Contradictions in the Quran: Difference between revisions

m
[checked revision][checked revision]
Line 1,301: Line 1,301:
{{Quote|{{Quran|4|176}}|They request from you a [legal] ruling. '''Say, "Allah gives you a ruling concerning one having neither descendants nor ascendants [as heirs]."''' If a man dies, leaving no child but [only] a sister, she will have half of what he left. And he inherits from her if she [dies and] has no child. But if there are two sisters [or more], they will have two-thirds of what he left. If there are both brothers and sisters, the male will have the share of two females. Allah makes clear to you [His law], lest you go astray. And Allah is Knowing of all things.}}
{{Quote|{{Quran|4|176}}|They request from you a [legal] ruling. '''Say, "Allah gives you a ruling concerning one having neither descendants nor ascendants [as heirs]."''' If a man dies, leaving no child but [only] a sister, she will have half of what he left. And he inherits from her if she [dies and] has no child. But if there are two sisters [or more], they will have two-thirds of what he left. If there are both brothers and sisters, the male will have the share of two females. Allah makes clear to you [His law], lest you go astray. And Allah is Knowing of all things.}}


As well as the above mentioned issue (and the many scenarios for which the Quran provides no answer at all), there are various contradictions concerning the shares of brothers and sisters. Inheritance shares are stipulated for siblings only when the deceased has no surviving parents or children, but contradictory instructions occur in the two verses where this situation is addressed, {{Quran-range|4|11|12}} and {{Quran|4|176}} (incidentally, the latter verse is oddly appended to the very end of surah al-Nisa). Both these verses set rules for the estate of someone who has "neither ascendants nor descendants" (kalālatan, l-kalālati). In a book dedicated to the exegetical history of this word, Pavel Pavlovitch has established that its original meaning was lost by the last quarter of the first century, with early figures admitting their inability to understand the word, and further evidenced by various narrations and interpretations generated during and after that period. Generally, jurists inferred it to mean a person who dies without a child, nor, it was ultimately decided, surviving parents. A later proposal in the mid 2nd century was that the word instead meant the non-parent or child relatives of the deceased, and that it is the direct object of the preceding verb in verse 12.<ref>See Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion in Pavel Pavlovitch, 2016, "The Formation of the Islamic Understanding of Kalāla in the Second Century AH (718–816 CE)", Leiden: Brill</ref> Either way, the inheritance shares for siblings of a childless deceased person in verse 176 are incompatible with the shares that siblings can receive in verse 12.
As well as the above mentioned issue (and the many scenarios for which the Quran provides no answer at all), there are various contradictions concerning the shares of brothers and sisters. Inheritance shares are stipulated for siblings only when the deceased has no surviving parents or children, but contradictory instructions occur in the two verses where this situation is addressed, {{Quran-range|4|11|12}} and {{Quran|4|176}} (incidentally, the latter verse is oddly appended to the very end of surah al-Nisa). Both these verses set rules for the estate of someone who has "neither ascendants nor descendants" (kalālatan, l-kalālati). In a book dedicated to the exegetical history of this word, Pavel Pavlovitch has established that its original meaning was lost by the last quarter of the first century, with early figures admitting their inability to understand the word, as further evidenced by various narrations and interpretations generated during and after that period. Generally, jurists inferred it to mean a person who dies without a child, nor, it was ultimately decided, surviving parents. A later proposal in the mid 2nd century was that the word instead meant the non-parent or child relatives of the deceased, and that it is the direct object of the preceding verb in verse 12.<ref>See Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion in Pavel Pavlovitch, 2016, "The Formation of the Islamic Understanding of Kalāla in the Second Century AH (718–816 CE)", Leiden: Brill</ref> Either way, the inheritance shares for siblings of a childless deceased person in verse 176 are incompatible with the shares that siblings can receive in verse 12.


- According to verse 12, a brother or sister would each receive a sixth share, but verse 176 says that a brother will have double the share of a sister.<br />
- According to verse 12, a brother or sister would each receive a sixth share, but verse 176 says that a brother will have double the share of a sister.<br />
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits