Quran inheritance mistake

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)?

unknownuser

Salaam Nun
That's all fine with me.

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

Salaam Samia -- all cases with daughter; husband or wife/wives; mother; father and combinations thereof...

case daughter; husband

1 - 1/4 (husband) = 1/2x (daughter)

2 - 1/2 = x

3/2 = x

daughter = 1/2 (3/2) = 3/4
husband = 1/4

Onur

Peace Nun de Plume,

I have one question about your approach regarding kalalatan. According to your understanding, siblings do not get any share when the deceased has a spouse, wife or husband. But, they do get shares if has either a father or a mother according to 412 or 4176. This suggests that spouses have precedence over parents in terms of inheritance spouses do not share with siblings and hence reduce their shares while parents share with siblings and reduce shares.
However, it seems to me that according to Quran, it is the other way around parents have precedence over the wife. Let us compare the shares of parents and wifes when there are children wife gets 1/8 whereas parents get 1/6, a higher share. I know that kalalatan also involves "no children", I just gave this example to establish that parents are higher in the inheritance hierarchy as compared to the wife. I am wondering if this would create any problem for your interpretation.

Onur

unknownuser

Peace Onur,

Depends on the case; parents share with siblings anyway except when there is a spouse then siblings get nothing and parents get more which is an advantage to parents.

2180 It is prescribed for you, when death approaches any of you, if he leaves wealth, that he make a bequest to parents and next of kin, according to reasonable manners. (This is) a duty upon Al-Muttaqoon (the pious).

1723 And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour.

Samia

Salaam Samia -- all cases with daughter; husband or wife/wives; mother; father and combinations thereof...

case daughter; husband

1 - 1/4 (husband) = 1/2x (daughter)

2 - 1/2 = x

3/2 = x

daughter = 1/2 (3/2) = 3/4
husband = 1/4

Salaam Nun

What was the need for all these algebraic operations just to arrive at the conclusion that the daughter will get 3/4 (not the half, definitely) of what her mother left? The husband gets 1/4, automatically the daughter gets 3/4..no need for all these operations. The conclusion is the same and it IS NOt half what he (in this case she) left.

Onur

Peace Nun de Plume,
But it still seems to me a contradiction that (in your interpretation) wife does not share with siblings whereas parents share with the siblings given that Quran places the parents above the wife in the inheritance hierarchy.

unknownuser

Salaam Nun

What was the need for all these algebraic operations just to arrive at the conclusion that the daughter will get 3/4 (not the half, definitely) of what her mother left? The husband gets 1/4, automatically the daughter gets 3/4..no need for all these operations. The conclusion is the same and it IS NOt half what he (in this case she) left.

Salaam Samia,

Case 3 daughters, husband
1 ? ? husband = 2/3 daughters
? = 2/3

Does not equate, and my belief it?s not what Qur?an says nor are words used without reason.

2/3 M Taraka (what he left) is not fixed and denotes variable dependent on inheritors.
1/4 Mimm Tarakna (from what they left) ? in math, from denotes subtraction/take/subset.

412 ?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?

People read 2/3 what he left and assume it means take 2/3 from the total inheritance when there is no from thus end up with all sorts of < > 1 problems/contradictions.

Case 3 daughters, husband
x = what he left (ma taraka) variable to be calculated for this case
2/3x = what he left daughters
1 ? 2/3x = what he left others
1 ? 2/3x = 1/4
x = 9/8

2/3 M Taraka (what he left) to daughters is not 2/3 (in this case) rather 2/3 * 9/8 = ?

The language of Qur?an has to be followed precisely and mathematics has to equate.

Peace Nun de Plume,
But it still seems to me a contradiction that (in your interpretation) wife does not share with siblings whereas parents share with the siblings given that Quran places the parents above the wife in the inheritance hierarchy.

Peace Onur,

Which case? There is no contradiction since these are all separate events?

Parents share with siblings
Parents share with wife ? parents get more (advantage parents)
Wife does not share with siblings ? no parents (they are dead)

How can non-existent parents ever be at a disadvantage?

Onur

Peace Nun,

I am actually not making an argument about any disadvantage. My argument is about inheritance hierarchy. Let me illustrate.
If we accept your definition of kalalatan in 412 and 4176 and look at the following cases

1 wife, 1 brother,1 sister
Wife gets all.
Mother, 1 brother, 1 sister
Mother and siblings share.
Accordingly, wife>mother when cases involve siblings. By not giving siblings a share when there is a wife but giving them a share when there are parents, wife is priveleged over parents in the general hierarchy of inheritance,albeit indirectly.
Children, mother, wife
Mother gets 1/6 and wife gets 1/8
Accordingly, mother>wife when cases involve children. This time, mother is privileged over the wife.

This is not about disadvatange but the consistency in the logic of hierarchy

On the from what/what distinction in some cases where each share is given in the "from what" form we still have to do algebraic/relativistic method. This shows that this distinction is not consistent and not very helpful.

Samia