Mazhar A. Nurani

24th August, 2012

Child: a young human being, a daughter or a son. The Word here is masculine, signular, nominative which is the Subject Noun of perfect; masculine, singular, deficient Verb Kana. Therefore, it must be translated as Son, not child.

Abdul Rahman

24th August, 2012

You CAN'T translate it as "son" because the fiqh rule here refers to "child" i.e. son or daughter. The portion of inheritence to the deceased's parents depends on whether he has left behind any children. Also, in this verse, the person who has died is a male (the verb "taraka" and personal pronoun "hu", but the rule is also applied if the deceased is female.

Mazhar A. Nurani

25th August, 2012

Sorry Brother, in jurispredence, a rule can not alter or substitute the legal provisions of the Book. Arabic is a language of precision, a word signifying a singular meaning. There is no Tameez clause in the sentence, therefore, to translate by non-specific English word "child" and thereby presume a feminine included in it shall amount to substituting the words of the Book of Allah.

Abdul Rahman

25th August, 2012

The word "walad" (plural "aulaad") does mean "child" (plural "children) in English. "Son" is "ibnun" and daughter is "bintun". You will notice that all the seven English translations cited in this site translate it the same way.

Mazhar A. Nurani

26th August, 2012

"aulaad" is paucity broken plural, feminine, grammatically singular. It denotes progenies. On the contrary, "waladun" singular, masculine refers only a male progeny. Every word of Qur'aan is an un-substitueable pearl embeded at its place. Replacement of one word might distort the entire perception of the given text.

Abdul Rahman

26th August, 2012

Can you explain, brother, how, according to your understanding, the plural "aulaad" denotes "progenies" both male and female, whereas the singular "walad" only refers to a male progeny?

Mazhar A. Nurani

28th August, 2012

Assalamo Alaikum, Abdul Rahman, brother you know broken plurals are problematical for non-Arabs. However, when we see this broken plural here as noun of preposition, we might enjoy declicacies and superiority of Arabic. Its singular is وَلَدٌ a generic noun اسم الجنس denoting a male progeny. In this indefinite nominative state with Tanween it is used in Qur'aan for 15 times--- (1)2:116(2)10:68(3)12:21(4)17:111(5)18:04(6)18:39(7)19:77(8)19:88(9)19:91(10)19:92(11)21:26(12)25:02(13)28:09(14)39:04(15)72:03=15.

There it signifies "son".

The word is capable of possessing an attribute, meaning non descriptive [الموصوف]. Therefore, It is pluralized on pattern أَفْعَالٌ We find in gramar books that Irregular plural nouns are always feminine, unless they refer to male humans where they can be masculine. When irregular plurals refer to humans, they can be treated grammatically as plural nouns instead of singular. When an irregular plural noun is treated as a plural (when it refers to humans), the gender of the noun will match the gender of its singular.

Keeping this information in mind when we see the following text, we find visible feminine plural pronoun, singular hidden feminine pronoun, and masculine singlur pronoun in relation to this broken plural feminine noun.

After the preposition, the nominal sentence also explains that it includes both feminine and masculine progeny.

I have written on this issue compiling all Ayah on Inheritance discourse covering this Noun. Please help improve it.

http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/000.%20Encyclopaedia%20of%20Arabic%20of%20Qur'aan/4.%20Articles%20Ontology/2.%20Inheritance/2.%20Inheritance.htm

Abdul Rahman

28th August, 2012

The relevant part of my post above is that the word "walad" should not be translated as "son" but as "child". If "walad" is "son" does it mean that the division of the inheritance according to when "in lam yakun lahu walad" when all he left are daughters? Just one example, supposed the deceased left two or more daughters, then they should get two-thirds, the portion of the mother one-third. Then there is nothing left for the wife or the father of the deceased? I have read what you have written on the issue, but I'm afraid your interpretations and conclusions differs radically from the known rules of fiqh of the four sunni madhahibs. Since you do not provide any references in your article, I assume that they are merely your personal opinions on the subject. I therefore have to leave it at that, since there is no point in continuing the discussion. Let's just agree to disagree on this point. Wallahu a'alam.

Mazhar A. Nurani

29th August, 2012

[the word "walad" should not be translated as "son" but as "child".]

But for this we will have have to devise a new Arabic dictionary and grammar rule. The word is in nominative case and absolute state with tanween. There is absolutely no chance to transcribe it by "child". Inheritance is by classifying the person who is dying not the posterity, they are beneficiary. Father and mother die, they leave posterity alongwith their Will. Married Aaulad dies, they leave behind parents alongwith Will. Such cases are covered by the presence of a son or absence of a son.

Onlyone scene that was not yet covered in distribution of Allah the Exalted and people hastened in asking the Elevated Messenger to act as fiqh and give personal ruling-4:176. He was asked to tell that Allah gives them the ruling. How can a ruling converting a male into female by someone be accepted?

Abdul Rahman

29th August, 2012

No need to devise a new Arabic dictionary, just invest in or consult a reasonably good one!! Yes, the word "walad" is grammatically masculine, singular, yet semantically it can refer to (in the appropriate context) son, daughter, child, son and daughter (dual), and even children (plural). That's why the Sahih International translation above translated the word as "children". Arabic has no "neuter" gender, only masculine and feminine. That is why a word such as "child" in English which takes the pronoun "it" has to be rendered in Arabic which is grammatically masculine, and vice versa, a word which is semantically neuter can only be expressed in Arabic by the masculine gender, as the masculine serves the purpose for both true masculine nouns and also neuter nouns. To conclude I quote from صفوة التفاسير by Shaikh Muhammad Ali al-Sabooni which a digest and summaryu of all the major classical tafsir works -- al-Tabari, al-Kashshaf, al-Qurtubi, al-Alusi, Ibn Kathir, al-Bahr al-MuhiT and others -- :

(إن كان له ولد) أي إن وجد للميت ابن أو بنت لأن الولد يطلق على الذكر والأنثى

I rest my case. Wallahu a'alam.

Abdul Rahman

29th August, 2012

Correction: That is why a word such as "child" in English which takes the pronoun "it" has to be rendered in Arabic by a word which is grammatically masculine, and vice versa, a word which is semantically neuter can only be expressed in Arabic by a word in the masculine gender,

Mazhar A. Nurani

30th August, 2012

Thanks brother. The last quote shows that the learned Sheikh is giving an opinion. However, a singular female child is already mentioned in the immediately precedidng sentence. Only a singular son is not included in the preceding clauses, which needed mention. Thanks, may Allah the Exalted help us.