Quran inheritance mistake

Al_Araf

salam nun de plume. i painstakingly went throught the text in arabic and used the best english terms for the arabic terms. this correction changes my prior post appropriately.

sura 412 says and half of your estate is your spouses if you have no child but if there is a child you to you one fourth of it after payments of legacies and debts and family one quarter of it estate they have no child and if they have a child one eighth of their estate after payment of legacies and debts but if the husband has no ascendants or descendants and a brother or a sister each one of them a sixth if they are more than that they share in a third after payment of legacies and debts without harm and loss from allah and allah knows forbears.

please review this corrected translation and see if it clears up the issue for you. it may lead you to another question. if so, i will be glad to reply to your questions.

Allah is the teacher.

unknownuser

Peace Al Araf,

What happened to the woman in your translation?

412 ?wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun
...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman

Also please distribute accordingly if his only heirs are 1 sister and mother.

Al_Araf

salam nun de plume. i read your question as to what happened to woman in your translation. you then offered that imraatun means woman. i went looking in dictionaries, root word lists, lexicons, and come up with this. other translators claim this means ascendants and descendants and for that reason i deferred to their translation.

... yawrs kalalatan wa amratan... please dont focus on how we use english letters as substitutes, that is not the point

i have at this point found yawrs to mean inherit, kalal to mean rule, and amar to mean command. i am not claiming that i am certain of this, at this time. however, i am sharing this with forum members and requesting input from other forum members here. i have four possible paths of analysis in my mind, either this is a phrase like "white on rice" in which case more research is needed, or this is related to a guardianship issue, or this is related to bequests in a will, or this relates to rulership issues. at this point i have an open mind because none of these analyses are convincing enough to be called conclusive. i am still working on the analysis.

allah raises man by stages.

unknownuser

Salam Al Araf,

i read your question as to what happened to woman in your translation. you then offered that imraatun means woman. i went looking in dictionaries, root word lists, lexicons, and come up with this. other translators claim this means ascendants and descendants and for that reason i deferred to their translation.

... yawrs kalalatan wa amratan... please dont focus on how we use english letters as substitutes, that is not the point

i have at this point found yawrs to mean inherit, kalal to mean rule, and amar to mean command.

Please focus on using search tools and cross-reference...

http//www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?inc=PhoneticSearch.asp

Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)>

An-Nisa (The Women)>

Al-A'raf (The Heights) >

Hud (The Prophet Hud)>

Yusuf (Joseph)>

Al-Hijr (The Rocky Tract)

Maryam (Mary)

An-Naml (The Ants)

Al-Qasas (The Narration)

Al-'Ankabut (The Spider)

Az-Zariyat (The Winds that Scatter)

At-Tahrem (The Banning)

Al-Masad (The Palm Fiber)

Daraba Allahu mathalan lillatheena kafaroo imraata noohin waimraata lootin
6610 God gave an example to those who disbelieved, Noah's woman (wife), and Lot's woman (wife)

Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushoozan
4128 And if a woman feared from her husband quarrel/despise

412 Walakum nisfu ma taraka azwajukum in lam yakun lahunna waladun fa-in kana lahunna waladun falakumu alrrubuAAu mimma tarakna min baAAdi wasiyyatin yooseena biha aw daynin walahunna alrrubuAAu mimma taraktum in lam yakun lakum waladun fa-in kana lakum waladun falahunna alththumunu mimma taraktum min baAAdi wasiyyatin toosoona biha aw daynin wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun walahu akhun aw okhtun falikulli wahidin minhuma alssudusu fa-in kanoo akthara min thalika fahum shurakao fee alththuluthi min baAAdi wasiyyatin yoosa biha aw daynin ghayra mudarrin wasiyyatan mina Allahi waAllahu AAaleemun haleemun

412...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?

4176 They ask your opinion/clarification, say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her 1/2 what he left...

The point is how do we correctly distribute an estate according to Quran when there is no will and which verses to use.

Example...2 sisters, mother

It works if 412 is the case with father and 4176 is the case with no father.

4176...and if they were two, so to them the 2/3 from what he left...

1 - 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

I believe (have not checked all possibilities) that it also works if 412 is with children and 4176 is with no child as stated in the verse.

Example...siblings, children

412...so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3

1 - 1/3 siblings = 2/3 children (distributed according to #of females)

Al_Araf

salam nun de plume. thank you for providing me the resource of the islamicity search engine, i have added it to my favorites.

i conducted a search on the word kalalatan on this search engine this is the url.

http//www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?UserString=kalalatan&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffree-minds.org%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%D16179.180&ShowTranslation=on&ShowTransliteration=on&ShowArabic=on

if you look at the results of the search it shows two verses 412 and 4176. the search engine translates the sentence fragment as "... those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs..." in 412 and "...those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs..." in 4176.

this is why i stated originally that "kalalatan aw imratan" translate as ascendants and descendants, to which you replied imratan means woman, the source of this discussion.

i then reviewed what you offered and found errors. you translate 4128 as "if a woman feared from her husband" i know the word aal in arabic means family and not husband, and using the word ascendant for imraatan renders 4128 "if the ascendants fear from the family a quarrel" a perfectly plausible translation.

we have to remember, that when the quran was revealed by allah, civil society was not the same as it is today. there were mothers of children who has been willingly inherited by their sons, there were slaves, and other categories of persons in a household, that are not common today. what people of the time of muhammad knew and understood of their world was very different to the world in which we live today. one major source of confusion is an utter misunderstanding of the word nikah.

the quran states men are the protectors and maintainers of women. this use of the term protector renders the understanding of a nikah, not the current fashion of western marriage, but similar to the older form of western marriage in part. the word protector is very similar to the current term guardian or conservator. i am cautious to conclude this is the case because western laws are notorious for changing the defintion of a word based on the whim of the public. a practice inconsistent with law. therefore my conclusion is nikah currently translates as a conservatorship/marriage hybrid, and does not translate as marriage.

therefore i reccomend we not use the term women for imaraatun, use the term ascendants for imraatan, at the present. of course if a person comes up with an example of an arab inscription or writing from the time of muhammad that uses the phrases kalalatan aw imraatan as descendants and ascendant this would confirm the conclusion, it may be that kalalatan aw imratan means a yet unknown category of persons.

allah is the teacher.

unknownuser

salam Al Araf,

salam nun de plume. thank you for providing me the resource of the islamicity search engine, i have added it to my favorites.

That one limits results to about 100; here is an even better one...

http//www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=imraat&chapter=&translator=6&search=1&start=0&records_display=100&search_word=all

412 and 4176 Al?Kal?lah (those who leave neither descendants nor ascendants as heirs).

That is the classic definition given for the word Kal?lah (by itself).

awi imraatun "or a woman" (wife) is separate from the above definition of Kal?lah.

wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun
412...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman

This can be read in two ways...

412...and if was/is a man to be inherited "without descendants nor ascendants" or a woman (spouse/wife)

Or

412...and if was/is a man to be inherited "without descendants nor ascendants" or a woman

"without descendants nor ascendants"

Obviously the first would only be applicable in the case of man whereas the second to both.

Al_Araf

salam nun de plume. the point you are missing is that search engine, and translators, are translating ...kalalatun wa imratan.. as ascendants and descendants. you believe for your own reasons that imaratun means women.

what this means is there is a dispute over the meaning of the word. you have not provided any evidence to show that imratan does not mean ascendant. there are women who are ascendants, which makes women a supercategory, and ascendants a subcategory. you cannot go backwards in reasoning. let me give you an example of what you are doing. mammals are a supercategory, humans are a subcategory, monkeys are a subcategory. if i write, humans, you would say this includes mammals and extend this to say monkeys are included. what you are ignoring is the subcategory of ascendants does not include all women. therefore to use the term women is incorrent. there is a definition of your method, it is called a fallacy, the particular fallacy you are employing is "inferring from the specific to the general"

secondly the claim on site says one thing and 99 sites says something else is also called a fallacy, in this case "argumentum ad populum" fallacies are not logic or reasoning, they are examples of erroneous reasoning. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

for this reason i believe it cannot be read both ways. because this is an unresolved issue at this point, you believe it means women, i believe it may means ascendants, you are incorrect to claim anything is obvious at this point.

allah is the teacher.

unknownuser

the point you are missing is that search engine, and translators, are translating ...kalalatun wa imratan.. as ascendants and descendants. you believe for your own reasons that imaratun means women.

Salam Al Araf -- no the point you are missing completely is they are translating kalalatun ONLY!

Most translate the word kalalatun as being without "ascendants and descendants."

Do some research on this; below are various translations... I've highlighted or woman!

412...wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun

Literal ...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father or a woman (wife)

Yusuf Ali If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants

Pickthal And if a man or a woman have a distant heir (having left neither parent nor child)

Shakir and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring,

Sarwar If the deceased, either male or female, has no surviving heirs such as parents or children

Khalifa If the deceased man or woman was a loner

Hilali/Khan If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left neither ascendants nor descendants

H/K/Saheeh And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants

Malik If a man or a woman leaves neither ascendant nor descendants

QXP If a man or a woman, whose inheritance is in question, was a loner, in the sense of leaving behind no ascendants or descendants

Free Minds And if a man or a woman has no one

Obviously there was/is disagreement on the meaning of kalalatun even in hadith.

awi imraatun (in this verse) everyone agrees means or a WOMAN.

The only scholar who agrees with my conclusion that both parents are alive in 412 is Parwez...

http//www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/expo/expo_004.htm

412 If the deceased leaves no children and his heirs are parents and brothers and sisters*, then-

Perhaps try and work this case example and you'll understand the issue better...

A man dies leaving an estate valued at $100,000.

1 sister and mother are his only heirs.

How do we distribute the estate according to Quran?

unknownuser

Peace all --

A final summary on inheritance verses as to my understanding...

First distributions are given for children, parents, and spouses.

411 God directs/commands/recommends you in your CHILDREN,

...to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females,

IF 2 daughters; son
25,000 + 25,000 + 50,000 = $100,000

411...so if they are/were women over two, so for them 2/3 what he left

IF 3+ daughters; son
66,667 + 33,333 = $100,000

411...and if she was one, so for her the 1/2

IF 1 daughter; 1 son
50,000 + 50,000 = $100,000

Females to males (daughters sons) 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

411...and to his PARENTS, to each one from them the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child,
?so if was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,
?so if brothers/brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6,

IF both parents alive, mother?s share is fixed at 1/3
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

IF brothers/brethren ikhwatun mother?s share fixed at 1/6

IF no father or brothers/brethren ikhwatun, mother?s share is variable.

HUSBAND

412 And for you 1/2 what your spouses/wives left, if (there) was/is not for them a child, so if (there) was/is for them a child, so for you the 1/4 from what they left from after a bequest/will they bequeath/direct with it or a debt

WIVES

412...and for them the 1/4 from what you left, if (there) was not for you a child, so
if (there) was for you a child, so for them the 1/8 from what you left from after a bequest/will you bequeath/direct with it or a debt

IF mother; father; husband; 3 daughters
1 ? 1/6 mother - 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband = children?s share (i.e. 3 daughters; ratio 10)

IF husband; mother; father
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 parents (1/6 mother + 1/3 father)

IF wife; mother; father
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 parents (1/4 mother + 1/2 father)

The case for spouseless/widower kalalatan (fatherless person) with children

412...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3

IF 2+ siblings, mother, children
1 ? 1/3 siblings ? 1/6 mother = 1/2 children

IF 1 sibling, children
1 ? 1/6 sibling = 5/6 children (distributed according to 411)

Finally, the case of a spouseless man or woman alkalalati (fatherless) without child.

4176 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, and if they were two, so to them the two thirds from what he left, and if they were brothers/brethren men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females?

IF 1+ brothers, mother
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brothers

IF sister, mother
1 ? ? sister = ? mother

IF 2 sisters, mother
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

IF 2+ siblings mixed, mother
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings (distributed according to #of females similar as children)

Females to males (sibling) 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

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

Peace

Onur

Nun, in your latest interpretation, when there are Children and Siblings, siblings receive a share. When there is a mother and siblings, siblings receive a share too. But, when there is a father and siblings or when there is a spouse and siblings, siblings do not receive any share. The presence of siblings reduces the share of children (and mother) but increase the share of father and spouses. Isn't that weird given the fact that children should have the upper hand in the general logic of verses. Why do you think is the rationale behind denying siblings their share when there is a father and spouse but giving them their shares when there are children?

unknownuser

Why do you think is the rationale behind denying siblings their share when there is a father and spouse but giving them their shares when there are children?

This is like asking the rational why the husband gets ? and wife gets ?.

If spouse, he/she is primarily responsible for the family.

If father no spouse, he is primarily responsible.

If siblings no spouse or father, they are primarily responsible for the children.

Of course this is conjecture (not good) assuming general case that the children are young.

God knows.

Samia

If the dead has children, his siblings get nothing. Siblings only inherit in case of kilala (someone who has neither children nor parents). Parents like children Both are primary heirs, and always inherit.

Onur

Samia, according to Nun's latest interpretation, kalala status is the deprivation of father and spouse-not the deprivation of children. What supports Nun's thesis is the fact that 4176 talks about the lack of children as an additional condition, not inherent in the definition of kalala. This interpretation has the advantage of distinguishing between 412 and 4176 as far as the share of siblings is concerned.(412 talking about the share of siblings of the kalala with children whereas 4176 talks about the shares of siblings of the kalala with no children)

Unfortunately, Quran does not define the kalala. In fact, some research I made revealed to me that the meaning of this word has been hotly contested. Indeed, there have been commentators who suggest that kalala does not refer to deceased but to the distant relative inheritors. Among the commentators who agree that it refers to the deceased, there are disagreements about whether it means deprivation of different combinations of children,spouse,parents. etc.

As I have suggested before, what we can be sure about is that kalala cannot mean the deprivation of a mother because 411 clearly states that the mother inherits along with siblings her share being reduced to 1/6 due to the presence of siblings. So, I believe, you have to modify your definition of kalala insofar as you include the deprivation of a mother in your definition.

Al_Araf

salam. the lack of an accurate translation of kalalah wa amrah made me search hebrew and aramaic to find out where these words came from. i was unable to find both words in hebrew, however i found these words in aramaic

kllw, kllwt (kall, kallt&#257 n.f. marriage 1 marriage Syr. 2 state of being a nurse Syr.
mrh, mrt (mrt.&#257 n.f. mistress 1 mistress Palm, Gal, Syr. 2 best Syr. 3 st constr in many compounds Syr.

it appears from the definition of these words, that the phrase found in 412 ...fa an kana rajal yuwras kalalah aw amrah wa la akhuw akhat filkul wahid minha alsadas fa an kanu aksar min dalika fahum shirka fi athalath wa baad wasiya yusi biha... translates something like this and if the husband successors marriages and mistresses and no brothers and sisters all one in them a sixth but if there are more than that they share in a third after payment of legacies and debts...

i would appreciate those familiar with hijazi arabic to weigh in on the sentence construction. the conclusion appears to be there are instance of husbands who have wives and mistresses and no brothers and sisters, in which case the wives and mistresses are to share in one of two enumerated proportions depending on how many wives and mistresses there are. i am surprised to find the mention of mistresses and a share that i find confusing. i am aware that the term nikah and going into a woman are described as having taken a strong covenant. however, intellectual honesty requires i report my findings and let the meaning of this verse sink in. my faith in allah being absolute will guide me in time as to whether i have misunderstood something or why he has ordained this rule.

allah is the truth.

Samia

Samia, according to Nun's latest interpretation, kalala status is the deprivation of father and spouse-not the deprivation of children. What supports Nun's thesis is the fact that 4176 talks about the lack of children as an additional condition, not inherent in the definition of kalala.

Salaam Onur

I wonder what verse 4176 is if not a definition of kilala. The sentence does not have a "wau and" before the phrase (has no children) (in imri'un halaka laysa lahu waladun if a man dies has no children),rephrasing They ask you concerning kilala if a man without children dies. This construction is different from (if a man dies and he has no children).

As for verse 411, i has nothing to do with a kilala. A kilala has no parents either.

Verse 412 talks about the shares of siblings of a kilala with wife whereas verse 4 176 talks of their share when there's no wife.

Take each verse of the three inheritance verses, and look at the beginning of it. It tells you what the theme of the verse is
411 is about children and parents, the main and constant heirs no mention of kilaala.

412 First half talks about spouses in presence of children (no mention of kilala because kilala has no children; nor of siblings because with the presence of children they have no inheitance) and the second half, with the mention of kilala, appears the mention of siblings.

4176 Is all about siblings, who only inherit when there are no children, nor parents. The fact that the verse speaks of a case where the male inherits everything if there's no female shows that this is a case where the kilala has no wife.

Therefore, a kilala may or may not have a wife; but definitely has no children nor parents. The confusion of scholars is that they do not want to give to the sole sister/sisters f a dead kilala the whole inheritance (the same problem in the case of children) and they did not know where to give the rest of the inheritance, so they invented the half siblings and/or searched for far away relatives.

Onur

Samia, how did you infer that a kilala has no parents? I see your point that 4176 talks about the deprivation of children in the context of kilala. But, where did you find that a kilala has no parents?

unknownuser

Salam Samia and Onur,

Exactly as Onur stated there was never a clear definition and misunderstanding of the meaning?

Abu Talha reported 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on Friday and made a mention of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he also made a mention of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and then said I do not leave behind me any problem more difficult than that of kalala. I did not refer to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more repeatedly than in case of the problem of kalala, and he (the Holy Prophet) never showed more annoyance to me than in regard to this problem, so much so that he struck my chest with his fingers and said 'Umar, does the verse revealed in summer season, at the end of Sura al-Nisa' not suffice you? Hadrat 'Umar (then) said If I live I would give such verdict about (kalala) that everyone would be able to decide whether he reads the Qur'an or he does not. (Sahih Muslim Book #011, Hadith #3937)

I wonder what verse 4176 is if not a definition of kilala. The sentence does not have a "wau and" before the phrase (has no children) (in imri'un halaka laysa lahu waladun if a man dies has no children),rephrasing They ask you concerning kilala if a man without children dies. This construction is different from (if a man dies and he has no children).

If definition of kalala is childless it?s redundant to state?

They ask you concerning kalala (childless person) if a man without children dies.

It?s similar to these?

HUSBAND
Walakum nisfu ma taraka azwajukum in lam yakun lahunna waladun
412 And for you 1/2 what your spouses/wives left, if was not for them a child?

WIVES
walahunna alrrubuAAu mimma taraktum in lam yakun lakum waladun
412...and for them the 1/4 from what you left, if was not for you a child?

Verse 412 talks about the shares of siblings of a kilala with wife whereas verse 4 176 talks of their share when there's no wife.

Therefore, a kilala may or may not have a wife; but definitely has no children nor parents.

Case sister, wife

412...and for them the 1/4 from what you left, if was not for you a child,

412...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the 1/6

1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sister = 7/12 unallocated

Samia

Salaam Nun and Onur

The fact that a sister or a brother inherits all the wealth of a kilalah is a proof that he is parentless, otherwise the parents are never veiled form the inheritence even in the presence of children. No mention of parents' share in case of kilalah.

As for the redundancy of 4176, remember it's a definition of kilalah What's a kilalah? A kilalah is a man or woman who dies and has no children. That means if he is alive, he is not yet a kilalah.

As for the story of Omar, I just see in it a fabrication to get around the share of female sisters, as usual. What does it tell? That they ask about kilalah, God explains it, but still they do not understand? Or that the prophet is impatient and unable to explain? nope

Onur

Selam Samia,
You say that "the fact that a sister or a brother inherits all the wealth of a kilalah is a proof that he is parentless" The same "proof" would also work for arguing that the kilalah is spouseless. Why do you choose parentless over spouseless when defining kilalah? No mention of spouses' share in the case of kilalah, either.

Plus, as I argued before, it is wrong to say that kilalah does not have a mother for the following reason

Siblings acquire the status of inheritors only when the deceased is kilalah.
411 specifies the share of the mother when the deceased has siblings.
From 2, we infer that the presence of siblings has an effect on the share of the mother which would make sense only if siblings and mothers are inheritors at the same scenario. Since siblings are inheritors, this scenario happens when the deceased is a kilala.
From 1 and 3, we infer that a person may die as a kilala leaving behind mother and siblings and both of these can become inheritors at the same time.

In other words, it would be wrong to include motherless in the definition of a kilala.

unknownuser

salam samia,

This is proof kalala cannot have a spouse; math does not add up...

case sister, wife
1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sister = 7/12 unallocated

case sister, husband
1 - 1/2 husband - 1/6 sister = 1/3 unallocated

Look at the sequence...

HUSBAND
412 And for you 1/2 what your spouses/wives left, if (there) was/is not for them a child

WIVES
412...and for them the 1/4 from what you left, if (there) was not for you a child

Spouseless/widower kalala with children
412...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman

Finally spouseless kalala without child.
4176 They ask your opinion/clarification , say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him a child

As Onur stated there has to be mother...
411...so if brothers/brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6