Quran inheritance mistake

[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?

1. Parents share with siblings
2. Parents share with wife ? parents get more (advantage parents)
3. 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. 1 wife, 1 brother,1 sister
   Wife gets all.

2. 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.

3. 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]

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.

Salaam Nun

I believe that you do not know where the difference between "maa tarak" and "mimmaa tarak" resides. Try to remove the "al" from "nisf" and see if you can still say "mimmaa taraka". That's all, no difference in the meaning.

Your other problem that leads you to wrestle with the calculations is that you still believe hat part of this verse concern daughters and sons and then part of it concerns daughters alone. You yourself said

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.

But avoided my question when I asked you the use of the part of the verse where it says and if she was one she will have the half of what he left. However you wrestle with "ma" or "mimma" you cannot make "gets the half of what he left" equals "gets the whole".

[unknownuser]

Salaam Nun

I believe that you do not know where the difference between "maa tarak" and "mimmaa tarak" resides. Try to remove the "al" from "nisf" and see if you can still say "mimmaa taraka". That's all, no difference in the meaning.

Your other problem that leads you to wrestle with the calculations is that you still believe hat part of this verse concern daughters and sons and then part of it concerns daughters alone. You yourself said

But avoided my question when I asked you the use of the part of the verse where it says and if she was one she will have the half of what he left. However you wrestle with "ma" or "mimma" you cannot make "gets the half of what he left" equals "gets the whole".

Salaam Samia,

These are supposed contradictions; take a look try and resolve?

http//www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html

We are back to old replies?

411 ?so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) 2/3 what he left, and if she was one...

2/3 or 1/2 are only applicable IF only daughters else ?to the male equal fortune the two females? is a contradiction.

Case daughter; son
? daughter + 1 son = 1 ?

Correct distribution should be 1/3 daughter + 2/3 son = 1

[unknownuser]

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. 1 wife, 1 brother,1 sister
   Wife gets all.
2. 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.

No, the wife is never privileged over parents; by not giving siblings a share when there is a wife means the wife is privileged over siblings. There is never a case involving a parent, wife, and siblings where that is true.

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

Nothing consistent or logical about including dead parents and judging a non-exist case.

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.

It takes only a single ma (what) unknown variable to render the whole equation algebraic.

Hope transition logic from what to what is apparent?

Case 2 daughters; wife; father; mother
1 ? (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/ = 2/3 what he left daughters
x = what
1 ? 2/3x = (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/x i.e. what he left parents/wife
1 ? 2/3x = 11/24x
24/27 = x

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

Even if it?s not apparent we are going back in circles to old posts and I?m done with this topic.

Peace be up you

[Samia]

2/3 or 1/2 are only applicable IF only daughters else ?to the male equal fortune the two females? is a contradiction.

Salaam Nun

I thought you said when only daughter/s they take the whole!!

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

This is common sense

Case daughter; son
? daughter + 1 son = 1 ?

Correct distribution should be 1/3 daughter + 2/3 son = 1

Also, in case one daughter one son, you say (1/3 daughter and 2/3 son). But the verse says (to the male the equal of the share of the two females) not "twice the female, and we have here only one female. Why are you giving him "twice one female"?
Also, where did you get the meaning of "if she was one" as synonymous to "if she was an only child"?

[Onur]

Hello Nun,
Well, my point is that at times, when there is absolutely no what case we still do the algebraic method to divide without remainder. The point is that having a what case is not a necessary condition to do the algebraic method. This renders the distinction somewhat inconsistent.

On the other point, you may be right. And also I realize that formal logic might be misleading. Mother would instinctually want to share with her kids- that is, the siblings of the deceased- whereas the wife/husband would not have the same motivation to share with the siblings. Quran might be attentive to that aspect of human nature.

[unknownuser]

Salaam Samia,

I thought you said when only daughter/s they take the whole!!

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

sole inheritor there are no brothers, no sisters and she is the only inheritor.

Also, in case one daughter one son, you say (1/3 daughter and 2/3 son). But the verse says (to the male the equal of the share of the two females) not "twice the female, and we have here only one female. Why are you giving him "twice one female"?

Equal the share of two females = twice the share of one female

two females = twice one female

It's the same thing.

case 2 daughters; 1 son
daughter = 1/4
daughter = 1/4
son = 1/2

2 females share (1/4 + 1/4) = 1/2 son's share
2 * 1/4 = 1/2

It's not 2/3 for daughters (that's only applicable if there are no sons) and does not equate...

2/3 daughters + 2/3 son (to the male the equal of the share of the two females) = 1 + 1/3 which is too much!

Also, where did you get the meaning of "if she was one" as synonymous to "if she was an only child"?

If she was one definitely means ONE girl child and it's impossible for her to have brothers...

Case daughter; son
? daughter + 1 son = 1 + ? which again is too much!

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

Peace

[Samia]

Salaam Nun

Equal the share of two females = twice the share of one female

two females = twice one female

It's the same thing.

Of course it is not the same thing. The share of the two females indicates the case only when there are two females. Twice the female makes it a general principle . This is further emphasised by (if she was one female), which is definitely not (if she was the sole female). This is the error that previous scholars made and you are repeating. If I say I have one son this does not mean I do not have daughters, but shows that the subject is about "sons". The same thing in inheritance verses It revolves around the female, not the male; and the verse is about your children ONLY, no mention of parents or spouses in this verse.

sole inheritor there are no brothers, no sisters and she is the only inheritor.

My question is still standing. You have not answered it. The verse clearly says, in the same context of more than two girls, that "if she was one then she gets the half". But I see that you immediately consider this as "not the sole heir". The WHOLE verse did not mention AT ALL any parents nor spouse, but did mention, and IS ABOUT CHILDREN. So why do you decide that this is the case of "if there are parents and/or spouse but no brothers" (quite the contrary to the theme of the verse)? Are you adding information not given to us implicitly nor explixitly?

Another question that you have not answered before What if they were only two daughters? Why isn't this case not mentioned in the verse, but only if she was one AND if they were above two (if it was really about only girls who are not sole heirs)?

[unknownuser]

Salaam Samia,

My question is still standing. You have not answered it. The verse clearly says, in the same context of more than two girls, that "if she was one then she gets the half". But I see that you immediately consider this as "not the sole heir". The WHOLE verse did not mention AT ALL any parents nor spouse, but did mention, and IS ABOUT CHILDREN. So why do you decide that this is the case of "if there are parents and/or spouse but no brothers" (quite the contrary to the theme of the verse)? Are you adding information not given to us implicitly nor explixitly?

The verse mentions parents...
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 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the sixth 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 third, so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the sixth, from after a bequest/will he bequeaths with it or a debt; your (P) fathers and your (P) sons, you (P) do not know, which of them (is) closer to you (P) (in) benefit/usefulness, a religious duty/command from God, that God was/is knowledgeable, wise/judicious.

Another question that you have not answered before What if they were only two daughters?

They get whole thing.

Why isn't this case not mentioned in the verse, but only if she was one AND if they were above two (if it was really about only girls who are not sole heirs)?

These are simple IF statements; I really don't understand your questions.

Please give case examples and I'll try answering the best I can how to distribute.

Then you tell us how it should be according to your reading.

Also, this is not about a single verse or part of a verse rather all verses in Quran or the whole aggregate view on inheritance ? one part cannot contradict another.

Peace

[Samia]

Salaam Samia,

The verse mentions parents...
411

You are right. My mistake.

if for him was a child (son), so if (there) was not for him a child (son),

What do you mean by (son) between two brackets? Does the verse say "male"? "walad" means child, irrespective of gender.

and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third, so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the sixth, from after a bequest/will he bequeaths with it or a debt; your (P) fathers and your (P) sons,

Again, why "sons"? It says "abnaa'ukum" which means "descendants" irrespective of gender.
The verse mentions parents, then speaks only of the mother. Is she the sole parent?

I really don't understand your questions

I mean this part

"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 "
Which you believe is "daughters but no sons"
Case of one female
Case of more than two females.

What if they were two?

[unknownuser]

You are right. My mistake.

What do you mean by (son) between two brackets? Does the verse say "male"? "walad" means child, irrespective of gender.

Again, why "sons"? It says "abnaa'ukum" which means "descendants" irrespective of gender.
The verse mentions parents, then speaks only of the mother. Is she the sole parent?

Was in a hurry and copy/pasted the literal translation; http//www.islam-muslims.org/quran/4/11/

Point was to show that parent was included in the verse.

I mean this part

"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 "
Which you believe is "daughters but no sons"
Case of one female
Case of more than two females.

What if they were two?

Are you suggesting that part does not include two females and only 3 or greater?

If 1 female she gets 1/2 and males regardless of how many get 1/2
If 3 or more females they get 2/3 and males regardless of number get 1/3
If 2 females they share with "the male" according to
"to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females"

Is that your understanding and if so, what if there are 2 females and 2 or more males?

Also, please distribute below case according to your understanding of Quran...

case 3 daughters; 2 sons; mother; father; wife

I have it thus

sons = 13/84 each
daughters = 13/168 each
wife = 1/8
father = 1/6
mother = 1/6

Peace

[Samia]

Salaam Nun

Thank you very much for your patience and the high manners with you went through this with me. I really appreciate this.
The fact of the matter is that these are not my ideas, although I agree with them so much that I was afraid they would be "too good to be true". I tried with many people to see if they were error proof, but they were not as patient or knowledgeable as you.

These are from Dr Sha7rour's book (Towards new fundamentals on Islamic Jurisprudence concerning women &#1577, where he discusses inheritance in over 100 pages.

Dr. Sha7rour believes that in this verse (11) we have the basic formula for inheritance distribution amongst the children

2 f and 1 male
1 female and 1 male
3+ females and Xmales

They are the unit formula, to which we can apply different multiples or variables

a) 2x X females and X males
b) X females and X males
c) 3 x X females and YX males, where the multiples are neither a nor b.

Back to your question
I) 2f and 2 or 2+ m

First case 2 f and 2m is calculated as 1f.and 1 m (half for the females and half for the males) boys and girls get equal shares.
Second case 2 females and more than two males case a) females get half and males get the other half boys and girls will not necesarily get equal shares.

II) 3 daughters and 2 sons case c), because it is not a multiple of case a) nor b).

This is a summary of the basic equation.

[unknownuser]

Salaam Samia,

Thank you very much for your patience and the high manners with you went through this with me. I really appreciate this.
The fact of the matter is that these are not my ideas, although I agree with them so much that I was afraid they would be "too good to be true". I tried with many people to see if they were error proof, but they were not as patient or knowledgeable as you.

Thank you ? my pleasure. Good we continued the discussion; it?s a new and interesting perspective.

2 females and 1 male (to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females)
2f = m 12 ratio case # of females is twice # of males

Please distribute $100 for case 2 females and 1 male

Want to be sure this is correct understanding of (to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females)?
? f + ? f + ? m = 1
$25 + $25 + $50 = $100

1 female and 1 male (and if she was one, so for her the half)
f = m 11 ratio case # of females equals # of males

3+ females and Xmales (so if they are/were women more/over two, so for them (F) two thirds)
1 ? 2/3 females = 1/3 males ratio 21

I?ll have a look over the weekend.

Second case 2 females and more than two males case a) females get half and males get the other half

For clarification, please check to see if ? above is correct; or is it 2/3?

Perhaps help me fill-in template below with total ratio femalesmales for distribution; I already did?

1 female and 1 male
f = m 11 ratio case females equals males

http//i25.tinypic.com/64l7xs.jpg