Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> One On One Debates
Mutley

I challenge Ahmed Bahgat the wonderful Islamic scholar

This is a respectable, high brow, honorable challenge to the respected Islamic scholar, Ahmed Bahgat who also happens to be in the process of rewriting the Quran, and developing an English translation of it that meets his needs

We shall debate about the inheritance rules. We will stick strictly to the Quran, as said respected scholar, mentioned above, always demands.

The challenge is to add up the scenario of the following, and nothing more than the following, of two daughters, two parents and one wife. That's it. Other than the general public, there are no other inheritors. To do this, one must use Quran 4:11, 4:12, and 4:176, as I believe this is a fair offer and the only Quran verses that deal with this issue. Ahmed Bahgat is allowed to refute everything I say for as many times as he wants and as long as he wants (and of course, I'm allowed to answer back)

Fair challenge? How could it not be any more fair?
AhmedBahgat

Ok punk, I reversed your dismissal status for a while

put an example here and explain your position without any bloody copy/paste work by others and without being rude, if you are rude to the God or the prophet in the discussion you be back to the dismissal room with no possible parol
AhmedBahgat

Also punk

the title of the thread MUST be changed for me to continue

you should know what to change it for and I will give one chance only to do so, if you mock around you should know what the outcome will be

you can keep the graphic above, howver
Mutley

OK, that's fine, we'll do this on your terms in your house. I'll change it right now, and get rid of the bag head graphic even though I love it. Thanks for the unnecessary stall tactics, but that's OK, I'm patient. It's not going to change anything in the long run. I have altered the words of my intiial challenge in my first post above. There you will find the respect you demand, and the details you need.
AhmedBahgat

Mutley wrote:
This is a respectable, high brow, honorable challenge to the respected Islamic scholar, Ahmed Bahgat who also happens to be in the process of rewriting the Quran, and developing an English translation of it that meets his needs


Mute

What a  load of crap you just spewed above, Iím NOT re-writing the Quran you fool, Iím only translating it, look what you said Mute: Ahmed Bahgat who also happens to be in the process of rewriting the Quran, and developing an English translation of it that meets his needs

That sounds like two tasks to me, while Iím doing only one, so stop being shifty and manipulative or I will dismiss ya in the rubbish bin as you know very well.

Also, I donít translate the Quran to suit my needs you  freak, Iím only doing it because there is NON that is accurate and I want to help those non Arabic speakers, so STFU and only concentrate on the 1 on 1 debate and stop acting like a filthy whore.

Mutley wrote:
We shall debate about the inheritance rules. We will stick strictly to the Quran, as said respected scholar, mentioned above, always demands.


Scholarship has nothing to do with it, we are only looking at the Quran words, however I agree that the task is taunting to you, you didnít study Arabic nor you speak it, right?

Mutley wrote:
The challenge is to add up the scenario of the following, and nothing more than the following, of two daughters, two parents and one wife.


Ok

Mutley wrote:
That's it. Other than the general public, there are no other inheritors. To do this, one must use Quran 4:11, 4:12, and 4:176,


Wrong,

4:176 is only talking about the Kalalah, i.e. those who died and left no parents nor any children, only brothers and sisters left, but the example given by you clearly includes children (two daughters) and the parents, here is what you said you fool: the following, of two daughters, two parents and one wife.

That should say it all, that you donít know what the hell you are talking about.

Mutley wrote:
as I believe this is a fair offer and the only Quran verses that deal with this issue.


Ignorant, 4:176 has nothing to do with your example, here is why again:

4:176 is only talking about the Kalalah, i.e. those who died and left no parents nor any children, only brothers and sisters left, but the example given by you clearly includes children (two daughters) and parents.

Mutley wrote:
Ahmed Bahgat is allowed to refute everything I say for as many times as he wants and as long as he wants (and of course, I'm allowed to answer back)


What a loser

I do have a life mister Mute

Here is how the game will be played by us:

1) You raise the argument
2) I refute once
3) You reply once
4) I reply once

And by that, he Game should be Over, and left to the judges from the public

Mutley wrote:
Fair challenge?


Here is what is not fair, if you attack me or mock me as you did in your intro, by saying manipulated lies about me like your crap that Iím re-writing the Quran and translating it to suit my needs, I will mock you harder and will have absolute right to terminate the discussion at any point onwards, however because you didnít know that, Iím not going to do it in this thread, but you should know that if you continue doing so in this thread, I will reply with an iron hand then dismiss ya.

Mutley wrote:
How could it not be any more fair?


To only concentrate on the argument in hand, personal defamation wonít be tolerated, however if you catch me saying something dumb that is based on ignorance in relation to the argument in hand then it is ok to call me dumb, stupid, etc etc, as I did with you above (4:176), that was so dumb by you, do you know what Kalalah means?

Let me now reply to your puzzle:

We have a man who died and left the following:

1) Two daughters
2) Two Parents
3) One wife

Let me bring the three verses you mentioned, I know that 4:176 does not apply as I stated,  however I have to bring it because Iím going to use it regarding  my VOCABULARY and GRAMMAR refute that Iím sure you never heard of it before, this is because most Muslims got 4:11 wrong, let me explain further, (the translation provided is Free-Islam proposed translation which is in the making:

11: Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have a portion of the two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have one-third of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the one-sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and  his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the one-third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the one-sixth after  a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is all-Knowing, all-Wise.

12: And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a one-fourth of what they leave after any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the one-fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the one-eighth of what you leave after a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the one-sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the one-third after  any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm; this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.

[The Quran ; 4:11-12]

يُوصِيكُمُ اللّهُ فِي أَوْلاَدِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنثَيَيْنِ فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَاء فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ وَإِن كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ وَلأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِن كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ فَلأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ آبَآؤُكُمْ وَأَبناؤُكُمْ لاَ تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعاً فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيما حَكِيمًا (11)

وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمُ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْنَ مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِينَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَإِن كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُم مِّن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ تُوصُونَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ وَإِن كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلاَلَةً أَو امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ فَإِن كَانُوَاْ أَكْثَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاء فِي الثُّلُثِ مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصَى بِهَآ أَوْ دَيْنٍ غَيْرَ مُضَآرٍّ وَصِيَّةً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَاللّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَلِيمٌ (12)

-> Many Muslims if not all understood 4:11 wrong, this is because they took the Arabic word Thultha ثُلُثَا to mean 2 x one-third, i.e. dual form of Thulth ثُلُثَ , they thought that the Alif (highlighted in red and underlined) that is added at the end of the singular word Thulth caused it to be dual, the problem here that if they want it DUAL then it should be: Thulthan  ثُّلُثَانِ  ,  

This is going to be very deep explanation and is not for the faint hearted who lack solid Arabic grammar, but let me at least try to clear your and their ignorance:

Firstly, let me explain this:

Any Arabic noun must end with any of the following vowels DEPENDING ON something called Irab, I donít know how to translate Irab however I can explain it, it is to identify the grammatical position of each word within the sentence to find out which vowel should be used at the end of the word.

The most common and widely used vowels in Arabic are as follow:

1) Dummah (oooooo)
2) Fatiha (aaaaaa)
3) Kasira (eeeeee)
4) Sikoon  (nothing) Ė therefore I will ignore this one

In many cases we canít use the above vowels, a case is the dual word which must end with AN or AYN, for example Madrastan, or Madrasatayn, both words means two schools, this is how they look in Arabic مدرستان, مدرستين

Let me explain how the dual of the word Thulth ثُلُثَ which means one-third should be and its position in Irab as it appeared in 4:11,

The dual form of it must end with AN, i.e. Thulthan  ثُّلُثَانِ   which means two-thirds, you can see the word clearly used as such in 4:176

Now we have two possible words (singualr and dual) that we may need to apply the above vowels to them:

1) The first word : Thulth ثُلُثَ which means one-third

We have two possibilities:

A) The word includes the Al,  Al Thulth الثُّلُثُ which means the one-third
B) The word does not include the Al Thulth ثُلُثَ which means one-third

In the first case (A) the vowel marks (the Dummah, Fatiha or Kasirah), are just added to the last letter (no letters added to the main word), the word letters MUST stay the same, and just apply the possible vowels with the mouth and not in writing, so it will be pronounced as follow:

i) Al Thultha الثُّلُثَ , as you can see the word letters stayed the same and only a Fatiha is added to the last letter (the Fatiha is the small dash above the last letter

ii) Al Thultho الثُّلُثُ , as you can see the word letters stayed the same and only a Dummah is added to the last letter, The dummah is the small waw above the last letter

iii) Al Thulthe الثُّلُثِ , as you can see the word letters stayed the same and only a Kasirah is added to the last letter, the kasirah is the small dash under the last letter

In the second case (B),   where there is no Al, I.e. Thulth ثُلُثَ which means one-third,  the word may  be voweled  as the word with an Al, however with the case of Rafi by Dummah  it may be voweled by adding an Alif at the end and by using something called Dummah Muqaddarh, i.e. Assumed Dummah, the reason for that is to make the pronunciation simple on the tongue. Now before I move to the dual of the word let me show you the example of its singular form as it appeared twice in 4:11:

X) فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ , Falahunna Thultha Ma Tarak,  in here the Irab of the singular word Thultha is Mubtadda, and every Mubtadda must be voweled by Dummah (oooooo) however, because the word does not have the Al (The) then we can vowel it by adding the letter Alif at the end then  assume that there is a Dummah at the last letter (Dummah Muqaddarah) i.e. Assumed Dummah

The proper understanding and translation to the above should be:

Then  they should get one-third of what the deceased left

XX) فَلأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ in here the Irab of the singular word Al Thulth is Mubtadda also, and  every Mubtadda must be voweled by Dummah (oooooo) however, because the word does have the Al (The) then we have to vowel it by adding real Dummah at the last letter and that is NOT Dummah Muqaddarh.

There should be no confusion regarding translating the above because no letters were added to the word, so it should be:

Then for his mother, the one-third

Let me now discuss the dual form and you should see for yourself that the dual form of any word which should e ending by AN, must be oooooo voweled by Thiboot Al Noon, i.e. the last letter N (Noon) CAN NOT BE OMMITTED, and that is what caused the confusion for those dumb who didnít bloody study the Arabic grammar from A to Z, when they thought that there is an omitted Noon in such word as it appeared in 4:11, i.e. for them, the word Thultha with an Alif at the end in 4:11, should be Thulthan, i.e two-thirds and the Noon is omitted due to the Irab, the Quran exposes their ignorance fair and square, let me prove it to you using 4:176 where the dual form of the word, which is Thulthan appeared:

Again, 4:176 is irrelevant to the discussion of the inheritance distribution to the example you have given,  because 4:176 is only talking about a condition called Kalalah, i.e. those who died and left no children  nor parents, just brothers and sisters left:

They ask you. Say: Allah answers you concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring (Kalalah); if a man dies (and) he has no child and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no child; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have the two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brothers, men and women, then the male shall have a portion of the two females; Allah explains to you, lest you err; and Allah is all-Knowing of every thing.

[The Quran ; 4:176]

يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُلِ اللّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِي الْكَلاَلَةِ إِنِ امْرُؤٌ هَلَكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَهُ أُخْتٌ فَلَهَا نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ وَهُوَ يَرِثُهَآ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهَا وَلَدٌ فَإِن كَانَتَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَكَ وَإِن كَانُواْ إِخْوَةً رِّجَالاً وَنِسَاء فَلِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنثَيَيْنِ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ أَن تَضِلُّواْ وَاللّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (176)

-> How clear is this man: فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ , Falahuma Al Thulthan, almost identical sentence to 4:11, let me put both on top of each other so you can compare:

--- 4:11   فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ , Falahunna Thultha Ma Tarak
--- 4:176 فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ , Falahuma Al Thulthan

The Irab of  both words: Thultha as it appeared in 4:11 and the word Al Thulthan as it appeared in 4:176 is Mubtadda, i.e. both words must be voweled with ooooo, however for dual words that end with AN, the Rafi by Dummah can not be used and instead the Rafi is by the Alif that is before the Noon and Thiboot Al Noon, i.e. the Noon must be there in addition to the Alif as clearly seen in 4:176

Therefore because the Noon is not in the word Thultha as it appeared in 4:11 then it canít be  Dual that has an omitted Noon because it is a Mubtadda that should be vowled by the Alif before the Noon and the Noon must not be ommitted EXACTLY AS SEEN IN 4:176

Before you pull your hair seeing another allegation biting the dust let me totally slam dunk ya and again by using the Quran alone:

Singular words with an added Alif in the end due to the Irab are very common in the Arabic language, here is 3 examples from many in the Quran, in each example I will show you the singular word without an Alif then the same word but with an Alif, and in both cases the word stayed SINGULAR

Let me start with the word Quran, here it is without an Alif at the end:

Alif Lam Ra. These are the signs of the Book and an obvious Quran.

[The Quran ; 15:1]

الَرَ تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ وَقُرْآنٍ مُّبِينٍ (1)

-> See قُرْآنٍ , Quran, i.e. Quran

Here it is with an Alif at the end:

A Book of which the verses are explained, an Arabic Quran for a people who know:

[The Quran ; 41:3]

كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ (3)

-> See قُرْآنًا , Qurana, i.e. Quran

In both cases the word Quran or Qurana stayed SINGULAR

Another example is the word Sullum, Ladder, here it is without an Alif at the end:

Or have they a ladder by which they listen? Then let their listener bring a clear authority.

[The Quran ; 52:38]

أَمْ لَهُمْ سُلَّمٌ يَسْتَمِعُونَ فِيهِ فَلْيَأْتِ مُسْتَمِعُهُم بِسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ (3Cool

-> See سُلَّمٌ , Sullum, i.e. Ladder

Here it is with an Alif at the end:

And if their turning away is hard on you, then if you can seek a tunnel into the earth or a ladder in the heaven so that you should bring them a sign and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have gathered them all on guidance, therefore be not of the ignorant.

[The Quran ; 6:35]

وَإِن كَانَ كَبُرَ عَلَيْكَ إِعْرَاضُهُمْ فَإِنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ أَن تَبْتَغِيَ نَفَقًا فِي الأَرْضِ أَوْ سُلَّمًا فِي السَّمَاء فَتَأْتِيَهُم بِآيَةٍ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ لَجَمَعَهُمْ عَلَى الْهُدَى فَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ (35)

-> See سُلَّمًا , Sulluma, i.e. Ladder

In both cases the word Sullum or Sulluma stayed SINGULAR

And finally, the word Maqam Place, here it is without an Alif at the end:

Surely the pious are in a secure place

[The Quran ; 44:51]

إِنَّ الْمُتَّقِينَ فِي مَقَامٍ أَمِينٍ (51)

See مَقَامٍ , Maqam, i.e. Place

And here it is with an Alif at the end:

And during a part of the night, pray continuously beyond what is incumbent on you; maybe your Lord will raise you to a place of great glory.

[The Quran ; 17:79]

وَمِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَتَهَجَّدْ بِهِ نَافِلَةً لَّكَ عَسَى أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا (79)

See مَقَامًا , Maqama, i.e. Place

In both cases the word Maqam or Maqama stayed SINGULAR

Therefore it is clear that the word Thultha with an Alif at the end as it appeared in 4:11 means one-third

Let me now look at your example and see how the inheritance should be distributed:

1) Two daughters
2) Two Parents
3) One wife

Letís distribute the estate:

1) According to 4:11, the two daughters should take: 1/3
2) According to 4:11, the parents should take 1/6 each, i.e. 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3
3) According to 4:12, the wife should take 1/8

Total = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 19/24

I.e. we still have 5/24 to be distributed to whoever

That should slam dunk your allegation above for life:

AhmedBahgat

JulianCharteris wrote:
19/24 still doesn't add up to 1, Ahmed. It's still an error. Your dunk has been unslammed.


Hey J C

Let me prove to you that you are dumb:

you know why we have 5/24 to play with?, I mean sort of like a reserve


here is one of reasons why?

Imagine we have the following possibilty:

1) One daughter
2) Two Parents
3) One wife

Letís distribute the estate:

1) According to 4:11, the daughter should take: 1/2
2) According to 4:11, the parents should take 1/6 each, i.e. 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3
3) According to 4:12, the wife should take 1/8

Total = 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 23/24

i.e. we still have 1/24 to be distributed to whoever

That should be another slam dunk, you know:



in my next comment, I will show you where that 5/24 or 1/24 should go to, and that will be the final slam dunk and the knock out

cheers
AhmedBahgat

JulianCharteris wrote:
That's right - 24/24 = 1. †Give the Muslim a clap for understanding basic arithmetic.
Your answers still don't add up to 1, buddy.


Hello All

As we have seen above that in two possible scenarios (two daughters, two parents, one wife) & (one daughter, two parents, one wife), we ended up with 5/24 & 1/24 of the estate left, where that money goes?, well, the answer lies in the same sura, verse no 8, letís have a look:

And when there are present at the division the relatives and the orphans and the needy, give them (something) out of it and speak to them kind words.

[The Quran ; 4:8]

وَإِذَا حَضَرَ الْقِسْمَةَ أُوْلُواْ الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينُ فَارْزُقُوهُم مِّنْهُ وَقُولُواْ لَهُمْ قَوْلاً مَّعْرُوفًا (Cool

-> See, And when there are present at the division the relatives and the orphans and the needy, give them (something) out of it , ie.. in these 2 scenarios we have 5/24 or 1/24 of the estate to be given to the relatives and the orphans and the needy if any of them is present during the division of the deceased estate, and on top of that: and speak to them kind words. , i.e. in addition to giving the relatives and the orphans and the needy that money, we should also speak to them kind words.

Letís now look at the estate distribution again in each scenario:

A) Two daughters, two parents, one wife:
Should leave us with 5/24 of the estate, therefore it goes to the relatives and the orphans and the needy

i.e. the estate total = 19/24 (first relatives) + 5/24 (the relatives and the orphans and the needy) = 24/24 = 1

B) One †daughters, two parents, one wife:
Should leave us with 1/24 of the estate, therefore it goes to the relatives and the orphans and the needy

i.e. the estate total = 23/24 (first relatives) + 1/24 (the relatives and the orphans and the needy) = 24/24 = 1

And that should be the final slam dunk:

Mutley

Dear Ahmed Bahgat respected scholar who knows more than every other translator who has ever existed, can you explain to me why every translator, and I mean every translator uses the figure of 2/3 for the daughters and not 1/3 as you attempted?  In my example and 4:11, it would be 1/3 for each daughter for a total of 2/3. How on earth did you think you could pull this little substitution game off? I expected something a little more clever from you.

Quote:

004:011 Khan                Allah commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females; if (there are) only daughters, two or more, their share is two thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is half.

004:011 Maulana                Allah enjoins you concerning your children: for the male is the equal of the portion of two females; but if there be more than two females, two-thirds of what the deceased leaves is theirs;

004:011 Pickthal                Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance,

004:011 Rashad                GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female. If the inheritors are only women, more than two, they get two-thirds of what is bequeathed.

004:011 Sarwar                This is a commandment from your Lord: After the payment of debts or anything bequeathed, let the male inherit twice as much as the female. If there are more than two girls, they will have two-thirds of the legacy.

004:011 Sarwar                This is a commandment from your Lord: After the payment of debts or anything bequeathed, let the male inherit twice as much as the female. If there are more than two girls, they will have two-thirds of the legacy.

004:011 Shakir                Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left,

004:011 Sherali                ALLAH commands you concerning your children; a male shall have as much as the share of two females; but if their be females only, numbering more than two, then they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased leave

004:011 Yusufali                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.


Now, I know you routinely dismiss translators when they don't tell you what you want to hear. So I will use plain, common sense logic to debunk your attempt in no uncertain fashion. Let's take YusuAli, since you seem to like him, but we could take any translator you choose.

Quote:

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. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.



Did you see the part that I bolded? How did you miss that? So, according to you, if there are two or more daughters, they get 1/3 of the inheritance, but if there is only one daughter, she gets 1/2. Isn't that kind of backwards? But of course, if we read it like every stinking translator in the world reads it and two or more daughters get 2/3 and one daughter gets 1/2, then it makes absolute perfect sense.

SLAM DUNKED!!!  DEBUNKED !!!

Just for out viewers sake, if there are two, or even three daughters (pick whihever one you like), and two parents and one wife, and nobody else, then we get the following

2/3 + 1/3 +1/8 which adds up to one and one eighth.
AhmedBahgat

LOL

Is that your efute to what I said?

look sir, don't you know that I know exactly what those confused say about 4:11

Oh yeh, you wanted to debate me so I come here and agree with the wrong

it is even clear that what you say that the total will be over 1 is fukin enough to refute their arses and yours

look, here is what you need to do:

you need to explain to us why the word Thultha which you say means two-thirds, is not the same letters as the word in 4:176 which is Thulthan and surely it means two-thirds?

can you do that by using the Quran alone?

LOL
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
LOL

Is that your efute to what I said?

look sir, don't you know that I know exactly what those confused say about 4:11

Oh yeh, you wanted to debate me so I come here and agree with the wrong

it is even clear that what you say that the total will be over 1 is fukin enough to refute their arses and yours

look, here is what you need to do:

you need to explain to us why the word Thultha which you say means two-thirds, is not the same letters as the word in 4:176 which is Thulthan and surely it means two-thirds?

can you do that by using the Quran alone?

LOL


No, YOU need to explain why every single translator translates it as 2/3, AND you need to explain the problem of the sentence that follows it. If your interpretation of 1/3 of the total inheritance for 2 or more daughters is correct, rather than 2/3 that every interpretor says, then you also have to explain the sentence right next to it, that gives a lone daughter 1/2. How are we supposed to believe that it recommends only 1/3 of the inheritance for two or more daughters, but suddenly increases the inheritance for only one daughter up to 1/2?

You saw that,the first time I said it, you stinking, unashamed liar. And you're not stupid, which means that you clearly are a stinking liar. Now, since I've been the true gentleman throughout this challenge, I will even allow you to respond to this as many times as you want, rather than limiting the amount of responses like your sneaky, squirrelly, and yet stupid little ass tried when demanding the terms of this debate in hopes of stealing some squirrelly little victory. You lose. How the hell can you possibly look in the mirror when you try this crap?? And you wonder why people find Muslims sneaky and non trustworthy? What's there to wonder about? Here it is for everybody to see, stinking liar.
All_Brains

Ahmed

You are a native Arabic speaker and knows Arabic grammar, I am astonished at the fact that you don't know that the "alef" or the sound "A" at the end of the root word "thulth" = one third, clearly indicates a "dual" in the Arabic grammar!

Or this is a clear grammatic error in the Quran, or horrible mathematical blunder!

Anyway, I see you have not responded to Mutely regarding that and the viewers will no conclude that you have lost the debate on this point, unless of course you come back with some real good reasons.
AhmedBahgat

All_Brains wrote:
Ahmed

You are a native Arabic speaker and knows Arabic grammar, I am astonished at the fact that you don't know that the "alef" or the sound "A" at the end of the root word "thulth" = one third, clearly indicates a "dual" in the Arabic grammar!

Or this is a clear grammatic error in the Quran, or horrible mathematical blunder!

Anyway, I see you have not responded to Mutely regarding that and the viewers will no conclude that you have lost the debate on this point, unless of course you come back with some real good reasons.



Hello

Mute is a dumb and is dismissed

now please read again my comment slowly and you should see many examples fo the signular words witha an added alif at the end and they stay singular

also the dual of Thulth is Thulthan as it appeared in 4:176 or Thulthayn

please reply to everything in my refute

cheers
All_Brains

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Ahmed

You are a native Arabic speaker and knows Arabic grammar, I am astonished at the fact that you don't know that the "alef" or the sound "A" at the end of the root word "thulth" = one third, clearly indicates a "dual" in the Arabic grammar!

Or this is a clear grammatic error in the Quran, or horrible mathematical blunder!

Anyway, I see you have not responded to Mutely regarding that and the viewers will no conclude that you have lost the debate on this point, unless of course you come back with some real good reasons.



Hello

Mute is a dumb and is dismissed

now please read again my comment slowly and you should see many examples fo the signular words witha an added alif at the end and they stay singular

also the dual of Thulth is Thulthan as it appeared in 4:176 or Thulthayn

please reply to everything in my refute

cheers


Thulthan and thultha are two acceptable forms of "dual" in Arabic.

So, if you think that the A "alef" at the end of the word doesn't indicate "dual", then what does it indicate????

The singular of one third in Arabic is "thulth" and if the verse meant to indicate a singular in a objective position, then the word should be ثلث, with a fatha punctuation on the letter "tha'a" and not the dual alef...

If you try to evade the mathematical error, you'll fall into the grammatical error!
AhmedBahgat

All_Brains wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Ahmed

You are a native Arabic speaker and knows Arabic grammar, I am astonished at the fact that you don't know that the "alef" or the sound "A" at the end of the root word "thulth" = one third, clearly indicates a "dual" in the Arabic grammar!

Or this is a clear grammatic error in the Quran, or horrible mathematical blunder!

Anyway, I see you have not responded to Mutely regarding that and the viewers will no conclude that you have lost the debate on this point, unless of course you come back with some real good reasons.



Hello

Mute is a dumb and is dismissed

now please read again my comment slowly and you should see many examples fo the signular words witha an added alif at the end and they stay singular

also the dual of Thulth is Thulthan as it appeared in 4:176 or Thulthayn

please reply to everything in my refute

cheers


Thulthan and thultha are two acceptable forms of "dual" in Arabic.

So, if you think that the A "alef" at the end of the word doesn't indicate "dual", then what does it indicate????

The singular of one third in Arabic is "thulth" and if the verse meant to indicate a singular in a objective position, then the word should be ثلث, with a fatha punctuation on the letter "tha'a" and not the dual alef...

If you try to evade the mathematical error, you'll fall into the grammatical error!


Hello

So what Qurana with an Alif means to you?

how about Maqama with an alif?

also Arabia, with an alif?

does the alif changed the staus of the above words

the word with an alif is just another form of the singualr †and the Quran is full of hundreds of such examples
All_Brains

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Ahmed

You are a native Arabic speaker and knows Arabic grammar, I am astonished at the fact that you don't know that the "alef" or the sound "A" at the end of the root word "thulth" = one third, clearly indicates a "dual" in the Arabic grammar!

Or this is a clear grammatic error in the Quran, or horrible mathematical blunder!

Anyway, I see you have not responded to Mutely regarding that and the viewers will no conclude that you have lost the debate on this point, unless of course you come back with some real good reasons.



Hello

Mute is a dumb and is dismissed

now please read again my comment slowly and you should see many examples fo the signular words witha an added alif at the end and they stay singular

also the dual of Thulth is Thulthan as it appeared in 4:176 or Thulthayn

please reply to everything in my refute

cheers


Thulthan and thultha are two acceptable forms of "dual" in Arabic.

So, if you think that the A "alef" at the end of the word doesn't indicate "dual", then what does it indicate????

The singular of one third in Arabic is "thulth" and if the verse meant to indicate a singular in a objective position, then the word should be ثلث, with a fatha punctuation on the letter "tha'a" and not the dual alef...

If you try to evade the mathematical error, you'll fall into the grammatical error!


Hello

So what Qurana with an Alif means to you?

how about Maqama with an alif?

also Arabia, with an alif?

does the alif changed the staus of the above words

the word with an alif is just another form of the singualr  and the Quran is full of hundreds of such examples


These words Ahmed are usually accompanied by "Tanween" so it should Quaran'an and Maqam'an and Arabia'n, unless the word of a foreign origin "Ism A2jam". Also the word has to be in a nominative or adjective addition "Mudaf eleh".

The above explains why all the Quran translators who are linguists have translated it to be two-thirds! Can you explain why all the translators made the horrible mistake and no one corrected it so far???
AhmedBahgat

A_B

I'm workin on a billing system for a telecommunication comoany †that I have to finsih before 25/12, so I don't have much time to spend, however based on †your arguman of Tanween, the same apply to Thultha, i.e. Thulth'an

Regarding their mistake, I really don't know yet but I will keep searching to find out, however this is not the first time that I got all Muslims wrong and the poor slave Ahmed is right, remember 2:8-20

Now, let me ask you, why 4:176 didn't drop the last noon in Al Thulthan as you allege that 4:11 did?

Salam
All_Brains

AhmedBahgat wrote:
A_B

I'm workin on a billing system for a telecommunication comoany  that I have to finsih before 25/12, so I don't have much time to spend, however based on  your arguman of Tanween, the same apply to Thultha, i.e. Thulth'an

Regarding their mistake, I really don't know yet but I will keep searching to find out, however this is not the first time that I got all Muslims wrong and the poor slave Ahmed is right, remember 2:8-20

Now, let me ask you, why 4:176 didn't drop the last noon in Al Thulthan as you allege that 4:11 did?

Salam


Hello Ahmed

Thanks for explaining that you're busy and I understand as a cyber friend! Smile

I think this is too important for everyone and we rather have you focused and researched.

By the way Al-thulthan in verse 4:176 the noon at the end is not a "tanween", its the proper dual form in objective position (Maf2ool beh mansoob bel alef) and it could not possibly drop the noon, due to the definitive article of AL (the), which is lacking in verse 4:11.

Thulthan is really the tanween pronunciation, while thulth(aa)n is the dual form in an objective position.

Thultha can only mean dual, or it is a grammatic error for a singular, which should have been "thulthan" is a singular with tanween, not the "thulth(aa)an which is a proper dual form in an objective position in a sentence.

As you know you can also get "thulth'aine, which is dual form after a proposition. For example "2ala thulth'aine"
على ثلثين Thulth here will be "mudaf elih magroor bel Yaa".
AhmedBahgat

All_Brains wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
A_B

I'm workin on a billing system for a telecommunication comoany †that I have to finsih before 25/12, so I don't have much time to spend, however based on †your arguman of Tanween, the same apply to Thultha, i.e. Thulth'an

Regarding their mistake, I really don't know yet but I will keep searching to find out, however this is not the first time that I got all Muslims wrong and the poor slave Ahmed is right, remember 2:8-20

Now, let me ask you, why 4:176 didn't drop the last noon in Al Thulthan as you allege that 4:11 did?

Salam


Hello Ahmed

Thanks for explaining that you're busy and I understand as a cyber friend! Smile


Hello A_B

No worries, worked for about 90 minutes and need a break so let me reply to you, this is how I work btw, between work I reply to the forums posts

All_Brains wrote:
I think this is too important for everyone and we rather have you focused and researched.


I totally agree


All_Brains wrote:
By the way Al-thulthan in verse 4:176 the noon at the end is not a "tanween", its the proper dual form in objective position (Maf2ool beh mansoob bel alef)


Ok, I agree, however its not Mufool Bihi, it is Mubtadda Muakhar, i.e Delayed Mubtadda, it should be Al Thulth Li Umihi, and Al Thulth is Mubtadda Maroo Be Al Alid because it is dual

All_Brains wrote:
and it could not possibly drop the noon,



The noon can not be dropped, because when you Tarfaa any Dual with an Alif, it has to be with Thiboot Al Noon, i.e. the noon can never be ommitted, in the case of 4:11, the word Thultha is also a Mubtadda Muakhar, and it is voweled by a Dummah Muqadarah (i.e. dummah that does not exist in the pronounciation) , please check with some Arabic grammar books, I will try to scan a few pages for you to have a look and confirm what i just said


All_Brains wrote:

due to the definitive article of AL or the, which is lacking in verse 4:11.


It is lacking the AL  in 4:11 because of the following fact

the word Thultha is nakirah on its own however it is in a location of Muddaf and what comes after it is Mudaf Ilaih (Ma Tarak)

i.e. the word Thultha must not have the Al because what comes after it is Muddaf to it, all these words (Thutha Ma Tarak) represent a known enitity and can not be nakirah together however thultha must be nakirah because it is Mudaf

All_Brains wrote:

Thulthan is really the tanween pronunciation, while thulth(aa)n is dual form in an objective position.


I don't think that a word ending with a noon can have tanween, can you please confirm that

All_Brains wrote:
As you know you can also get "thulth'aine, which is dual form after a proposition. For example "2ala thulth'aine"


That is right, with a Ya and a Noon

can you please check how the dual should be voweld and you should know that the Noon in 4:11 can never be ommitted, i.e. Thultha in 4:11 is singular

All_Brains wrote:

على ثلثين Thulth here will be "mudaf elih magroor bel Yaa".


Sure

salam
Mutley

Personally, I prefer the explanation that Allah is retarded. Therefore, if we have a $100 inheritance pot, and there are 3 daughters, then the three daughter split $33, which is $11 each. But if there is only one daughter, then she gets $50  Laughing  Laughing

Give it up Ahmed, it can't possibly mean what you suggest.
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Ahmed

You are a native Arabic speaker and knows Arabic grammar, I am astonished at the fact that you don't know that the "alef" or the sound "A" at the end of the root word "thulth" = one third, clearly indicates a "dual" in the Arabic grammar!

Or this is a clear grammatic error in the Quran, or horrible mathematical blunder!

Anyway, I see you have not responded to Mutely regarding that and the viewers will no conclude that you have lost the debate on this point, unless of course you come back with some real good reasons.



Hello

Mute is a dumb and is dismissed


And there is the admission that he lost.
Mutley

The most simplistic moron I've ever seen in my life. But this guy would make a great creative manager at Disney. But first, we would have to start him as the guy who puts on the Goofy costume and walks around the park, and then allow his talent to slowly flourish.  Laughing

Butt, maybe there's a better job. He can play the lead Jewess in the running of the Jews.



Well. Ok. Maybe he's more attractive as that Star Wars Mobot that we all love to laugh at. My bad.

Baal

Like All_brains probably, I will only participate in this thread for the purpose of clarifying "Thultha". As All_brains stated, there is no "Tanwin" on Thutha and aside from the language what we have is the following:


Let us assume, the Koran is ambiguous enough to leave the language open to mean "One Third" or "Two Thirds".

IF One Daughter then she gets Half.
IF more then One Daughter, then they get "Thutha".

Ahmed, plz explain to me under what condition, will the daughterS get only "One Third" when a single Daughter will get "One Half".
Your interpretation makes no sense logically (I am not even talking about linguistically yet).

In fact, even if you turn out to be right, and DaughterS get 1/3, then the verse's logic is broken. Either way you are screwed Ahmed. That is what you get for having the Koran on your corner.
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
Like All_brains probably, I will only participate in this thread for the purpose of clarifying "Thultha". As All_brains stated, there is no "Tanwin" on Thutha and aside from the language what we have is the following:


Let us assume, the Koran is ambiguous enough to leave the language open to mean "One Third" or "Two Thirds".

IF One Daughter then she gets Half.
IF more then One Daughter, then they get "Thutha".

Ahmed, plz explain to me under what condition, will the daughterS get only "One Third" when a single Daughter will get "One Half".
Your interpretation makes no sense logically (I am not even talking about linguistically yet).

In fact, even if you turn out to be right, and DaughterS get 1/3, then the verse's logic is broken. Either way you are screwed Ahmed. That is what you get for having the Koran on your corner.



Again

stop wasting my time

can you bloody refute the language powerful argument I presenetd and prove to us the Thiltha in 4:11 meqans 2/3

Cheers
Baal

Hello Ahmed, There was nothing powerful your argument. You are now trying to use conjectures to prove that a single Daughter will take half the pot. But multiple daughters will end up with only get 1/3 of the pot.

That is insane.
AhmedBahgat

Baal and A_B

Before you try to manipulate the language to suit your low desires, please have a look at what †Tanween †is and you should see that it has nothing to do with the last Alif letter in any word, rather double Fatiha, or double Dummah or double Kasirah on the last letter WITH NO ALIF ADDED, see this link then dismiss yourselves:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Arabic/LearnRW/Tanween

AhmedBahgat

Also A_B and Baal

did you notice that if we want to write it with an Alif (Tanween) it has to only be in the case of double Fatiha, and in this case the double Fatiha can not be on the added alif rather on the last letter before the Alif, now look again at 4:11 and you should see that there is no bouble fatiha on the Tha (the last letter before the Alif), ONLY A SINGLE FATIHA

i.e. the added alif in Thultha  can't be for Tanween

LOL
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
Hello Ahmed, There was nothing powerful your argument. You are now trying to use conjectures to prove that a single Daughter will take half the pot. But multiple daughters will end up with only get 1/3 of the pot.

That is insane.


well, it is all said the same for too long, that the male takes double of the female is insane, again 4:11 is tellinh us that we won't know which is more useful

try to be professional baal and refute my very powerful argument regarding the word Thultha

why don't you consult some Arabic language professionals?
All_Brains

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
Hello Ahmed, There was nothing powerful your argument. You are now trying to use conjectures to prove that a single Daughter will take half the pot. But multiple daughters will end up with only get 1/3 of the pot.

That is insane.


well, it is all said the same for too long, that the male takes double of the female is insane, again 4:11 is tellinh us that we won't know which is more useful

try to be professional baal and refute my very powerful argument regarding the word Thultha

why don't you consult some Arabic language professionals?


Ok Ahmed...a couple of simple questions then:

1. What is the "e2raab" of the alef at the end of "thultha" if this was a single?
2. Why did every single translator including Arabic professors and language specialist translate the "thultha" as two thirds??? And how come none ever saw this as mistake until today???

p.s: Good to see you back and hope you have finished the billing system you're working on successfully.
AhmedBahgat

Hello A_B

I'm happy that you and Baal are participating in this thread instead of that ignorant freak Mute, so I decided that this thread will be a debate between myself and both of you (you and Baal) at the same time, this will make the thread have more value and integrity of couorse

Before I read what you have to say below, (yet to read it), i reply spontaneously btw (as I read and break when I feel to break to say something)

I claim that the Alif at the end of the word Thultha as appeared in 4:11, is not Alif Al Ithnayn, this is because the location of the word makes it the first part of Iddafah, i.e. what will follow it is in a position of Muddaf Ilaih (Ma Tarak), †the position of the word Thultha is Mubtadda Muakhar, i.e. it should be (Thultha Ma Taraka Lahunna), now if the word Thultha is dual then the NOON MUST BE THERE, i.e. as follow: (Thulthan Ma Tarak Lahunna), or as the Quran put it in a delayed manner: (Falahunna Thulthan Ma Tarak), this is the only way as far as I believe to take it to mean two-thirds, an example is 4:176

Now, I really don't get what you guys claim regarding Tanween, you guys just mentioned it, no evidence provided to support your claim other than wishful thinking, let me tell both of you, the word Thultha in 4:11 CAN NOT TAKE ANY TANWEEN, this is because the first part of the Iddafah (the Muddaf) CAN NEVER HAVE TANWEEN, you may try it yourself by pronouncing the following two words while adding tanween to the first word:

Kitab Al Tabkh (the two words are Muddaf and Muddaf Ilaih, no wanween in here)

The above means the cooking book here it is with Tanween:

Kitaban Al Tabkh (INVALID)

so I don't get what you guys mean by Tanween other than confusing the subject with non related stuff

[quote="All_Brains"]
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
Hello Ahmed, There was nothing powerful your argument. You are now trying to use conjectures to prove that a single Daughter will take half the pot. But multiple daughters will end up with only get 1/3 of the pot.

That is insane.


well, it is all said the same for too long, that the male takes double of the female is insane, again 4:11 is tellinh us that we won't know which is more useful

try to be professional baal and refute my very powerful argument regarding the word Thultha

why don't you consult some Arabic language professionals?


All_Brains wrote:
Ok Ahmed...a couple of simple questions then:


Sure

All_Brains wrote:
1. What is the "e2raab" of the alef at the end of "thultha" if this was a single?


The Irab is clear and I ALREADY EXPLAINED IT MANY TIMES (that is if you really read my bloody work) oh well, here it is again: IT IS A DELAYED MUBTADDAA, (Mubtadda Mukhar), and it should be Marfu Bi Dummah, however the Quran does not follow such man made gramatical rules RESTRICTLY, this is because they extracted these rules from the Quran itself and based on whatever they thought of, but that does not mean that they cracked it, in fact no one will ever crack the full meaning of the Quran  as stated in the Quran, yet under their own man made rules: the Mubtadda can be voweled by a DUMMAH MUQADDARAH, i.e. Dummah that does not exist nor it should be pronounced, that is why the word will still be pronounced with (aaaaa) at the end and not (ooooo), but that is due to the added Alif and not to the Irab

If you look in the same verse, you should see a similar sentence structure, (Faliummihi Al Thultho), look in any Arabic Quran and you should see the Dummah at the end (on the last Tha), this is because it is a delayed Mubtadda, however when it was said earlier in the same verse, an alif was added to make the pronounciation easier because it will link to what should follow it (muddaf and muddaf Ilaih) (Thultha Ma Tarak)

All_Brains wrote:
2. Why did every single translator including Arabic professors and language specialist translate the "thultha" as two thirds??? And how come none ever saw this as mistake until today???


I don't really know nor that I found it easy to believe, however I have to believe it until any of them refute it.

All_Brains wrote:
p.s: Good to see you back and hope you have finished the billing system you're working on successfully.


I have done a great deal

here is what I did last night mate

I finalised the automation of the data import that comes from three carriers, Vodafone, Telstra, AAPT

each carrier has different file structure, in that file you get all the phone calles made including duration and charges, what i have to do is to calculate while importing the charge that my carrier that i work with charge his customers and issue invoices accoridngly

think of it as such

my carrier buys wholesale from those three big companies then sell it back to his customers

currently my carrier is using a third party billing company which cost at least 10,000 a month so I will save my carrier such money when i finish the systen in under twoo weeks from now, I still sneak in between and drop here and other places btw, I can't work for long hours, I have to break every hour or so unless what i'm doing is really tough


I don't even have time to fix my typos above, sorry

cheers
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
Hello Ahmed, There was nothing powerful your argument. You are now trying to use conjectures to prove that a single Daughter will take half the pot. But multiple daughters will end up with only get 1/3 of the pot.

That is insane.


well, it is all said the same for too long, that the male takes double of the female is insane,


There's nothing insane about that you stinking pathetic liar. What would be insane is if 3 boys get 33% but 1 boy gets 50%. THAT'S insane, just like your entire attempt is, you silly laughing stock. Gee, it's really hard to figure out why you don't want to debate with me.  Laughing

You are amazing. I constantly give you whippings about multiple subjects, but you just keep coming back for more as if nothing has happened. Ignorance truly is the most powerful, impervious force in the universe.  Laughing
Mutley

OK, after we've all had our yuks with Baghat's little joke, it's time to give away the punchline. It's impossible to make the scenario that I raised work. I'll clarify. Obviously, we all know that the inheritance percentages can't add up to more than 100%. That's a no brainer. However, I do not reject the Muslim excuse that the inheritance doesn't have to add up to exactly 100% in all situations, and that some can be left over and distributed to someone outside of the family. That is perfectly reasonable. However, it would be very unreasonable for someone outside of the family to get a larger share of the inheritance than someone inside of the family. Therefore, if someone works the problem out and there is something left over, the amount left over has to be less than any family member's share.

This leads me to the best attempt at solving this problem that I have seen, and it comes from the very respectable Islamic website Understanding Islam. They too realize that the amount left over cannot exceed the amount of a share that someone in the family gets. First, I'll re-quote the verses, and then show the little stunt they tried to pull.

Quote:

004.011
YUSUFALI: 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. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.

004.012
YUSUFALI: 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. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.


So here, we can see the following order. Children, parents and then wife.  In addition to the order of distribution, the amounts correspond to the order, where the first gets the most and the last gets the least. Children get the most, parents the next most and the wife the least. This makes sense because both the children and the parents are blood relations to the deceased whereas the wife is not, and nothing but a piece of cattle and a sperm repository and a baby repository for future jihadi warriors in their battle to rule the world.

So, let's say the scenario is the following. three daughters, two parents and one wife. That's all. Using a logical, likely and reasonable system, we get 2/3 of the inheritance for the daughters to split, 1/3 for the parents to split and 1/8 for the wife. Obviously, this is a problem as this adds up to 125%. The 1/8 is used up before the wife can get it. So what does understandingislam try? They try and change the order, of course. Obviously, you can't have the 2/3 and 1/3 together. Now, they can try to put 2/3 first as it is mentioned and then switch the order for the wife to go next with her 1/8. So far, so good. it's only 19/24, so there is still some leftover for the 1/3 distribution for the parent. However, 19/24 is not enough for a 1/3 distribution. Therefore, they had to say that the parents get 1/3 of what is left over. An arbitrary claim that is never said in the Quran, but as we all know, they will try anything.

However, they actually didn't try this. They were smarter and knew better, because if 1/3 of the remainder is distributed to the parents, then 2/3 of the remainder would be left to a person outside of the family, which would mean that they would get more than the parents. Very bad. So, what they were forced to try was the following:

1/3 to the parents, 1/8 to the wife and then the daughters get 2/3 of what is left over. Now, once again, there is no statement in the Quran that says the 2/3 is 2/3 of what is left over, but aside from that, maybe it can work. This way, the daughters get 2/3 of the leftover and a person outside of the family only gets 1/3 of the leftover. So you see, they HAD to put the 2/3 last instead of the 1/3, so that nobody outside of the family gets a bigger share than someone inside the immediate family.

However, aside from arbitrarily changing the order of distribution for no compelling reason whatsoever, and aside from arbitrarily saying that the 2/3 is 2/3 of what is left over, there is a major problem that they hope you don't see. And it's right smack honking right in front of us in the beginning of 4:11

Quote:

YUSUFALI: 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;


So as we can clearly see, it is impossible to say that the 2/3 is 2/3 of what is left over after the parents and wife get their share

SO THEY ARE SLAM DUNKED, DEBUNKED, BUSTED, CAUGHT RED HANDED IN A SNEAKY ATTEMPT OF LYING.

iS THAT ANY SURPRISE TO ANYONE??
Mutley

[img]http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMbcjNSqxrO0CBDYBRhaMgiFAZQXwrvtEQ[/img]

The guy says "ooo ooo ooo, I kennot wait to show her I have the sexual prowess of 10,000 men like dee profit. And the woman says, ooo ooo ooo, I cannot wait to have to wear a tent around me for the rest of my life. And then they both say "Thanks Allah !!!"
All_Brains

Ahmed

The courtesy of the one on one debate leads me to leave this debate as Mutely is now back. We're just filling up the time he's away!

Just a final note on your response to me.

1. The calculation either way (1/3 or 2/3) still does not make 100% and your response to this is that any surplus goes to poor people and the rest of the family.

2. You insist that "thultha" means 1/3 and not 2/3 against every single translator and your reasoning that the word is a "delayed nominative" (Mubtad'a Mu'akhar) and your apology that it is incorrectly formed in a sentence for delayed nominative is because all grammar is taken from the Quran anyway, so it's ok to bend the rules!

Considering that the Arabic grammar was well established way before the Quran and the pre-Islamic poetry bear a witness to that.

And Quran itself apply the correct form most of the time, which means one of them has to be surely incorrect!
AhmedBahgat

All_Brains wrote:
Ahmed

The courtesy of the one on one debate leads me to leave this debate as Mutely is now back. We're just filling up the time he's away!


Hello

Soory mate, Ugly shit face Mute has been dismissed because he violated the rules and turened the debate into perosanl attack, I'm surprdised you didn't ineterfer, but anyway, I only give the freaks ONE chance, and he lost that chance, therefore he is back to where he should be, the rubbish bin of dimissals

if you want to continue debating me reggarding tis subject, please do but you need to reply to every Quran verse I presented

All_Brains wrote:
Just a final note on your response to me.

1. The calculation either way (1/3 or 2/3) still does not make 100% and your response to this is that any surplus goes to poor people and the rest of the family.


I have already repplied to that

All_Brains wrote:
2. You insist that "thultha" means 1/3 and not 2/3 against every single translator and your reasoning that the word is a "delayed nominative" (Mubtad'a Mu'akhar) and your apology that it is incorrectly formed in a sentence for delayed nominative is because all grammar is taken from the Quran anyway, so it's ok to bend the rules!


No I never said that it is incorrectly put, RATHER CORRECTLY WITH A DUMMAH MUQQADARAH, please read what I write well before you reply

All_Brains wrote:
Considering that the Arabic grammar was well established way before the Quran and the pre-Islamic poetry bear a witness to that.


Wrong, the Arabic grammar was never established before the Quran, in fact all these vowels were created many years later, as well all Arab poetry are full of grammar errors because under poetry you may not follow the grammar rules strictly, this is very well known fact about poetry, the Quran howveer is no poetry

All_Brains wrote:

And Quran itself apply the correct form most of the time, which means one of them has to be surely incorrect!


of course the Quran is noot wrong, and it is them, here is what you need to refute again

you need to tell us why the NOON was ommitted from the word Thultha (assuming it is Thulthan)?

Thanks
Mutley

Well, obviously, my work is done here. So if All Brains or Baal wants to argue about linguistics with you, that's just fine with me. I'll step aside.  Laughing  Personally, I don't even see the need to bother, when every translator who has ever lived disagrees with you and, even if you happened to be right, you then make Allah look retarded with his next recommendation. It's unavoidably stupid any way you slice it. So it's your choice. I'm good with whatever you select.  Laughing  Laughing
All_Brains

Hello Ahmed

I guess we should leave it at that. Baal, Mutely and I agree with all the translators and the Islamic and non-Islamic interpretation of the verse.

Since you have a sole and unique understanding and translation of "thultha" and  can't see the mathematical dilemma even if the word is translated as 1/3, then there is no point of going any further on this.

We have all produced our proof and presented our point of views and it's now up to the readers to "literally" do the math!

I will set up some one on one debate rules, as I do think that this debate could have run a lot more objectively.

Regards
All_Brains
Mutley

But wait, there's more if you call right now !!!  Laughing

Let's say that bag boy is right. There's another absurdity besides 3 daughters splitting 1/3 but  1 daughter getting 1/2. The daughters split 8/24. The parents split 8/24. The wife gets a mere 3/24, while the unnamed guy down the street gets 5/24. Therefore, someone outside of the immediate family gets more than someone inside the immediate family. Very bad.

Now, as I showed before in my long post involving Understanding Islam's attempt, if we, at any point say that any of these percentages actually represent a percentage of what is left over after some has already been distributed (ex. 1/3 for parents is 1/3 of what is left over after distribution to the daughters), then we will inevitably end up giving more to an outside party then someone in the immediate family. The only possible way around this is what Understanding Islam tried, where they say that the 2/3 distributed to the daughters are 2/3 of what is left over after the parents and wife have gotten their cut. But, as shown, this isn't an option either.

YusufAli
if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance

Pickthall
and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance

Shakir
then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left,


So as we can see, this problem is simply unsolvable, no matter how you try to slice it. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that a faulty human wrote these rules and therefore, the Quran cannot be the letter for letter dictation of Allah. Therefore, Muhammad was either lying or completely insane.
AhmedBahgat

Hello A_B

Hope you are doing great, let me revive this thread, it's really simple mate, we donlt need tranlsation between me and you, what we need is this:

we know the dual of Thulth is Thulthan as appeared in 4:176, you need to tell us under which grammatical rule the thalast Noon has to be ommitted as it appeared in 4:11 assuming it is Thulthan with an ommitted Noon

I searched all the books I have as well the net for all the Irab cases of the Dual words and could not find any rule, in fact it seems to me under grammar that the Noon must be there EXACTLY as it appeared in 4:176

cheers
Mutley

I think Baghat is right,and Allah is a cross eyed retard who would prescribe 1/3 of the inheritence if there are 3 daughters, but prescribe 1/2 is there is one.  Baghat's translation is correct and Allah is an absolute moron.  Laughing
Baal

If there is One daughter she gets One Half, if there is more then one, then they ALL get a total that is less then Half. Thank you Ahmed. And you had to bend the rules  to give us this wonderful gem?
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
If there is One daughter she gets One Half, if there is more then one, then they ALL get a total that is less then Half. Thank you Ahmed. And you had to bend the rules †to give us this wonderful gem?



Hello Baal

please don't mock around, I explained clearly what you need to reply with to refute my argument

you need to find the grammatical rule that caused the Noon in Thulthan to be ommitted, believe me I searched and could not find it, so I will leave it to you guys


now regading what is fair and what is not fair, again the same verse is telling us that we won't know that, also you have already accused the Quran of not being fair by giving the male double the female, so your refute is nothing but desperation

remember this too, you guys also say that how come a kafir be burnt for eternity , this must not be fair, i.e. the issue in here is not about the fairness, because you already concluded that he is not fair

cheers
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
If there is One daughter she gets One Half, if there is more then one, then they ALL get a total that is less then Half. Thank you Ahmed. And you had to bend the rules  to give us this wonderful gem?



Hello Baal

please don't mock around, I explained clearly what you need to reply with to refute my argument

you need to find the grammatical rule that caused the Noon in Thulthan to be ommitted, believe me I searched and could not find it, so I will leave it to you guys


now regading what is fair and what is not fair, again the same verse is telling us that we won't know that, also you have already accused the Quran of not being fair by giving the male double the female, so your refute is nothing but desperation

remember this too, you guys also say that how come a kafir be burnt for eternity , this must not be fair, i.e. the issue in here is not about the fairness, because you already concluded that he is not fair

cheers


It's not a matter of fairness at this point, it's a matter of Allah being completely retarded. Allah giving twice to the male might be considered unfair, but Allah giving a larger pot to one daughter then to three is simply retarded. There's no way you can escape this, unless you admit that Allah is completely retarded. It's one or the other, but not both. It's your choice. Quite frankly, I could care less either way as both are horribly embarrassing. And you've been told this numerous times, but you decide to, once again, ignore it and stick your head in the sand. Quit wasting people's time, ok?
Melody

Is this a one-on-one debate or what? I presume formuers would stick to their guns.
Mutley

??
AhmedBahgat

Melody wrote:
Is this a one-on-one debate or what? I presume formuers would stick to their guns.


exactly

they should have created another threads to comment on the one on one debate between me and mute
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
If there is One daughter she gets One Half, if there is more then one, then they ALL get a total that is less then Half. Thank you Ahmed. And you had to bend the rules  to give us this wonderful gem?



Hello Baal

please don't mock around, I explained clearly what you need to reply with to refute my argument

you need to find the grammatical rule that caused the Noon in Thulthan to be ommitted, believe me I searched and could not find it, so I will leave it to you guys


now regading what is fair and what is not fair, again the same verse is telling us that we won't know that, also you have already accused the Quran of not being fair by giving the male double the female, so your refute is nothing but desperation

remember this too, you guys also say that how come a kafir be burnt for eternity , this must not be fair, i.e. the issue in here is not about the fairness, because you already concluded that he is not fair

cheers

Earlier Brain and me got permission to join into this debate, at least for the purpose of Thultha.

Every single Mufassir found that Thultha could mean a dual third. When I looked at it, i had no doubt it means Two Thirds, all the examples you gave ahmed have a "Tanween" at the end. They all end in "An", real or implied. Thultha does not end with an "An".

As for the math issue you have with Mutley. It does not help your angle that you reduce the 2/3 to 1/3.

As for the Uthmanic koran reducing the share of the daughters if there are many, I am sorry, that is not about fairness anymore. That is plain retarded. I am sure even Muhammad or Uthman would not have made this mistake, as you claim they did.
AhmedBahgat

Hello Baal

you are right mate, it was me who invited you to replace such jerk

Anyway, how many other explanations that other Muslims produced? at least 3, all these explnanations including my proposed one can't be right at the same time, therefore the issue in had is doubtful and can't be proven, now let's leave it at that and move on to the next alleged mistake in the Quran unless this was the only thing you found to be an alleged mistake in the Quran, if so and because it is doubtful then there is no clear cut mistake in the Quran

cheers
Mutley

Laughing   Laughing   Yes everybody, let's move on and pay no attention while I quietly attempt to sweep this issue under the rug and try to make it go away.  Laughing   Laughing Baghat, the debate ended a long time ago, and there is no reason to discuss other situations than the one I raised in thge beginning of this thread. you win. I agree. The words says 1/3 and Allah is an absolute moron who would give 1/2 of the entire inheritance for one daughter, but only give 1/3 of the inheritance if there are three daughters splitting it.   Laughing   Laughing  I think this is even more moronic than fraction errors. So thanks a lot.
AhmedBahgat

Are you still here mute, LOL


No more bones you doggy

well if Ball continue, I will use Thultha as 2/3 and still slam dunk him

you watch freak
AhmedBahgat

Hey Baal

are you on to continue this debate and I will consider Thultha to mean 2/3 this time, I can explain anything in the Quran body with all sorts of flexability, I'm a professional, LOL

let me know
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Are you still here mute, LOL


No more bones you doggy

well if Ball continue, I will use Thultha as 2/3 and still slam dunk him

you watch freak


Well thank you for the admission that you have more interest in what sort of stories you can invent, then what the truth is. This seems to be what all Muslims do. Very odd, and yet very typical.
AhmedBahgat

Mutley wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Are you still here mute, LOL


No more bones you doggy

well if Ball continue, I will use Thultha as 2/3 and still slam dunk him

you watch freak


Well thank you for the admission that you have more interest in what sort of stories you can invent, then what the truth is. This seems to be what all Muslims do. Very odd, and yet very typical.




I don't get it mute?

firstly you asked me for a debate, then we made up some rules, then when I presented my first argument you broke the rules so i dismissed you, now it seems you learnt to be polite again so I will give you one more chance to continue the debate, but I hope you observe the rules this time

firstly let me explain my first refute that spun you really hard, my first refute is gramatical refute, it has nothing to do with the sum of the shares, I stated that, for the Noon to be ommitted from Thulthan we need a gramatical rule and asked anyone in here to find such gramatical rule for me, NONE was presented other than typical kafir rants, now, let me tell you that I found such gramatical rule, you won't even understand it i guess, however I'm going to inform baal and a_b with it because they have better chance to understand it, that gramatical rule however is not starightforward application to the sentence we have in hand as it appeared in 4:11, it's actually more complicated than that, but let me explain the gramatical rule first:

if a dual word gramatical position is Muddaf then the noon must be ommitted and the word must end with a Ya or an Alif depeniding on Irab

a straightforward example to a Muddaf and a Muddaf Ilaih that include a dual word in the position of Muddaf is like this:

firstly I will show the example in singular mode

Saiarat Al Talib, car of the student, in here Saiarat is Muddaf and singular, Al Talib is Muddaf Ilaih and singualr

now, let me show you the dual form of each word above indpendently from any grammar

Saiaratan = 2 cars

Al Talbayn = the 2 students


now making the above two duel words to be Muddaf and Muddaf Ilaih in one sentence:

Saiarata Al Talibayn = two cars of the two students

now as you can see the last Noon in the dual word Saiaratan must be ommitted if the word is in Muddaf gramatical position

The case with 4:11 is more complicated than that because what we have is not a straighforward Muddaf and Muddaf Ilaih

let me remind all with what is said in 4:11

Falahunna Thultha Ma Tarak

See, Thulthat Ma Tarak is not a straightforward Muddaf and Muddaf Ilaih, this is because Ma Tarak is another sentence NOT A WORD WITH AL, however under Arabic grammar, a whole sentence can take the position of a Muddaf Ilaih and in here the whole sentence "Ma Tarak" which suppose to be "Ma Hua Tarak" but we have an ommiotted Hua, is in a position of Muddaf Ilaih to the Muddaf Thultha and in such case the last Noon in the Thulthan must be ommitted BASED on the assumption that the whole sentence "Ma Tarak" is considred Muddaf Ilaih which is a very valid assumption that I can not deny.

it is like I presented the argument and yet replied to myself on the behalf of the ignorant kafirs in here, keep in mind that 2 of them claim to know Arabic well

anyway, the objective in anything for me is not to really to win an argument, I actualy never lost one btw LOL, however it is all about increasing my knowledge and finding the truth, not for anyone, BUT TO MYSELF ALONE, but I'm happy to share it with you

now, you don't need to reapeat your argument becaause, you have nothing to add nor you had any refute to my first GRAMATICAL refute, however I hope I have given you a lesson on how to refute a gramatical argument using the same gramatical argument, you will never be able to do that I guess

My second refute which is going to take me some time to prepare and will be based that the word Thultha in 4:11 is 2/3, but I'm getting really busy in Jan and possibly Feb, in fact I may shoot OS all of a sudden during these two months and beyond, therefore no rants about time because I'm planning to put this silly argument to bed in my next refute

Salam
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Mutley wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Are you still here mute, LOL


No more bones you doggy

well if Ball continue, I will use Thultha as 2/3 and still slam dunk him

you watch freak


Well thank you for the admission that you have more interest in what sort of stories you can invent, then what the truth is. This seems to be what all Muslims do. Very odd, and yet very typical.




I don't get it mute?

firstly you asked me for a debate, then we made up some rules,


No, you made them up, not me. And they are ridiculous. It's ironic that you demand respect before you will debate somebody, while you're probably one of the most disrespectful people there is. And I do not buy into the demand for respect. It's just a diversion or excuse to prevent one from addressing the real points. This debate ended a long time ago when we established that Allah was retarded because he recommended 1/2 of the inheritance for one daughter, but recommended that 3 daughters only share 1/3 of the inheritance. You lost the debate right there. No denying it, and you know it. But you think that if you ignore it, nobody will notice. Well, obviously you're wrong. Why do you bother? I'll make it crystal clear for you. IT DOESN'T WORK, and neither do your stupid dismissals. So stop trying. How could you possibly think they work? How could you be so retarded? Whoops, I'm sorry, I forgot, you're a Muslim. Scratch that last question.

AhmedBahgat wrote:

then when I presented my first argument you broke the rules so i dismissed you, now it seems you learnt to be polite again so


STFU

AhmedBahgat wrote:

I will give you one more chance to continue the debate, but I hope you observe the rules this time


STFU

AhmedBahgat wrote:

firstly let me explain my first refute that spun you really hard,


It didn't spin me hard you stupid moron. You made Allah look like a retard. Aren't you even intelligent enough to realize this very simple fact? How can anybody possibly discuss anything with you if you can't even realize simple things?

AhmedBahgat wrote:

my first refute is gramatical refute, it has nothing to do with the sum of the shares, I stated that, for the Noon to be ommitted from Thulthan we need a gramatical rule and asked anyone in here to find such gramatical rule for me, NONE was presented other than typical kafir rants, now, let me tell you that I found such gramatical rule, you won't even understand it i guess,


And I am not the only person that showed you that if we accept your grammatical rule, then Allah ends up looking like a complete retard. What does it take to get that simple point through your thick brainwashed skull?

AhmedBahgat wrote:

however I'm going to inform baal and a_b with it because they have better chance to understand it, that gramatical rule however is not starightforward application to the sentence we have in hand as it appeared in 4:11, it's actually more complicated than that, but let me explain the gramatical rule first:
<snip>

It doesn't matter. Either Allah can't add fractions properly, or Allah is completely retarded by offering more to a single daughter, then the amount that three daughters get to split. Eihger way, it's completely retarded. You have completely embarrassed Allah.

AhmedBahgat wrote:

anyway, the objective in anything for me is not to really to win an argument, I actualy never lost one btw LOL,


An admission that you did. I know that's the best we're going to get from youm because you aren't a particularly honest and forthcoming person. And you know that, and you don't care. You actually take pride in your ability to invent untrue angles if need be, and I've caught you doing this numerous times. That's why I harass you, because you are disho9nest and you take pride in it. You think it's some sort of game as to who can be the more clever deceiver. Very twisted. But then again, you're a Muslim. That's what Muslims do.

AhmedBahgat wrote:

however it is all about increasing my knowledge and finding the truth, not for anyone, BUT TO MYSELF ALONE, but I'm happy to share it with you


Even you don'tbelieve what you just said.

AhmedBahgat wrote:

now, you don't need to reapeat your argument becaause, you have nothing to add nor you had any refute to my first GRAMATICAL refute, however I hope I have given you a lesson on how to refute a gramatical argument using the same gramatical argument, you will never be able to do that I guess


I accepted your grammatical argument, because it ended up making Allah look even more retarded. But, if you are retarded yourself, hen obviously you won't see that. This is downright pathetic.


AhmedBahgat wrote:

My second refute which is going to take me some time to prepare


You mean your second invention, and you have to go back to the lab to concoct it. If you have to concoct anything, then what does that say? Can't you see how you are admitting your disregard for the truth in favor of making up any idea that you think might work? You don't care about the truth, you pride yourself in your ability to make things up. And the most pathetic part, is that you can't even see that you are actually, inadvertently admitting this.
AhmedBahgat

You are dismissed again mute, now fuk off or I will make a lot of movies about your stupid arse in here

Baal or A-B, are you want to continue this debate or just let it go?

please let us know
Mutley

AhmedBahgat wrote:
You are dismissed again mute, now fuk off or I will make a lot of movies about your stupid arse in here

Baal or A-B, are you want to continue this debate or just let it go?

please let us know


You lost the debate a long time ago. Aren't you at least intelligent enough to see this?

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> One On One Debates
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home