Quran inheritance mistake
-
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 brethrenAgain 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-KallatiIn 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 1/3OK 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 brotherWhere 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 fatherNo 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 1/6Therefore, 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 womanIF Kalala without Child use...
4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if (a) human died, not for him a childThe 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
-
Salam ,
read a book for Mohammad Shahrour called " fiqh el maraa' " he explains the rules of irth according to the qoranIf 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. -
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. -
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 brotherWhere are the instructions for distributions?
Kalala -- no father, no spouse, no contradictions; if you believe otherwise please present a sample case.
Peace
-
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 clarificationyou 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 Eid
Before I prepare my response, I need a clarificationyou 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
-
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 412If 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
412In 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.
-
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 412If 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
412In 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 = childrenfather; 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 same1 ? 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
-
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".
The heirarchy of heirs is in this order
Children always heirs
Parents always heirs
Spouses always heirs
Siblings restricted heirsThis 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 childrenWife 1/4
Mother= 1/3
Rest of inheritance goes to the mother, since she is higher in hierarchyEx husband, parents
Husband gets 100% is not trueYes. 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 parentsDistribution 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.
-
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 hierarchyNo 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 = parentMother, 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 fatherSiblings 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
-
(َ = It was, or became, dim, dull, or hebetated. He was, or became fatigued, tired, or wearied.
Kalla is used in verse verse 1676Therefore 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.
-
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations
From Lane's Lexicon
-
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).
-
(َ = It was, or became, dim, dull, or hebetated. He was, or became fatigued, tired, or wearied.
Kalla is used in verse verse 1676Therefore 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.
Salaam Tlepsh
You are right, this word shares the same root, but how do you deduce from this that a kelala is someone (without parents, children and spouse)?
The word used in this verse means "burden", like "a slave being a burden on his/her master). One cannot be a burden on his/her children or parents; and cannot be a burden on anyone else if he/she has children and/or parents. So if one is a burden, he/she must be childless and parentless. -
Salaam
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations
From Lane's Lexicon
Yes, all CA dictionaries say the same thing. I wanted to see if this is the meaning the quraan is using, or these dictionaries are just repeating a preconception
-
Salaam Samia,
In my opinion a person is not burden on any one of these three Parents, children, or spouse.
If this person has any one of those three he is not a burden. He becomes burden when he has ?none? of those three.Salaam Tlepsh
The qur'aan spoke of marital problems and set a final solution for them divorce. Also, Until this solution, one of them is a burden on the other.
As for inheritance verses the kelala was only mentioned in context of spouses' share (verse 411) and again alone in verse (4176). It was not mentioned in verse 411 when discussing the shares of children and parents. -
Salam Samia,
Please once more verify the meaning of Kalala as per the following devision of the inheritance statements in verses 411, 412, and 4176. My earlier definition is incorrect. A KALALA may or may not have children. This is clearly stated in verse 4176. I believe Kalala is one who has no parents and spose.Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance)
Normal Person
? 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.
? 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.
Kalala with children
? If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, is KALALA, 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.
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in ALKALALATI,
Kalala without children
? if (a) human(kalala) died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what he left,
? and he inherits her (kalala) 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. -
Kalala with children
? If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, is KALALA, 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.
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in ALKALALATI,Salaam Tlepsh
This is where we differ. I suppose you are refereing to verse 412, which is about the share of spouses in all cases, including the kelala. I do not know how you infer from this that kalal here has children, when they are not mentioned
We should look now from the side of the heirs, i.e the children here. Verse 411, the main verse about children, does not mention siblings except in case there are no children. It's quite clear that the presence of children curtails brethrens right to inherit