Quran inheritance mistake
-
Do you mean that when Quran talks about 2/3 for daughters when they are more than two, this is in relation to the inheritance of sons as opposed to a fixed share from the whole?
Yes, exactly! Although not sure if fawqa two means more than two, else distribution for daughters/sons changes slightly.
Talks about portion what he/she left for THE CHILDREN and how to distribute accordingly depending on female/male mix.
411 God directs you in your children, to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females, so if they are/were women fawqa two, so for them (F) two thirds (from) what he left, and if she was one, so for her the half
Reading through in context it is still in relation ?...to the male...?
Similarly 4176 says how to distribute brothers/sisters portion depending on their mix...
Basically distribute to parents and spouse if they exist then remaining amount to children depending on their mix else if no children or spouse (kalalatan) brothers and sisters partake as would children with similar ratios.
Case mother, father, 2 daughters, 2 sons
411 and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the sixth from what he left, if for him was a child
1 ? 1/3 parents (1/6 mother + 1/6 father) = 2/3 children
2 daughters and 2 sons is same mix as 1 daughter and 1 son
411 ?...and if she was one, so for her the half
2 daughters get ? of 2/3 children?s total share and likewise the sons gets other ? of 2/3.
Thus all 4 children get an equal share of the remainder (after parents are paid) or ratio 11 female/male...
1m 2m 3m 4m
1f 11 11 11 11
2f 21 11 21 21
3f 12 12 11 12
4f 12 21 12 11
-
I would be pleased to accept this interpretation but it seems to go against grammar
How can "2/3 what he/she left" mean the same thing as "2/3 of the son's share".
Note the expression "2/3 what he/she left." The verb is "to leave" and he/she refers to the deceased person, person who leaves behind money when he dies. The grammar seems to suggest that daughters get 2/3 from what the deceased person/their father leaves behind. -
The verb is "to leave" and he/she refers to the deceased person, person who leaves behind money when he dies. The grammar seems to suggest that daughters get 2/3 from what the deceased person/their father leaves behind.
Right, daughters (in this case) get 2/3 what the deceased person/their father left behind for the children.
411 God directs you in your children,...
To state/apply a fixed amount to a variable (i.e. number of children/siblings and their gender mix) never works and will be mathematically/logically flawed with contradiction.
1 ? 2/3 daughters ? 1/3 parents = 1 which leaves nothing to a wife and sons.
One has to ask/calculate WHAT exactly did he leave behind for the children?
If mother 1 ? 1/6 = 5/6 children?s share
If mother, father 1 ? 1/3 = 2/3 children?s share
If wife, father 1 - 1/8 - 1/6 = 17/24 children's share
If wife, mother, father 1 ? 1/8 ? 1/3 = 13/24 children?s shareLikewise, brothers and sisters are variables dependent on mix and inheritors present.
-
Salaam all
Yes, quite a long has gone fast! I would like to comment on two points by Nun
...fa-in kunna nisaan fawqa ithnatayni falahunna thulutha ma taraka
411 ...so if they are women over two, so for them (F) two thirds what he left,waladun fa-in kanata ithnatayni ani mimma taraka
4176 ...and if they (B) were two (F), so to them (B/F) the two thirds from what he leftOver/encompassing can also mean like saying a kid is over 2 years old yet not 3; more/greater than use a different word...
This is the first point. One cannot give example of age in this case. You can say the boy is two and a half years old, but you cannot say the deceeased left two and a half girls. Over two is not two or more.
The second point is your differentiating between "kilalatan" and "alkilala", which is really bizarre! No difference whatsoever between the two. It's as if you are saying "being a boy is for a male up to the age of ten and the boy is the male between 11 and 16"; because "kilalatan" in the verse means (a man/woman being kilalatan), and the explanation of kilala is given in verse 4176.
And a question What do you mean by
I believe there might be a slight discrepancy with ratios for brothers and sisters which should be same as with daughters and sons
Why should they be the same? Are children and siblings the same? That's why they are in different verses.
I haven't gone through formulae. If we understand the principles, formulae will be OK (if we ar good in math ;D), otherwise leave the calculations to the expert, and this is what I will be doing
-
Hello again Samia,
This is the first point. One cannot give example of age in this case. You can say the boy is two and a half years old, but you cannot say the deceeased left two and a half girls. Over two is not two or more.
If it means over two (i.e. 3+) then we use these ratios to divide shares amongst children.
1m 2m 3m
1f 11 11 11
2f 12 11 12
3f 21 21 11
The second point is your differentiating between "kilalatan" and "alkilala", which is really bizarre! No difference whatsoever between the two.
That's exactly what my earlier conclusion was except differ with traditionalists that the person has to be fatherless ...
Below is my new understanding which "kalalatan" 412 and ?alkalalati? 4176 are same (i.e. childless/spouseless) as stated in Qur'an and they can have a father, mother, and/or siblings.
And a question What do you mean by
Why should they be the same? Are children and siblings the same? That's why they are in different verses.Makes sense although have to look into it -- see attached pdf with different ratios for children and siblings.
Peace
-
My most heartfelt contragulations to the writers of this threda. I am impressed and moved by the staying power and dedication. When I started to read de messages to me it was like reading Marsian. It continues the same, but at times I have the funny sensation that I may understand one of two words of Marsian, but I am not sure. So I will ask just one question
1m 2m 3m
1f 11 11 11
2f 12 11 12
3f 21 21 11
In this table
first line, first row, 11 means 1 male gets as much as one female,
first line second row 11 two males get as much as one female
First line 3rd row 11 three males get as much as one female
Second line 1st row 12 means one male gets as much as two females
2nd row 11 means two males get as much as two females
3rd row 12 means three males get as much as two females
Third line 1st row 21 means three females gets twice as much as 1 male
2nd row 21 means three females get twice as much as two males
3rd row 11 means that three females get as much as three males
Is that it?
please confirm or correct my faulty understanding.
I Had given up getting any insight into these questions of inheritance in the Quran, so I am thrilled about those two words or Marsian that I may understand now and thank you again for your sustained input. May the Inheritor bless you.
Salaam
-
Salaam Nun
Sorry I did not see your earlier understanding of (kilalatan/alkilala) and am glad you are sticking to this.
The attachment corrects this error and what resulted of it.Salaam huruf
If you understand this table correctly (which you do bravo), then welcome to the planet Mars! This table is as far as I can go with issuing formulae (I understand them though).
-
My most heartfelt contragulations to the writers of this threda. I am impressed and moved by the staying power and dedication. When I started to read de messages to me it was like reading Marsian. It continues the same, but at times I have the funny sensation that I may understand one of two words of Marsian, but I am not sure. So I will ask just one question
In this tablefirst line, first row, 11 means 1 male gets as much as one female,
first line second row 11 two males get as much as one female
First line 3rd row 11 three males get as much as one female
Second line 1st row 12 means one male gets as much as two females
2nd row 11 means two males get as much as two females
3rd row 12 means three males get as much as two females
Third line 1st row 21 means three females gets twice as much as 1 male
2nd row 21 means three females get twice as much as two males
3rd row 11 means that three females get as much as three males
Is that it?
Yes, that is correct.
It?s a relationship males to a number of females; see attached pdf with diagram to help visualize.
Case 1 daughter and 1 son
411 ??and if she was one, so for her the half?? which leaves ? ?to the male? 11 ratioNotice God seems to favor the only daughter with many brothers and vice versa?
Case 1 daughter; 10 sons ($100,000 inheritance)
411 ??and if she was one, so for her the half?? which leaves ? to the 10 males.She gets $50,000 while 10 sons each get $5,000 or remaining ?
Case 10 daughters; 1 son ($100,000 inheritance)
411 ??so if they are/were women over two, so for them (F) two thirds??10 daughters get 2/3 or $6,666 each while the son gets remaining 1/3 or $33,333
Peace
-
Nun, Your case with 10 sons and 1 daughter strikes me as a very unjust distribution. What is so special about the daughter that she gets 50000 while sons are content with 5000 each? ) Do not forget that Quran gives the males responsibility to spend for the family in the verse 434. The sons could use some of their sister's 50000 for that purpose )
I understand the first part of 411 to mean "To the male two times the share of the female. If female(meaning that there is no male child involved), then if they are more than two they get 2/3 of what the deceased has left and if she is one she gets half" In other words, in all mixed cases involving sons and daughters together, 1 male=2 female formula should be applied. This is both gramatically sound and also in accordance with 434. 2/3 and 1/2 are applied to the daughters in cases when there is no male child.
-
Nun, Your case with 10 sons and 1 daughter strikes me as a very unjust distribution. What is so special about the daughter that she gets 50000 while sons are content with 5000 each? Do not forget that Quran gives the males responsibility to spend for the family in the verse 434. The sons could use some of their sister's 50000 for that purpose
Unjust is a matter of perspective. What about 10 daughters get $6,666 each while one son gets $33,333; is that fair?
Think earning power 434 ?The men (are) taking care of matters for livelihood??
10 males working need less to support one female whereas one male will need more to support 10 females.
God knows best.
I understand the first part of 411 to mean "To the male two times the share of the female. If female(meaning that there is no male child involved), then if they are more than two they get 2/3 of what the deceased has left and if she is one she gets half" In other words, in all mixed cases involving sons and daughters together, 1 male=2 female formula should be applied. This is both gramatically sound and also in accordance with 434. 2/3 and 1/2 are applied to the daughters in cases when there is no male child.
That was my prior understanding; 2/3 and ? only applicable if no males else contradicts.
Case 3 daughters and 3 sons
2/3 daughters + 2 * 2/3 twice as much for sons = 6/3 or twice the inheritance.Likewise, with the initial case presented in this thread 3 daughters; mother; father; wife
2/3 daughters + 1/3 (1/6 mother + 1/6 father) + 1/8 wife = 1 + 1/8 which is too much.No way to solve above without applying algebra and reducing everyone?s stated shares.
Whereas in the method outlined we simply calculate the children?s share?
1 - 1/3 (1/6 mother + 1/6 father) - 1/8 wife = 13/24 children?s share
With no sons 3 daughters get entire amount of children's share ratio 10 -- common sense and simple.
Peace
-
Unjust is a matter of perspective. What about 10 daughters get $6,666 each while one son gets $33,333; is that fair?
Think earning power 434 ?The men (are) taking care of matters for livelihood??
10 males working need less to support one female whereas one male will need more to support 10 females.
God knows best.
Yes, it makes sense. If you are two sisters and inherit each half what an only brother inherit, in a sense you can share many things between two and the brother has all the charges for him whichever they are. By the same token, two brothers and one sister works the other way. For the two of them whatever burden she may be they can share and, but thatever burden they may be for her she is stuck with them. So better be well endowed.
At any rate, bearing in mind that there is always the possiblite to endowe by will, it seems sensible and fari to spread as much the burdens and the advantages, so that not too much weight falls on anybody, in case someone dies without making provision for his or her succession.
Again I congratulate all participants in this thread. I would never have thought that I would end up taking interest in this part. And I can say that I feel rewarded, even before inheriting yay yay yay
-
With 10 daughters and 1 son, according to the 1 male=2 female formula if the money is 100000 each daughter gets 8333 and son gets 16666. This is definitely more reasonable than daughter getting 50000 and each son getting 5000(She gets 45000 more than her siblings just because she is a girl).
If you consider the rationale of 1 male=2 female in the first part of the verse and take into account the responsibility(not privelege) given to sons to financially manage the household, I think you would agree on the absurdity of giving the daughter 50000 and each son only 5000 in this hypothetical case.
Plus, the whole grammar of that verse suggests 2/3 and 1/2 as 1) shares from the whole inheritance that deceased has left behind and 2) shares that should be applied when there are only female children(notice the condition, "if children are female and over two then 2/3 and if one then 1/2".
I agree that this interpretation would remove some difficulties but I find it very streched it does not fit the grammar and it leads to its own absurdities. Let us go back to our good old algebra.
-
Salaam Onur, all
With 10 daughters and 1 son, according to the 1 male=2 female formula if the money is 100000 each daughter gets 8333 and son gets 16666. This is definitely more reasonable than daughter getting 50000 and each son getting 5000(She gets 45000 more than her siblings just because she is a girl).
We can also say what if a brother is an irresponsible person, a criminal, and the girl is a divorced/widowed mother with ten children? Inheritance law is not meant to address each individual case.We have above this law the commandment to write a will to address special cases. Just because Muslims neutralized the will and abrogated it by a hadith does not stop it from being an obligation.
If you consider the rationale of 1 male=2 female in the first part of the verse and take into account the responsibility(not privelege) given to sons to financially manage the household, I think you would agree on the absurdity of giving the daughter 50000 and each son only 5000 in this hypothetical case.
God did not bestow the responsibility on a "gender", but on the able to work, gain and spend. Families supported by women are as common as families supported by men.
Plus, the whole grammar of that verse suggests 2/3 and 1/2 as 1) shares from the whole inheritance that deceased has left behind and 2) shares that should be applied when there are only female children(notice the condition, "if children are female and over two then 2/3 and if one then 1/2".
That's not correct. The verse says "and if they were women above/more than two", where the "they were" is feminine ( ) and cannot refer to mixed children (generic masculine) but to the female part of the children.
it does not fit the grammar
It fits grammar, language and logic (i.e calculations). Please give examples of any grammatical/linguistic error.
-
Selam Samia,
As you know, Quran's verses on inheritance are only applicable if there is no will. If there is a will, that is the end of the story. We are discussing cases when there is no will.
There can be complications as you state some of daughters or sons may be lazy drunkards and others may be hardworking, responsible persons. Especially in those cases, I agree that leaving behind a will becomes more important.When people do not perform this obligation and neglect to leave behind a will, then we have to apply 411-12 and 4176. The complications you describe should be dealt with in the will and should not affect 411-12 and 4176 which are applicable when there is no will. You say that daughter may be a window whereas sons may be criminals. I can equally say that daughter might be someone who would spend the entire 50000 on luxury whereas some of the sons might desperately need the money to start profitable businesses. The point is that these kinds of speculations can work both ways and are not relevant for our discussion about 411-12 and 4176. They are matters to be dealt with in writing the will.
And if God is all-knowing, we should expect that he arranges the shares in 411-12 and 4176 in a reasonable way. In a case with 10 daughters and 1 son, it is simply not reasonable that daughter gets a big sum of 50000 and each son gets 5000.
I think you misunderstood my point about grammar. The verse says "to the male child two times the share of the female child. if they(children) are female and more than two they get 2/3 thirds and if she is one, she gets 1/2." I take the expression "more than two" to mean "two or more than two" I have read that this is an example of a certain literary style in Arabic not stating what is obvious by logic.
Accordingly, when there are daughters and sons together, son gets twice as much as the daughters. If there are no sons and only female children/daughters(note the expression," if they-children- are female...", if daughters are two or more they get 2/3 of what is left and if there is one daughter she gets 1/2 of what is left"
-
Salaam Onur
I think you misunderstood my point about grammar. The verse says "to the male child two times the share of the female child. if they(children) are female and more than two they get 2/3 thirds and if she is one, she gets 1/2." I take the expression "more than two" to mean "two or more than two" I have read that this is an example of a certain literary style in Arabic not stating what is obvious by logic.
I understood you very well. I know what you are saying, and I know what the verse says exactly
"to the male child the share of the two females. If they were (i.e the females) women more than two..." "They were" in Arabic differs according to the gender it alludes to "kunna" refers to females; "kaanuu" refers to males and are both translated as (they were). The verse uses "kunna".
Also, the verse does not say "twice", which makes it a rule, but the share of the two females, linking it to the number of females and changes it if their number changes. -
I am not disputing kunna or the fact that it refers to females. In fact, that is exactly what I am saying. Why are you telling me this?
2/3 and 1/2 are applicable when children are only female (kunna).
The prior 1 male=2 female formula or 1 male twice as 2 females is a formula that is applicable when there are sons as well as daughters.
-
2/3 and 1/2 are applicable when children are only female (kunna).
fa-in kunna nisaan fawqa ithnatayni
411 ??so if they were women over two??Where does Qur?an say when children are ONLY female?
fa-in kana lahu ikhwatun fali-ommihi alssudusu
411 ??so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6Is the 1/6 applicable when siblings are ONLY brothers (kana)?
-
Here is a recap of inheritance verses with no contradictions, surpluses, etc., along with attached pdf and cases examples.
Thanks to Onur for opening the thread and asking questions and big thanks to sister Samia as well. !
411 God directs/commands/recommends you in your CHILDREN,
...to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females,
IF 2 daughters; 1 son
25,000 + 25,000 + 50,000 = $100,000...so if they are/were women over two, so for them (F) 2/3 what he left,
IF > 2 daughters; 1 son
66,667 + 33,333 = $100,000...and if she was one, so for her the 1/2
IF 1 daughter; 1 son
50,000 + 50,000 = $100,000Or use sister/brother ratio diagram
1m 2m 3m 4m
1f 11 11 11 11
2f 12 11 12 12
3f 21 21 11 21
4f 21 12 21 11
PARENTS
...and to his parents, to each one from them (B) the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child, so if (there) was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3, so if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6IF no child and both parents alive then mother?s share = 1/3
IF no child and both parents alive and if brother/s then mother?s share = 1/6Case mother; father
1 ? 1/3 mother = father (2/3)Case mother; father; siblings
1 ? 1/6 mother ? siblings (see 412) = father?s shareCase mother; siblings
1 ? siblings (see 412) = mother?s shareCase father; siblings
1 ? siblings (see 412) = father?s shareHUSBAND
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 1/4 from what they (F) left from after a bequest/will they (F) bequeath/direct with it or a debtWIVES
...and for them (F) the 1/4 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 debtCase mother; father; husband; 3 daughters
1 ? 1/6 mother - 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband = children?s share (i.e. 3 daughters; ratio 10)Case husband; mother; father
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 (1/6 mother + 1/3 father)Case father; husband
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 fatherCase mother; husband
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 motherCase wife; mother; father
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 (1/4 mother + 1/2 father)Case wife; mother
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 motherCase wife; father
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 father...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan (without 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
IF 1 sister 1/6 from total inheritance
IF 1 brother 1/6 from total inheritance
IF 2+ (sisters and/or brothers) they all together get 1/3 from total inheritance
4176 How to distribute 1/3 (if parents) or whole if no parents amongst 2+ siblings
They ask your opinion/clarification , say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her half what he left, and he inherits her if (there) was not for her a child??
Case mother; father; sister; brother
1 ? 1/3 (sister + brother) = 2/3 (1/6 mother + 1/2 father)Case father; sister; brother
1 ? 1/3 (sister + brother) = 2/3 fatherCase mother; sister; brother
1 ? 1/3 (sister + brother) = 2/3 motherCase sister; brother
1/2 sister + 1/2 brother = 1?and if they (B) were two (F), so to them (B/F) the 2/3 from what he left,
Case mother; father; 2 sisters; brother
1 ? 1/3 (2 sisters + brother) = 2/3 (1/6 mother + 1/2 father)...and if they were brothers (siblings) men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females
Case 2 sisters; 1 brother
2/3 + 1/3 = 1 ratio 21Or use sister/brother ratio diagram
1m 2m 3m 4m
1f 11 11 11 11
2f 21 11 21 21
3f 12 12 11 12
4f 12 21 12 11
...God clarifies for you that (E) you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.
I really must leave for a while to focus on work; hopefully I'll have time to visit later in the year.
Peace all peace
-- Bajrami Avdyli Hoxhaj (Eid Abdullah Imam)
-
Nun, there is the condition, " if they are female...."
It is redundant to add the word "only" it is already implicit in the meaning. 2/3 and 1/2 are applicable when children of the deceased are female, that is, daughters. Plus, the mixed case(sons and daughters together) was already dealt with with the general formula 1 male=2 female in the prior sentence. Consider the context as well mixed case was already handled.We have to be consistent in our reasoning. Just think about the reasoning why 1 male= 2 female. What is the reasoning/rationale behind this? It is inconsistent that Quran all of a sudden/in the very next sentence changes its reasoning/rationale to end up with a possible case where daughter gets 50000 and each son gets 5000. Quran should be consistent in the rationales it gives.
-
here are some comments
Regarding 4.11 and the way it is drafted
It uses al dhakari ?. al unthayaini, definite article, so it is not that to ?any? one male will correspond the same as to ?any two females?, but to that male and to those two females we are considering, which are tose that are designated by?fi-l-awlaad?, and it continues ?fa in kunna nisaa?an?.?, we are still ?fi-l-awlaad? and there is no particle or word there which indicates the ?only? that appears added in some or many translations. There is no ?only?. So it would rather be ?if more than two (fi-l-awlaad) are females??.
Fawqa is over or above, if it wanted to say that it incluyes two with the word, it would have had to say ?fawqa wahida? (one) so it would include the ?two?, because we cannot have persons in fractions.
Finally, as has already been pointed out, if we take the ? for the one female as if it was for a single female with no brothers, there is ? of the fortune left, for whom? The same with the two thirds for more than two females. We are not told who benefits from that other half (which is a very big chunk of a succession) or that one third (which is not negligible either), and a fortune cannot be left undistributed and the distribution is precisely what is being given.
I do not see that there is a general rule here of one male part = two female parts, it is the part of that male and those two females of the particular case we are talking about. Also the formulation of this aya is different from the one of aya 4.176, although I haven't yet gone into ththis latter.
Salaam