Mushu’s Back Blowing Our Minds


in Quranology Discussions ! This time, it’s about the inheritance laws. Granted, it’s in its embroynic stage, but I think our consideration of 2/280-282 will finally be justified. He said:

For the male [dhakari] is (the) likeness to [mithlu] (the) opulence/satisfaction/free from need [hazzi] of the two females [unthayayni]. 4/11 and 4/176

A few things worthy of note:

The word hazz (opulence/fortune/without need) is used instead of naseeb (share/portion) like in 4/7 and 4/33.

I believe this is important because the majority of us will never inherit a fortune from our parents, or anything that will satiate our needs/desires, which is what the word denotes. So why is this word used instead of naseeb?

The word mithlu (likeness/similar) is used instead of sawaan (equal/equivalent) as in 22/25.

When examining all the other ratios/shares in the rest of the verse, no word like mithlu is used anywhere except in this phrase. It could have said, “for the male is the hazz/naseeb of the two females”. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for the word mithlu to be there if the phrase was actually about a ratio.

Hence, why I question whether this phrase is a ratio at all. It may be suggesting that males are inclined to want more before they are satisfied or feel they are in good circumstance – like as much as the two females. Are we being reminded to keep this in mind when dividing the estate?

3/36 […] And not is the male [l-dhakaru] like the female [kal-unthā]. […]

The phrase in question also appears in 4/176, after the mentioning of “ikhwatun” (brothers, or possibly siblings). Again, the way every other fraction/ratio is worded in the verse, this phrase seems a bit odd.