Quran inheritance mistake

unknownuser

Thanks for pointing out what I missed!
8 Siblings only inherit with the presence of either the parents or the spouse, but not both (i,e parents and spouse).
411

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.

According to this, in these cases you mention, where both the parents and the spouse are there, siblings inherit nothing.

OK you are almost there seeing that Kalala is also spouseless...

...according to Qur'an because when there is a spouse siblings get NOTHING!

Let's take out the spouse so we ONLY have parents and siblings.

Therefore, deceased in either case is NOT Kalala according to Samia/Shahrour;
thus these verses are NOT applicable because they are ONLY applicable when the deceased IS a Kalala

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

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.

Now please solve using

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

Ex mother, 2 sisters, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give 2 sisters and brother?

Ex mother, father, sister, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give the father, sister, and brother?

Where are instructions for distributing shares to 3 unknown variables and amongst different mix of siblings?

Peace

Samia

OK you are almost there seeing that Kalala is also spouseless...

How do you enfer from this that kalala is spousless? What I said is very clear. Siblings inherit only when at most either the spouse or a parent is there. If both are present, they inherit nothing. They will therefore always inherit a kalala because a kalala has at most just a spouse (no parents and no children).

Ex mother, 2 sisters, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give 2 sisters and brother?

Ex mother, father, sister, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give the father, sister, and brother?

Ex 1 Since we have the share of the parent/s fixed, the rest of the inharetnce goes automatically to the rest of the heirs; in this case we apply to the male the share of the two females;
Ex1 Both parents are present. No children each parent gets 1/6; and the rest goes to the sister and brother, equally shared.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

How do you enfer from this that kalala is spousless? What I said is very clear. Siblings inherit only when at most either the spouse or a parent is there. If both are present, they inherit nothing. They will therefore always inherit a kalala because a kalala has at most just a spouse (no parents and no children).

Only have a little time -- see below...

Ex 1 Since we have the share of the parent/s fixed, the rest of the inharetnce goes automatically to the rest of the heirs; in this case we apply to the male the share of the two females;

Ex1 Both parents are present. No children each parent gets 1/6; and the rest goes to the sister and brother, equally shared.

Read Qur'an -- both parents shares are fixed ONLY when there are children. No child father share variable.

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

Please redo...

Ex mother, 2 sisters, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give 2 sisters and brother?

Ex mother, father, sister, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give the father, sister, and brother?

Where are instructions for distributing shares to 3 unknown variables and amongst different mix of siblings?

Also, you stated dividing siblings share for case of Kalala (the male the share of the two females, etc).

When God says Kalala, why do you apply it to a deceased who according to you is NOT Kalala?

Samia

Read Qur'an -- both parents shares are fixed ONLY when there are children. No child father share variable.

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

Salaam Eid
I would rephrase this Both parents shares are not equal when there are no children (mother 1/3 father 2/3 for absence of any legitimate heir/s); and are equal when there are other heirs children or siblings.
The inheritance verses show the female's share, the male will either be equal to that share or will take the rest of the inheritance if not specified.

x mother, 2 sisters, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give 2 sisters and brother
2 sisters get 50% of what remains and brother 50% (equal shares between the 2 females and the one male); i.e 50% of 5/6 for the two sisters and 50% of the 5/6 for the brother

Ex mother, father, sister, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give the father, sister, and brother?

The onlly case where the mother gets 1/6 the father also gets 1/6 (in presence of children = legitimate heirs)
Same principle would be applied here
mother 1/6; father 1/6; sister and brother each gets 1/3

unknownuser

Salaam Eid
I would rephrase this Both parents shares are not equal when there are no children (mother 1/3 father 2/3 for absence of any legitimate heir/s); and are equal when there are other heirs children or siblings.
The inheritance verses show the female's share, the male will either be equal to that share or will take the rest of the inheritance if not specified.

x mother, 2 sisters, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give 2 sisters and brother
2 sisters get 50% of what remains and brother 50% (equal shares between the 2 females and the one male); i.e 50% of 5/6 for the two sisters and 50% of the 5/6 for the brother

Ex mother, father, sister, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give the father, sister, and brother?

The onlly case where the mother gets 1/6 the father also gets 1/6 (in presence of children = legitimate heirs)
Same principle would be applied here
mother 1/6; father 1/6; sister and brother each gets 1/3

Peace Samia,

Yes, both parents get 1/6 ONLY in the presence of children. There are no children and deceased is NOT Kalala according to you in the cases stated above. Therefore, you cannot use distributions 412 and 4176 which are specific when the deceased is ONLY Kalala.

The distrbutions are all there.

Ex mother, father

411...and to his PARENTS, to each one from them the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child, {not applicable}
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 {not applicable }

If no children and only parents alive, mother?s share is fixed at 1/3
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

If no father and brethren (ikhwatun) mother?s share is fixed at 1/6

Ex husband, parents
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 parents (1/6 mother + 1/3 father)

Ex wife, parents
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 parents (1/4 mother + 1/2 father)

Note If the deceased wants to leave a greater share to a surviving spouse or anyone they should specify it in a will.

Kalala - no spouse and no father (a widower for example) with 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 sixth, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

If father or spouse siblings get NOTHING! They are not even mentioned until Kalala!

Siblings ONLY inherit when the deceased is kalala and mother?s share is specified when there are brethren (411) thus siblings and/or mother can be inheritors for Kalala not when there is a father.

Finally, the case if deceased is Kalala (no spouse, no father) no Child

4176
(&#1638

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.

Ex mother, 2 sisters, brother {Kalala no child use 4176}
1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings (i.e. to the male equal share the two females)

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=3,%205,%205,%2010&cat=mother,%20sister%201,%20sister%202,%20brother

Ex mother, father, sister, brother {not Kalala use 411 parents are only inheritors}
...so if was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3

1 - 1/3 mother = 2/3 father {siblings get nothing}

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=1,%202&cat=mother,%20father

Peace

Samia

Therefore, you cannot use distributions 412 and 4176 which are specific when the deceased is ONLY Kalala.

Salaam Eid

Your examples are not kelala. There is a mother in one example and parents in the other. I only used 411 where the deceased is not kelalal. has no children but parents and brethrens

Since brethren are mentioned, it means they are heirs in this case.
This verse mentions the share of parents in three cases
1- Presence of children
2- Absence of children - parents alone
3-Absence of children -presence of brethren

so if brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6 {not applicable }

Why not applicable?! This is the applicable one!

If no father and brethren (ikhwatun) mother?s share is fixed at 1/6

No verse says if there's no father; not mentioning him nor saying explicitly he is dead does not rule out his presence, just as no verse says no male children.

Kalala - no spouse and no father (a widower for example) with Child

Is this your definition of kelala? Kelala does not have children nor parents

I think you should get your definition of kelala specified.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

Your examples are not kelala. There is a mother in one example and parents in the other. I only used 411 where the deceased is not kelalal. has no children but parents and brethrens

Since brethren are mentioned, it means they are heirs in this case.
This verse mentions the share of parents in three cases
1- Presence of children
2- Absence of children - parents alone
3-Absence of children -presence of brethren

Again to repeat at issue is this

You used distributions given in 412 and 4176 to divide shares to the siblings.
It is clear 412 and 4176 is ONLY if the deceased was a Kalala...

412 Wa 'In Kna Rajulun Yrathu Kallatan 'Aw Amra'atun
4176 Yastaftnaka Quli Allhu Yuftkum F Al-Kallati

In the two examples given with a mother according to your definition were NOT Kalala.
Why use 412 & 4176 to distribute shares to the siblings when they are inapplicable?

Missed this in the last post

Ex mother, father, sister, brother
1/6 mother -- what do we give the father, sister, and brother?

The onlly case where the mother gets 1/6 the father also gets 1/6 (in presence of children = legitimate heirs)
Same principle would be applied here
mother 1/6; father 1/6; sister and brother each gets 1/3

OK then let?s do?

Ex mother, father, sister
How much does the sister get 2/3, 1/6, 1/2?

Ex parents, brother
Likewise, how much does the brother get?

Ex parents, 1 sister, 2 brothers
Ex parents, 3 sisters, 1 brother

Where are the instructions for distributions?

Why not applicable?! This is the applicable one!

Please read the example case that was given...

Ex mother, father

411...and to his PARENTS, to each one from them the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child, {not applicable}
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 {not applicable }

If no children and only parents alive, mother?s share is fixed at 1/3
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

No verse says if there's no father; not mentioning him nor saying explicitly he is dead does not rule out his presence, just as no verse says no male children.

Of course father's share is explicitely stated only when there is a child else calculated.

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

Therefore, using reason/logic the following is deduced

IF children THEN parents get 1/6
IF parents only inheritors THEN mother gets 1/3 {father gets 2/3}
IF brethren {no father} mother gets 1/6 {fixed}

IF no child, no father, no brethren THEN mother share is variable {i.e. unspecified to be calculated}

Is this your definition of kelala? Kelala does not have children nor parents

NO.

I think you should get your definition of kelala specified.

Kalala - No father, No spouse (could be widower, divorced, single, never married, with/without child).

IF Kalala with Child use...
412...and if was a man to be inherited Kallatan or a woman

IF Kalala without Child use...
4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if (a) human died, not for him a child

The above is key to understanding; NOT FOR HIM A CHILD!

If Kalala means without Child, no need to state the case for NO CHILD!

The classical definition of Kalala as no parents and childless is in error purely derived from conjecture and vague hadith which later the writers of dictionaries referenced as well...

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.

In addition, for those who believe Order of Revelation based on hadith the last chapter was 110 ...

Al-Bara' (Allah be pleased with him) reported that the last verse revealed in the Holy Qur'an is" They ask thee for a religious verdict; say Allah gives you a religious verdict about Kalala (the person who has neither parents nor children)" (iv 177).

4176

... God clarifies for you that you be (not) misguided and God with all things knowledgeable.

Peace

tawhid

Salam ,
read a book for Mohammad Shahrour called " fiqh el maraa' " he explains the rules of irth according to the qoran

Samia

Salam ,
read a book for Mohammad Shahrour called " fiqh el maraa' " he explains the rules of irth according to the qoran

If you read through the thread, you will find that is what I am basing my answers on.
To be honest, this last part of siblings with parents alive was not what Shahrour says. He quotes the verse and rules that the father gets the remaining 5/6, without referring to the word "brethren" at all. I believe he made an error here, because since the verse mentions brethren, it means they have a share.

Samia

Salaam Eid

You used distributions given in 412 and 4176 to divide shares to the siblings.
It is clear 412 and 4176 is ONLY if the deceased was a Kalala...

This is not the main issue between our understandings. The main issue is that you believe that brethren only inherit in case of kelala, and I say, according to verse 411 which I quoted, and since brethren are mentioned, they can also inherit if the deceased has parents.

The classical definition of Kalala as no parents and childless is in error purely derived from conjecture and vague hadith which later the writers of dictionaries referenced as well...

In fact, the understanding that a kelala may have a child (mainly daughters) is the root to the confusion in the distribution of inheritance where we see, according to Islamic Law, bretherens inherit when the deceased leaves only girls.

Let's organize the context of the inheritance verses

411 Shares of Children and Parents of the deceased
Top heirs children, in all contexts (presence of mother/father/ presence of parent/s and absence of all). No brethrens of the deceased are mentioned when children are present, therefore brethren of deceased do not inherit in pesence of children.
Second top heir Parents, lesser than children in context of presence of children, absence of children, and pesence of bretheren therefore brethren inherit when they are left with their parents.

412 Shares of Spouses
First half of the verse continues with 411. No kelala Share of spouse depends on presence or absence of children and also on the gender of the spouse.
Second part is about spouse of kelala in presence of brethren (second time brethren are mentioned and second case where they inherit)

4176 Share of brethren when alone
All devoted for kelala Share of kelala's brethren in absence of spouse. The mention of (has no child) is part of the definition of kelala This vrese starts with the definition of kelala.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

Salaam Eid

This is not the main issue between our understandings. The main issue is that you believe that brethren only inherit in case of kelala, and I say, according to verse 411 which I quoted, and since brethren are mentioned, they can also inherit if the deceased has parents.
In fact, the understanding that a kelala may have a child (mainly daughters) is the root to the confusion in the distribution of inheritance where we see, according to Islamic Law, bretherens inherit when the deceased leaves only girls.

Let's organize the context of the inheritance verses

411 Shares of Children and Parents of the deceased
Top heirs children, in all contexts (presence of mother/father/ presence of parent/s and absence of all). No brethrens of the deceased are mentioned when children are present, therefore brethren of deceased do not inherit in pesence of children.
Second top heir Parents, lesser than children in context of presence of children, absence of children, and pesence of bretheren therefore brethren inherit when they are left with their parents.

412 Shares of Spouses
First half of the verse continues with 411. No kelala Share of spouse depends on presence or absence of children and also on the gender of the spouse.
Second part is about spouse of kelala in presence of brethren (second time brethren are mentioned and second case where they inherit)

4176 Share of brethren when alone
All devoted for kelala Share of kelala's brethren in absence of spouse. The mention of (has no child) is part of the definition of kelala This vrese starts with the definition of kelala.

Please solve following (give verses used) and you'll see exactly the issues with Shahrour " fiqh el maraa'

Ex mother, father, sister
How much does the sister get 2/3, 1/6, 1/2?

Ex parents, brother
Likewise, how much does the brother get?

Ex parents, 1 sister, 2 brothers
Ex parents, 3 sisters, 1 brother

Where are the instructions for distributions?

Kalala -- no father, no spouse, no contradictions; if you believe otherwise please present a sample case.

Peace

Samia

Kalala -- no father, no spouse, no contradictions; if you believe otherwise please present a sample case.

Salaam Eid
Before I prepare my response, I need a clarification

you say --no father. Do you mean no parents or that kalala has a mother but no father?
Can you give your precise definition of kalala?

unknownuser

Salaam Eid
Before I prepare my response, I need a clarification

you say --no father. Do you mean no parents or that kalala has a mother but no father?
Can you give your precise definition of kalala?

Salaam Samia,

Kalala - no father and no spouse (i.e. fatherless and/or spouse-less)

Kalala - can have a mother

Kalala - can have children which is what differenciates 412 with child or 4176 without child

Samia

Salaam Samia,

Kalala - no father and no spouse (i.e. fatherless and/or spouse-less)

Kalala - can have a mother

Kalala - can have children which is what differenciates 412 with child or 4176 without child

Salaam Eid
In this case, before we start solving these cases, we have to agree/disagree on the definition of kelala.
I say kelala is a person who has no parents nor children. This is concluded from verse 412

If the man or woman who is kelala 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;
Question Who gets the remaining inheritance? This verse mentions spouses but does not mention parents.

Let's see where parents' shares are mentioned 411

This verse is mainly about the shares of children and parents; parents alone or parents and brethrens. No mention of kelala. It's about the same deceased who may have or have no children. But the verse says (if he has no children and his parents inherit him, his mother will get the third - notice that the father's share is not mentioned- and if he has brethren, his mother gets the sixth). So this person has a father. Therefore not kelala according to your definition.

In 4176, no parents are mentioned. Actually no verse mentions one parent, because by logic, the one who is surviving will get both shares.
Why would a kelala have amother and not a father?

Shares of spouses
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 who is a kelala and 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.

This verse is about spouses, and the kelala is mentioned in it. Their brethren's share is not up to 100%, the rest will go to the spouse as this is the logical solution. No parents are mentioned here because they have been dealt with already.

Accordingly

1- Mother; father; sister Verse 411
If father, mother, children father 1/6; mother 1/6 (wife 1/8 or husband 1/4 - from verse 412) rest goes to children
father; mother no children (wife 1/4 or husband 1/2) rest mother 1/3; father 2/3
father; mother no children no spouses and no bretheren mother 1/3 father 2/3 of whole
father; mother and brethren only father 1/6; mother 1/6 and brethren 2/3 (verse 411 the last case in the verse).
2- parents; brother same
3 parents; 2 sisters i brother parents 1/3; 2 sisters 1/3; brother 1/3
4-parents, 3 sisters and 1 brother parents 1/3; 3 sisters share 2/3 of the remainder and the brother 1/3 of the remainder.

** IMO, since all these cases involve parents, we both agree that the deceased is not a kelala
** Another solution might be that all te brethren share equally the remainder, irrespective of their gender. My only refrence in the above distribution is the distribution for the siblings of the kelala, which is again the same as the distribution between children, which makes me understand that this is the formula for distribution betwen siblings, so I am more for it but open to other points of view.

I want to clarify something Although I agre with Dr Shahrour's definition of kelala, and wih all of his understanding of these verses and the shares he calculates, I disagree with him on how he would calculate these cases. According to Shahrour; with the presence of parents, brothers brethrens get nothing. But this is against verse 411 where the share of the "parents" is given in three cass

presence of children
absence of children
absence of children and presence of brethrens.
He does not even say why he ignored this third point.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

In this case, before we start solving these cases, we have to agree/disagree on the definition of kelala.
I say kelala is a person who has no parents nor children. This is concluded from verse 412

If the man or woman who is kelala 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;
Question Who gets the remaining inheritance? This verse mentions spouses but does not mention parents.

Verse numbers are markers not topic separators. Read the context and the paragraph above it and everything else pertaining to which the correct definition is the non contradicting.

Let's see where parents' shares are mentioned 411

This verse is mainly about the shares of children and parents; parents alone or parents and brethrens. No mention of kelala. It's about the same deceased who may have or have no children. But the verse says (if he has no children and his parents inherit him, his mother will get the third - notice that the father's share is not mentioned- and if he has brethren, his mother gets the sixth). So this person has a father. Therefore not kelala according to your definition.

In 4176, no parents are mentioned. Actually no verse mentions one parent, because by logic, the one who is surviving will get both shares.
Why would a kelala have amother and not a father?

Inheritance verses are an exercise in logic and the best way to deal with them is by case examples

Ex mother, father
1 - 1/3 mother (411) = 2/3 father is deduced by reason/logic.

Ex mother, brother
1 - 1/6 mother (411) = 5/6 brother is deduced by reason/logic.

Ex father, brother
what do we do?

See first example above, father is the only inheritor in this case.

Shares of spouses
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 who is a kelala and 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.

This verse is about spouses, and the kelala is mentioned in it. Their brethren's share is not up to 100%, the rest will go to the spouse as this is the logical solution. No parents are mentioned here because they have been dealt with already.

By same reasoning no mention of parents, spouses don?t share with parents

Ex husband, parents
Husband gets 100% is not true

Fathers share only stated if child, without child father's share is variable.
Mothers share stated if child, mother and father, else when there are brethren ? otherwise no child, no father, no brethren mother's share is variable.

1- Mother; father; sister Verse 411

Where is the solution?
I have it the deceased is not Kalala (has a father) and sibling gets NOTHING!

If father, mother, children father 1/6; mother 1/6 (wife 1/8 or husband 1/4 - from verse 412) rest goes to children

Correct.
1 ? parents (1/6 mother + 1/6 father) ? spouse = children

father; mother no children (wife 1/4 or husband 1/2) rest mother 1/3; father 2/3

father; mother no children no spouses and no bretheren mother 1/3 father 2/3 of whole

Correct.

father; mother and brethren only father 1/6; mother 1/6 and brethren 2/3 (verse 411 the last case in the verse).
2- parents; brother same

1 ? 1/3 (1/6 mother + 1/6 father) = 2/3 brethren is not correct!

411 says parents get 1/6 each of them IF CHILD. Without child the father?s share is variable.
The brother does not get 2/3 while each parent gets a 1/6.

3 parents; 2 sisters i brother parents 1/3; 2 sisters 1/3; brother 1/3

Again, no child father?s share not specified and variable.
1 ? 1/3 parents = 2/3 siblings divided evenly is not correct!

2 sisters and 1 brother are not divided evenly, it's to the male equal share the two females.

4-parents, 3 sisters and 1 brother parents 1/3; 3 sisters share 2/3 of the remainder and the brother 1/3 of the remainder.

Again with no child father?s share is not stated.
1 ? 1/3 parents = 2/3 siblings is not correct!

** IMO, since all these cases involve parents, we both agree that the deceased is not a kelala
** Another solution might be that all te brethren share equally the remainder, irrespective of their gender. My only refrence in the above distribution is the distribution for the siblings of the kelala, which is again the same as the distribution between children, which makes me understand that this is the formula for distribution betwen siblings, so I am more for it but open to other points of view.

Distribution of siblings is different than that of the children.
Siblings 1 sister = 1/2 applicable when there is ONLY 1 sister.
Siblings 2 (e.i. if two present or at least two) applicable when ONLY sisters.

I want to clarify something Although I agre with Dr Shahrour's definition of kelala, and wih all of his understanding of these verses and the shares he calculates, I disagree with him on how he would calculate these cases. According to Shahrour; with the presence of parents, brothers brethrens get nothing. But this is against verse 411 where the share of the "parents" is given in three cass

presence of children
absence of children
absence of children and presence of brethrens.
He does not even say why he ignored this third point.

You are correct, the mother can be an inheritor with siblings.

Peace

Samia

Salaam Samia,

Verse numbers are markers not topic separators. Read the context and the paragraph above it and everything else pertaining to which the correct definition is the non contradicting.

Salaam Eid

If you pay attention to the last line I wrote in the part you are quoting, I am mentioning the "paragraph above " and putting the part of verse quoted in context. The context is "spouses", and the proof that this kelala has a spouse is the fact that the shares for his siblings does not add up to the whole inheritance. The logical understanding is that the rest goes to the "spouse" who is in the "contecxt" of the "paragraph above".
Please read more carefully what I write before hurrying to criticism.

nheritance verses are an exercise in logic and the best way to deal with them is by case examples

Ex mother, father
1 - 1/3 mother (411) = 2/3 father is deduced by reason/logic.

Yes I agree, but the logic should also be in accordance to the "logic" of the language in which these verses are written
First, when children are mentioned, we understand that what follows concerns "children" and not one gender. In the one case whre males are mentioned, it's in a context of formula. Apart from that, it's always the female, then we use the "logic" to deduce the share of the male.
Same thing ith parents. Once the verse mentions "parents", we should understand that both parents are pesumably there (no point in mentioning when the it's only the father or when it's only the mother, becasue, again by "logic", the suviving parent will take both shares, just like the case of "girls only" or "boys only" or one child only). We also notice in the verse dealing with parents, only the share of the mother is mentioned. We do not wonder what the share of the fathe is when the verse says "and if the deceased has no children and is inherited by his parents, his mother gets the 1/3". The verse, "logically" does not tell us what the share of the mother would be if she was the sole parent alive, because this presumption is not even there, not because it is unlikely, but because there is no need for it.

When the verse continues and if the deceased has siblings, his mother gets 1/6, we should go back to the beginning of the sentence (if the deceased has no children and his parents inherit him/her, his mother gets one third; if he/she has siblings, his mother gets 1/6). Why should we presume that father does not exist?!

Ex mother, brother
1 - 1/6 mother (411) = 5/6 brother is deduced by reason/logic.

Ex father, brother
what do we do?

father 1/6; brother 1/6 , remainder goes to father (higher in hierarchy)

By same reasoning no mention of parents, spouses don?t share with parents

This verse speaks of two kinds of deceased standard (beginning of verse) and kelala. By "logic", the first one has parents, otherwise, what is the difference between the kelala and the standard when they do not leave a child?

We should presume the deceased (no kelala) left parents, spouse and children, unless it's explicitly mentioned that there are no children.. We only have "if deceased leaves no children". We do not have "if deceased does not leave parents or does not leave spouse&quot.

The heirarchy of heirs is in this order
Children always heirs
Parents always heirs
Spouses always heirs
Siblings restricted heirs

This helps in case there's remainder after paying the specified shared, this remainder will be added to the share of the heir higher in hierarchy (according to their mentioning in the verses of inheritance, which also reflects the nearness to the deceased).
So, in case the deceased leaves a mother and a wife. No children

Wife 1/4
Mother= 1/3
Rest of inheritance goes to the mother, since she is higher in hierarchy

Ex husband, parents
Husband gets 100% is not true

Yes. In the presence of an always heir, husband can't get 100%.

Fathers share only stated if child, without child father's share is variable.

Agree.
Husband gets 1/2
Father gets 1/2
Yes?

Where is the solution?

Mother, father, sister
Mother 1/6; father 1/6, sister 2/3 the rest. The remainder goes back to the parents.
Ex inheritance is 18,000. Father 3,000; mother 3,000; sister 1/2 of what is left 6,000. Rest goes back to parents.

411 says parents get 1/6 each of them IF CHILD. Without child the father?s share is variable.
The brother does not get 2/3 while each parent gets a 1/6.

And without child but brethrens, mother still gets 1/6, so "by logic" father's share is also 1/6, since his share is specified only when there are children.
It's not 1/2 the inheritance but 1/2 the rest (what he left verse 4176), since their share is not specified. If there's a spouse, or if they were more, they get even less.

Again with no child father?s share is not stated.
1 ? 1/3 parents = 2/3 siblings is not correct!

You are right.
Parents 1/3, brethrens 1/3, (i/2 of which for the 2 sisters and the other half for the brother). Rest goes back to parents

Distribution of siblings is different than that of the children.
Siblings 1 sister = 1/2 applicable when there is ONLY 1 sister.
Siblings 2 (e.i. if two present or at least two) applicable when ONLY sisters.

The same wording is used for children and brethren. I would rather look at it as "distribution between siblings". Again, the verses do not speak of one gender when it is discussing brethren or children, because it's by logic that they will divide it evenly between them and we do not really need this unnecessary detail.

I am coming to change my definition of kelala Maybe it's someone who does not have parents, or does not have children or does not have either.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

When the verse continues and if the deceased has siblings, his mother gets 1/6, we should go back to the beginning of the sentence (if the deceased has no children and his parents inherit him/her, his mother gets one third; if he/she has siblings, his mother gets 1/6). Why should we presume that father does not exist?!

Because of the contradiction in any case involving a father and sibling!
Ex father, sibling = two unknown {one has to be dropped, i.e. the sibling)

father 1/6; brother 1/6 , remainder goes to father (higher in hierarchy)

That is contradiction father if child = 1/6; if no child = variable

To brother if no child only stated in case of Kalala (4176)
We know the deceased is not Kalala, thus two unknowns/variables ? sibling has to be dropped.

This verse speaks of two kinds of deceased standard (beginning of verse) and kelala. By "logic", the first one has parents, otherwise, what is the difference between the kelala and the standard when they do not leave a child?

It is stated twice if no child...

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...

Kalala logically cannot mean childless -- the case IF child has to be a possibility!

So, in case the deceased leaves a mother and a wife. No children

Wife 1/4
Mother= 1/3
Rest of inheritance goes to the mother, since she is higher in hierarchy

No need to allocate 1/3 to mother and the remainder to mother since
IF no children, no father, no siblings, the mother?s share is variable, therefore?

1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 mother

Husband gets 1/2
Father gets 1/2
Yes?

Yes, same as for mother above, father share is variable; general formula
1 ? spouse = parent

Mother, father, sister
Mother 1/6; father 1/6, sister 2/3 the rest. The remainder goes back to the parents.
Ex inheritance is 18,000. Father 3,000; mother 3,000; sister 1/2 of what is left 6,000. Rest goes back to parents.

No, leads to contradictions with no child father share is variable.
Same situation ex father, sister {deceased not Kalala; father is only inheritor}

And without child but brethrens, mother still gets 1/6, so "by logic" father's share is also 1/6, since his share is specified only when there are children.
It's not 1/2 the inheritance but 1/2 the rest (what he left verse 4176), since their share is not specified. If there's a spouse, or if they were more, they get even less.

No.
Ex wife, sister
1 ? 1/4 = 3/4 sister is not correct! {the case for 1 sister is stated either 1/6 or 1/2)

Ex mother, father, sister {deceased not Kalala; mother and father are the only inheritors}

1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father {sister gets nothing}

The same wording is used for children and brethren. I would rather look at it as "distribution between siblings". Again, the verses do not speak of one gender when it is discussing brethren or children, because it's by logic that they will divide it evenly between them and we do not really need this unnecessary detail.

No, distributions for siblings are different, please note highlighted in red...

Children male = 2 females; IF > 2 females = 2/3; IF 1 female = 1/2

Siblings male = 2 females {if mixed}; IF 2 females = 2/3; IF 1 female = 1/2

I am coming to change my definition of kelala Maybe it's someone who does not have parents, or does not have children or does not have either.

4176 Illogical IF childless person (Kalala) dies NOT for him/her a child!

Ex father, siblings {two unknowns, sibling gets bounced}
Father gets 100%

Ex husband, mother, siblings, father {412 Kalala with spouse according to you}
1 ? 1/2 husband ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 siblings = 0 father

Siblings get bounced; father = 1/3 or twice the mother

Likewise, ex wife, sibling, mother leads to under allocation of shares...

1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sibling ? 1/6 mother = 5/12 unallocated

Peace

Tlepsh

(&#1614 = It was, or became, dim, dull, or hebetated. He was, or became fatigued, tired, or wearied.
Kalla is used in verse verse 1676

Therefore in my opinion Kalalah means someone without parents, children, and spouse. One may became fatigued, tired, or wearied only when he has no parents, no children and no spouse.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations

From Lane's Lexicon

Samia

Salaam Eid, all

You can never find in the inheritance verses mention of son or father without mention of the fmale counterpart, and that their share depends, or revolve around the share of this female. Nor would we have a female alone (except explicitly in case of brethren). When there's a share of female, we presume that there is a male opposite her, becaue such verses discuss (your children) and (parents). This male share is not variable but is dependant on the share of the female according to a formula which we can deduce from a given principle.

Case of sons We were able to deduce a formula for the share of the son because we were given examples of the share of female/s in different settings one; two or more and according to set principles.

Father We had the share of the mother (1/3) when there are no children, and deduced the share of the father (2/3); and when there are children both will have 1/6 each. No need to search further when there are no children but there are brethren, because we are given the share of the mother (1/6) unchanged, and are made to understand that existance of brethren does not change her share (and therefore does not change the share of the father).