Who Taught Allah Math?

Who Taught Allah Math?

Throughout my writings I have demonstrated that Muhammad was a liar. In this article I will show that at least in one case he was told the truth. Tthat is when he claimed to be illiterate.

The Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders,  logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies.  The most obvious are the mathematical mistakes. They are so elemental that could be expected of a very illetrate person. This article will show that the prphet of Islam was indeed an illeterate man.

The Islamic law of inheritance is explained out in several verses. One can find references to them in Al-Baqarah(2), Al-Maidah(5) and Al-Anfal(8). But the details of these laws are spelled out in the Surah Nisa (4).


“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of legacies and debts…” Q. 4:11

“In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts…” Q. 4: 12

 

“If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.”  Q. 4:176

Despite the claim that “Allah made them clear”, these laws are far from clear.

Verse 4:11 says that if a man has only one daughter, she gets half of the inheritance, irrespective of other heirs. But since the same verse says that the share of the son is twice that of the daughter, her brother is supposed to get all the inheritance. Isn’t this a discrepancy? Certainly there is an error in this law.

The problem is aggravated when the share of other heirs – parents and wives are taken into consideration.

There are cases when the total of the shares assigned to the inheritors exceeds the patrimony. Take for example the following.

According to the above verses, if a man dies leaving behind a wife, three daughters and his two parents, his wife’s share of his inheritance is 1/8. (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth)

His daughters will receive 2/3 (if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance;)

And his parents will get 1/6 of his inheritance each. (For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;)

The sum of these shares is more than the total of inheritance.

Wife with children  1/8 = 3/24
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24
Father 1/6 = 4/24
Mother1/6 = 4/24
Total = 27/24

There are not enough shares for everyone to receive their prescribed shares. The shortage is 1/8.

If the wife has no children and the daughters belong to an ex-wife of the diseased, this is what happens:

Wife with no children  1/4 = 6/24
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24
Father 1/6 = 4/24
Mother1/6 = 4/24
Total = 30/24

In this case the shortage is ¼.

The injustice of this law is obvious. Let us say a woman has been married to a man for 25 years and has bore him his children.  She gets 1/8 of the inheritance, but if the same man has married a new wife just a few days before his death, the new wife will receive twice as much. I believe even Muslims who are generally blind must realize this law is absurd. Humans are born with the sense of fairness. No matter how that sense is impaired through false doctrines and brainwashing, I am sure some residue of that must have been left and at least some Muslims will realize, not just the errors in calculation but the unfairness of these laws and will realize Islam cannot be from God.

Take another example. Say a man is survived by his childless wife, his mother and his sisters.

The wife receives 1/4 of the inheritance, (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child.)

The mother 1/3  ( if only one daughter, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs, the mother has a third.)

And the sisters are to get 2/3. (If there are two sisters, they shall have two-third of the inheritance (between them)

Again the total of the shares exceeds one, this time by 3/12 or 25%. This is negligible.

Wife1/4 = 3/12
Mother 1/3 = 4/12
Sisters 2/3 = 8/12
Total = 15/12

In the above examples, the shares apportioned to the heirs exceed the total of the patrimony. In both cases the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife’s share.

What should be done if a man has two wives, one with children and the other without children?

What should be done if a man has four wives? Do all his wives get ¼ of the inheritance?  They can’t because there will be nothing left his sisters and parents.  Does it mean that all wives share the ¼ each getting 1/16?

This law is not only mathematically wrong it is also confusing and unjust.

Let u say a man dies leaving behind, his parents, two sisters and four wives. Let is ignore the mathematical error for now. The two sisters will receive 1/3 each, but the wives will get 1/16 of the inheritance each. Does that sound a fare division?

What if the deceased is a woman?

Husband receives half (In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child.)

Brother receives everything (If such a deceased was a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance.)

If the brother gets everything, how the husband can get half?

Husband, (1/2) = 1/2
Brother  (everything) = 2/2
Total = 3/2

Again this division is mathematically wrong and it’s also unjust.

What about her parents and sisters? Don’t they inherit anything?

This verse does not specify that the brother gets everything only when there are no other heirs. It just says when there are no children he gets everything. In the same verse it says that if a man dies leaving behind a sister, she gets half. What will happen to the other half?

Here is another absurd case: A woman leaves behind a husband, a sister and a mother.

Husband, (1/2) = 3/6
Sister (1/2) = 3/6
Mother (1/3) = 2/6
Total = 8/6

The funds are 1/3 short!

It’s clear that in matters of inheritance the Quran is very obtuse. These errors are elemental. It’s hard to believe God does not know how to add simple fractions. These errors are made by a very illiterate man.

The law of inheritance is so obtuse that the Shiites and the Sunnis practice it differently. For example:

If a man leaves a wife and the two parents, the Shiits will give the wife 1/4 of the entire inheritance first and then distribute the remainder among other heirs. The Shiites have devised a hierarchy in inheritance. The hires in the higher hierarchy receive their shares first and whatever is left is divided among the hired in the lower hierarchy. According to this provision, the shares received by the hires are not the same as dictated in the Quran.  (see #2741).

The Sunnis give the wife 1/4, the mother 1/3 and the father, is counted as the nearest male relative and gets the rest, i.e. 5/12.

In order to solve these problems the Islamic jurists have devised a complex science called “Al-Fara’id”. It contains rules of “Awl” and “Usbah,” and the laws of “Usool” of the Fara’id, the laws of “Hajb wa Hirman,” and many other laws relating to this matter.

The law of “Awl” (accommodation) deals with cases when the inheritor’s shares exceed or “overshoot” the sum of the total inheritance. In such cases the shares are adjusted to accommodate everyone. This is how it works:

Wife1/8 = 3/24 is changed to 3/27
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24 is changed to 16/27
Father 1/6 = 4/24 is changed to 4/27
Mother1/6 = 4/24 is changed to 4/27
Total = 27/24 27/27

For the second case,

Wife1/4 = 3/12 is changed to 3/15
Mother 1/3 = 4/12 is changed to 4/15
Sisters 2/3 = 8/12 is changed to 8/15
Total = 15/12 15/15

The problem is solved thanks to human ingenuity, but not without violating the Quran.  Each party has to waive part of his or her share. This is a clear case in which the words of Allah needed human intervention in order to become applicable.  Muslim jurists were forced to twist the law of the Quran in order to make it work.

There are also cases where the shares of the inheritors don’t sum to a whole 100%, which leaves a surplus.

Take for example a man who dies and leaves his wife and his parents.

Parents 1/3 = 4/12
Wife 1/4 = 3/12
Total = 7/12

Who will receive the balance 5/12 of the inheritance?

The following are other cases that leave a surplus of Inheritance::

scenario fund distributed surplus
Only a wife: = 1/4 ¾
Only a mother: = 1/3 2/3
Only a daughter = 1/2 ½
Two daughters = 2/3 1/3
Only a Sister = 1/2 1/2
A mother and a sister = 1/3 + 1/2 = 5/6 1/6
A wife and a mother = 1/4 + 1/3 = 5/12 7/12
A sister and a wife = 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 1/4

In all these cases and many other combinations there is a surplus. What will happen to this surplus? Who will inherit it?

To deal with this problem the law of “Usbah” has been devised. This law regulates the unclaimed shares, which have no corresponding people to receive them. Of course if the Quran was clear with no errors, there would be no need for all these “sciences” and amendments.

The law of Usbah is based on the following Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari 8. 80. 724
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “Give the Fara’id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.”

According to this law, a man who dies and is survived by only his daughter with no other close male relative except a second cousin, his daughter will receive half of his inheritance and the other half will go to the man’s second cousin. This seems quite unfair to the daughter, but it would be especially unfair if the man had a needy aunt or a female first cousin who would receive nothing because they are of the wrong gender.

Now, suppose a man has no other heir except his wife and a distant male relative. The wife will receive 1/4 and the distant male relative gets the rest. He gets three times the inheritance than the wife.  The wife who has sacrificed her need to save that money now will get ¼ of what should be all hers.  Is this justice?

What if the deceased has no male relative? What will happen to the rest of his inheritance? What will happen if the deceased is the wife with no relatives? The husband will receive half of her inheritance; who will get the other half?

Note that in the Quran there is no priority for the distribution of the inheritance. What the Shiites do  is bid’a – an innovation, which makes them heretics.   In nowhere the Quran says “first give to these and from what is left, give to those”. Even if we had to reinterpret these laws and prioritize them in the order that they are mentioned, it still does not work because in that case, each subsequent inheritor will have his or her share shrunk. Also in most cases the total inheritance will never be used up.

These errors are clear and cannot be denied. However believers are blind. In an attempt to refute this article Sami Zaatari says: “If A [ the deceased]  left a widow or widower, the widow’s or widower’s share would first be calculated as in the first half of verse 4:1″

Mr. Zaatari must show us this instruction in the Quran. There is no provision in the Quran to pay certain inheritors first and divide the rest among other heirs.  This is the heresy that Shiites are committing and Zaatari is not even a Shiite. The fact remains that the Quran, in matters of the division of the inheritance is wrong, mathematically.

The obtuseness of the law of inheritance is further emphasized in the following example. Consider the case of a man with only one daughter and 10 sons. According to the Quran, the daughter receives half while all the sons must share among themselves the other half. So each will receive 1/20 of the inheritance. But this contradicts the other ruling that says a male is to receive twice the share of the female. Something must give in because the two laws don’t mix.

Of course, for 1400 years Muslims have practiced Islam and somehow they managed to make these confusing laws work. How they did it? They reinterpreted, compromised and adjusted the laws to make them work. The Sunnis put all the inheritance in a pool and give to each male child twice the share of their female siblings. This solution, though satisfies one of the rulings, it contradicts the other.

Despite all these incongruencies and errors the real problem with these laws is not the fact that they do not add up. The problem is in the inherent injustice that they embody. A fair minded person cannot fail to question, why daughters should receive half of what the sons receive. Why sisters should receive less than brothers? And why a widower is entitled to double the share of a widow? Why  “to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”? (4:11). Think of a man with four wives. All the wives have to share the ¼ of his wealth, if they have no children and 1/8 if they have. In the first case each wife will receive 1/16 of the inheritance and in the second case 1/32. On the other hand a man who loses all his four wives will inherit half of every wife’s wealth. Isn’t this the formula to enrich the men and impoverish the women? It is easier to forget the mathematical errors of the Quran than forgive its injustice.

The verse (4:175) claims that Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.” As we saw, the above laws are anything but clear. They don’t add up, the portions are not clearly defined and the shares are distributed unfairly. It is up to Muslims to decide whether Allah cannot add simple fractions, is confused and unfair or that the Quran is dictated by an ignoramus. It is one or the other. You decide.

Spread The Word! Share it:

This article has 29 comments

  1. Nah, ur accounts.

  2. Mr ali learn 3lm ahl waris and math from real experts please… :'/

  3. Lol how much u got paid by sina for every account? look how sinas followers obviously lie.

  4. Nothing is as poisonous as Islamic ideologies.

  5. Let us look at "These are settled portions ordained by Allah; (4:11)" The verse deals with the portions allotted to (a) children, and (b) parents. The next verse deals with the portions allotted to (c) husband or wife of the deceased, and (d) collaterals. The children's shares are fixed, but their amount will depend upon what goes to the parents. If both parents are living, and there are also children, both father and mother take a sixth each; if only one parent is living, he or she takes his or her sixth; and the rest goes to the children. If the parents are living, and there is no child or other heir, the mother gets a third (and the father the remaining two-thirds); if there are no children, but there are brothers or sisters (this is interpreted strictly in the plural), the mother has a sixth, and the father apparently the residue, as the father excludes collaterals. This is far from being an exhaustive statement, but it establishes the proposition that children and parents have always some share if they survive, but their shares are affected by the existence and number of heirs in these categories.

    In "their share is a fourth, (4:12)" The husband takes a half of his deceased wife's property if she leaves no child, the rest going to residuaries; if she leaves a child, the husband gets only a fourth. Following the rule that the female share is generally half the male share, the widow gets a fourth of her deceased husband's property, if he leaves no children, and an eighth if he leaves children. If there are more widows than one, their collective share is a fourth or an eighth as the case may be.

    In "has left neither ascendants nor descendants, (4:12)" The word in Arabic is KALALAH, which is so construed usually. But it was nowhere defined authoritatively in the lifetime of the Messenger. This was one of the three terms about which Umar (The Prophet's second deciple) wished that the Messenger had defined them in his lifetime, the other two being KHILAFAH, and RIBA (usury). On the accepted definition, we are concerned with the inheritance of a person who has left no descendant or ascendant (however distant), but only collaterals, with or without a widow or widower. If there is a widow or widower surviving, she or he takes the share as already defined, before the collaterals come in.
    In "but has left a brother or a sister, (4:12)" A "brother or sister" is here interpreted to mean a uterine brother or sister, i.e., a brother or sister by the same mother but not by the same father, as the case of full brothers and sisters or brothers and sisters by the same father but different mothers is understood to be dealt with later, in the last verse of this Ayah (verse). The uterine brother or sister, if only one survives, takes a sixth, if more than one survives, they take a third collectively, and divide among themselves; this on the supposition that there are no descendants or ascendants, however remote. There may, however, be a widow or widower surviving: she or he takes her or his share, as already specified.

    The shares of collaterals generally are calculated on a complicated system which cannot be described in a brief note. For these, and the rules about residuaries (ASABA) references should be made to special legal treatises.

    In "after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to anyone). (4:12)" Debts (in which funeral expenses take first rank) and legacies are the first charge on the estate of a deceased person, before distribution takes place. But equity and fair dealing should be observed in all matters, so that no one's interests are prejudiced. Thus funeral expenses should be reasonable; debts must be genuine; and the shares must be calculated with fairness.

    Case closed!

  6. @Ali sina:
    Let us look at Ayah (verse) 4:176 "They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, her brother takes her inheritance: if there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest Ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things."
    In "If it is a man that dies, (4:176)" This verse supplements the rule of inheritance of the estate of a deceased person who has left as heir neither a descendant nor an ascendant. We will call such a person A, who may be either a male or a female. In 4:12 (second half), A's case was considered where he had left uterine brothers or sisters. here A's case is considered where he has left brothers and/or sisters by the father's side, whether the mother was the same or not. "Brothers" and "sisters" in this verse must be construed to be such brothers and sisters.

    A, and "brother" and "sister" being strictly defined as above, we proceed to consider how A's inheritance would be divided. If A left a widow or widower, the widow's or widower's share would first be calculated as in the first half of verse 4:12; if A left no spouse, this calculation would not be necessary. Then if A left a single "sister," she would have a half share, the remaining half (insofar as it, or a part of it, does not fall to a spouse, if any) going to remoter heirs; if a single "brother," he would have the whole (subject to the spouse's right if there is a spouse); if more than one "brother," they divide the whole (subject to, etc.).

    If A left two or more "sisters," they get between them two-thirds, subject to the spouse's right, if any. If A left a "brother" and "sister", or "brother" and "sister," they divide on the basis that each "brother's" share is twice that of the "sister" (subject to, etc.). In all cases debts, funeral expenses, and legacies (to the amount allowed) have priority.

  7. @Ali sina:

    There is no contradiction in the Noble Verses,4:11-12

    In "as regards your children's (4:11)" Muslim jurists have collected a vast amount of learning on this subject, Here we will deal only with the broad principles to be gathered from the Text.

    (1) The power of testamentary disposition extends over only one-third of the property; the remaining two-thirds are distributed among heirs as laid down.
    (2) All distribution takes place after the legacies and debts (including funeral expenses) have first been paid.
    (3) Legacies cannot be left to any of the heirs included in the scheme of distribution; or it will amount to upsetting the shares and undue preference of one heir to another.
    (4) Generally, but not always, the male takes a share of double that of a female in his own category.
    In "if only daughters, two or more, (4:11)"At first sight, the Arabic words seem to mean: "If more than two daughters." But the alternative in the next clause is: "if only one daughter." Logically, therefore, the first clause must mean: "if daughters, two or more."

    This is the general interpretation, and is confirmed by the supplementary provision in 4:176 at the end of the Ayah (verse).

  8. Do you know what is the meaning of Pedophile? http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet_

  9. Sina's confusion – either deliberate or unintentional.

    "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half"

    This is division ONLY about the portions allocated to the children….

    Hence:

    "Verse 4:11 says that if a man has only one daughter, she gets half of the inheritance, irrespective of other heirs. But since the same verse says that the share of the son is twice that of the daughter, her brother is supposed to get all the inheritance. Isn’t this a discrepancy? Certainly there is an error in this law."

    The above is inaccurate.

    - – -

    This law has been applied – to various degrees for centuries – When Sina chooses he dips into Fiqh (Muslim Religious Law) and Tafsir (Quranic Commentaries) – when the going is against him… he doesn't bother.

  10. "What if the deceased is a woman?

    Husband receives half (In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child.)

    Brother receives everything (If such a deceased was a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance.)

    If the brother gets everything, how the husband can get half?
    Husband, (1/2) = 1/2
    Brother (everything) = 2/2
    Total = 3/2

    Again this division is mathematically wrong and it’s also unjust.

    What about her parents and sisters? Don’t they inherit anything?"

    - – -

    Wow – even in one case Sina has fabricated several things…

    Where does it say that brother gets all?

    Also he quoted this … then deliberately left it out:

    "For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of legacies and debts…"

    - – -

    "Throughout my writings I have demonstrated that Muhammad was a liar"

    Aha…. and what do you call the above?

  11. "Muhammad’ daughter Fatima was thinking inheritance while Muhammad’ child bride Aisha and her Father Abu Bakr were thinking Sadaqa. Fatima the daughter of Muhammad inherited nothing. "

    Inheritance of the Prophet was a unique case. To take on example and generalise is logically fallacious.

    - – -

    "The Western laws of inheritance through wills, endowment, charity giving, all irrespective of gender is superior to the laws of Sharia (Quran – Inheritance). Sharia (Quran – Inheritance laws) leads to confusion is not clear and open to interpretation. "

    How? All you did was make an assertion… without any proof given. So there isn't much value that can be attached to your sentences… is there?

  12. What you are omitting is that Muslims are violent in accordance with the teaching of Islam. Others are violent in violation of the teachings of their religions. Shinto is another example of a violent religion that impelled imperial Japan.

  13. At least one among Islam and Christianity has to be wrong. Islam says that Jesus was just a human Prophet (and a slave of Allah) and NOT Son of God, and that Muhammad was the best and last of God’s prophets. Christianity says that Jesus was not just a human Prophet but SON OF GOD, and that Muhammad was a nobody, i.e. a hoax. Now at least one of these two beliefs has to be wrong, and both of them can also be wrong. As well-known scholar Koenraad Elst, a born Christian (who was so intensely religious as a child that he even considered becoming a missionary!) says, actually, they are.

    Now, so many people have been killed by followers of Islam and Christianity genuinely believing that are doing the work of God. The Quran is full of verses giving terrible warnings of Hell to unbelievers, and urging believers to fight the unbelievers and convert or kill them (like 9:5, 2:193, 8:39, 8:12, 8:65, 9:17, 9:28, 9:29, 9:39, 9:110, 9:123, 5:33, etc etc ). Now misguided followers have killed millions in the name of spreading faith in God. Christians and Muslims too have clashed among themselves and killed millions of people. A true God would have stopped at least one of them from killing innocents in his name. For example, if Christianity is true and Islam false, then Islam killing millions of people in the world, including at least 280 million in India, in the name of God would not have been allowed by God. God would have made his misguided followers realize that he does not want killings in his name. In the same way, if Islam was right and Christianity was wrong (in asserting that Jesus was SON OF GOD) a true God would not have allowed misguided Christians to kill millions of people in his name (like the Christians did in South America, killing some 100 million people). He would have made them know that Jesus was NOT his son but just a human Prophet and that they needn’t kill 100 million innocent people in his name. But since God did not do anything like this, it is clear that God, if he exists, does not interfere in human affairs.

    As said earlier, the Creator focusing his attention on tiny humans on earth is like we humans focusing our attention on tiny invisible viruses living on a drop of water somewhere down the Pacific Ocean. It is these tiny viruses who kill each other in the name of God to satisfy their own wants, God doesn’t force people to believe in one of those tiny viruses and his claims of being God’s messenger.
    http://www.islaminindia.org/uncategorized/will-go

  14. a pedophile faked a religion, had sex with a child and ruined a billion lives.

    the apologists' should ask two questions
    1) would the real god choose pedophile to be his messenger
    2)what if mohomad was a fake? (just like jim jones, david koresh, sai baba, jesus, moses). Why waste your lives following teh rantings of a pedophile?

  15. Before teaching us go learn ur self,u made silly mistake's,lol

  16. First of all, your math is incorrect in many places (you misread the sentence about having "only one daughter" to mean one daughter and __ sons when really it means having just the one female child). I won't discuss this, though, because others have already addressed it.

    However, let me explain the rationale behind giving women less then men (and wives equal shares even if they have been married different lengths of time). First of all, men are said by the Qur'an to be the protectors of women; this means that they take care of them, using their wealth to support women. All money made by men must be used to support the family if the need exists; after that point, money can be used for personal desires, spent on charity, etc.

    Any money that women make or earn or inherit is only her's. Any money that a woman spends on her family is considered charity in Islam. Therefore when inheriting money, men get priority over women because money to men subsequently goes to that man's family as well.

    As for the idea of all wives getting equal shares, I again refer to the idea of men being protectors of women. Polygamy was only encouraged among men who could financially support two women, and was primarily used to support widows and divorcees who could find no husband (especially during war-time). I'm not saying that some didn't marry for love or lust, but the Qur'an tells such men to only do so if they can treat both women equally- a task that is said to be impossible by the Qur'an, but the ultimate goal nonetheless. So, in terms of the law (and inheritance), wives are treated equally no matter how long they have been married.

    Let me provide a detail to your example above that might make you sympathize with the second wife more. A man is married for thirty years to one women, then marries a widow two years before he dies. The widow would not have needed to get married unless she could not provide for herself otherwise, and therefore needed the support of the man who is now dead. Let's say she had three young children to support. Having been married twice now, it will be that much harder to find another husband who is willing to take a second (or third, etc.) wife. The man married her intending to support her, but his life did not allow it. He supported his first wife for thirty years; nonetheless, they both need to be supported after his death, and they both are- equally.

  17. Of course it's a waste. Muslims cannot stand in the face of facts and run like cowards.

  18. What makes you a muslim?
    The shahada….
    whish testifies that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his messenger….

    As muslims, you must follow the sunnah and the Quran; for reason like so. Wouldn't it be unkind for god to send us down here with no guide? In Islam, the prophets are our guides on how to live pious lives in correlation with worship of god. for this reason clearly.
    the prophets were sent here to help us all.
    if you dont believe in the sunnah, you wipe out half the religion.

  19. There is more about the inheritance mistakes in the Quran:
    http://www.sillyallah.com/2008/01/inheritance-mis

  20. The Western laws of inheritance through wills, endowment, charity giving, all irrespective of gender is superior to the laws of Sharia (Quran – Inheritance). Sharia (Quran – Inheritance laws) leads to confusion is not clear and open to interpretation.

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546: Narrated 'Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr, asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Apostle said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah's Apostle used to do."

    So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali ibn Talib, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him…

    Muhammad’ daughter Fatima was thinking inheritance while Muhammad’ child bride Aisha and her Father Abu Bakr were thinking Sadaqa. Fatima the daughter of Muhammad inherited nothing.

  21. Good for you!

  22. I thought it was made clear? (Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err)

  23. Even if Ali Sina did it wrong in this article, but still the correctness of inheritance would not justify the assault against non-muslims, which is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran as your HOLY duty, would it?

    Therefore, even the case of lying by Ali Sina in this particular article (which I cannot tell because I didn't read this article) doesn't invalidate his message that Islam is evil. Ali Sina's one of the main points as I understand is that Islam needs to go – not because it is a lie, but because it is EVIL. The point that Islam is EVIL, is firmly established by Ali Sina. Try to strike on those points rather than these inheritance articles.

  24. So you're saying that the verse 4:11 first needs background information to understand it? That would mean it's not clear as the Quran does not specify such information. Does that not contradict the Quran when it claims it's plain and clear when you're saying that 4:11 requires information that's not in the Quran?

    You also need to remember the unfairness of shares between male and females of equal relation. Remember there's a difference between a person giving different amount of shares to his family based on preference or so and Allah giving different shares to the deceased member's family. Why is Allah so readily giving males double the shares of a female? Is this what you call equality? Why is Allah willing to give more to males?

  25. Is there never a moment in your life for doing honesty?

  26. Thank You Sina, I left Islam few years ago. And my wife and brother also left Islam. Now we live a peaceful life. Thank you. We are now a non Muslim Family :)

  27. Dear Mr. Ali Sina;
    I hope you are honest and brave publish my comments within your website. Hopefully you do not do the editing of my explanation.
    On this occasion I will convey the true intent of the verses al quran that you doubt the above, so you no longer give the wrong information to readers and your students. I hope in your soul still remains a point that contains the goodness and justice to me.
    If you do not understand the verses of al qur'an, then do not cheat and then spread vicious slander to the whole world. The method that you are doing is not going to give kindness to yourself and to your students. The method that you do will only make yourself and your followers to be more evil and dangerous to the peace in the world today. This way you will only evoke a sense of emotion to people who are sensitive to your greeting.
    All of the current leaders of world make the efforts to prevent terrorists, but you planted the seeds of hate, so it can grow new terrorists on this earth. I hope you re-think and act more rational and fair for the sake of world peace in the future.
    Dear Mr. Ali Sina! You are wrong to use the verses above to get the property unjustly according to your personal desires. Distribution method you are doing is not in accordance with paragraph above explanation, you even mix-drag it slightly, but each paragraph has its own limitations in accordance with the conditions under which the clause was accepted by the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
    Verse 4:11 in to convey to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when a friend asked Him about the division of property from a man who was worried that he would die. The man had several children, still have two parents who have not divorced or not married anymore, but do not have a wife (probably already dead or divorced,). How does method of division of property heirs?
    Dear Mr. Ali Sina, if you understand well, it was obvious that he has no wife or he has divorced his wife. But instead you enter his wife into the distribution method that you do. This shows that you have done a mistake and will do fraud by spreading slander and lies to your students. Actually I do not understand your goals. If you understand the verse 4:11 it then why did you lie and spread slander?, but if you do not understand then why you do not want to learn the truth. . I humbly hope you are willing to do fair and honest to all mankind.

    Distribution of the total for this verse is 4:11;
    1 / 6 +1 / 6 + (2 / 6 +2 / 6) x2 / 3 + (1 / 6 + 1 / 6) x2 / 3 =
    1 / 3 + 12/18 = 1 / 3 + 2 / 3 = 100%

    Next you make a mistake again by taking the verse 4:12 to distribute the inheritance to your entire family without selection one by one, ie anyone who is still alive, who is already dead, who is already divorced. But instead you are doing an injustice by including the names of the dead and a woman who had divorced.
    Actually you do not understand that when a woman is divorced and married again so ex-wife does not have the right to inheritance from her ex-husband (this provision applies generally either own wife or wife of your father). In verse 4:12 you still enter the names of parents who considered already dead or mothers who already have a husband anymore, because she had the responsibility of another husband. In verse 4:12 is part Wives maximum 1 / 4 if the dead do not have children, or maximum 1 / 8 if the dead have a child. Likewise for the brothers and sisters (if the wife and his parents are not there and not have kids) will get a maximum of 1 / 6 ( if only one) and 1 / 3 if more than one.
    Indeed the verse 4:12 it still leaves a lot of wealth to the poor and orphans who need them. But instead you distribute the treasure to the dead and those who are not entitled, so that inheritance is as if not enough anymore or minus. Proved that you have done cheating again very painful for Muslims. Know, O my brother Ali Sina, that treasure you have also the right of poor people and orphans or others who need it most.
    So also with verse 4:176, you have committed a error again. These Verse was dropped when a friend of the prophet asked about the division of inheritance from a man who died, had no wife, had no children and not have both parents, but still have brothers and sisters of men or women.
    If there's a woman alone so she gets half, but if a man just only so he can master and control the whole inheritance (the right to manage all property). Conversely, if the woman is more than one, then 2 / 3 to be together, whereas if there is such a man then the men's 2 times more than women (of which 2 / 3 the treasure.)
    Actually the verse 4:176 is still leaving some inheritance to the poor and orphans or others who desperately need.

    But instead you, O ! my brother Ali Sina, You have to cheat again by including the entire family who have died and are not eligible. This proves that you do not understand the verses of the Al Quran.
    Why do you do these things, O Ali Sina?
    Is there never just a moment in your life for doing honesty? whether in the remaining days of your life, you can take the time to do good, justice and hospitality?. Are your soul has been closed at all to accept the truth?

  28. Hi,
    I think you should also look at this book: http://www.quraanicstudies.com/no-error-in-qur-an

    Salaam

Leave a Reply