Questions and Answers (2)

This is the second page for question and answers. The first one here has become very crowded and gone down in the list of articles and so a new page is dedicated for it.

This blog witnesses a number of questions asked in the comments section that do not pertain to the article above. For issues that require a detailed response, an article is penned down; however, there are a number of issues that can be settled by a quick and short response. This page is dedicated to such questions.

If you have an article request or a clarification for an issue not found on the site, then please drop it here.

Advertisement

134 thoughts on “Questions and Answers (2)

  1. Salam aleykoum brother,
    I just finished reading your book the mahdi. Thank you for your contribution as there are a lot of materials on this issues and most of the times people rely on weak narrations. Thanks for the clarity your book offers. I have a question regarding the hadith about 3 banners. It makes me upset to read it as I thought people of Syria have already suffered enough. Will it happen before or after drying of Euphrates river? I also have read a hadith that says fitnah in syria will last 12 or 18 years then Euphrates river will dry up. Is that hadith authentic? If so, I guess we are on the brink of coming of mahdi as the fitnah started in 2011. Thanks in advance for your reply brother. Keep up the good work.

  2. As salaam alaykum Abu Rahma.

    About the Hadith in Bukhari which says the prophet attempted suicide. I have searched for answers to it and I have found out that all website regard the Hadith as weak and not reliable.
    Does that not contradicts the orthodox beliefs of the scholars that Every Hadith found in Bukhari is Authentic ?

  3. Asalam U Alykum Brother. I had this person claim that there would be a messenger after Prophet Mohammed ﷺ. They quoted Quran 3:81 and argued that every Prophet would have a messenger proceeding him and said the same would apply to Prophet Mohammed ﷺ. I was wondering if you could address this. Thank you

    • Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. Going by their logic, prophethood will never end because every time a prophet comes, then another would need to come after him who would also be a prophet and so another would need to come after that one. If someone today comes and claims to be a prophet and says that he affirms Mirza Qadiani then all Qadianis would need to obey that man. They will trap themselves in their own flawed logic!

      The sequence and context of the verses is very clear:
      1) Bani Israel are being reminder
      2) Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was not Bani Israel and so when he came, Bani Israel were to accept him
      3) Verse 83 makes it clear that ‘it is other than the religion of Allah they desire’ which shows that the covenant mentioned in verse 81 was put into effect at that time i.e., the Jews in Madina had to fulfill it and accept the Prophet mentioned to be obeyed.
      4) Read the portion here: https://qurananswers.me/2015/01/03/did-prophet-eisa-%d8%b9%d9%84%d9%8a%d9%87-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85-die-and-will-he-return/#_ftnref48

  4. It is impossible to come up with a set of share relations and to cater of all the possible scenarios about the heirs of a dead without involving such ‘difficulties.’ While such a law was expedient Islam has it and we have just solutions to ‘problems.’

    1) Such situations when the sum is not 1 do arise.

    2) With elaborate law as in Islam and too many possibilities about combination of heirs 1) is inevitable.

    3) We have just and reasonable solutions for those ‘problematic’ scenarios. 

    4) Let those who raise the question try to envision a scenario without any such problem or other discrepancies.

    Let us denote the proportion of each category (Son, daughter etc)  by P1,P2,…..,PN

    Let us denote the number people in each category by X(P1),X(P2),………, X(PN).

    Then mathematically the ideal would be:

    (X(P1) xP1 +  X(P2) xP2+ ….+ X(PN)xPN ) =1

    In the above equation P1,P2,…,PN are known fixed quantities (though not mutually independent). However, X(P1), …,X(PN) are unkown and random. This equation is impossible to solve because mathematically to solve for each variable one must have as many equations. Because of the random nature of X(P1),…X(PN) , i.e. the number of people in each category, it is impossible to have ONE fixed rule on the proportions P1,…,PN such that their sum is equal to 1. One can safely say that because of the random nature of the number of relatives in each category, the anomaly will definitely arise in certain cases. In some cases the relation above will be true, in some sum of the terms on the LHS will fall short of 1 and in some it will exceed one.

    Answer to the objection/query:

     There is no set of values for P1, P2, …, PN for which the equation always remains true given the number of possible combinations of X(P1), X(P2), …, X(PN). 

    An error in the Qur’an claim would have been true if the Qur’an had discussed some particular case involving anomaly without resolving it as if it perfectly valid. 

    Let, those who question Qur’an try to give us a set of values for P1, P2, …., PN that can do away with the anomaly possibility. 

    Allah knows best!

  5. > (X(P1) xP1 + X(P2) xP2+ ….+ X(PN)xPN ) =1

    The Quran doesn’t distribute the shares in that way. No matter how many daughters (more than two) there are, they will still collectively receive 2/3 of the inheritance according to the Quran. Even if it did distribute it that way, the argument wouldn’t change. Why must the objector produce a set of values for an inheritance distribution of this particular form?

    > It is impossible to come up with a set of share relations and to cater of all the possible
    > scenarios about the heirs of a dead without involving such ‘difficulties.’

    You can divide a number in arbitrarily complex ways and still have the total not exceed 1 at the end. Instead of setting fixed fractions, the Quran could have used ratios like when it states “For the male is the share of two females”, or it could have allocated a certain number of shares to each person. It could have also simply made sure that the fixed fractions never exceeded 1, or stated outright something to the effect of “If the parts exceed the whole, then normalise”.

    > An error in the Qur’an claim would have been true if the Qur’an had discussed some
    > particular case involving anomaly without resolving it as if it perfectly valid.

    Imagine someone is cutting up a cake for 6 people he has invited. He decides that he gets 1/5 of the cake, if his best friend shows up he will give 1/5 of the cake to him too, and everyone else gets 1/6 each. If his best friend and 4 other people show up, that will add up to 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 16/15 > 1. Did he commit an error, or would you make an excuse for him saying that he did not say anything about this particular number of people showing up?

    > We have just and reasonable solutions for those ‘problematic’ scenarios.
    Just and reasonable they may be, but they still contradict the fixed fractions of the Quran.

    >That is good. There are more than one ways to answer the allegation.
    But you are obligated to defend only one answer since it is the ijma of the sahaba, and that is ‘awl.

    • Quran’s aim was never to produce a set of fractions that would equal one. That is because a given number of heirs in any case does not remain the same. Every case has a different set of inheritors.
      If as you propose, the Qur’an used ratios or percentages the same problem would still arise no matter what because suppose we say:

      Husband gets double that of the wifes share and multiple daughters get 17% more than that of a single daughter then in this way the problem would get so complicated that you would then have to specify the ratio of each person with the ratio of every other person… like if two daughters get this much more compared to one daughter then how much do they get compared to a huaband or a wife or a father or a mother…. This would mean chaos…

      That is why the Qur’an provided a simple solution as it did not bother doing complex maths instead it only divided the shares based on the relationships. Meaning, the Qur’an described the worth of each inheritor that he should get in an optimal situation… instead of providing his/her share compared to other relatives who may or may not be present.
      This is like saying: A has a worth of $70, and B has a worth of $80, and C has a worth of $20… this does not mean that they have to equal 100.. rather this is only providing us the worth of that person in numbers… so in an optimal situation these people should get what they are worth… the aim was not to divide it all into proportionate values.

      I hope that answers the question.

    • Your first point shows that you didnt get the basic idea of involving the equation. Moreover, such distribution scheme would definitely involve the problem in a limited number of relations.

      Your second point again misses the equation relevance. Why not put the idea you have in a mathematical model?

      Third and fourh points are missing the basic purpose of law. Its not mere maths but a lot more. Mentioning a study showing that ‘problem’ involves only in a fraction of cases could be relevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s