Quran inheritance mistake

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?

unknownuser

Peace all -

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.

Important to note that a last will and testament takes precedence and all are encouraged to write one; after all debt and bequests are paid off then finally inheritance distributions are applied and that a sole inheritor gets the whole since there is none left to divide with which inheritance is a ruling for division of shares.

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

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

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?

The verses on inheritance are widely misunderstood with countless contradictive interpretations, disagreement, and controversy mainly due to not reading precisely as stated or with predispositions and imbedded thoughts ingrained in the mind which make simple statements come out distorted especially the case with women?s shares which one has to keep in mind that 1400 years ago women were treated as property themselves with no rights to inherit or voice in such matters which Qur?an came to change status quo set things right.

47
To the men a share from what the parents and the nearest related left, and to the women a share from what the parents and the nearest related left, from what lessened from it or increased, a share specified.

Those who inherit are encouraged to remember their distant relatives, orphans, and the poor.

48
And if of the relations, and the orphans, and AlMas?kin (the poor/oppressed) attended the apportionment, so provide for them from it, and speak to them words of kindness.

411-12

The above is a contiguous passage and should be cross-referenced with the rest of Qur'an with no contradiction as with any topic; verse numbers are not separators of thoughts and only there to make it easier for reference unless one commits the entire Qur'an to memory then no need for verse numbering.

Distributions are first stated for children, parents, spouses, and finally for a deceased who is without a father and spouse-less (i.e. Kalala) first the case is given with children (e.g. could be a widower or person with children out of wedlock) then Kalala no child -- according to some traditions was the last verse revealed.

I?ll give examples to answer the numerous supposed contradictions...
http//www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html

Also see Al-Awl or using normalization (algebra) to fix inconsistencies
http//www.sillyallah.com/2007/11/inheritance-mistake-in-detail-part-2.html

Inheritance distributions are mathematics and cannot be ambiguous; they are precise verses and instructions to be followed ? literally. Therefore, the literal translation is best.

One issue traditionalists scholars failed to understand and always apply the general case is that a son always gets double share of a daughter often inserting wrong language like ?if only daughters? and ?two or more? (=>2) when verse says precisely over two meaning =>3!

411

to the male - alike - fortune - the two females

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

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?

A precise equation is given above revolving around the # of females; easy to visualize.

Here is the diagram of ratio distribution for CHILDREN?

http//i42.tinypic.com/2v9vo89.jpg

Females to males (daughters sons) ratio distributions

1m 2m_ 3m___ 4m

1f___ 11___ 11___ 11___ 11

2f___ 12___ 11___ 12___ 12

3f___ 21___ 21___ 11___ 21

4f___ 21___ 12___ 21___ 11

When there is an equal # of boys and girls, they share equally with a ratio 11

Examples with total inheritance estate of $100k

1 daughter, 1 son (1f 1m) ratio is 11
1 daughter = $50k or 1/2; 1 son = $50k or 1/2

2 daughters, 2 sons (2f 2m) ratio is 11
2 daughters = $50k (1/2); 2 sons = $50k or 1/2

1 daughter, 4 sons (1f 4m) ratio is 11
1 daughter gets $50k or 1/2
4 sons = $12.5k each ($50k total); they split remaining 1/2

1 daughter, 10 sons (1f 10m) ratio is 11
$50k + $50k = $100k
1 daughter gets 1/2; 10 sons get $5k each split remaining 1/2

4 daughters, 1 son (4f 1m) ratio is 21
4 daughters = $66.66k or 2/3; 1 son = $33.33k or 1/3

2 daughters, 1 son
$25k + $25k + $50k = $100k

3+ daughters; 1 son
$66,667 (2/3) + $33,333 (1/3) = $100k

In absence of children the above is applicable to grandchildren or great-grandchildren stand in the place of their parent; as for example

1 daughter, 10 grandchildren from 1 son
1/2 daughter + 1/2 grandchildren (they share in the son's inheritance)

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.

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

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

Continuing?

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,

All descendants are as children and all ascendants are as parents thus grandparents share equally with parents as do grandchildren treated as sons/daughters as in prior example.

If there are children, each parent first receives 1/6 with remaining distributed to children according to the ratios above.

Examples...

parents, 1 daughter, 1 son
1 ? 1/3 parents (1/6 mother + 1/6 father) = 2/3 Children (1f 1m; ratio is 11)

1 daughter = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3
1 son = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3

mother, 1 daughter
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 daughter (only child gets the whole, ratio 10)

father, 5 sons
1 ? 1/6 father = 5/6 sons (1/6 each son)

father, 5 daughters
1 ? 1/6 father = 5/6 daughters (1/6 each, as above)

If no children and both parents alive, the mother?s share is fixed at 1/3

1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

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

If no father and also no brethren, then the mother?s share is variable.

Continuing?

Distributions to HUSBAND

412 And for you half what your spouses/wives left, if is not for them a child, so if was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left from after a bequest/will they bequeath with it or a debt

parents; husband; 3 daughters
1 ? 1/3 parents (1/6 each) ? 1/4 husband = children?s share (3 daughters ratio 10)

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

husband, father (no child father?s share is variable)
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 father

husband, mother {likewise no father/brethren mother's share is variable)
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 mother

Distributions to WIVES (i.e. widows)

412 ...and for them the quarter from what you left, if was not for you a child, so
if was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left from after a bequest/will you bequeath with it or a debt

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

wife, father
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 father

wife, mother (no child, father or brethren, mother?s share is variable)
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 mother

Continuing...

Spouse-less and Fatherless {Kalala} first 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

According to traditions, the word Kalala was never really understood; Ibn Kathir wrote ?If a man or a woman was left in Kalalah? derivative of Iklil or ?crown that surrounds the head? and was conjectured as having neither ascendants nor descendants or no direct heir leading to contradiction.

Here are a few narrations on the topic

Sahih Muslim Book #011, Hadith #3937
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.

It was also conjectured that a sister of a childless man inherits half of his property and the brother of a childless woman inherits all of her property and also assumed there was no other inheritors which the question arises what amount to give an only sister -- 1/6 in 412 or the 1/2 in 4176?

The workaround was that 412 refers to uterine siblings or half sisters and brothers having the same mother but a different father which also leads to contradictions.

sister, wife
1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sister = 7/12 (amount left unallocated)

Another situation was when total distribution is greater than the whole which the fix was to use algebra to proportionately decrease/increase each amount by a common denominator called al-awl.

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

The above was a supposed case during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab who ruled the 2 full brothers got nothing since there was nothing remaining to share. The full brothers argued and Umar reconsidered his ruling allowed the full brothers to inherit equally with the uterine brothers in the shares which was not according to Qur'an.

In the presence of a father or spouse, siblings get nothing; they are not even mentioned until Kalala and inherit only when the deceased is Kalala while the mother?s share is specified when there are brethren Ikhwatun (411) requires the presence of a male same as with rijalan for example; thus siblings and mother can obviously be inheritors together.

Also important to note on Kalala
4176 ...if human died, not for him a Child

Illogical to state IF CHILDLESS not for him a CHILD. unless exists Kalala with Child!

Continuing...

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

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

1 sibling, children
1 ? 1/6 sibling = 5/6 children (distributed according to 411)

2+ siblings, mother, children
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 siblings = 1/2 children (again use ratio diagram to distribute per 411)

Finally, the case deceased was Kalala 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, 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.

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

mother, father, sister, brother {not Kalala, use 411 parents 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

1+ brothers, mother (411...mother 1/6)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brothers

If no father and no brethren/Ikhwatun, the mother?s share is variable.
sister, mother
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 mother

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

2+ siblings mixed, mother (411...mother 1/6)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings

The above is to my understanding without contradictions and as with any topic is an exercise in logic teaching how to read Qur'an, cross-reference, etc., if it contradicts then it's our understanding at error and if you disagree with the distributions, write a will as God commands and God knows best.

Samia

Salaam Eid, all

I enjoyed reading your well organized post, and the full explanation. However, I have a few points to comment on, and of course the ever debated "kelala" issue. So I will start with the first point of concern

In absence of children the above is applicable to grandchildren or great-grandchildren stand in the place of their parent; as for example

I am not sure about this. The verses speak of "awlaad" not "abnaa'", which is the difference between "children" and "descendants, including grand children; just like the difference between "waalid" and "ab". Unless they speak of "abnaa'", I believe it's about children only.

Spouse-less and Fatherless {Kalala} first 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

I do not know why you suddenly moved to a "spouseless" case. This "kelala" is being inherited as spouse, because the address from the beginning of the verse is shifted from "about the desceased" in 411 to "you who survive a spouse", and the kelala is the spouse you survive. Please re-reed the verse again.

Illogical to state IF CHILDLESS not for him a CHILD. unless exists Kalala with Child!

But the verse does not say that! It says if someone dies not for him/her a child/ . In context it says (They ask your legal understanding , say God explains to you the legal definition of kelala if someone dies, not for him a child.../ .
The only thing I can conclude form this is that if someone without children, but not dead, he/she is not kelala (not yet, at least).

According to traditions, the word Kalala was never really understood; Ibn Kathir wrote ?If a man or a woman was left in Kalalah? derivative of Iklil or ?crown that surrounds the head? and was conjectured as having neither ascendants nor descendants or no direct heir leading to contradiction.

The problem with traditionalists, whose understanding seem correct, is that they presumed that (only daughters) are not to be considered as "descendants". They make the gruesome mistake of (if someone dies not to him a child in imri'un halaka laisa lahu walad/ ) when they took "walad" to mean "son" instead of "child". This is what the Islamic Shai3a is based on, in addition to the many errors concerning female children share.

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

Salaam Eid, all

I enjoyed reading your well organized post, and the full explanation. However, I have a few points to comment on, and of course the ever debated "kelala" issue. So I will start with the first point of concern
I am not sure about this. The verses speak of "awlaad" not "abnaa'", which is the difference between "children" and "descendants, including grand children; just like the difference between "waalid" and "ab". Unless they speak of "abnaa'", I believe it's about children only.

Thanks, only three verses going on 18 months now...lol

411 God directs you in your CHILDREN

Question is does Qur?an view a grandchild as a person?s child, as for example with little Barack?

http//ladydi377.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/barack-obama-and-grandfather.jpg

I do not know why you suddenly moved to a "spouseless" case. This "kelala" is being inherited as spouse, because the address from the beginning of the verse is shifted from "about the desceased" in 411 to "you who survive a spouse", and the kelala is the spouse you survive. Please re-reed the verse again.

To husband
412 And for you half what your spouses/wives left

To wives
412 ...and for them the quarter from what you left

Kalala (i.e. spouseless, no father)
412...and if was a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman

People marry, have children, get divorced, spouse dies, has be spouse-less case with children 412 then without 4176

But the verse does not say that! It says if someone dies not for him/her a child/ . In context it says (They ask your legal understanding , say God explains to you the legal definition of kelala if someone dies, not for him a child.../ .
The only thing I can conclude form this is that if someone without children, but not dead, he/she is not kelala (not yet, at least).

There is no legal definition in the verse ? that is an assumption. It says precisely the case for a kalala without child

4176 ?"God decrees in alkalalati, if human died, not for him a child

The problem with traditionalists, whose understanding seem correct, is that they presumed that (only daughters) are not to be considered as "descendants". They make the gruesome mistake of (if someone dies not to him a child in imri'un halaka laisa lahu walad/ ) when they took "walad" to mean "son" instead of "child". This is what the Islamic Shai3a is based on, in addition to the many errors concerning female children share.

Parentless and childless contradicts; nothing to differentiate siblings in 412 /4176, e.g.

What amount to give an only sister, 1/6 (412) or 1/2 (4176)?

Cannot use spouseless to toggle between the two verses, examples

wife, sister
1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sister = 7/12 unallocated if using 412?

1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/2 sister = 1/4 unallocated if using 4176?

brother, 2 sisters
412... so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third
1 ? 1/3 = 2/3 unallocated?

brother, 2 sisters
4176...to the male alike fortune the two females

Peace

nwryn

Salaam Eid, all,

Thanks for your detailed explanation.

Anything remaining or in the case there is no will distributions are to be done according to Quran

That just won't happen unless mentioned in a will. The other thing is that if your gift of estate fails, it will be distributed according to the laws of the land. Some people prefer to have it distributed according to Qur'aanic verses.

When there is an equal # of boys and girls, they share equally with a ratio 11

Examples with total inheritance estate of $100k

1 daughter, 1 son (1f 1m) ratio is 11
1 daughter = $50k or 1/2; 1 son = $50k or 1/2

2 daughters, 2 sons (2f 2m) ratio is 11
2 daughters = $50k (1/2); 2 sons = $50k or 1/2

1 daughter, 4 sons (1f 4m) ratio is 11
1 daughter gets $50k or 1/2
4 sons = $12.5k each ($50k total); they split remaining 1/2

1 daughter, 10 sons (1f 10m) ratio is 11
$50k + $50k = $100k
1 daughter gets 1/2; 10 sons get $5k each split remaining 1/2

"If she is one so to her the half" - does this mean

if ratio of femalemale is 11, or
if the number of females is one?
It's got to be one or the other, surely.

Kalaalah
Siblings only inherit from a kalaalah. 411 seems to suggest that siblings may inherit in the presence of parents. Therefore kalaalah cannot be parentless or fatherless. Also, I think "parents are heirs" means both parents are alive, though I might be wrong.

only three verses going on 18 months now...lol

I have learned a lot from what everyone has contributed to this thread, things I'd never considered before. Keep up the great work! bravo

Maybe there is a reason why the third verse doesn't come consecutively after the first two and not even until the very end of the chapter.

unknownuser

Salaam nwryn,

Salaam Eid, all,

Thanks for your detailed explanation.

That just won't happen unless mentioned in a will. The other thing is that if your gift of estate fails, it will be distributed according to the laws of the land. Some people prefer to have it distributed according to Qur'aanic verses.

"If she is one so to her the half" - does this mean

if ratio of femalemale is 11, or
if the number of females is one?
It's got to be one or the other, surely.

You are very welcome.

the ratios revolve around # of females 2, > 2, or 1

Kalaalah
Siblings only inherit from a kalaalah. 411 seems to suggest that siblings may inherit in the presence of parents. Therefore kalaalah cannot be parentless or fatherless. Also, I think "parents are heirs" means both parents are alive, though I might be wrong.

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

Correct if both parents alive
1 - 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

Siblings share with mother obviously; with father alive they get nothing -- not a kalala case thus inapplicable.

Peace

herbman

Salam,

just a question, and what about 47

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, a determinate share.

are we talking about equal share?

nwryn

Salaam Eid,

the ratios revolve around # of females 2, > 2, or 1

Then how do you know that if the number of females is equal to the number of males (e.g. 2 daughters and 2 sons), they each get an equal share?

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

Correct if both parents alive
1 - 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

Siblings share with mother obviously; with father alive they get nothing -- not a kalala case thus inapplicable.

Are you saying that "his parents inherited him" means both parents are alive? And "if brethren were for him" means the case when "his parents inherited him" definitely does not apply? Why couldn't it apply (i.e. not for him a child AND his parents inherited him AND brethren were for him)?

mother, father, wife wife = 1/4, mother = 1/3, father = 5/12?

unknownuser

Salaam,

just a question, and what about 47

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, a determinate share.

are we talking about equal share?

Depends on the circumstances; a share specified is not necessarily equal; see also...

4118

God cursed him, and he said "I will take from your worshipers a specified share."

Salaam Eid,

Then how do you know that if the number of females is equal to the number of males (e.g. 2 daughters and 2 sons), they each get an equal share?

The same ratio (11) femalesmales thus we logically deduce as with only brothers (not specified) for example they all get equal shares.

Are you saying that "his parents inherited him" means both parents are alive?

Yes.

And "if brethren were for him" means the case when "his parents inherited him" definitely does not apply?

Yes.

Why couldn't it apply (i.e. not for him a child AND his parents inherited him AND brethren were for him)?

mother, father, wife wife = 1/4, mother = 1/3, father = 5/12?

husband, mother, father

1 - 1/2 husband - 1/3 mother = 1/6 father (half as the mother; then there are other complications)

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

Think of the "so if" fa-in as a logical ELSE IF statement.

Peace

nwryn

Peace Eid, all,

The same ratio (11) femalesmales thus we logically deduce as with only brothers (not specified) for example they all get equal shares.

OK, I understand this now and it makes sense to me. The 3+ females is in relation to each male, because the statement begins with "fa" and is therefore related to the preceeding statement. The one female is not in relation to each male, but is the absolute number of females, because the statement begins with "wa".

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

Think of the "so if" fa-in as a logical ELSE IF statement.

So, "brethren were for him" is a replacement for "his parents inherited him", i.e. siblings instead of father. Is this still in the case of no children? I would assume so, because the mother gets 1/6 anyway, regardless of the presence of siblings, if there are children. Does this mean that siblings only inherit in the absence of children? That would contradict the understanding gained from 412 and 4176 - that a kalaalah does not have to be childless.

husband, mother, father

1 - 1/2 husband - 1/3 mother = 1/6 father (half as the mother; then there are other complications)

I'm not sure what you were showing with this example; please could you clarify?

Thanks