code. The Sunni schools decrease all shares proportionally (Awliyyah). Both have found ways to work around the problem, but in both "solutions", some or all heirs do not receive the shares specified by the Qur'an.
Other examples where shares add up to more than one ("solved" by proportional redistribution), as found in "Islamic Inheritance Law" by Dr. Yusuf Ziya Kavakci, page 54-56 and "The Reliance of the Traveller" by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, section L8.2:
Husband, two sisters will receive
1/2 2/3 (1/3 each) according to
verse 12 verse 176 which adds up to
1/2 + 2/3 = 7/6 = 1 + 1/6
-------------
Husband, sister, mother
1/2 + 1/2 + 1/3 = 8/6 = 4/3 = 1 + 1/3
Problems of this sort can be found many. Another one would be: Mother (1/6), brother & sister (2/3 distributed 2:1 to brother:sister) and 1/4 for the wife is more than one.
# One son and one daughter. 4:11 says that one daughter will get half and a son will get double a daughter's share, which would be everything. 150% of the available property is distributed and we haven't even looked at the parents and spouse yet.
Well, even though it doesn't say so, let us assume that 4:11 doesn't only speak about 2/3 for more than two daughters but the 2/3 share holds every time when there are two or more children as many Muslims interpret it. But then the last mentioned case above would still be the same problem for any number of children since the children get 2/3, the parents get 1/3 and then there is nothing left for the wife which is supposed to get 1/8.
# When a man dies and leaves behind a mother, wife and one sister only, then according to 4:11 the mother gets 1/3 (because he has neither children nor a brother), the wife gets 1/4 according to 4:12 (because they have no children) and the sister gets 1/2 according to 4:176 (because he has no children). Not only do we have again distributed more than there exists [1/12 in overdraft], we also have the very strange result that the direct heirs [people of direct relationship = spouse, children, parents] get each less than the indirect heir which is his sister. It becomes even worse if he has more than one sister since they then get 2/3 instead of 1/2 and we get even more into overdraft.
Anybody who has ever dealt with dividing out an inheritance will know how easily that can get nasty and how this can poison family relationships if people think they have been cheated. Promising certain people a definite share but not being able to pay them this share because more was promised than is available is the surest recipe for disaster.
And there seems to be an awareness of this in the Qur'an since it does repeatedly in further verses stress the necessity of being just. And in these there verses we have been looking at, we have the explicit statement at the end of 4:176 that "Allah makes clear to you, lest you go astray" as well as in 4:11-12 it says that "So Allah apportions" and "so Allah charges you" and (because?) He is the "All-wise". I am not sure there are many commands on the Qur'an which are explicitely given to make things clear and which are so completely unclear and contradictory and impossible to fulfill. Do we really want to charge God that he didn't know what he was saying and that He is the author of confusion and contradiction? Or would it be more consistent with the confidence in God's wisdom to assume that this is NOT from God?
# According to 4:12 and 4:176 the siblings of the person who died only then share in the inheritance if there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children according to Muslim understanding - see Yusuf Ali's translation and footnote), but in 4:11, the portion of the mother depends on the existence of brothers, which makes only sense if these brothers get the part that is taken from the mother. If they do not get it, and we suppose the shares added up to one without the existance of brothers, then who gets this sixth that was taken away from the mother by the pure existance of these brothers? It either does not add up with or without the existence of this brother if he does not get this sixth of the mother.
# Last problem for now: 4:12 says that in case there are no direct heirs [parents or children] then "brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth" while 4:176 says in the same situation that "they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves" [double of what 4:12 says].
Now this has not been overlooked by the commentators and they try to get around this with some acrobatics, here Razi's comments on this issue:
"that brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; in 4:12 'here the brother or a sister means a brother or a sister from the mother, for Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas used to read, '...brother or a sister from the mother'. They have judged this way because at the end of the Sura Allah ta'ala said, 'They will ask thee for a pronouncement.
Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. 4:176' thus He established that the two sisters receive two-thirds, for the brothers all the money, but here [4:12] established that the brothers and sisters will have the third, which means that the brothers and sisters here [4:12] is not the same as in 4:176. The bothers and sisters here [4:12] those from the mother only, but there 4:176 the brothers and sisters from the father and mother or from the father."
This is a very handy way of getting around the problem. But also notice they appeal to another reading of the Qur'an to explain the contradiction. Indeed if this reading exist there will be no problem (for this specific contradiction - we had many more above though), but this will raise another problem: The present Qur'an is not all of the Qur'an, or more clearly, the Qur'an is corrupted because parts have been lost.
But if indeed verse 12 speaks about half-siblings through the mother only, and verse 176 about full siblings or half-siblings through the father only, then this creates another overdraft problem similar to the one found in "Islamic Inheritance Law" by Dr. Kavakci, page 55:
Wife, Mother, 2 full sisters, 3 half-sisters from Mother
1/4 1/3 2/3 1/3 together
v.12 v.11 v.176 v.12
adding up to (3 + 4 + 8 + 4) / 12 = 17/12
Thus, making a difference between the siblings in verse 12 and 176 does not really solve the problems.
"Try to learn the knowledge of faraid! Teach this knowledge to the youth! The knowledge of faraid is half of (all) religious knowledge. It will be this knowledge that my Umma will forget first." A hadith, by Ibn Maja and Dara Qutni.
"Faraid" is the calculation of inheritance. Given the prime importance of this topic, it is an even worse problem to find contradictions on this issue in the Qur'an.
I know Muslims have found ways to solve their actual inheritance problems in real life. But if we take the information from the Qur'an only, then it does just not work out. To the very least, the instructions on inheritance do contradict the Sura 41:2-3 where we read: "A revelation from the Most Gracious, Most Merciful; a Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand." Even though it goes on in the next verses to talk about "people who do not understand and who turn away", and I agree that deeper insights into the Word of God are only given to those willing to listen with an open heart, the rules of simple arithmetic are not depending on spiritual disposition.
Even if one would not put standards of perfection on these rules as it is fitting for revelation from God, but only think it to be from Muhammad, it is strange that this successful business man, in charge of whole caravans for a number of years, was not able to correctly add up a few fractions.
Furthermore it seems that I can bequeath whatever I have to whomever I will, since bequests [and debts] are to be taken care off before the rest is distributed to the nearer or wider family. That this can lead to rather gross injustices (e.g. not leaving any support to your elderly parents) does not need to be explained in great detail. This only may lead to injustice (not contradiction - which is the issue we are concerned with here) but doesn't change any of the mathematical problems above since these bequests might only change the amount of what is left to divide, but has no effect on the (relative) shares. The Muslim law is that one can only bequeath up to 1/3 to heirs not part of the legal heirs [but this is not mentioned in the Qur'an and another quite important issue which is not part of "what was made clear"].
There are some other passages talking about justice in dividing up inheritance or the amount you bequeath to somebody in relationship to other people / kin you are obligated to, but since they do not mention numbers for the shares, they do not throw any more light on the situation. If you want to check them out: 2:180-182, 2:233, 2:240, 4:33. Only 2:240 actually says something specific about amounts. But there it is an absolute amount and not a relative amount of shares as in 4:11-12,176. But comparing 4:12 where a widow usually [since usually there will be children] gets 1/8 this commanded of "one year's maintenance for her" will nearly always be higher or lower than the 1/8 share depending on the size of the property left behind by the deceased. It would be an incredible accident if that would hit 1/8 exactly. So, in the reality of practical life this is yet another contradiction in the Qur'an. [According to Yusuf Ali's footnote on 2:240, many commentators for this reason consider 2:240 abrogated by 4:12. But that is a cheap way to resolve contradictions. These are both in the Qur'an and 4:82 does not say that there are no discrepancies in the unabrogated part, but extends this claim over the complete Qur'an.]
So who taught Allah math?
Definitely not me .Is that Paedophile Mohammad by any chance?
Fine reasonning, Mr.
Fine reasonning, Mr. Fariel.If Muslins could understand that clearly, they would be really shaken. This is clear and they can’t escape from these indisputable facts which prove the absurdity of Muslim’s arguments. If they invoke historical context, Quran is not eternal Words of Allah. If they invoke the eternal Quran, they can’t invoke historical context. Teachings of the Quran can’t be temporal and eternal at the same time. Orders to kill unbelievers are eternal. No way to escape. Muslims are caught in a terrible trap, thanks to their clear-sighted prophet. Islam brings with itself the germs of its own death.
“The greatest book is not the
“The greatest book is not the one whose message engraves itself on the brain - but the one whose vital impact opens up other viewpoints, and from writer to reader spreads the fire that is fed by the various essences, until it becomes a vast conflagration leaping from forest to forest.” ~ Romain Rolland
Allah the pimp evil baby
Allah the pimp evil baby supplier dalal to the rapist mohammad can not add fractions! simple. So the followers of the rapist pedophile as well can not use brains as they have none
Amin said It is as though
Amin said
It is as though you are asking your dad, “Why did you rape my mum to produce me, dad!”
Well AMIN thank you for sharing your story and the story of your mother who was a victim of marital rape. You have my sympathies. However you have yet to answer my question, why did a man with an overflowing harem of women have to rape a 9 year olf kid.
Hazrat Ayesha was a beloved wife of the Final Prophet of God.
A nine year old kid is not fit to be a wife, neither physically nor mentally. So tell me why did your prophet rape a nine year old.
The brain dead moronic
The brain dead moronic follower of this pedophile rapist mohmmmad was undoubtedly the product of rape.No wonder his brain dead rantings fill this space with garbage of as much value as a used toilet tissue.But then the qrand is worth less than the used toilet tissue
Qrand is in context when you
Qrand is in context when you use the damned thing for wiping the back side after crapping and is in context when you say the used toilet tissue has more use than qrand
Apedomime said It is as
Apedomime said
It is as though you are asking your dad, “Why did you rape my mum to produce me, dad!”---------
How true this cretin Muslim is??
All Muslims' fathers rape their mothers to produce the Muslim piglets!! No wonder MoHamMad was such a Piglet. Ha Ha Ha Ha
And Islam the "Cult of Criminal Pedophile " is product of Rape. Muslim Fathers raping Muslim Mothers . Ha Ha Ha Ha
Jerk off Zakir Naik are you reading this???
Excellent article.
Excellent article.
[...] Quran: Nothing
[...] Quran: Nothing Contextual About It – Khalil Fariel Allah sent his last message to this same prophet, then stopped speaking downright. Because god sent his last message and promised to preserve it forever, and he will not speak any more until the day of resurrection. [...]
I was searching online and I
I was searching online and I found your site on google. Just finished reading a few of some of your other posts here. I've already added your site to my Google News Reader. Thanks for your good and educative posts and please keep up the good work as I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.