Quran inheritance mistake
-
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
-
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.
Kunna (they were) should refer to a noun already mentioned before, not that will follow. Has the verse mentioned just females or were the females mentioned (the two) already had a male with them? The other plural mentioned before "kunna" is (awlaadukum your children) and "kunna" cannot be referring to them.
-
I do not find this interpretation reasonable. I have to say that I find it quite absurd. Let me illustrate
Suppose that you are a female with one sister and one brother a total of three siblings. Then if the inheritance is 60000 dollar you get 15000 dollar according to this interpretation. Your brother gets 30000 and your sister gets 15000. Now, suppose that you are the same female with 15 brothers this time a total of 16 siblings. This time you get 30000 dollars. Two times as much despite the fact that you have 15 siblings instead of 2. What a reward for being the only female child!!! And, what a misfortune for the 15 brothers to have a sister!!!Now, consider the first case. What is the rationale of brother getting 30000 and sisters getting 15000? Now consider the second case. What is the rationale of sister getting 30000 and each brother getting 2000? Those rationales would be inconsistent whereas God's rationales are never inconsistent.
As I have said before, speculations about the character and circumstances of brothers and sisters are irrelevant here because they can work both ways and are to be handled by writing a will whereas 411-12 and 4176 are applicable when there is no will.
-
I do not find this interpretation reasonable. I have to say that I find it quite absurd. Let me illustrate
Suppose that you are a female with one sister and one brother a total of three siblings. Then if the inheritance is 60000 dollar you get 15000 dollar according to this interpretation. Your brother gets 30000 and your sister gets 15000. Now, suppose that you are the same female with 15 brothers this time a total of 16 siblings. This time you get 30000 dollars. Two times as much despite the fact that you have 15 siblings instead of 2. What a reward for being the only female child!!! And, what a misfortune for the 15 brothers to have a sister!!!Now, consider the first case. What is the rationale of brother getting 30000 and sisters getting 15000? Now consider the second case. What is the rationale of sister getting 30000 and each brother getting 2000? Those rationales would be inconsistent whereas God's rationales are never inconsistent.
As I have said before, speculations about the character and circumstances of brothers and sisters are irrelevant here because they can work both ways and are to be handled by writing a will whereas 411-12 and 4176 are applicable when there is no will.
I think you are arguing the case from what from your point of view is reasonable, which if we all did probably there would be 1000 points of view about what is reasonable and is not in the whole inheritance question. But if we keep to what the aya says, I quote again what I wrote in a previous post
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??.
Talking about inconsistencies, I also quote again
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 it is the distribution precisely that is being given.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
As I have said before, the word "only" is implicit in the context and logic. The case with both sons and daughters was already handled with the formula 1 male=2 female. The next sentence starting with " if they are females..." is a new case involving female children in isolation.
Coming to your other point about remaining fortunes.... Well, simply, there might be other inheritors along with daughters(spouses and parents)....
Example 3 daughters and wife,
(2/3 + 1/x=1
After solving for x,
3 daughters get 2/3x and wife gets 1/8x1 daughter, husband
(1/2+1/4)x=1
After solving for x,
daughter gets 1/2x and husband gets 1/4xWith this algebraic method, there is no case of remaining or exceeding fortunes.
On a further note there is nothing subjective/relativistic about female daughter's wealth rising from 15000 to 30000 from a case with 2 siblings(a brother and a sister) to 15 siblings(15 brothers). Common sense denies it.
And I have another point which you are not responding to. How do you come from a rationale of 1 male=2 female to a rationale which would justify daughter getting 30000 and 15 brothers getting 2000? Is God changing his rationales from one sentence to the next?
-
_I am afraid that no matter how many times you repeat that an "only" must be understood there, I am not convinced nor see any way whereby it could appear and you keep ignoring that the kunna nisaa'an is "fi-l-awlaad". It is because you do that that you feel obliged to invent the "only".
As to applying to other inheritors, it cannot be an explanation because those may exist also in those cases in which according to you there are males, so it is the same case, such that in a similar case, in the case of males there could be not enough money and in the case of females there could be too much.
On the other hand if the daughter takes half and in the case where there are no other inheritors, are you telling us that that half is FOR NOBODY? The case for other inheritors is exactly the same whether children are daughters or sons. So how do you come to whiff away half a succession in the case that, according to you, the only daughter inherites half? Furthermore. If there are no other inheritors, the problem stands even if we go by what you say. What do you do with that half, where does it turn up? and where in the Quran is it explained?Nowhere else either it is said that when the deceased has only daughters other inheritors inherit more. That would have been worth mentioning. I am sorry, but if it is not mentioned for me it is not there. It is important. When it speaks about other inheritors always mentions whether if there are children or not, but never specifies the gender. That is hard Fact.
As to coming from one rationale to another, I have nothing to say, because from the text it is clear that it is just one case of the two sisters and one brother and not a universal rule.
You put a lot of stock on men's greater responsibilities to provide, but you don't seem to trust much their capacity. I do, ten men are capable of quite a lot. A single woman may in fact need that fortune. And if that shocks you, there are other cases where the shock would be the other way, although I didn?t know we were in a male versus female battle. I think the Quran is wise, and I trust more the sister of ten to look after helself with that money than ten brothers may be thinking the others will look after her and there he doesn't have to worry. Reasons we can think of many for most things. At any rate 10 brothers one sister, I tell you, even with a "shocking inheritance" I wouldn't like to be in her place, let her have whatever.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
Please review the matter of inheritance and my post carefully. You ask me, what happens if there is no one else but daughters? Ok let me ask more of similar questions what if there is no one else but a mother? No one else but a husband? Why are you only disturbed by the question What happens if there are only daughters? Same question can be asked for all the inheritors.
The answer is easy. Consistently apply the algebraic method in all cases if there is a single inheritor, he/she/they get the entire thing. There is no division- this is actually common sense but still let me show you how it works with the algebra.
Just one husband
(1/2)x=1, x=2, husband gets 1/2.2=1
Just three daughters
(2/3)x=1, x=3/2, 3 daughter gets 2/3*3/2=1As I have said, with this algebraic method, there is no case of remaining or exceeding fortunes because the equation is set to 1.
You are not taking the question of rationale seriously. We have to read texts critically. You have to give me a reason why God changes his arrangement with male/female children dramatically from one sentence to the next ending up in dramatically contradictory cases.(I am referring to my two scenarios)
That cannot be my understanding of God. Now, you are telling me that men are capable on their own to make fortunes and women need to be given money. OK, let us accept that for a second. Then, why was it 1 male=2 female in the first case? Please give the same rationale consistently.This is not just about men's responsibility to provide. This is a point in my mind but I have stopped using it for an argument here because it is somewhat subjective. What is not subjective and what I have been arguing is the 1)inconsistency in rationale 2) possibility of absurd cases having sibling number increasing from 3 to say, 16 and female share nevertheless doubling.
Finally, back on the point "only." No matter what I say here, you still want to actually see the word "only" there. Ok, if that is your way of reading of texts, I cannot change it. I understand the meaning of sentences in context and by its logic implications for me, not everything has to be explicitly stated. In that case, surprisingly, all Quran translators have a consensus on the fact that 2/3 and 1/2 refer to females in isolation( I do not rely on consensus, they might all get it wrong. But just keep this in mind as well)
I gave you my arguments but you may stick to your own position. Just beware of the difficulties and absurdities with its implications.
-
I m not discussing what is reasonable for God to do, you are. And I could find thousands of rationales for everything you say and for quite a number of other things and also for the opposite. But that is not the point. The point is, if you find a rationale for whatever you want, that whether what you say is upheld by the Quran or not. For rationales I can take care of myself, thank you. But it is in Quran or it is not, because that is what we are talking about, at least what I am talking about.
Certainly I will more leisurley continue to study the question of inheritance, but as to the points that have been raised in this thread concerning the two females=1 male as a general rule, they are clear for me. There is no general rule 2 female= 1male.
And why you don't see any logic in brothers getting less but see it in sisters getting less I suppose you can also give tons of rationales for that, but for me it is bias. At any rate that also is neither here nor there, IF it is not in the Quran. Also the Quran gives the parts that different people get if there are children and if there arent, whereas in the first part of 4.11, childrens parts are set apart regardless of any other heirs. Nor, I will repeat again, nowhere is made any difference or comment whatosever as to the parts of the distribution depending on the gender of the surviving children.
And with this I think that is it for me concerning this part, unless I see something really new on the question.
Salaam, and again thank you for a very interesting thread that has finally pushed me to take a more detailed interest in the inheritance question. Thanks
-
What a reward for being the only female child!!! And, what a misfortune for the 15 brothers to have a sister!!!
10 or 15 brothers is like a small army; muscle shame on them if they can't manage it. Btw, ever meet a family with like a dozen brothers and one sister? Try telling them she is a misfortune or even look at her in an unpleasant way. elektro
Or even worst, try slapping an only brother in front of his 10 sisters? ;D
Ok let me ask more of similar questions what if there is no one else but a mother? No one else but a husband? Why are you only disturbed by the question What happens if there are only daughters? Same question can be asked for all the inheritors.
No need to calculate single inheritor; nothing to share, he/she will get the whole.
The answer is easy. Consistently apply the algebraic method in all cases if there is a single inheritor, he/she/they get the entire thing. There is no division- this is actually common sense but still let me show you how it works with the algebra.
Just one husband
(1/2)x=1, x=2, husband gets 1/2.2=1
Just three daughters
(2/3)x=1, x=3/2, 3 daughter gets 2/3*3/2=1As I have said, with this algebraic method, there is no case of remaining or exceeding fortunes because the equation is set to 1.
Then you disagree with your prior opinion?
As you know, I already anticipated your solution. You say `it is literally 2/3 the inheritance'
Well, is 16/27 the inheritance equal to 2/3 the inheritance? Or did you just correct Quran's mistake with algebra setting the whole equation to 1 and ignoring the denominator?If the Quran had used the following language then your solution would be satisfactory
" For every 2/3 share of three daughters, parents each get 1/6 and wife gets 1/8 " Or if the Quran had said," The shares for distribution are 2/3 for three daughters , 1/6 each parent and 1/8 for the wife" your solution would be OK too.
But Quran is saying 2/3 what he leaves(that is the total inheritance), 1/6 from what he leaves(the total inheritance), etc
In other words, Quran has fixed the shares from the total inheritance. Whereas, you just compare the shares with each other. An interesting and pragmatic solution but unfortunately it does not save the Quran.
Unless you can show me that 2/3 the inheritance is not equal to 2/3 of the inheritance.You have to give me a reason why God changes his arrangement with male/female children dramatically from one sentence to the next ending up in dramatically contradictory cases.(I am referring to my two scenarios)
That cannot be my understanding of God.Notice dramatic change in number of males from 1 to 15...
IF 1 daughter; 15 sons
30,000 + 30,000 (2,000/son)IF 15 daughters; 1 son
40,000 (2,667/daughter) + 20,000 = $60,000 -
Nun, you are quoting my post dated December 31 2007. Now, we are in year 2008 and it is May 29. I was freezing back then and now weather is sunny. Plus, If I had sticked with my earlier position, I would not even be discussing this issue since I would be an atheist due to the mathematical error in Quran.
But I am interested in the dramatic change in your position. You were the biggest defender in the algebraic method for solving the problematic case that we started with (3 daughters, mother,father,wife) and you thought that people were unable to appreciate it-to say the least. Now, you suddenly dropped it. You also had come up with a solution about kalalatin and you were very confident about it. But, surprise, surprise.... you suddenly dropped it too.
Now, I am more or less content with the algebraic method, my only problem being with kalalatin.
You are avoiding the question concerning the inconsistency in rationale from my two scenarios(one with 3 siblings and one with 16 siblings).
I do not see the point of you comparing a case with 15 daughters and 1 brother and a case with 15 brothers and 1 daughter. It is not refuting my point in any way. These distributions are problematic in themselves. And As I have been arguing, a case with 15 daughters and 1 brother is problematic in comparison with a case like 2 daughter, 1 brother. Unless your God applies contradictory rationales to sibling relations.... This is just common sense.
And I would like to tell Huruf once again that I am not inventing rationales for male/female relations. I would not mind if women always and consistently got a higher share. In fact, I am a defender of women rights in Quran
My point now is not really about man/female. It is a point about consistency.
I find problematic for the sibling size to go from 3 to 16 and daughter's wealth to go up from 15000 to 30000 at the same time. Normally, your wealth would be expected to diminish going from 3 siblings to 16 siblings. I am not inventing any subjective idiosyncratic rationales here. Furthermore, if God says 1 male=2 female at one point, how does the same God say a different and contradictory thing at another point?Also note that if we apply my current and your earlier approach, Nun, all mixed cases have reasonable distributions, brother getting only two times more than each sister.
Points about the nature of family relations and the actual existence of families with lots of brothers and one sister are irrelevant. Even the possibility of these cases are enough to demonstrate the absurdity.
-
But I am interested in the dramatic change in your position. You were the biggest defender in the algebraic method for solving the problematic case that we started with (3 daughters, mother,father,wife) and you thought that people were unable to appreciate it-to say the least. Now, you suddenly dropped it. You also had come up with a solution about kalalatin and you were very confident about it. But, surprise, surprise.... you suddenly dropped it too.
My assumption was ma WHAT (unknown x) vs. minma taraka FROM WHAT denotes subtraction.
Then I read this....
What if they were two?
To which later I replied with this... !
Amazing if that's all it was; something staring at you and yet can?t see it; darn preconceptions.
What you are doing is focusing on money given to brothers vs. sisters rationalizing what's reasonable to you neglecting the mix. The same way someone reasoned in the past that it was absurd to give the only daughter the whole amount when she had an uncle; that it's absurd for a wife NOT to share with her husbands male relatives and all sorts of other absurdities.
Peace
-
"And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember?" Chapter #54, Verse #17
There are ten pages on this topic and there is still disagreement. The verses regarding inheritance do not appear that easy to understand, and I can't imagine it would be so black and white without taking other things into consideration.
Verse regarding inheritance for 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 Nun
I would imagine this is assuming all things are equal, and all the children are still living at home. But let's assume they are adult children with their own families. The father who just recently passed away lived with the son and his family. The son (and the son's wife) cared for him until he died. The son is struggling to make a living and has quite a few children. The daughter is married and lives with her husband and his parents. She has one child. The daughter is very well off.
In this case, does it make sense for her to get half of the father's inheritance?
-
To Truth_Seeker
It is easy except people read with preconception and bias?
The mother who just recently passed away lived with the daughter and her family. The daughter (and the daughter's husband) cared for her until she died. The daughter is struggling to make a living and has quite a few children. The son is married and lives with his wife and her parents. He has one child. The son is very well off.
OR the son is a gambler, (every imaginable problem case), etc?
??and if she was one, so for her the ???
Case 1 daughter; 1 son
50,000 + 50,000If it makes sense then make will else give the daughter her rightful amount.
-
Nun, you say
"What you are doing is focusing on money given to brothers vs. sisters rationalizing what's reasonable to you neglecting the mix. The same way someone reasoned in the past that it was absurd to give the only daughter the whole amount when she had an uncle; that it's absurd for a wife NOT to share with her husbands male relatives and all sorts of other absurdities."This is a complete misunderstanding of my objection. Are you reading my posts? My objection is not similar to objections like why daughter>uncle or wife>male's relatives..... It has nothing to do with my subjective preference about which inheritor should get more. My objection is similar to you having 100 chocolate to share with your team and your own share increasing despite the addition of 20 members to your team.
-
Nun, I am in complete agreement that the daughter receives her rightful amount. Unfortunately, the reality is that this rarely happens given our patriarchal society and that such verses regarding the rights of females are completely disregarded.
But let?s stick to my scenario for a moment since in most Muslim families, the mother and father usually live with the son after the son is married (or one of the sons; or two or more sons may all live in the same household). The daughter typically moves in with her new husband?s family.
I would imagine this is assuming all things are equal, and all the children are still living at home. But let's assume they are adult children with their own families. The father who just recently passed away lived with the son and his family. The son (and the son's wife) cared for him until he died. The son is struggling to make a living and has quite a few children. The daughter is married and lives with her husband and his parents. She has one child. The daughter is very well off. In this case, does it make sense for her to get half?
Would it be fair to the son to split what the deceased parents leave behind 50/50 with his sister? Also, how is ?inheritance? defined? Does it include all assets/property (including house lived in by parents) or just savings (money)?
-
My objection is similar to you having 100 chocolate to share with your team and your own share increasing despite the addition of 20 members to your team.
We?re not talking soccer team; there?s difference between a goalie and 10 players and a mix in a household of 1 daughter and 10 sons or 1 son and 10 daughters. That?s what you?re missing ? it?s all based on the mix.
IF husband without child ? vs. ? with child.
IF wife without child ? vs. 1/8 with child.
IF no child and both parents mother?s share = 1/3But let?s stick to my scenario for a moment since in most Muslim families, the mother and father usually live with the son after the son is married (or one of the sons; or two or more sons may all live in the same household). The daughter typically moves in with her new husband?s family.
Would it be fair to the son to split what the deceased parents leave behind 50/50 with his sister? Also, how is ?inheritance? defined? Does it include all assets/property (including house lived in by parents) or just savings (money)?
No, let?s stick my scenario; the son is a gambler and every imaginable problem case.
Traditional family living habits of any particular culture have nothing to do with it.
Definitions of inheritance on the Web
http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=defineinheritance&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title -
No, let?s stick my scenario; the son is a gambler and every imaginable problem case.
Traditional family living habits of any particular culture have nothing to do with it.
Definitions of inheritance on the Web
http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=defineinheritance&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=titleNun, are you a lawyer? Because you have provided an answer but it does not answer the question I originally asked. I agree once again, traditional family living habits of any particular culture have nothing to do with inheritance laws in the Quran. And I most certainly agree that in the scenario you provided, the daughter should get half.
Now let's go back to my scenario once again. Let's pretend you're the father and you died suddenly without leaving a will. I was your wife and I passed away before you. We both lived with our son and his family (and our son and his wife both took good care of us in our old age) until death did us part. Our son is a wonderful man who doesn't gamble, drink or waste his money, but he has 8 children to support and doesn't make much money. His wife is a homemaker and doesn't have any income. Our daughter at the time of your death is married and living with her husband and his family on the other side of town. They have 1 child and are quite well off. In your opinion, is it fair that our son and daughter split the inheritance 50/50? Because in my humble opinion, in this particular case, it is not.
-
But truthseeker, what you are asking for is not rules to ditribute inheritance where there is no will, ehst you are asking for is a few millions of volumes contemplating every case in which a person dies and leaves anything to inherit. There are every kind of situation and each case is different, and many cases or all would be unfair from some point of view.
I know of case upon case where males benefit most from the home of the parents, benefit from the domestic services of the sisters, from more largesse from the parents while they are young, and then marry and even if they live with the parents it is the sister or the sisters who really look after the parents, who mostly end moving out from their sons, because they just not only do not look after them but pester them, while they blame the wife for it. So, should the brothers get anything at all? Well, this is a kind of case that is not rare at all, quite the opposite. So, if you are making rules for a particular case, every particular case should get its rules. But then that would mean millions of volumes on rules of inheritance. That or not to make any rules at all and let people find what is fair once somebody dies if there is no will. But if you make rules to suit a particular case, you must make rules to suit EVERY particular case.
I suppose you have written a will.
Salaam