Quran inheritance mistake

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

Onur

Dear Nun de Plume,

Thanks for your last answer. It seems that your method has some consistency in using the distinction between "from what" and "what".

I have yet another question to you ) How do you solve a case with 3 brothers, 3 sisters and 1 father. In that case, do you apply 412 or 4176 in distributing the shares of brothers and sisters? Last sentence of 4176 says if many siblings, male gets twice as the female. In your understanding, 412 says if there are more than one brother and one sister, they share in a 1/3 together. So, I am wondering which one you apply in solving the case with 3 brothers, 3 sisters and 1 father. Maybe both? And What share would you give to the father? Would you make the 3 brothers and 3 sisters share the 1/3 ( 412) according to 1 male gets 2 female( 4176) and give the rest(2/3) to the father? Or would you do something else?

unknownuser

Dear Nun de Plume,

Thanks for your last answer. It seems that your method has some consistency in using the distinction between "from what" and "what".

I have yet another question to you How do you solve a case with 3 brothers, 3 sisters and 1 father. In that case, do you apply 412 or 4176 in distributing the shares of brothers and sisters? Last sentence of 4176 says if many siblings, male gets twice as the female. In your understanding, 412 says if there are more than one brother and one sister, they share in a 1/3 together. So, I am wondering which one you apply in solving the case with 3 brothers, 3 sisters and 1 father. Maybe both? And What share would you give to the father? Would you make the 3 brothers and 3 sisters share the 1/3 ( 412) according to 1 male gets 2 female( 4176) and give the rest(2/3) to the father? Or would you do something else?

To Brothers and Sisters
412 "...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father..."

NOT applicable since there is a FATHER!

4176 say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father..."

NOT applicable since ther is a FATHER!

FATHER = 100%

Peace and good night. peace

Onur

To Brothers and Sisters
412 "...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father..."

NOT applicable since there is a FATHER!

4176 say "God decrees/decides in the man or woman without a son/father..."

NOT applicable since ther is a FATHER!

FATHER = 100%

Peace and good night. peace

That is somewhat strange. 3 brothers and 3 sisters getting nothing and Father getting everything. 6 relatives neglected and father gets everything. Do you think that this is just?

Let me change the case. 3 brothers, 3 sisters and 1 mother. How would you solve this? Would you apply 412 or 4176 for the siblings?

Thanks. Peace,
Onur

unknownuser

That is somewhat strange. 3 brothers and 3 sisters getting nothing and Father getting everything. 6 relatives neglected and father gets everything. Do you think that this is just?

Yes.

Let me change the case. 3 brothers, 3 sisters and 1 mother. How would you solve this? Would you apply 412 or 4176 for the siblings?

Good question;

an-Nisa' (Women) 412
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

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.

an-Nisa' (Women) 4176

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

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 everything knowledgeable.

Since brothers/sisters are nullified by children then brothers/sisters replace sons/daughters.

Case 3 Sons; 3 Daughters; 3 Brothers; 3 Sisters; Mother
1 ? 1/6 = 3 * 2x + 3x
5/16 = 9x
5/54 = x

Sons get 5/27 each
Daughters get 5/54 each
Mother gets 1/6
Brothers get NONE
Sisters get NONE

Case 3 Brothers; 3 Sisters; Mother
Mother 1/6
Brothers 5/27 each
Sisters 5/54 each

Above is the traditional school of thought; although have to think about this, especially which of the two loners (no father, wife, or children) kalalatan in 412 or alkalalati in 4176 has a mother.

No different than some loner living with their mother today like my neighbor?lol

Could be kalalatan in 412 leaves 1/3 to his brothers and sisters while the rest 2/3 to the mother.

Which would mean that 4176 applies to cases with no parents, wife, or children only brother/sisters then ? ??so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females??

Peace

unknownuser

Here is my new understanding of the inheritance verses...

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,

(1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father)

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,

(If brother and mother and father 1 ? 1/6 mother ? 2/3 father = 1/6 brother)

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,

?kalalatan? (No Father, No Children, No Wife)

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,

(If brother/sister and mother 1 ? 1/6 brother/sister = 5/6 mother)

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.

?alkalalati? (No Father, No Mother, No Children)

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,

I welcome any new contradicting test cases...

Peace

Onur

Hello Nun de Plume,

I also have the hunch that "kalalatan" in 412 and 4176 have different meanings. As I said earlier, Quran translations do not make this clear and therefore some kind of interpretation is necessary (traditionalists seem to go around the issue by applying 412 for uterine/half siblings and 4176 for full siblings but this is not very convincing) I will think about your new approach to this issue as well as your general theory about the distinction between "what he left" and "from what he left."

I am wondering if "nisfu ma taraka" means "half what you left" how would an Arabic speaking person say "half OF what you left." I assume, "Nisfu mimma taraka" would mean " half from what you left." Something else for OF?

Thanks,
Onur