Quran inheritance mistake

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

I do not think there is a verse about daughters and no sons, or sons and no daughters, because this is redundant. It's only about "awladukum". Otherwise, where does it explain if there are only two daughters and no sons?

411 God directs/commands/recommends you in your children, to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females, so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left, and if she was one, so for her the half...

The above IF statement; else contradicts ?

Take simple case of one daughter and one son
Girl gets ? and boy gets twice her amount...

? + 2/2 = 3/2 = 1.5 times total inheritance

Likewise, with two daughters and two sons
The girls get 2/3 or 1/3 each and boys get twice each girls amount...

1/3 + 1/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 = 6/3 = 2 times total inheritance

Hope the above clarifies.

Peace

Samia

Salaam Samia,

411 God directs/commands/recommends you in your children, to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females, so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left, and if she was one, so for her the half...

The above IF statement; else contradicts ?

Take simple case of one daughter and one son
Girl gets ? and boy gets twice her amount...

? + 2/2 = 3/2 = 1.5 times total inheritance

Likewise, with two daughters and two sons
The girls get 2/3 or 1/3 each and boys get twice each girls amount...

1/3 + 1/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 = 6/3 = 2 times total inheritance

Hope the above clarifies.

Peace

Salaam Nun
My question was about two females only (no sons).

? + 2/2 = 3/2 = 1.5 times total inheritance

The verse says "she will have the half of what he left", but here you are not giving her the half but a third.
How would you divide an inheritance of ?1000.00 in this case?

The verse says "the fortune (share of) the two females" as you correctly translate it, but then you apply it as if it says "twice the female". I believe that the "to the male the share of the two females" apply only when we have two females and one male and their multiple. Althrough the verse it is about sons and daughters, and all the mathematical possibilities. But you seem to stick to "female = 1/2 male", rendering the rest of the verse purposeless.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

My question was about two females only (no sons).

411 ?so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left...

Therefore, when two or more females only (no sons) their share = 2/3 what he left.

How would you divide an inheritance of ?1000.00 in this case?

Not really sure which case so I'll do a few.

Case 1 daughter
Sole inheritor, she gets the whole amount; no need for inheritance laws.

Case 2 daughters
They split ?1000.00 evenly or ?500.00 each daughter

Case 1 daughter and 1 son
411 ?to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females
Let x = daughter share; 2x = son share
x + 2x = ?1000.00; 3x = ?1000.00
x = ?1000.00/3 = 1/3 daughter
(2* 1/3) * ?1000.00 = 2/3 son

Case 2 daughters and 1 son
411 ?to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females
Let x = daughter share; 2x = son share
x + x + 2x = ?1000.00; 4x = ?1000.00
x = ?1000.00/4 = 1/4 or ?250.00 each daughter
2*1/4 * ?1000.00 = 1/2 or ?500.00 son

The verse says "the fortune (share of) the two females" as you correctly translate it, but then you apply it as if it says "twice the female".

It?s the same M = F + F = 2F

I believe that the "to the male the share of the two females" apply only when we have two females and one male and their multiple.

Alright, how would you divide an inheritance of ?1000.00 in this case?

Case 2 daughters and 1 son
If 2/3 goes to the two daughters, then how do we also give 2/3 to the son?

Althrough the verse it is about sons and daughters, and all the mathematical possibilities. But you seem to stick to "female = 1/2 male", rendering the rest of the verse purposeless.

No, 411 ??to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females? is the general rule for any mixed daughter/son combination while rest of verse does serve a specific purpose?

?so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left, and if she was one, so for her the half...

Thus if they are girls ONLY (no sons) two or more they get 2/3 what he left, else if ONLY one daughter then she gets ? -- what he left is implied in context.

Let me know if you have more specific cases; think I'll go and do my taxes now and make out a will too... ;D

Samia

Salaam Samia,

411 ?so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left...

Therefore, when two or more females only (no sons) their share = 2/3 what he left.

Salaam Nun

The verse does not say "two or more". It says "women more/above two". There is no two daughters only, therefore the whole verse is about daughters when there are sons. Two daughters are already mentioned in the beginning of the the verse.

Case 1 daughter
Sole inheritor, she gets the whole amount; no need for inheritance laws.

Case 2 daughters
They split ?1000.00 evenly or ?500.00 each daughter

This is the correct answer bravo, which is contrary to the "Islamic/sharia" law

Likewise, with two daughters and two sons
The girls get 2/3 or 1/3 each and boys get twice each girls amount...

1/3 + 1/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 = 6/3 = 2 times total inheritance

Do we have an example of two females and two males? Don't you think this is more analogous to one female one male (since we have only the example of two females and one male)? In fact the verse does not bother to mention the males at all except in the beginning, so I think the formula should be completely different

2 females 1 male (21) Number of children respecting the ratio 21(e.g applicable to 4 females 2 males; 6 females 3 males...2n females n males)
1 female and X males (1/2 for the female; 1/2 for the male/males)

And as you and I agree, no verse for sole gender, males or females.
more than 2 females (2/3 for X females where X is more than two; 1/3 for the males).
In this way, no one gender is favoured over the other.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

1 female and X males (1/2 for the female; 1/2 for the male/males)

Contradicts 411 ??to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females?

Case 1 Daughter; 5 Sons
Daughter = ?
Each son = 1/10

more than 2 females (2/3 for X females where X is more than two; 1/3 for the males).
In this way, no one gender is favoured over the other.

Again contradicts??to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females?

In addition, it falls apparent mathematically with parents and/or spouse?

Case 2 Daughters; 10 Sons; Wife; Father; Mother

2/3 + 1/3 = 1; what about wife and parents?

Also, each girl gets 1/3 while each son gets 1/30?

The system/interpretation needs to work for any and all cases and not contradict; should be thus...

Case 2 Daughters; 10 Sons; Wife; Father; Mother
1 ? (1/8 + 1/6 + 1/6) = children?s share @21 ratio male to female per 411
1 ? 11/24 = 13/24
x = girl; 2x = boy
x + x + 10(2x) = 13/24 = 22x
13/528 = x

ESTATE DISTRIBUTION
Sons get 13/264 each
Daughters get 13/528 each
Wife gets 1/8
Father gets 1/6
Mother gets 1/6

Peace

Hati

Salam,

Case 2 Daughters; Wife; Father; Mother
1 ? (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/ = 2/3 what he left daughters
Let x = what
1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x i.e. what he left parents/wife
1 ? 2/3x = 11/24x
1 = 11/24x + 16/24x = 27/24x
24/27 = x

ESTATE DISTRIBUTION
Daughters get 2/3 * 24/27 = 16/27 or 8/27 each
Wife gets 1/8 * 24/27 = 1/9
Father gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27
Mother gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27

Let me extend my confusion. In the above quote

2/3x = share of the girls
1 ? 2/3x = left to be shared by parents & wife
1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) = share of mother
1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) = share of father
1/8(1 ? 2/3x ) = share of wife

Equation
1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) + 1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) + 1/8(1 ? 2/3x ) = 1 ? 2/3x
11/24(1 ? 2/3x ) = 1 ? 2/3x
11/24 = 1

(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = share of parents &wife

2/3(1 - (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x) = share of girls

(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x + 2/3(1 - (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x) = 1

11/24x=1
x = 24/11

Hati

unknownuser

Salam Hati,

Let me extend my confusion. In the above quote

2/3x = share of the girls
1 ? 2/3x = left to be shared by parents & wife

You were ok so far until...

1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) = share of mother
1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) = share of father
1/8(1 ? 2/3x ) = share of wife

Equation
1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) + 1/6(1 ? 2/3x ) + 1/8(1 ? 2/3x ) = 1 ? 2/3x
11/24(1 ? 2/3x ) = 1 ? 2/3x
11/24 = 1

11/24 != 1

The above does not equate.

(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = share of parents &wife

Again you were correct above; now combine the two you got right into equation and solve, thus

1 ? 2/3x = left to be shared by parents & wife

(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = share of parents &wife

1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x

1 ? 2/3x = 1/6x + 1/6x + 1/8x
1 = 1/6x + 1/6x + 1/8x + 2/3x
1 = 4/24x + 4/24x + 3/24x + 16/24x
1 = 27/24x
24/27 = x

DISTRIBUTION
Daughters get 2/3 * 24/27 = 16/27 or 8/27 each
Wife gets 1/8 * 24/27 = 1/9
Father gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27
Mother gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27

Hati

Salaam,

Case 2 Daughters; Wife; Father; Mother
1 ? (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/ = 2/3 what he left daughters
Let x = what
1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x i.e. what he left parents/wife

I find the red and blue in above equation does not match. Consider the following

Given that 2/3 x = share of the girls
1 ? 2/3x = what he left parents/wife

Very clear this amount is to be shared by parents and wife

1/6 for mother = 1/6 (1-2/3 x)
1/6 for father = 1/6 (1-2/3 x)
1/8 for wife = 1/8 (1-2/3 x)

But the problem is
(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = what he left parents/wife = 11/24 x

If so, then

1 - 11/24 x = share of the girls !

That makes 1 ? 2/3x <> (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = 11/24 x

because 1-11/24 x <> 1 - 2/3 x

hati

unknownuser

I find the red and blue in above equation does not match. Consider the following

Given that 2/3 x = share of the girls
1 ? 2/3x = what he left parents/wife

Very clear this amount is to be shared by parents and wife

1/6 for mother = 1/6 (1-2/3 x)
1/6 for father = 1/6 (1-2/3 x)
1/8 for wife = 1/8 (1-2/3 x)

But the problem is
(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = what he left parents/wife = 11/24 x

If so, then

1 - 11/24 x = share of the girls !

Therefore 1 ? 11/24x = 2/3x (i.e. share of the girls)

That makes 1 ? 2/3x <> (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x = 11/24 x

because 1-11/24 x <> 1 - 2/3 x

(1 ? 2/3x) in above equation should be 2/3x instead.

Peace

Hati

Salaam,

(1 ? 2/3x) in above equation should be 2/3x instead.

No, it can't be because

If 2/3 x = share of the girls, the remaining inheritance is 1 - 2/3 x

Else if (1/6+1/8+1/6) x = 11/24 x = share of the parents, the remainder is 1 - 11/24 x

Better if shares are placed in a pie chart, the more it clarifies that

1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x i.e. what he left parents/wife

the left side of that equation above does not equal the right side.

Hati

unknownuser

Peace Hati,

This is simple math;

No, it can't be because

If 2/3 x = share of the girls, the remaining inheritance is 1 - 2/3 x

Which means 1 ? 2/3x = 11/24x (the remaining inheritance)

Else if (1/6+1/8+1/6) x = 11/24 x = share of the parents, the remainder is 1 - 11/24 x

Which means 1 ? 11/24x = 2/3x (share of girls)

Both equations above are the same.

Better if shares are placed in a pie chart, the more it clarifies that

The equation first has to be solved for x before it can go in a pie chart.

1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x

the left side of that equation above does not equal the right side.

Yes it does as already shown/solved in prior post; we'll do it again with each step...

1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x

1 ? 2/3x = 1/6x + 1/6x + 1/8x
1 - 2/3x = 4/24x + 4/24x + 3/24x
1 - 2/3x = 11/24x
1 = 11/24x + 2/3x
1 = 11/24x + 16/24x
1 = 27/24x
24/27 = x

DISTRIBUTION
Daughters get 2/3 * 24/27 = 16/27 or 8/27 each
Wife gets 1/8 * 24/27 = 1/9
Father gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27
Mother gets 1/6 * 24/27 = 4/27

Hati

Salaam,

Yes simple,

1 = 27/24x

That is just simply making the shares 2/3 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/8

(2/3 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/ x = 1

Hati

Samia

Salaam Samia,

Contradicts 411 ??to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females?

Case 1 Daughter; 5 Sons
Daughter = ?
Each son = 1/10

Again contradicts??to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females?

Salaam Nun
Why does it contradict it? You do not give the examples with the two females, and hence your calculations regarding one female are correct. You read "the two females" and think "twice the female". Also notice that the inheritence verses revolve around the female, not the male.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

Why does it contradict it? You do not give the examples with the two females, and hence your calculations regarding one female are correct. You read "the two females" and think "twice the female". Also notice that the inheritence verses revolve around the female, not the male.

411 ??to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females?

m = 2f
m/2 = f

The above formula applies for ALL cases/combinations of brothers and sisters.

Case 1 male; 1 female
m = 2/3
f = 1/3

Case 1 male; 2 females
m = 1/2
f1 = 1/4
f2 = 1/4

Case 3 males; 2 females
m1 = 1/4
m2 = 1/4
m3 = 1/4
f1 = 1/8
f2 = 1/8

Qur'an cannot contradict itself in any logical way and has to be consistent throughout.

Do they not then consider the Qur'?n carefully? Had it been from other than All?h, they would surely have found therein many contradictions. (482)

Peace

Onur

Hi again Nun de Plume,

I hope you are doing well. I am back on this issue and still thinking about the kalalatan. You had said that kalalatan in 412 refers to a spouseless, childless person with parents and in 4176 to a spouseless, childless, fatherless person with a mother.
I agree that we have to distinguish the kalalatan in 412 and 4176. But Could you please briefly elaborate on how you came to this specific distinction?
Thanks
Onur

unknownuser

Hi again Nun de Plume,

I hope you are doing well. I am back on this issue and still thinking about the kalalatan. You had said that kalalatan in 412 refers to a spouseless, childless person with parents and in 4176 to a spouseless, childless, fatherless person with a mother.
I agree that we have to distinguish the kalalatan in 412 and 4176. But Could you please briefly elaborate on how you came to this specific distinction?
Thanks
Onur

Greetings Onur ? I?m good thank you and hope all is well with you. The specific distinction came apparent by logical elimination of candidate inheritors.

412 and 4176 stipulate no children or spouse which leaves parents and/or siblings?

Case mother; brother; sister; father

411 ?so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6,
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (brother; sister; father)
Now we need to use either 412 or 4176; question is which?

4176 ?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.

1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (brothers/sisters 21 ratio + father)
4176 cannot work for we don?t know what to give the father exactly?

412 ?and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child 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.

1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 brothers and sisters = 1/2 father

Thus for cases involving mother, father, and siblings we need to use 412; therefore, by logical deduction "kalalatan" in 412 is a loner with a father.

Another case to demonstrate?

Case mother; brother; sister

411 ?so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6,
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (brother; sister)
Again we need to use either 412 or 4176; question is which?

412 ....and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child 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.

1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 (brothers and sisters) = 3/6 surplus!

4176 ....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.

1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (brother + sisters 21 ratio) or 10/18 brother + 5/18 sister

Thus for cases involving mother and siblings we need to use 4176; therefore, by logical deduction ?alkalalati? in 4176 is the loner without a father.

I actually got the idea from my ?alkalalati? loner neighbor who lives with his mother.

This is a bit like the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) -- they should study/learn inheritance verses which teach logic. !

Peace

Onur

Thanks Nun de Plume. Your reasoning generally makes sense to me. I have one little quibble about the part when you say, 1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 (brothers and sisters) = 3/6 surplus! You seem to be suggesting that having a surplus is a problem.
But, As we had discussed earlier, surplus is not a problem when we compare the shares with each other with the algebraic method.

But, I agree with your point that we cannot apply 4176 in the case of father,mother,brother,sister because if we used 4176 we would have an unsolvable equation with two unknowns given that both father's and siblings' share would be not specified.

One other point that I want to raise is that most Quran translations do not include "spouseless" in the definition of kalalatan. I think that they are probably wrong and you may be right to include "spouseless" as a feature of kalalatan.

I will try to test your theory of kalalatan with some examples to see if there are any problematic cases. Thanks and peace,
Onur

Samia

Salaam Samia,

411 ?so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left...

Case 1 daughter
Sole inheritor, she gets the whole amount; no need for inheritance laws.

Salaam Nun

According to your understanding of the first verse of inheritance, you contradict yourself here, because, according to your understanding, THERE IS inheritance law (and if she was one, for her half what he left). Why, then, do you make her the sole heir? At least the shari'a law was consistent in its (mis) understanding, which, of course, had its consequences of blunders and addition of people who, otherwise, should not inherit.

unknownuser

Thanks Nun de Plume. Your reasoning generally makes sense to me. I have one little quibble about the part when you say, 1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 (brothers and sisters) = 3/6 surplus! You seem to be suggesting that having a surplus is a problem.
But, As we had discussed earlier, surplus is not a problem when we compare the shares with each other with the algebraic method.

You are welcome Onur,

There?s never a surplus.

Salaam Nun

According to your understanding of the first verse of inheritance, you contradict yourself here, because, according to your understanding, THERE IS inheritance law (and if she was one, for her half what he left). Why, then, do you make her the sole heir? At least the shari'a law was consistent in its (mis) understanding, which, of course, had its consequences of blunders and addition of people who, otherwise, should not inherit.

Salaam Samia,

No contradiction.

Case daughter (sole inheritor) gets the whole -- no one else left to divide with.

This is common sense which even all the schools according to Abu-Haneefa, Malik, Shafii, Ibn Hanbal agree and give her entire inheritance. However, they error when the daughter has uncles/aunts making her split it with them.

Case daughter; brother (i.e. her uncle)
Daughter = 1/2
Uncle = 1/2

That is not following instructions probably influenced by an uncle to cheat the daughter from her full inheritance; both 412 "kalalatan" and 4176 ?alkalalati? are childless thus uncles/aunts ONLY participate if deceased was childless.

Simple statement IF no children THEN

412...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child 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 ...if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her ? 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/alike (the) share (of) the two females, God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.

Peace

Samia

Salaam Nun
That's all fine with me.

No contradiction.

Case daughter (sole inheritor) gets the whole -- no one else left to divide with.

This is common sense which even all the schools according to Abu-Haneefa, Malik, Shafii, Ibn Hanbal agree and give her entire inheritance. However, they error when the daughter has uncles/aunts making her split it with them.

Then, when are we going to apply (If she was one, then she gets half of what he left)?