Quran inheritance mistake

Samia

Salaam Eid

Ikhwatun requires the presence of a male same as with rijalan for example.

Thanks for the correction. I meant siblings
I also agree with the rest of the post, except that I consider the calculations are valid for the standard person. If it were a kelala as I understand, instead of mother, put spouse, and the calculations will slightly differ when the share of the spouse will be 1/4 (1/2 if husband) instead of the share of the mother at 1/6. Notice that the share of the spouse is mentioned in presence and absence of children, otherwise variable (i.e in presence of only siblings)

Case of a male kelala

Ex 1+ brothers, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 mother = 3/4 brothers

Ex sister, spouse
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 spouse

Ex 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), spouse
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

Ex 2+ siblings mixed, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 spouse = 3/4 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females)

unknownuser

Salaam Eid
Thanks for the correction. I meant siblings
I also agree with the rest of the post, except that I consider the calculations are valid for the standard person. If it were a kelala as I understand, instead of mother, put spouse, and the calculations will slightly differ when the share of the spouse will be 1/4 (1/2 if husband) instead of the share of the mother at 1/6. Notice that the share of the spouse is mentioned in presence and absence of children, otherwise variable (i.e in presence of only siblings)

Case of a male kelala

Ex 1+ brothers, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 mother = 3/4 brothers

Ex sister, spouse
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 spouse

Ex 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), spouse
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

Ex 2+ siblings mixed, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 spouse = 3/4 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females)

Salaam Samia,

If spouse that's were the entanglement comes in, no way to distinguish whether to give for example the sister 1/6 mentioned in 412 or 1/2 in 4176; something has to toggle between the siblings in the two verses which historically it was conjectured that the siblings in 412 were half siblings or uterine siblings same mother different father whereas the siblings in 4176 are full siblings.

You of course argue (I think) that 412 is Kalala with spouse and 4176 Kalala who leaves no spouse.

I argue 412 is Kalala who leaves a child while 4176 is without child as stated.

Also, if Kalala with spouse is 412 then we have this issue....

Ex wife, sibling, mother {does not work, siblings are not inheritors with spouse}
1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sibling ? 1/6 mother = 5/12 unallocated

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=3,%202,%202,%205&cat=wife,%20sibling,%20mother,%20unallocated

In addition, if Kalala without spouse is 4176 and parent less, then no one to share 1/2 with sister.

Which makes the verse never applicable.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

That is not from Lane's Lexicon.

Are you repeating the same mistake you were corrected on only a few days ago?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598276.msg202338#msg202338

I recommend learning from one's mistakes and modifying actions/thinking appropriately.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

Besides, it is from Lane's if you can read what it says at Study Quran PRL.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

They always give a reference to Lane's Lexicon. Check if you want to.

Wakas

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

Besides, it is from Lane's if you can read what it says at Study Quran PRL.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

They always give a reference to Lane's Lexicon. Check if you want to.

After trying to correct you twice, it seems you still do not understand the blatantly obvious Lane's Lexicon does not equal PRL.

Thus if you quote something from PRL, which you did, you cannot say it is from Lane, because Lane is not the only Classical Arabic dictionary used in PRL, as blatantly stated on PRL's homepage. It is cleary stated for anyone with reading ability.... if they can read.

That is why when you were challenged you had to refer me to where you got it from, which was PRL, proving my point.

Lane does not have some of the meanings given in PRL for this entry, thus all of it cant be from Lane. Of course, only a person who took the 2 minutes it takes to read PRL's homepage might know this.

This will be the 3rd time you will have been corrected on this. Maybe the saying "3rd time lucky" will be proven right and you'll finally get it, and stop spreading misinformation on the forum.

Samia

Salaam Eid

Verse 411 finished with children. No more case is left. They curtail siblings, so if there are children, siblings inherit nothing. Do we agree on this?
If we do, then there's no way kelala has children, because whenevr kelala is mentioned, siblings inherit.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

After trying to correct you twice, it seems you still do not understand the blatantly obvious Lane's Lexicon does not equal PRL.

Thus if you quote something from PRL, which you did, you cannot say it is from Lane, because Lane is not the only Classical Arabic dictionary used in PRL, as blatantly stated on PRL's homepage. It is cleary stated for anyone with reading ability.... if they can read.

That is why when you were challenged you had to refer me to where you got it from, which was PRL, proving my point.

Lane does not have some of the meanings given in PRL for this entry, thus all of it cant be from Lane. Of course, only a person who took the 2 minutes it takes to read PRL's homepage might know this.

This will be the 3rd time you will have been corrected on this. Maybe the saying "3rd time lucky" will be proven right and you'll finally get it, and stop spreading misinformation on the forum.

Congratulations... ...

Don't worry.. next time I'll say its from studyquran.org, JUST FOR YOU.

I remind you of this, though http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

You are in the same position I was in in that thread. Maybe YOU will learn.

Peace

Wakas

Congratulations... ...

Don't worry.. next time I'll say its from studyquran.org, JUST FOR YOU.

I remind you of this, though http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

You are in the same position I was in in that thread. Maybe YOU will learn

But it is not from StudyQuran.org so if you say that you will again be spreading misinformation. It is from PRL.

And you are not in the same position as me on that thread. No-one corrected me on that thread, let alone multiple times for a blatantly obvious error.

Thanks for the counsel on learning. I hope to learn, especially from my mistakes, unlike some.

unknownuser

Salaam Eid

Verse 411 finished with children. No more case is left. They curtail siblings, so if there are children, siblings inherit nothing. Do we agree on this?
If we do, then there's no way kelala has children, because whenevr kelala is mentioned, siblings inherit.

Salaam Samia,

No, I posted numerous times something has to distinguish siblings in 412 and 4176

if sister = 1/6
if sister = 1/2

411 is only with distributions amongst children; then parents...
1 - parents = children

Then spouses...
1 - parents - spouse = children
1 - parents = children
1 - spouse = children

Then Kalala spouse-less fatherless with children...
1 - mother - siblings (1/3 max) = children
1 - siblings (1/3 max) = children

Finally, the Kalala spouse-less and fatherless without children
1 - sister = mother
1 - 2+ sisters = mother
1 - 1/6 mother = siblings mixed
siblings only mixed = to the male equal share the two females

Otherwise we cannot change the math which does not add up with under allocation or over allocation.

I went through every possibility on this; above is the only one that works and makes sense especially the last verse should suffice which explicitly it is stated twice if no child and clearly indicates the Kalala can have a child.

4176

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, 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.

Samia

Salaam Eid
My question is direct, and without answering it there is no use putting further cases tosolve. No case cannot be solved if we set the definition correctly. My question was do you state that with the presence of children, siblings can inherit?

unknownuser

Salaam Samia -- Yes.

Then Kalala spouse-less fatherless with children...
1 - mother - siblings (1/3 max) = children
1 - siblings (1/3 max) = children

Samia

Salaam Samia -- Yes.

Salaam Eid

This is the basis of our disagreement (that siblings inherit even in the presence of children), so let's agree to disagree.

Wakas

peace Samia, Eid, all,

I have not been following the discussion, but if there is disagreement, can it be resolved by using examples which disprove the other side, thus only leaving one option? Or are there examples disproving both sides?

Samia

peace Samia, Eid, all,

I have not been following the discussion, but if there is disagreement, can it be resolved by using examples which disprove the other side, thus only leaving one option? Or are there examples disproving both sides?

Salaam Wakas
I hoped more were following the discussion and could contribute with some input. The problem is that the thread went a bit far. I can summerize the disagreement in the definition of kelala (from the verses and not from dictionaries), whose definition for Eid and Tlepsh results in isiblings inheriting with the presence of children, and as for my definition, no siblings inherit in the presence of children

Kelala as per Tlepsh someone who has no parents nor spouse
Kelala as per Eid fatherless spouseless (differs with Tlepsh that a kelala may have a mother)
Kelala as per me parentless and childless.
It seems the problem resides mainly with verse 412. The other two verses that may help are 411 and 4176

To all
Please, help! Don't be scared, especially from Eid's formulae and diagrams, they are not that complicated and are well explained ;D , besides, there are only three verses. But the most important thing is please come without preconceptions. No Arabic is necessary, and no dictionary is needed.

Wakas

peace sister Samia,

Thanks for the clarification. My main point was that can possibilities be eliminated by use of examples? i.e. do certain examples/combinations of family members cause problems for one view and not the other etc. This way is one way of determining the answer, that was my point.

Samia

peace sister Samia,

Thanks for the clarification. My main point was that can possibilities be eliminated by use of examples? i.e. do certain examples/combinations of family members cause problems for one view and not the other etc. This way is one way of determining the answer, that was my point.

Salaam Wakas

That is what each of us was trying to do, but for sure one of us overlooked something and the others couldn't put a finger on it. The problem of examples or combinations is that they work because the remainder goes back to the top heir, or does not go to whose share is fixed in all situations. At least we agree on this ;D. The only problem is who the heirs are in a given situation.

But maybe we did not exhaust enough examples. Let's give an example and see how Eid and Tlepsh will distribute it

Someone dies leaving behind 2 children (1 male and 1 female) and 2 siblings (1 male and 1 female). How would this be distributed ?

Eid and Tlepsh (and all spectators please) please give your distribution ( a brief explanation would be appreciated).

unknownuser

Salaam Samia -- all,

Salaam Wakas

That is what each of us was trying to do, but for sure one of us overlooked something and the others couldn't put a finger on it. The problem of examples or combinations is that they work because the remainder goes back to the top heir, or does not go to whose share is fixed in all situations. At least we agree on this ;D. The only problem is who the heirs are in a given situation.

But maybe we did not exhaust enough examples. Let's give an example and see how Eid and Tlepsh will distribute it

Someone dies leaving behind 2 children (1 male and 1 female) and 2 siblings (1 male and 1 female). How would this be distributed ?

Eid and Tlepsh (and all spectators please) please give your distribution ( a brief explanation would be appreciated).

I agree with Wakas the best way is using examples and reason for posting all the cases; this has to work with ANY and ALL combinations without contradiction.

Example above son, daughter, brother, sister

411 God directs you in your CHILDREN, to the male equal share the two females,
so if they are women (daughters) over two, so for them two thirds what he left,
and if she was one, so for her the half?

Kalala with Child use...

412...and if was a man to be inherited Kallatan 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

1 - 1/3 siblings = 2/3 children (1/2*2/3 = 1/3 daughter, 1/3 son)

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=1,%201,%202,%202&cat=sister,%20brother,%20daughter,%20son

Now your turn; try to solve either below using Kalala with spouse...

Ex wife, brother, mother {does not work, siblings cannot be inheritors with spouse}
1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 brother ? 1/6 mother = 5/12 unallocated?

Likewise with ex wife, sister, mother {we have to give the mother remainder since brethren needs a male}
1 - 1/4 wife - 1/6 sister = 7/12 mother?

nwryn

Salaam all,

411
if there are two females to every male, a male gets the amount that two females get, i.e. female group gets 1/2 and male group gets 1/2.
if there are more than two females to every male, the females get 2/3 and the males 1/3.
if there is one female to every male, the females get 1/2 and the males get 1/2.

Is this everyone's understanding so far?

What if there is less than one female to every male, e.g. one daughter and two sons?
Could there be differences in meaning depending on whether "fa" or "wa" is used? I don't know Arabic but it seems that each separate section begins with wa (and subclauses with fa) but the case of one daughter also begins with wa. Why?

I think maybe this has already been assumed - that "waa7idatan" means one female regardless of number of males, not one female for every male, but I had to go through this thought process. So the one daughter gets 1/2 and all the sons combined get 1/2 ... does everyone agree?

A separate question how do we know for sure that spouse's and/or parents' shares are subtracted first and then the rest is divided amongst children? "Maa taraka" and its variations are used with reference to all heirs.

Another separate question the phrase about the divisions occurring after the wills and/or debts ... why is this mentioned after every section except for a) the children's section(s) and b) the 4176 section?

4176
If there are both brothers and sisters, the male gets twice the share of the female. If this only means, "in the case of there being two females for every male", then what happens for different ratios of brothers to sisters? I'm assuming this bit includes all ratios between brothers and sisters (or do you use 412 in other cases?? ???) ... which would lead me to believe that the same goes for the beginning of 411, except in the case of there being more than two females for every male. Then "waa7idatan" would mean an only child who is female and she gets half, whereas an only child who is male would get double that (i.e. the full remaining amount). A bit like the only sister who gets half, whereas the only brother gets full (assuming that is what is meant by "and he inherits her&quot. Don't ask me what happens to the other half - I don't know is the honest answer ... maybe you have to use algebraic proportions?
However, this probably depends on whether "wa in kaanat" can refer to the waa7idatan that comes after it, or whether it has to refer to the females mentioned earlier. But even if the latter is true, can't waa7idatan still mean an only child who is female as opposed to the only daughter with/without brothers? Also, remember that the waa7idatan sentence begins with "wa", not "fa", so I have a feeling that it is separate to the females mentioned earlier, or, at least, separate to the whole malefemale ratio thing.

I'm helping some family members to write their wills, so any further input would be much appreciated!

Regards

Samia

Salaam Nooreen

I will start with your very last question

I'm helping some family members to write their wills, so any further input would be much appreciated! Cool

The will is independent of the distribution of the inheritance. Whoever is writing the will knows the special circumstances of their heirs, and can distribute the wealth accordingly. The inheritance verse, as clearly explained, are to be applied in case there's no will, or there are monies not taken into consideratin when writing the will.

411
if there are two females to every male, a male gets the amount that two females get, i.e. female group gets 1/2 and male group gets 1/2.
if there are more than two females to every male, the females get 2/3 and the males 1/3.
if there is one female to every male, the females get 1/2 and the males get 1/2.

Yes, this about covers all the possibilities regrding the ratios of males to females. The verse is about "children", i.e mixed genders. For the same gender, the whole wealth goes to them, since no other relative (other than the spouse and parents of the desceased) can inherit. When the share of a heir is determined, the rest of the wealth goes to the other eligible heirs, or return back to the only remaining heir if no other eligible heir/s exist.
It's to be noticed that the share of children is not determined vis a vis the inheritance like the spouse or the parents, but only within them.

Then "waa7idatan" would mean an only child who is female and she gets half, whereas an only child who is male would get double that (i.e. the full remaining amount).

The context and wording of 411 and 4 176 are different. 411 speaks of "children" and mentions all possibilities. If we take it as an only female child, and take (more than two women ) as only females, what about (only two females) and where shall we find their share? Who will inherit the remaining wealth? This is the error of scholars when they brought uncles and cousins with children, when they may only inherit in case there are no children at all.

The discussion between Eid, Tlepsh and me diverged at the point of our different understandings of the definition of "kelala". So you can follow up from there.

huruf

Also in 4.176 it is specifically mentioned if among the siblings there males and females, that mention is not made in 4.11. and indeed the females are mentioned as part of the
"children".

Salaam

nwryn

Salaam Samia and huruf and thanks for replying.

Salaam Nooreen

I will start with your very last question

The will is independent of the distribution of the inheritance. Whoever is writing the will knows the special circumstances of their heirs, and can distribute the wealth accordingly. The inheritance verse, as clearly explained, are to be applied in case there's no will, or there are monies not taken into consideratin when writing the will.

I know. But we're inserting a bit where it says that if the terms of the will cannot be carried out, for whatever reason, then the wealth will be distributed according to the relevant Qur'aanic verses. The solicitor who is writing it thinks it's fine to just say that, but we'd prefer to specify the portions rather than leaving it open to interpretation.

Yes, this about covers all the possibilities regrding the ratios of males to females.

411 speaks of "children" and mentions all possibilities.

What about one female to more than one male?
Another thing "more than two women" - does it have to mean 3+ females per male or can it mean 3+ females even there are 2+ males?

When the share of a heir is determined, the rest of the wealth goes to the other eligible heirs, or return back to the only remaining heir if no other eligible heir/s exist.
It's to be noticed that the share of children is not determined vis a vis the inheritance like the spouse or the parents, but only within them.

OK.

If we take it as an only female child, and take (more than two women ) as only females, what about (only two females) and where shall we find their share? Who will inherit the remaining wealth?

If we take it like that, then maybe the only two females get the full remainder because it's not specified? Btw I don't think that the "more than two women" are without brothers.

This is the error of scholars when they brought uncles and cousins with children, when they may only inherit in case there are no children at all.

Uncles and cousins of the deceased? Do they inherit in the absence of surviving children?

The discussion between Eid, Tlepsh and me diverged at the point of our different understandings of the definition of "kelala". So you can follow up from there.

I know, but I need to understand the basics first.

Also in 4.176 it is specifically mentioned if among the siblings there males and females, that mention is not made in 4.11. and indeed the females are mentioned as part of the
"children".

Salaam

But the phrase used is the same. So it doesn't necessarily mean "if there are two females for every male" ... or does it? If it does, then maybe we can get other ratios of brotherssisters from verse 412?