Quran inheritance mistake

[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

1. Siblings acquire the status of inheritors only when the deceased is kilalah.
2. 411 specifies the share of the mother when the deceased has siblings.
3. 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.
4. 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

[huruf]

This is for Samia, Nun de plume or whoever might give helpful insights into the question.

Please, could you compare the formulation of 4.11 and 4.176?

I think it might enlightening for all of us.

Also I have been looking for Shahrour site, but the url is not working.

Salaam and thanks in advance.

[unknownuser]

Peace huruf,

This is for Samia, Nun de plume or whoever might give helpful insights into the question.

Please, could you compare the formulation of 4.11 and 4.176?

I think it might enlightening for all of us.

Also I have been looking for Shahrour site, but the url is not working.

Salaam and thanks in advance.

This is something I've been working on to write an article; almost have it only a few things not clear.

411

• he directs you (p) - God - in - you (p) children
• to the remembrance - alike - luck/fortune - the two females
  ? so if - be - women - over - two (f) - so for them (f) - two thirds - what - left
• and if - were ? one/single - so for her - the half

Traditional understanding if only girls > 2 is a contradiction
1 ? 1/3 parents ? 2/3 daughters - 1/4 husband = - 1/4 shortage

Why translate to the male same word used as below?

5417
? and We have - eased ? the Qur?an - to the remembrance - so is there - from ? those who remember/are mindful

4176

• they (b) were - two (f) - so to them (b/f) - the two thirds - from what - left ? and if - they were ? brethren - men ? and women ? so remember??? - alike - fortune - the two females

What if > 2 females, does it mean at least two (i.e. presence of two) they get 2/3?

[unknownuser]

Never mind the above; looked it up

http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

= Thaal-Kaf-Ra = to remember/commemorate/recollect, study in order to remember, remind, bear in mind, mindful, mention/tell/relate, magnify/praise, admonish/warn (e.g. dhikra is the 2nd declenation and it is stronger than dhikr), preach, extol, give status.
nobility/eminence/honour, fame, good report, cause of good reputation, means of exaltation.

Male/man/masculine (dhakar, dual - dhakarain, plural - dhukur).

dhakar (pl. dhukur) - 336, 3195, 411, 4124, 4176, 6139, 6143, 6144, 1697, 26165, 4040, 4249, 4250, 4913, 5321, 5345, 7539, 923

[huruf]

Thanks indeed, Eid, for your input.

I am going to quote parts I find of interest in comparison between the two ayas

411

God directs you regarding the inheritance of your children ?To the male shall be as that given to two females. If they are only females, two or more, then they will have two thirds of what is inherited. And if there is only one female, then she will have one half. And to his parents, each one of them shall have one sixth of what is inherited, if he has a child. If he has no child and his parents are the heirs, then to his mother is one third; if he has siblings then to his mother is one sixth. All after a will is carried through or a debt. Your parents and your children, you do not know which is closer to you in benefit, a directive from God, God is Knowledgeable, Wise.?

4.176

They seek a ruling from you, say ?God gives you the ruling for those who have no descendants. If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind. And he will inherit from her fully if she has no child. However, if he has two sisters, then they will receive two thirds of what he left behind; and if he has siblings, male and female, then the male shall receive twice what the female receives.? God makes clear to you that you do not stray; God is aware of all things.

---

I hesitated to put the English translation because it does a lot of interpretation and I want to keep exclusively to the nude Arabic in order to see exactly what can be understood. But I put it so that anybody can better follow whatever is said.

I put both of them together because regarding the interpretation that Samia gave us of 4.11 as pur forward by Shahrour, I found that there might or might not be some parallelism between both ayas as far as the male part of the two females.

So I hope that by comparing we might gain further understanding.

thanks

Salaam

[unknownuser]

Peace huruf,

Thanks indeed, Eid, for your input.

I am going to quote parts I find of interest in comparison between the two ayas

411

4.176

I found that there might or might not be some parallelism between both ayas as far as the male part of the two females.

So I hope that by comparing we might gain further understanding.

The Arabic is verbatim identical.

411

• to the male - alike - fortune - the two females
  4176
  ? to the male - alike ? fortune - the two females

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=2,%201,%201&cat=male,%20female-1,%20female-2

[almarh0m]

Salamun laykum

Forgive me for sticking my head in this debate , but could someone please tell me if this "Rule of Inheritance" applies if the deceased benefactor left a valid Will ?

Thank you

almarh0m

[unknownuser]

Salaam,

Salamun laykum

Forgive me for sticking my head in this debate , but could someone please tell me if this "Rule of Inheritance" applies if the deceased benefactor left a valid Will ?

Thank you

almarh0m

A last will and testament takes precedence and all are encouraged to write one.

2180
(&#1632
It is prescribed on you, if the death approaches any of you, if he leaves wealth, that he make a bequest/will to the parents and the nearest of kin with the kindness, a duty on the righteous.

1. All expenses and debts of the deceased are to be paid
2. If there is a will and bequests property, money?s, etc, are distributed accordingly
3. Anything remaining or in the case there is no will distributions are to be done according to Qur?an

[almarh0m]

Peace Eid

Salaam,

A last will and testament takes precedence and all are encouraged to write one.

2180
(&#1632
It is prescribed on you, if the death approaches any of you, if he leaves wealth, that he make a bequest/will to the parents and the nearest of kin with the kindness, a duty on the righteous.

1. All expenses and debts of the deceased are to be paid
2. If there is a will and bequests property, money?s, etc, are distributed accordingly
3. Anything remaining or in the case there is no will distributions are to be done according to Qur?an

Thank you for the prompt and clear reply , my mind is at ease now regarding this important subject .

Peace be upon you all

almarh0m

[huruf]

There are important differences between 4.11 nd 4.176

In 4.11 it says it is speaking fi awladikum, thus grouping the first grade descendants, whereas it is not so formulated when dealing with the brethren. It speaks first about when there is a sister, then two sisters, and then goes onto the disribution if there both sisters and brothers. That is not done in 4.11. Also en 4.11 it says if more than two of the children are females, then they get two thirds of the succession. Whereas in 4.176 if there are two sisters, they get two thirds.

Also en 4.176 says it is talking bout el kalala, kalala meaning, as has been said in this thread without ascendants or descendants, but then it says regarding the woman who dies leaving a brother that he inherits her sucession if she doesn't have a child. What does this mean? If we are talking about a kalala, is the sister who dies without a child kalala or not?

Salaam

[Samia]

There are important differences between 4.11 nd 4.176

In 4.11 it says it is speaking fi awladikum, thus grouping the first grade descendants, whereas it is not so formulated when dealing with the brethren. It speaks first about when there is a sister, then two sisters, and then goes onto the disribution if there both sisters and brothers. That is not done in 4.11. Also en 4.11 it says if more than two of the children are females, then they get two thirds of the succession. Whereas in 4.176 if there are two sisters, they get two thirds.

Also en 4.176 says it is talking bout el kalala, kalala meaning, as has been said in this thread without ascendants or descendants, but then it says regarding the woman who dies leaving a brother that he inherits her sucession if she doesn't have a child. What does this mean? If we are talking about a kalala, is the sister who dies without a child kalala or not?

Salaam

Verse 411 is about a deceased leaving children and a spouse. If you mean brothers and sisters of the deceased, they get nothing.
Verse 4176 is the second verse about a deceased without parents nor children (kelala). This one is if this deceased "kelala" does not have a spouse. The first one about a kelala with a spouse is verse 412., which deals in cases of left spouses, including the spouse of a kelala

[unknownuser]

Peace Samia,

Verse 4176 is the second verse about a deceased without parents nor children (kelala).

No father is correct; the mother's share however is specified when there are brethren.
Therefore her presence cannot be ruled out in either verse 412 or 4176

411...so if brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6

This one is if this deceased "kelala" does not have a spouse. The first one about a kelala with a spouse is verse 412., which deals in cases of left spouses, including the spouse of a kelala

There can be no spouse in either Kalala 412/4176 or there will be a contradiction with shares not allocated.

Ex mother, husband, brother
412 And for you 1/2 what your wives left, if is not for them a child
412...and if was 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

1/6 mother + 1/2 husband + 1/6 brother = 5/6 (not allocated 1/6)

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=1,%203,%201,%201&cat=mother,%20husband,%20brother,%20unallocated

Ex mother, wife, brother
412 ...and for them the quarter from what you left, if was not for you a child

1/6 mother + 1/4 wife + 1/6 brother = 7/12 (not allocated 5/12)

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=2,%203,%202,%205&cat=mother,%20wife,%20brother,%20unallocated

Kalala 412 or 4176 is always fatherless without a spouse (e.g. widower or never married).

Ex mother, brother

1/6 mother + 5/6 brother = 1

Peace

[Samia]

Peace Samia,

No father is correct; the mother's share however is specified when there are brethren.
Therefore her presence cannot be ruled out in either verse 412 or 4176

411...so if brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6

411 is about children. kelala is irrelevant here.
Where is mother or father mentioned in 412 or in 4176?
412 is about share of spouses, 4176 about brethren. No parents are mentioned in either verse.

One should also notice what each verse is about
411 About children and parents (deceased standard not kelala)
412 Spouses. If deceased standard and in case spouse left with children, or kelala then there are no children, but brethren. So here we have the spouse and brethren of a kelala, spouse and children of standard (even if they have brethren they do not inherit in the presence of a kelala)
4176 Brethren. We had their share in presence of spouse. Here they are alone. Parents not mentioned here because this is a kelala and has no parents. Share of parents in presence or absence of children (and presence of spouse) is mentioned in 411

[unknownuser]

Salaam Samia,

411 is about children. kelala is irrelevant here.
Where is mother or father mentioned in 412 or in 4176?
412 is about share of spouses, 4176 about brethren. No parents are mentioned in either verse.

This was already explained by Onur in a prior post

Selam Samia,
....

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

1. Siblings acquire the status of inheritors only when the deceased is kilalah.
2. 411 specifies the share of the mother when the deceased has siblings.
3. 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.
4. 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.

One should also notice what each verse is about
411 About children and parents (deceased standard not kelala)
412 Spouses. If deceased standard and in case spouse left with children, or kelala then there are no children, but brethren. So here we have the spouse and brethren of a kelala, spouse and children of standard (even if they have brethren they do not inherit in the presence of a kelala)
4176 Brethren. We had their share in presence of spouse. Here they are alone. Parents not mentioned here because this is a kelala and has no parents. Share of parents in presence or absence of children (and presence of spouse) is mentioned in 411

In addition, to what Onur posted the brethren (i.e. siblings) are also mentioned and the whole section (411-12) which is to be read together in context then logically tied to 4176 as well any other verse on the topic without contradiction the same to understand Qur?an on any subject.

Also, please use working examples as already posted above and here is another

Ex wife, brother (if kalala has spouse per 412)

1 - 1/4 wife - 1/6 brother = 7/12 unallocated?

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=3,%202,%207&cat=wife,%20brother,%20unallocated

Does the above distribution according to your understanding look reasonable and who gets the unallocated?

[arista]

Salam,

I have question

412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister, then to each one of them is one sixth... "

Is it 412 said
if only have 1 brother, then his brother get 1/6?
if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/6?

Then how about reference it to 4176 " .... If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind.... ". This part said if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/2?

So, is it 412 only talk about single man / woman and 4176 talk about married person who's leave spouse but have no descendants?

[Samia]

Salaam Samia,

This was already explained by Onur in a prior post

In fact Onur's post is full of errors, and he enfers too much fom the simplest verse on inheritence. Neither you nor onur showed where mother or parent is/are shown in verses 412 / 176. The kelala is a parentless childless person
Onur says

1. Siblings acquire the status of inheritors only when the deceased is kilalah.
2. 411 specifies the share of the mother when the deceased has siblings.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Once Onur looked at verse 411 as about mother, he made the first mistake. The verse is about "your children".
The second mistake is to infer that the deceased can be a kelala, when it's undebatable that the kelala does not have children (if this is what he meant by siblings) or siblings are not even mentioned in this verse and they are not guaranteed heirs ( if he meant brethren).
This mix up and misunderstanding of what a kelala is, is the cause of a lot of confusion.