Question

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

Answer

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

Moiz Amjad

UIUK team