Quran inheritance mistake

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,

This is verse 4176

They seek a ruling from you, say "God gives you the ruling for those who have no descendants. If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind. And he will inherit from her fully if she has no child.
if a man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her half (of) what he left, and he inherits her fully if (there) was not for her a child

In this part, Quran is talking about 1) what the sister gets if there is no other inheritor 2) what the brother gets if there is no other inheritor.
For 1) Quran says she(sister) gets 1/2 For 2) Quran says he(brother) gets full inheritance.

Remember that Quran presents this case as a case in which there is no other inheritor. So you do not have to put in your formulate any category relating to other inheritors. It is already given that there is no other inheritor.
Now, Quran is obvioulsy making a distinction between 1 and 2, between what the sister gets and what the brother gets. But, in your solution there is no distinction. Both gets full.
Now, if there was no distinction necessary, why would the Quran make any distinction? Then, what is Quran's point of saying 1/2 for the sister? It could say 1/3, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8 and in your method she would still get full(1) no matter what.
So according to your theory it is completely vain for Quran to fix 1/2 for the sister in this case in which Quran says that there is no other inheritor.
I think this completely refutes your theory.

In answer to your question, if you say "2/3 the inheritance" to any person he will understand "2/3 of the inheritance" and not your " 2/3 the inheritance before comparing with the share of others." Let us make a survey if you want.

And in your solution for the case with 3 sons, 1 daughter, 1 mother, 1 father and 1 wife you apply your algebraic method only after first doing regular distribution for the shares of mother, father and wife. Since this not a big difficulty, however, I will not push this point further. You only need to convince me about the other points I raise in this post. Thanks
Onur

unknownuser

Greetings Onur,

This is verse 4176

In this part, Quran is talking about 1) what the sister gets if there is no other inheritor 2) what the brother gets if there is no other inheritor.
For 1) Quran says she(sister) gets 1/2 For 2) Quran says he(brother) gets full inheritance.

Remember that Quran presents this case as a case in which there is no other inheritor. So you do not have to put in your formulate any category relating to other inheritors. It is already given that there is no other inheritor.

Does verse say no other inheritor and exclude mother and/or spouses?
Does verse say brother gets full inheritance and excludes mother and/or spouses or does it only name him as a participant?

4176 They ask your opinion/clarification , say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her half (of) what he left, and he inherits her if (there) was not for her a child, and if they (B) were two (F), so to them (B/F) the two thirds from what he left, and if they were brothers (siblings) men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.

Now, Quran is obvioulsy making a distinction between 1 and 2, between what the sister gets and what the brother gets. But, in your solution there is no distinction. Both gets full.

They both only get full amounts without a mother and/or spouses present.

I believe if it not worded exactly Qur?an verse 4176 would contradict verse 411-12?

Thank you for your questions, this was a good exercise and reminds me always best to draw up a will. lol

I really need to prepare for travel and new job. Hope to have time to continue this.

4176 ??God clarifies for you that you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.

Peace

unknownuser

Greetings Onur,

And in your solution for the case with 3 sons, 1 daughter, 1 mother, 1 father and 1 wife you apply your algebraic method only after first doing regular distribution for the shares of mother, father and wife. Since this not a big difficulty, however, I will not push this point further. You only need to convince me about the other points I raise in this post. Thanks
Onur

Wanted to address this question for future reference.

Pay close attention to literal wording especially where "from" appears which denotes substraction.

To Children
411 God directs you in your children, to the male equal fortune the two females,
so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) 2/3 what he left, and if she was one, so for her the ?

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),
so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,
so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6, from after a bequest/will he bequeaths with it or a debt; your (P) fathers and your (P) sons,

To Husband
412 And for you (P) 1/2 what your (P) spouses/wives left, if (there) was/is not for them (F) a child,

so if (there) was/is for them a child, so for you (P) the ? from what they (F) left from after a bequest/will they (F) bequeath/direct with it or a debt,

To Wives
412 and for them (F) the ? from what you (P) left, if (there) was not for you (P) a child,
so if (there) was for you (P) a child, so for them (F) the 1/8 from what you (P) left from after a bequest/will you (P) bequeath/direct with it or a debt,

To Brothers and Sisters (mother and/or wife may not be excluded)
412 and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father or a woman (wife), and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the 1/6,
so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3, from after a bequest/will is bequeathed/directed with it or a debt not harming, (a) direction/command from God, and God (is) knowledgeable clement.

4176 say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her 1/2 what he left,
and he inherits her if (there) was not for her a child,
and if they (B) were two (F), so to them (B/F) the 2/3 from what he left,
and if they were brothers (siblings) men and women, so to the male equal share the two females,

Example 3 Sons; 1 Daughter; 1 Wife; 1 Father; 1 Mother;

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),
To Wife
412 so if (there) was for you (P) a child, so for them (F) the 1/8 from what you (P) left from after a bequest/will you (P) bequeath/direct with it or a debt,

1 (the whole) ? 2 * 1/6 (parent share) ? 1/8 (wife share) = children?s share

To Children (at least one son, 2 for 1 apply and it's straight forward)
411 God directs you in your children, to the male equal fortune the 2 females,

1 (the whole) ? (2 * 1/6 (parent) + 1/8 (wife)) = 3 * 2x (son share) + x (daughter share)

1 ? 1/3 ? 1/8 = 7x
24/24 ? 8/24 ? 3/24 = 7x
13/24 = 7x
13/24 * 1/7 = x (daughter share)

13/168 = Daughter
13/84 = Son each
1/8 = Wife
1/6 = Mother
1/6 = Father

Example 3 Daughters, Mother, Father, Wife

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),

To Wife
412 so if (there) was for you (P) a child, so for them (F) the 1/8 from what you (P) left from after a bequest/will you (P) bequeath/direct with it or a debt,

To Children (2/3 applies since only daughters else if a son then 2 for 1)
411 God directs you in your children, to the male equal fortune the two females,
so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) 2/3 what he left, and if she was one, so for her the ?

what = x (variable)
notice no from!

1 (the whole) ? 1/8x (wife share) ? 1/6x (father share) ? 1/6x (mother share) = 2/3x (3 daughters share)
1 = 2/3x + 1/8x + 1/3x
1 = x + 1/8x
1 = 8/8 + 1/8x = 9/8x
8/9 = x

Daughters get 2/3 * 8/9 = 16/27 divided equally amongst the 3 of them
Wife gets 1/8 * 8/9 = 3/27 or 1/9
Father gets 1/6 * 8/9 = 4/27
Mother gets 1/6 * 8/9 = 4/27

Peace

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,

This is a quite interesting observation. So, if I am understanding you correctly, your general formula is to do subtraction-regular distribution when the word "from" occurs and to do your algebraic method for the cases in which the word "from" does not occur. I have to think through this and to see if it applies to all cases consistently. Just a quick question. If there is only 1 wife as inheritor, the verse 412 says 1/4 from what you left In that case, I believe you would still give her the whole inheritance and it would not make any difference if it was 1/4 what you left Is that so? And, how would you solve a case with one wife( 1/4 from what you left) and one mother( 1/3 according to 411 and the word from does not occur) Would you apply your algebraic method comparing 1/4 and 1/3 or would you do something else? You might be on to something with this general formula but I need sometime to think about it and test it.

And on a seperate issue I believe there is a problem with the translations of the verse 4176 because it assigns different shares to sisters and brothers than 412 in the same cases. For example, 412 gives both the sister and the brother 1/6 whereas 4176 gives the sister 1/2 and the brother 1/1. According to most translations both 412 and 4176 seem to give those shares to brothers and sisters in the same case- in cases in which there are no other inheritors(parents, children and spouses). There is probably something wrong with those translations and the difficulty in translation might be stemming from the word 'kalalah' in 412 and 4176.

But we can stick for now with your interesting observation about the word from and applications of your general formula to some cases. Thanks

Onur

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,

You seem to be using two different equations for 1) mother, father, wife, 3 sons and 1 daughter and 2) mother, father, wife, 3 daughters even though in both cases the word 'from' occurs for the shares of mother, father and wife

For the 1) 1 (the whole) ? (2 * 1/6 (parent) + 1/8 (wife)) = 3 * 2x (son share) + x (daughter share)

For the 2) 1 (the whole) ? 1/8x (wife share) ? 1/6x (father share) ? 1/6x (mother share) = 2/3x (3 daughters share)

In the 1st equation you are not putting x for the parents and wife in order to avoid an equation with two unknowns(because the shares of sons and daughters are only compared with each other as the son gets twice as the daughter). I think the first case and equation are totally consistent with the text of Quran. In the second equation, however, you decide to put x for everything basing this on the observation that the word 'from' does not occur for the shares of three daughters .

My questions to you 1) for the second equation what difference would it make if the verse said '2/3 from what he left' instead of '2/3 what he left' for the shares of three daughters 2) for the first equation what difference would it make if the verse said '1/8 what you left' for the wife and '1/6 what he left' for the parents instead of '1/8 from what you left' and '1/6 from what he left'.

Thanks
Onur

Zulf

This is a risky question.. don't wanna question God...

but why would sisters get half of brothers? Doesn't make any sense these days... or does it?

unknownuser

Greetings Onur,

Just a quick question. If there is only 1 wife as inheritor, the verse 412 says 1/4 from what you left In that case, I believe you would still give her the whole inheritance and it would not make any difference if it was 1/4 what you left Is that so?

Inheritance laws are to arbitrate division of property; therefore a single inheritor always gets the whole since no division of property is necessary. This is common sense.

? from what is fixed;
? what is variable.

And, how would you solve a case with one wife( 1/4 from what you left) and one mother( 1/3 according to 411 and the word from does not occur) Would you apply your algebraic method comparing 1/4 and 1/3 or would you do something else?

Case 1 Wife; 1 Mother;

To Parents
411 so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,

Not applicable; no child and only one parent. (1/3 is special case only if parents are heirs)
1 (the whole) ? 1/3 (mother?s share) = father?s share = 2/3

412 and for them (F) the ? from what you (P) left, if (there) was not for you (P) a child,

1(the whole) ? ? (wife share) = mother?s share = ?

And on a seperate issue I believe there is a problem with the translations of the verse 4176 because it assigns different shares to sisters and brothers than 412 in the same cases. For example, 412 gives both the sister and the brother 1/6 whereas 4176 gives the sister 1/2 and the brother 1/1.

The sister/brother get whole if either is a sole inheritor; common sense.

4176 "...and he inherits her if (there) was not for her a child? ? only names brother as participant.

412 the 1/6 is fixed and only applies if both brother and sister to man without a child or father or wife (mother not excluded).

4176 the 1/2 what is variable and only applies if sister to man or woman without a son/father (mother and/or spouse not excluded).

Case 1 Mother 1 Sister;

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),
so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,

Not applicable ? no child and only one parent. (1/3 is special case only if parents are heirs)
Thus 1 ? 1/3 (mother?s share) = father?s share = 2/3

412 ?and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?

Not applicable ? there is only a sister.

4176 say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her 1/2 what he left,

x = WHAT (variable) he left in proportion to the whole compared to all the others.

1 ? x (mother?s share unknown) = ? x (sister?s share ? * unknown)
1 = 1/2x + x = 3/2x
x = 2/3

?so for her 1/2 what he left,?

Sister = ? * 2/3 = 1/3
Mother = 2/3

In above case Qur'an disagrees with most scholars/Islamic schools of thought which assign excess to Islamic Treasury.

Which tells us who was in charge of the Islamic Treasury and influenced the scholars.

Islamic Treasury (IRS.gov lol) only gets inheritance when their are NO inheritors. In spirit it should go to the poor.

Case 1 Mother 1 Brother;

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),
so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,

Not applicable ? no child and only one parent.

412 ?and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?

Not applicable ? there is only a brother.

4176 ?and if they were brothers men and women, so to the male equal/alike share the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.

This case the mother is treated same as a sister..."so to the male equal/alike share the two females"

1 = mother?s share + 2 * mother?s share (brother?s share)
1 = 3 * mother?s share
1/3 = mother?s share
2/3 = brother?s share

According to most translations both 412 and 4176 seem to give those shares to brothers and sisters in the same case- in cases in which there are no other inheritors(parents, children and spouses). There is probably something wrong with those translations and the difficulty in translation might be stemming from the word 'kalalah' in 412 and 4176.

Inheritance calculations involve math (language international) thus literal translation should always be used.

Peace

unknownuser

You seem to be using two different equations for 1) mother, father, wife, 3 sons and 1 daughter and 2) mother, father, wife, 3 daughters even though in both cases the word 'from' occurs for the shares of mother, father and wife

For the 1) 1 (the whole) ? (2 * 1/6 (parent) + 1/8 (wife)) = 3 * 2x (son share) + x (daughter share)

For the 2) 1 (the whole) ? 1/8x (wife share) ? 1/6x (father share) ? 1/6x (mother share) = 2/3x (3 daughters share)

1 (the whole) ? (2 * 1/6 (parent) + 1/8 (wife)) = 3 * 2x (son share) + x (daughter share)

Above all amounts are fixed including amount to the children at 21 ratio and thus

x = daugther share
2x = son share

Perhaps you can see it if written as such?

1 (the whole) ? (2 * 1/6 (parent) + 1/8 (wife)) = 3 * (2*daughters share (son share)) + daughter share

1 (the whole) ? (2 * 1/6 (parent) + 1/8 (wife)) = 7 * daugther share

basically give parents and wife their fixed share and remainder fixed share to children at 21 ratio.

Above ratio is in relation to brothers whereas below amounts are variable to WHAT he/she left her in proportion/ratio to all...

x = WHAT

1 (the whole) ? 1/8x (wife share) ? 1/6x (father share) ? 1/6x (mother share) = 2/3x (3 daughters share)

Try working a few more examples to clarify.

Peace

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So, in the case with 3 sons, 1 daughter, mother, father and wife you take the shares of mother, father and wife as fixed. But in the case with 3 daughters, mother, father and wife, you take the shares of mother, father and wife as variable. And the reason you take the shares of mother, father and wife variable in the latter case is that the word "from" is absent when the verse talks about the shares of 3 daughters( 2/3 what he left) Therefore, since the word 'from' is absent in the share of 3 daughters you make all other shares(mother, father, wife etc) variable- that is, varying in comparison to the share of 3 daughters.
Did I get you correctly? I just want to make sure I understand your reasoning correctly.

Onur

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,
I could not figure out how to quote correctly) and put my words/objections to your solutions below in the color Lime Green so that you can detect them easily

Greetings Onur,

Inheritance laws are to arbitrate division of property; therefore a single inheritor always gets the whole since no division of property is necessary. This is common sense.

? from what is fixed;
? what is variable.

Case 1 Wife; 1 Mother;

To Parents
411 so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,

Not applicable; no child and only one parent. (1/3 is special case only if parents are heirs)
1 (the whole) ? 1/3 (mother?s share) = father?s share = 2/3

412 and for them (F) the ? from what you (P) left, if (there) was not for you (P) a child,

1(the whole) ? ? (wife share) = mother?s share = ?

The sister/brother get whole if either is a sole inheritor; common sense.

4176 "...and he inherits her if (there) was not for her a child? ? only names brother as participant.

412 the 1/6 is fixed and only applies if both brother and sister to man without a child or father or wife (mother not excluded).

4176 the 1/2 what is variable and only applies if sister to man or woman without a son/father (mother and/or spouse not excluded).

Case 1 Mother 1 Sister;

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),
so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,

Not applicable ? no child and only one parent. (1/3 is special case only if parents are heirs)
Thus 1 ? 1/3 (mother?s share) = father?s share = 2/3

ONUR I am not sure that 1/3 is a special case only if parents are heirs because the the word only does not exist. Quran just says, ''and his parents inherited him" and not "and only his parents inherited him." I think what this part means is that if there is no child, mother's share is increased from 1/6(her share when there is a child) to 1/3 where father's share is kept at the original 1/6. The next sentence says that if there is a brother present, mother's share is reverted back to the original 1/6. 412 ?and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?

Not applicable ? there is only a sister.

4176 say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her 1/2 what he left,

x = WHAT (variable) he left in proportion to the whole compared to all the others.

1 ? x (mother?s share unknown) = ? x (sister?s share ? * unknown)
1 = 1/2x + x = 3/2x
x = 2/3

?so for her 1/2 what he left,?

Sister = ? * 2/3 = 1/3
Mother = 2/3

In above case Qur'an disagrees with most scholars/Islamic schools of thought which assign excess to Islamic Treasury.

Which tells us who was in charge of the Islamic Treasury and influenced the scholars.

Islamic Treasury (IRS.gov lol) only gets inheritance when their are NO inheritors. In spirit it should go to the poor.

Case 1 Mother 1 Brother;

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child (son),
so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,

Not applicable ? no child and only one parent.

ONURI think here for the same reasons, mother should be given the share 1/6 according to 411.
412 ?and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?

Not applicable ? there is only a brother.

ONUR I am not sure about this either. 412 says when there is a brother OR a sister each of them get 1/6. OR is different than AND. Therefore, the presence of either of them(i.e. just one brother) should be enough basis to give him 1/6. I do not know if this would contradict the share of brother according to 4176. Some scholars have argued that 4176 concerns full brothers/sisters whereas 412 concerns uterine brothers/sisters. But I am not sure if there is a Quranic basis for this distinction. In the article at http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/inheritance.htm it is argued that for the shares of brothers and sisters, 412 applies when there are also parents and 4176 applies in the absence of parents. I am not sure about that either. .
4176 ?and if they were brothers men and women, so to the male equal/alike share the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.

This case the mother is treated same as a sister..."so to the male equal/alike share the two females"

1 = mother?s share + 2 * mother?s share (brother?s share)
1 = 3 * mother?s share
1/3 = mother?s share
2/3 = brother?s share

ONUR I do not agree with this solution either. The last sentence of 4176 gives the formula 1 male share equals 2 female share only between brothers and sisters. You do not have any textual basis to replace the mother with the sister.

Inheritance calculations involve math (language international) thus literal translation should always be used.

ONURThat is what I am trying to do. I am currently thinking about your argument about the problematic case based on the word 'from', as well as your suggestion that '2/3 what he left' does not mean the same as '2/3 of what he left'. I am also trying to figure out a way to remove the contradiction between 412 and 4176 giving different shares to brothers and sisters.
Thanks
Onur
Peace

unknownuser

Greetings Onur,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So, in the case with 3 sons, 1 daughter, mother, father and wife you take the shares of mother, father and wife as fixed. But in the case with 3 daughters, mother, father and wife, you take the shares of mother, father and wife as variable. And the reason you take the shares of mother, father and wife variable in the latter case is that the word "from" is absent when the verse talks about the shares of 3 daughters( 2/3 what he left) Therefore, since the word 'from' is absent in the share of 3 daughters you make all other shares(mother, father, wife etc) variable- that is, varying in comparison to the share of 3 daughters.
Did I get you correctly? I just want to make sure I understand your reasoning correctly.

This is my main reasoning

2/3 what he left for them (i.e. daughters) is NOT same as 2/3 from what he left everyone.

People see that and assume 2/3 of the inheritance and liter the internet with > 1 problems.

ONUR I am not sure that 1/3 is a special case only if parents are heirs because the the word only does not exist. Quran just says, ''and his parents inherited him" and not "and only his parents inherited him." I think what this part means is that if there is no child, mother's share is increased from 1/6(her share when there is a child) to 1/3 where father's share is kept at the original 1/6. The next sentence says that if there is a brother present, mother's share is reverted back to the original 1/6

Mother?s share increased to 1/3 while father?s share stays at 1/6?

While father has financial responsibility to take care of the mother?

?and his parents inherited him? sole heirs and agree with all these guys?

http//islamawakened.com/Quran/4/11

ONURI think here for the same reasons, mother should be given the share 1/6 according to 411.

See how wrong misinterpretation leads to contradictions? Qur'an says we are to use best meaning.

412 ?and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?

Not applicable ? there is only a brother.

ONUR I am not sure about this either. 412 says when there is a brother OR a sister each of them get 1/6. OR is different than AND. Therefore, the presence of either of them(i.e. just one brother) should be enough basis to give him 1/6. I do not know if this would contradict the share of brother according to 4176. Some scholars have argued that 4176 concerns full brothers/sisters whereas 412 concerns uterine brothers/sisters. But I am not sure if there is a Quranic basis for this distinction. In the article at http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/inheritance.htm it is argued that for the shares of brothers and sisters, 412 applies when there are also parents and 4176 applies in the absence of parents. I am not sure about that either. .

"so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?" suppose THEY means more than one?

ONUR I do not agree with this solution either. The last sentence of 4176 gives the formula 1 male share equals 2 female share only between brothers and sisters. You do not have any textual basis to replace the mother with the sister.

Where does it mention sisters?

4176 ?and if they were brothers men and women, so to the male equal/alike share the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.

ONURThat is what I am trying to do. I am currently thinking about your argument about the problematic case based on the word 'from', as well as your suggestion that '2/3 what he left' does not mean the same as '2/3 of what he left'. I am also trying to figure out a way to remove the contradiction between 412 and 4176 giving different shares to brothers and sisters.

Already addressed that earlier, there is no contradiction.

Peace

burhan

Now that we established that Quran's language does not allow Yuksel?s method, let us still evalute Edip Yuksel?s reasons for his method(please see the endnote in the Reformist Translation). I want to stress that this part is not

The so called Yuksel method is actually a universal method of distribution. It is used where there are infinite combinations of share holders and share values.

In business for example a limited company is usually limited by 1000 shares.
If there is only one owner do you know how many shares he is given. It's not 1000, it's one.

As he is the only shareholder he actually owns 100% of the company.

This method allows the for the flexibilty of adding another shareholder without screwing up the propotions.

So if the owner wanted run the company jointly with his wife owning 50%, all he'd have to do is give her one share.
Not 500 each.

Say another person joined and they wanted to do a 40,40,20 split. Then each of three owners would get an additional share, this 2 (husband), 2 (wife) , 1 (new partner).

Only 5 shares have allocated, that doesn't mean that the Government or God owns 995.

unknownuser

The so called Yuksel method is actually a universal method of distribution. It is used where there are infinite combinations of share holders and share values.

In business for example a limited company is usually limited by 1000 shares.
If there is only one owner do you know how many shares he is given. It's not 1000, it's one.

As he is the only shareholder he actually owns 100% of the company.

This method allows the for the flexibilty of adding another shareholder without screwing up the propotions.

So if the owner wanted run the company jointly with his wife owning 50%, all he'd have to do is give her one share.
Not 500 each.

Say another person joined and they wanted to do a 40,40,20 split. Then each of three owners would get an additional share, this 2 (husband), 2 (wife) , 1 (new partner).

Only 5 shares have allocated, that doesn't mean that the Government or God owns 995.

Thanks for that )

I just couldn't put my finger on why the shares even had to add up as insinuated here. Reminds me of this

A bank customer had 100 in his account. He then made 6 withdrawals, totaling 100. He kept a record of these withdrawals, and the balance remaining in the account, as follows

Withdrawals Balance left
50 50
25 25
10 15
8 7
5 2
2 0

100 99 Totals

Why are the Totals not exactly right?

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,

Let us take things literally always, as you want it. I have 4 points.

Now, in 412, it says if there is no child but there is a brother OR a sister, each gets 1/6 and if they are more than that they share in a 1/3. Again, it says OR. A brother OR a sister. If either one of them is present and there is no child, he OR she gets 1/6. If there are 2 sisters OR 2 brothers, they share in a 1/3. If there are 3 sisters OR 3 brothers, they again share in a 1/3. This part does not mention the case in which a brother AND a sister, or 2 brothers AND 2 sisters, 3 brothers and 3 sisters are present together. This is the correct interpretation if you want to take things literally and stick to the meaning of OR in mathematical language.
Again, taken literally, 411 says " if he has no child and his parents are heirs... " You are adding the word (only)
to this statement and making it " his parents are the only heirs... " Where do you get that from?
4176 ends with, "and if they were brothers (siblings) men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable"
It is obvious that 4176 gives the formula 1 male share equals 2 female share among brothers(siblings) and not between two different categories as parents and siblings like mother and sister.
In the case with 3 daughters, 1 mother, 1 father and 1 wife, you take the shares of mother, father and wife as variable although the word "from" is used to indicate their shares. But isn't this a difficulty for your general theory according to which the word "from what he left" implies fixation of shares and "what he left" implies variability. For you, only one category with " what he left" (3 daughters) is enough to make every other share variable, which were supposed to be fixed according to your theory based on "from".

Onur

Onur

Dear Burhan,

I agree that this method advocated by Yuksel makes everything easier, both in Quran's inheritance distribution and in business as you pointed out.

But, the point is the language Quran uses. If I tell you the following

" You will take 2/3 OF what I leave and your friend will take 1/2 OF what I leave"

If I leave 70 dollars, according to this method(Yuksel, Nun de Plume and possibly some others) you get 40 dollars and your friend gets 30 dollars. But 40 dollars is not 2/3 OF what I leave and 30 dollars is not 1/2 OF what I leave. Taken literally, on the other hand, this statement would lead to the contradiction that 2/3 + 1/2 is greater than 1

So, Nun de Plume is suggesting that we should not use the word OF in translating this verse. Similarly, I should say,

" You take 2/3 what I leave and your friend takes 1/2 what I leave"

Now, in ordinary language and everyday speech, the statement does not make any sense when we drop the word OF. This is why every translation( Reformist, Message, Khalifa, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, etc.) use the word OF and the literal translation(Muhammed Ahmad and Samira Ahmad) has to put OF in paranthesis. This is why this issue arises.

But, in this method, "2/3 what I leave" gets compared with the other share(1/2) and turns out to be 4/7 OF what I leave(40 dollars OF 70 dollars). In other words, "2/3 what I leave" equals "4/7 OF what I leave" in this particular case.

In some cases in the Quran shares do not change in this manner. So, what I am looking for is a consistent method for when to keep the shares fixed and when to do algebra and share comparison changing the shares. There seems to be some hope because Quran has two different uses. Sometimes it says " from what he left" and sometimes "what he left"

Onur

TheNabi

Peace Zulf

but why would sisters get half of brothers? Doesn't make any sense these days... or does it?

I believe it to be based on the society endorsed by the quran where it is a man's responsibility to provide for his family. This distribution is only for people who have not written a Will which one should be doing before they pass on.

Joe

unknownuser

Greeting once again Onur,

Let us take things literally always, as you want it. I have 4 points.

Yes for CALCULATIONS involving MATH not literally take all phrases used in Qur?an.

Now, in 412, it says if there is no child but there is a brother OR a sister,

(

Walakum nisfu ma taraka azwajukum in lam yakun lahunna waladun fa-in kana lahunna waladun falakumu alrrubuAAu mimma tarakna min baAAdi wasiyyatin yooseena biha aw daynin walahunna alrrubuAAu mimma taraktum in lam yakun lakum waladun fa-in kana lakum waladun falahunna alththumunu mimma taraktum min baAAdi wasiyyatin toosoona biha aw daynin wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun walahu akhun aw okhtun falikulli wahidin minhuma alssudusu fa-in kanoo akthara min thalika fahum shurakao fee alththuluthi min baAAdi wasiyyatin yoosa biha aw daynin ghayra mudarrin wasiyyatan mina Allahi waAllahu AAaleemun haleemun

412 And for you (P) half (of) what your (P) spouses/wives left, if (there) was/is not for them (F) a child, so if (there) was/is for them a child, so for you (P) the quarter from what they (F) left from after a bequest/will they (F) bequeath/direct with it or a debt, and for them (F) the quarter from what you (P) left, if (there) was not for you (P) a child, so if (there) was for you (P) a child, so for them (F) the eighth from what you (P) left from after a bequest/will you (P) bequeath/direct with it or a debt, and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father or a woman (wife), and for him (is) a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them (B) the sixth, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third, from after a bequest/will is bequeathed/directed with it or a debt not harming, (a) direction/command from God, and God (is) knowledgeable clement.

Realize that in above ?a brother OR a sister? is someone?s translation.

Where is Leoxyz when we really need him...lol

I agree with the scholar Parwez and render it as?

In case there is one brother and one sister, ??so for each one from them (B) the sixth?

In case more than two ??so to them (B/F) the two thirds from what he left?

unknownuser

Again, taken literally, 411 says " if he has no child and his parents are heirs... " You are adding the word (only)
to this statement and making it " his parents are the only heirs... " Where do you get that from?

411 ??and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third?

This one is really simple ? the mother @1/3 can never get more than the father @1/6 who is financially responsible for her and would contradict the rest of Qur'an and means that the parents are sole heirs and distribution is

1 ? 1/3 (Mother?s share) = 2/3 (Father?s share)

4176 ends with, "and if they were brothers (siblings) men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable"
It is obvious that 4176 gives the formula 1 male share equals 2 female share among brothers(siblings) and not between two different categories as parents and siblings like mother and sister.

This is reference to case 1 Mother 1 Brother;

To Parents
411 ??so if (there) was not for him a child (son), and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3??

1 ? 1/3 (mother?s share) = 2/3 (brother?s share)

I know it's not applicable and only to prove a point it agrees with 412 same distribution.

Yastaftoonaka quli Allahu yufteekum fee alkalalati ini imruon halaka laysa lahu waladun walahu okhtun falaha nisfu ma taraka wahuwa yarithuha in lam yakun laha waladun fa-in kanata ithnatayni falahuma alththuluthani mimma taraka wa-in kanoo ikhwatan rijalan wanisaan falilththakari mithlu haththi alonthayayni yubayyinu Allahu lakum an tadilloo waAllahu bikulli shay-in AAaleemun

412 They ask your opinion/clarification , say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father , if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her half (of) what he left, and he inherits her if (there) was not for her a child, and if they (B) were two (F), so to them (B/F) the two thirds from what he left, and if they were brothers men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.

Word is ?wanisaan? and women (mother?s, wives, etc., not only sisters) as in start of chapter

Ya ayyuha alnnasu ittaqoo rabbakumu allathee khalaqakum min nafsin wahidatin wakhalaqa minha zawjaha wabaththa minhuma rijalan katheeran wanisaan waittaqoo Allaha allathee tasaaloona bihi waalarhama inna Allaha kana AAalaykum raqeeban

41 You, you the people, fear and obey your Lord who created you from one self and He created from it its spouse, and He scattered/distributed from them (B) many men and women, and fear and obey God who you ask each other/make oath to each other with Him, and the wombs/uteruses, that God was/is on you observing.

Brother is equally responsible to take care of mother same as a sister, thus

??so to the male equal/alike share the two females"

1 - mother?s share = 2 mother?s share (brother?s share)
1 = 3 mother?s share
1/3 = mother?s share
2/3 = brother?s share

In the case with 3 daughters, 1 mother, 1 father and 1 wife, you take the shares of mother, father and wife as variable although the word "from" is used to indicate their shares. But isn't this a difficulty for your general theory according to which the word "from what he left" implies fixation of shares and "what he left" implies variability. For you, only one category with " what he left" (3 daughters) is enough to make every other share variable, which were supposed to be fixed according to your theory based on "from".

In math parlance, the literal word ?from? denotes subtraction ?from? something.

??so for them (F) the eighth from what you (P) left from after a bequest/will?

(Total) ? (from) dept/will = subtotal?

Likewise; 2/3 WHAT he left denotes a variable to be calculated ? WHAT exactly did he/she leave him/her/them in relation to others which can also be in relation to 1/8 from what -- as an example once again...

Case 3 Daughters, 1 Wife, Father, Mother

x = what he left (the particular individual in relation to others)
2/3x = what he left daughters
1 ? 2/3x = what he left others
1 ? 2/3x = (1/8 + 1/6 + 1/6)x
1/8x + 1/6x + 1/6x + 2/3x = 1
x = 24/27 = WHAT

Daughters get 2/3 * 24/27 = 16/27 divided equally amongst the 3 of them
Wife gets 1/8 * 24/27 = 3/27
Father gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27
Mother gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27

If it contradicts then obviously it is NOT the best meaning. This principle is to be applied throughout Qur?an.

3918 Those who hear/listen (to) the word/opinion and belief so they follow its best, those are, those whom God guided them, and those, they are (owners) of the pure minds/hearts.

Peace

Onur

Hi Nun de PLume,

In your solution for the case with 1 mother and 1 sister you say

1 ? x (mother?s share unknown) = ? x (sister?s share ? * unknown)
1 = 1/2x + x = 3/2x
x = 2/3

?so for her 1/2 what he left,?

Sister = ? * 2/3 = 1/3
Mother = 2/3

So, you do that kind of solution because the verse says "1/2 what he left" for the sister and not " 1/2 from what he left". I presume if it was "1/2 from what he left" you would do a different solution
In that hypothetical case, mother's share would be 1- 1/2= 1/2 . Right?

And, in the problematic case, if it had said "2/3 from what he left" instead of " 2/3 what he left" for the three daughters, then you would have no basis for applying your algebraic solution and there would be a problem of shares exceeding 1. Right?

Maybe you are right to suggest that there is a linguistic basis to do algebraic solution for cases in which the word "from" is missing for at least one share. I will think about this more. I think Quran could have been much clearer about this whole issue of inheritance so that we would not pursue those subtle distinctions. According to your theory, almost all translations which use the word OF are wrong and almost the whole Islamic world does not know how to divide the inheritance properly.

Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur,

In your solution for the case with 1 mother and 1 sister you say

1 ? x (mother?s share unknown) = ? x (sister?s share ? * unknown)
1 = 1/2x + x = 3/2x
x = 2/3

?so for her 1/2 what he left,?

Sister = ? * 2/3 = 1/3
Mother = 2/3

So, you do that kind of solution because the verse says "1/2 what he left" for the sister and not " 1/2 from what he left". I presume if it was "1/2 from what he left" you would do a different solution
In that hypothetical case, mother's share would be 1- 1/2= 1/2 . Right?

And, in the problematic case, if it had said "2/3 from what he left" instead of " 2/3 what he left" for the three daughters, then you would have no basis for applying your algebraic solution and there would be a problem of shares exceeding 1.

I believe that is correct and only need apply the simple Algebra to WHAT cases?

To Children Only Girls yay
411 so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) 2/3 what he left, and if she was one, so for her the ?

To Husband No Children
412 And for you (P) 1/2 what your (P) spouses/wives left, if (there) was/is not for them (F) a child,

To Sole Sister O0
4176 say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her 1/2 what he left,

It ensures females without males to support them get a fair share.

According to your theory, almost all translations which use the word OF are wrong and almost the whole Islamic world does not know how to divide the inheritance properly.

Actually they've had this figured out for over a thousand years...

http//members.aol.com/IslamicSoftware/irthie.html

A few cases I do disagree with the 4 schools of thought...

Case 1 Daughter, 1 Wife, Father, Mother

x = what he left (the particular individual in relation to others)
1/2x = what he left daughter (what implied in context else the ? is meaningless)
1 ? 1/2x = what he left others
1 ? 1/2x = (1/8 + 1/6 + 1/6)x
1/8x + 1/6x + 1/6x + 1/2x = 1
3/24x + 4/24x + 4/24x + 12/24x = 1
1 = 23/24x
x = 24/23 = WHAT

Daughters get 1/2 * 24/23 = 12/23
Wife gets 1/8 * 24/23 = 3/23
Father gets 1/6 * 24/23 = 4/23
Mother gets 1/6 * 24/23 = 4/23

While they have it as...

Daughter;Wife;Father;Mother;
ESTATE DISTRIBUTION
Daughter gets 1/2
Wife gets 1/8
Father gets 5/24
Mother gets 1/6

To Parents
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child

For above case they contradict Qur'an while we're in agreement most of the time with other cases.

Hey perhaps we'll add a Nun de Plume school of thought. ;D

Peace