A Criticism on the Explanation of
the Law of Inheritance
I bought a couple of books on Muslim fiqh and
have looked in more detail into them and into your response to
my inheritance share contradiction article.
I am amazed to find that you do propose a lot
of “methods” which have no resemblence of what any of the Sunni or the Shia
legists do. You make up your own idiosyncratic methods.
Sometimes you quote a hadith, where it fits
your approach, but you forget all the other traditions that have lead the Muslim scholars
to divide the inheritance very different from your own methods.
Do you feel comfortable to present people
with your own opinion which is not followed by any Muslim scholar and applied nowhere in
the Muslim world?
I have found in those book some more examples
where shares add up to more than one. They are quite frequent.
And many of your rules (given out these
shares first, and then applying the other shares only to the BALANCE that remains…) is
something which cannot be found in the Qur'an itself. If we allow an arbitrary number of
outside rules, then everything can be solved. But when we take only what the Qur'an
actually says, then you have not solved the contradiction. The Qur'an never says
“first the spouse” and distribute the balance … or “first the
parents” and then the balance will be given to the children according to the
following shares….
One could get the impression you are playing
fast and loose with the text.
But in particular, I do wonder, why none of
the legists has ever done it like you.
I would be interested in your response to
this observation.
I will maybe write a direct answer to you
some time soon, asking those questions in public, if you do not either answer me or add
some explanation to your web page that makes clear that your exposition is very unorthodox
and your personal opinion only with no backing of traditional Muslim scholarship.
The books I consulted are:
“Al-Muwatta” of Imam Malik Ibn Anas
“The Reliance of the Traveller” by Nuh Ha Mim
Keller [Shafi'i Jurisprudence]
“Islamic Inheritance Law” by Dr. Yusuf Ziya
Kavakci
and the Shia Law web site that is linked from my page.
A slightly updated page (though maybe not yet
final form) is posted to
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html
By the way, the rebuttal to the grammar errors by Newton and Rafiqul Haqq is on its way and should be
up within September.
Warm regards,
My dear Mr. Katz,
You state:
I am amazed to find
that you do propose a lot of “methods” which have no resemblence of what any of
the Sunni or the Shia legists do. You make up your own idiosyncratic methods.
I request you to please have a look at my
article again. I have not proposed any methods in my article. I have only elaborated my
understanding of the text of the Quran. In this elaboration, I have also tried to explain
the linguistic and logical basis for my interpretation. I never claimed in my article that
my point of view is held by any Shia or Sunni scholar. I have given my understanding of
the concerned verses and I have also given reasons for my interpretation. I really think
it would have been more befitting for you to point out what was wrong with my
interpretation, rather than see if such an interpretation is held by any one else. In your
article on the Law of Inheritance, you criticised the Quran. I, therefore, looked at the
concerned verses of the Quran and presented my analysis of these verses. I very honestly
felt that my interpretation of these verses would remove all your objections against these
verses. But now it seems that your objection is not really against the Quran, but against
the generally held Shia and/or Sunni interpretation of these verses. I must admit that I
am not interested in defending either of these views. My article is to present a rebuttal
to a criticism against the Quran, not to defend the interpretation of the Muslim Scholars.
You call my methods
“idiosyncratic”. I do acknowledge that to some extent, my interpretation is
different from others, but please do let me know which of my methods is
“idiosyncratic”.
You further state:
Sometimes you quote a
hadith, where it fits your approach, but you forget all the other traditions that have
lead the Muslim scholars to divide the inheritance very different from your own methods.
Please let me know which of the traditions
have I forgotten, overlooked or ignored in my interpretation of the concerned verses.
You ask:
Do you feel comfortable
to present people with your own opinion which is not followed by any Muslim scholar and
applied nowhere in the Muslim world?
As all true Muslims, I only feel comfortable
in adhering to the Quran and the Sunnah and presenting people with the call of the Quran
and the Sunnah. I have the greatest of regards for all the Muslim scholars, but for me
none of them holds a position superior to the Quran and the Sunnah.
I do acknowledge that my interpretation of
the Quran may be wrong and that of the other Muslim scholars may be correct. But I think,
unless you or someone else (a Muslim scholar??) presents a rebuttal of the basis of my
interpretation, I shall have no other option but to very comfortably present people with
my own opinion even if it is not followed by any Muslim scholar or applied anywhere in the
Muslim world.
Please do let me know if there is anything
wrong with my approach and my point of view in this respect.
You further state:
And many of your rules
(given out these shares first, and then applying the other shares only to the BALANCE that
remains…) is something which cannot be found in the Qur'an itself. If we allow an
arbitrary number of outside rules, then everything can be solved. But when we take only
what the Qur'an actually says, then you have not solved the contradiction. The Qur'an
never says “first the spouse” and distribute the balance … or “first the
parents” and then the balance will be given to the children according to the
following shares….
I suggest that you should really read my
article again. I have presented detailed linguistic and logical reasoning for all that I
have stated. In case you think any of my interpretations is without basis, please point it
out to me. I shall be obliged to give my reasons or otherwise reconsider my opinion.
You say:
One could get the impression you
are playing fast and loose with the text.
I can't help if “one” makes
wrong impressions. It would definitely be much more beneficial if rather than making
impressions, “one” would take some time and help me in understanding the
mistake, if there is any, in my interpretation of the concerned verses.
You state:
But in particular, I do wonder, why
none of the legists has ever done it like you.
I do too.
You say:
I will maybe write a
direct answer to you some time soon, asking those questions in public, if you do not
either answer me or add some explanation to your web page that makes clear that your
exposition is very unorthodox and your personal opinion only with no backing of
traditional Muslim scholarship.
All those who have any knowledge of the Law
of Inheritance, as interpreted by the Muslim scholars, know quite well that my
interpretation is different from their's. It surprises me greatly that you did not.
In any case, I shall await your response, in whatever shape and style it may come, with an
open heart and mind. I assure you, for me it is not a matter of winning any debates...
it is purely a matter of finding out the truth. Therefore, whatever the outcome of this
debate, I shall come up a winner, and I hope so shall you.
You write:
By the way, the rebuttal to the
grammar errors by Newton and Rafiqul Haqq is on its way and should be up within September.
That is a very heartening news. I await
eagerly.
Regards