Quran inheritance mistake

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.

All expenses and debts of the deceased are to be paid
If there is a will and bequests property, money?s, etc, are distributed accordingly
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.

All expenses and debts of the deceased are to be paid
If there is a will and bequests property, money?s, etc, are distributed accordingly
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

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.

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

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.

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.

Samia

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?

Salaam arista
It's the opposite. Verse 412 is mainly about the share of spouses. If a kelala is mentioned in this context, then it's a kelala leaving a spouse.
Verse 4176 is about share of brethren without any other heir No spouse, and of course no parents nor children since this verse is exclusively about the kelala.

huruf

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

Actually this was not the important part of my question on the comparison of 4.11 and 4.176, it only struck me that if it starts talking about a man kelala, why does it specify then that a sister who dies, besides being kelala leaves no child. It doesn't specify such a thing when talking about a brother who dies.

That is one thing, but the important part of what I meant to be compared between 4.11 and 4.176 was the parallel formulation of what the children inherit in 4.11 and what the brothers or sisters inherit in 4.176 particularly in what regards de distribution between males and females as it is provide in 4.176 and compared to what was discussed in the thread regarding the distribution of inheritance between the children of the deceased according tot he different mix of males and females, as you suggested following shahrour's ideas and that is why I pointed out

"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."

So, I will formulate again the question ?does the wording in 4.11 warrant any interpretation that regarding the male and females parts should be similar as in 4.176?

Salaam

arista

Salam,

Salaam arista
It's the opposite. Verse 412 is mainly about the share of spouses. If a kelala is mentioned in this context, then it's a kelala leaving a spouse.
Verse 4176 is about share of brethren without any other heir No spouse, and of course no parents nor children since this verse is exclusively about the kelala.

So, what is mean by 412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister .... " ? NO ONE? no spouse, no children, no parents?

unknownuser

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 saysOnce Onur looked at verse 411 as about mother, he made the first mistake. The verse is about "your children".

Onur is correct.

411-12 along with 476 is read as a continues paragraph which have to be logically tied toghether without contradiction!

Also, you keep posting without addressing any examples above?

Inheritance distributions are mathematics and cannot be ambiguous with shares not adding up or not enough.

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

As you see above, the fathers share is only stated if a child, all other cases have to be inferred logically calculated.

Ex mother, father (no child father?s share is variable)
1 - 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

Ex husband, father
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 father

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.

Undebatable, really? According to what, grammar based off tradition that says Kalala was never understood and conjectured having neither ascendants nor descendants which caused most of the contradictions as in the simple case posted?

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?

Peace

Samia

Salam,

So, what is mean by 412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister .... " ? NO ONE? no spouse, no children, no parents?

The verse does not say (has no one), but (if a man - or a woman - is inherited as a kelala). A kelala is someone who has no descendants nor parents. This is when brethren /siblings come into the inheritance

unknownuser

Salaam arista,

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?

Good questions; verse literally says ?

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 sixth, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

if only 1 brother = 1/6
if only 1 sister = 1/6
if 2+ brothers = 1/3
if 2+ sisters = 1/3
if brethren men and women any combination mixed = 1/3
Distributed according to 4176 to the male equal fortune the two females

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?

The verse says ?

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in alkalalati, if (a) human died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what he left, and he inherits her if 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 brethren men and women, so to the male equal fortune the two females, God clarifies for you that you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.

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

There lies the main issue, which verse to use as in the case for example of a sister and mother?

Do we give the sister 1/6 or 1/2?

A work around was that 412 refers to uterine siblings or half sisters and brothers having the same mother but a different father to resolve the issue which brought about other confusion when total distribution is greater than the whole fix was to use algebra to proportionately decrease each amount by a common denominator called al-awl.

Ex husband, mother, 3 uterine brothers, 2 full brothers

1/2 husband + 1/6 mother + 1/3 uterine brothers (412) = 0 full brothers (4176)

The above was a supposed case during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab who ruled the 2 full brothers got nothing since there was nothing remaining to share. The full brothers argued that even if their father was a donkey or a stone cast into the sea and they had no paternal relationship, they still had the same and equal relationship with the deceased as the uterine brothers through the same mother. Umar reconsidered his ruling and allowed the full brothers to inherit equally with the uterine brothers in the shares thus

1 ? 1/2 husband ? 1/6 mother = 1/3 brothers

Which is both incorrect according to Qur'an because when there is a spouse siblings get NOTHING!

It is stated in 4176 kalala no child whereas 412 is a progression from children, parents, spouses, then spouseless person who can be a widower, divorced, or single person with children and reason sibling?s share limited to maximum of 1/3 and we use for this case 4176 no child

1 sister, mother
1/2 sister + 1/2 mother = 1

2+ sisters, mother
2/3 sisters + 1/3 mother = 1

1+ brother, mother (411...if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6)
5/6 brothers + 1/6 mother = 1

2+ siblings mixed any combination, mother
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females)

2+ siblings mixed any combination - to the male equal fortune the two females

There can be no contradictions; that is the correct interpretation.

Samia

Onur is correct.

411-12 along with 476 is read as a continues paragraph which have to be logically tied toghether without contradiction!

Also, you keep posting without addressing any examples above?

Inheritance distributions are mathematics and cannot be ambiguous with shares not adding up or not enough.

I know it's mathematics, but first of all we should understand the parameters before setting a formula. And it does not matter whether you read them individually or as acontinous peragraph there are some points that should not be ignored.
If the kelala has children, brothers, parents and wife, why is a kelala defined? And what makes it different from a standard person?

Undebatable, really? According to what, grammar based off tradition that says Kalala was never understood and conjectured having neither ascendants nor descendants which caused most of the contradictions as in the simple case posted?

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

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

I gave my definition of kelala. I do not know your definition when you give them all relatives. This simple case only gets into contradictions when one does not pay very good attention to the different contexts. You suggest (reading the verses as continuation) but you quickly drop this idea
Why should the wife get 1/4? This is not mentioned in case of kelala, but in continuation of 411. The deceased is not a kella, so, and in continuation with 411, there are parents. Kelala starts after that in case there are siblings and spouse

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance) to the male, a portion equal to that of two females if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
412

In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.

In this "simple case", brother gets 1/6 and the rest goes to the spouse, whose share is not defined in this case and who is the only eligible heir left.
There are different formulae for each case, depending on who the heirs are. Unless you define the situation, you cannot put a universal formula for the inheritance.

Samia

I forgot to mention that I am not taking any credit in this explanation. It's sha7rour's explanation (and BTW he is a professor in engineering, so very much mathematician) from his book (New approach to the principles of "islamic law&quot. I checked all his formulae and could not find any contradictions so far. He also explains the different opinions of scholars and critically confirms/refutes them.

unknownuser

I know it's mathematics, but first of all we should understand the parameters before setting a formula. And it does not matter whether you read them individually or as acontinous peragraph there are some points that should not be ignored.
If the kelala has children, brothers, parents and wife, why is a kelala defined? And what makes it different from a standard person?

Kalala no father, no spouse.
4176 says if Kalala (no father, no spouse) has no child.

Simple.

I gave my definition of kelala. I do not know your definition when you give them all relatives. This simple case only gets into contradictions when one does not pay very good attention to the different contexts
.

there are no contradictions, please post a contradiction example case if you believe so.

You suggest (reading the verses as continuation) but you quickly drop this idea
Why should the wife get 1/4? This is not mentioned in case of kelala, but in continuation of 411. The deceased is not a kella, so, and in continuation with 411, there are parents. Kelala starts after that in case there are siblings and spouse

Not sure what you are asking; please post an example case and I'll solve line by line explanation.

412
And for you half what your spouses/wives left, if is not for them a child, so if was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left from after a bequest/will they bequeath with it or a debt
And for them the quarter from what you left, if was not for you a child, so
if was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left from after a bequest/will you bequeath with it or a debt
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 sixth, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

If you believe Kalala has no parents, please solve sister, mother

I forgot to mention that I am not taking any credit in this explanation. It's sha7rour's explanation (and BTW he is a professor in engineering, so very much mathematician) from his book (New approach to the principles of "islamic law&quot. I checked all his formulae and could not find any contradictions so far. He also explains the different opinions of scholars and critically confirms/refutes them.

Good you are not taking credit for his contradictions as shown in all the pie charts above.

Good for him that he is a professor and mathematician; not good that he has little logic.

Peace