Quran inheritance mistake

unknownuser

Peace Eid,

Thank you for your feed back, it was very helpful. I was able to make one change as per the following

411 If he has no children and his parents inherited him, then to his mother is one third; if he has siblings then to his mother is one sixth...

First the above "part" verse as per my reading dose not negate the presence of spouse and is applicable in both cases with or without spouses for if there is a spouse, the spouse gets 1/4 F or 1/2 M, and since no children, the parents will inherit him "the balance" and if there is no spouse the parents will inherit all.

And his parents inherited him, as per my reading means both parents, yet does not negate the absence of either one. So in the case the parents inherited him, to his mother 1/3 so we conclude that the father gets 2/3 and if he has siblings to mother 1/6.

? Case parents no children = mother 1/3, father 2/3 concluded
o Case siblings = mother 1/6 reduced, siblings 5/6 shared with or without father " "

I think this case is more logical since God allotted variable shares for father and siblings then " " as used in 4176 Kalalah case or equal shares as in 412 kalalah case.

The above conditions are applicable only in the absence of children when either or both of the parents inherit the balance after the spouse or all when there is no spouse. The key condition is the allotted share for the mother 1/3 and the change of that share to 1/6 when there are siblings. The value of shares other than mother changes according to number of inheritors that is why it is called luck "".

The question is that will the father argue that his share is 2/3 as concluded in the case of no children and only that the mother's share was reduced to 1/6 in case of siblings.

I think the concept of variables should convince him, what do you think?

In Kalalah cases God states different shares applicable in each case. However, the presence of either one of the main inheritors namely the spouse, father and mother immediately negates Kalalah cases and revert to applicable categories in verses 411 and 412.

Peace mmouhammad,

You are welcome and nice article on Kalala (most of it I agree with the logic).

In regards to father?s argument, he can take it up with God; we have to follow Qur?an and correct reading.

Solve these not Kalala cases according to your understanding and verses used
A) sister, mother

B) sister, mother, father
1 ? (sister? + mother?) = father?

C) husband, sister, brother, mother, father
1 ? (1/2 husband + siblings? + 1/6 mother) = father?

Salaam nwryn or Nooreen (nicer... lol)

Then ... it is always the number of females, and not the ratios of daughters to sons? So for 3 daughters and 3 sons, the daughters share in 2/3 and sons share in 1/3? This is different to what you said before - that if the number of daughters equals the number of sons, they each get an equal share.

Yes, thanks for correcting I take back my earlier predisposition; that was not Qur?an.

So ikhwatun cannot apply to only one sister? Can it apply to only one brother?

Yes applies to one brother not sister

sister, mother (no children, no father, no brethren/at least one male leaves mother?s share variable)

1 ? 1/2 sister (Kalala no child use 4176) = 1/2 mother

Likewise with 2 sisters, mother

1 ? 2/3 sisters (Kalala no child use 4176) = 1/3 mother

brickwall I have to think about this.

Qur?an is for thinking people, especially this topic to exercise the mind teach logic; three verses?lol

If there are no children, siblings' share is determined from 4176. This share is unknown (not 4/12), and so is the father's, so you'd be correct to conclude from this that a kalaalah must be fatherless. However, mother doesn't get 4/12 in these cases - she gets 2/12.

Right ? scratch that example, it was 4am and it is now past 3am?lol

Sorry, I still don't understand your point. The father's share is unspecified, so of course it is variable.

Forgot the initial question; let?s try again ? you wrote?

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

OK point was cannot have inherit father together with siblings?

husband, mother, siblings, father {two unknowns}

1 ? (1/2 husband + 1/6 mother + siblings?) = father?

brother, father {two unknowns}; with presence of father siblings get nothing.

Therefore, siblings only inherit distributions stated in case of Kalala 412 (child) and 4176 (no child).

I had another look at this - do you think the shares referred to in 47 are those in 411-12 and 4176? Then it would include children, spouses and siblings only.

Yes seems right; next verse encourages to remember the relations or more distant and the destitute in society.

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.

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

Peace Union,

Fair enough . Thanks .

Do you agree with with sister Samia that the male's fortune is equal to two females as a 'case' , not as a common condition , applying to any combinitions of male-female shares ...?

Yes, that is my current understanding to read verbatim as stated?

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

Otherwise, as with the start of this thread need to use algebra normalization to decrease/increase shares proportionately and as Samia stated earlier if general case, over two and one applicable when they are only daughters (i.e. no sons) than we do not know exactly how much to allocate when they are exactly two!

Peace

herbman

Hi all, peace,

sorry for this but maybe other people will be interrested to learn from you too. In the verse in 411

why do we translate by 2/3????

I don't get it, please help.

Thanks

mmouhammad

Peace mmouhammad,

You are welcome and nice article on Kalala (most of it I agree with the logic).

In regards to father?s argument, he can take it up with God; we have to follow Qur?an and correct reading.

Solve these not Kalala cases according to your understanding and verses used
A) sister, mother

B) sister, mother, father
1 ? (sister? + mother?) = father?

C) husband, sister, brother, mother, father
1 ? (1/2 husband + siblings? + 1/6 mother) = father?

Peace Eid,

I see your points with the problems you brought forward. However, walk with me step by step and you might find that actually there are no problems.

First I think that the 3 categories at the beginning of verse 411 are universal and are not only applicable to children but also to all cases where shares are not allocated.

A1) Mother gets 1/3 ? verse 411 to his parents each is 1/6 if he has children, and if the deceased has no children and being inherited by his parents then to his mother is 1/3, but if he has siblings then to his mother is 1/6.

Mother always inherits under verse 411" "as you can see " " is not same as " "

A2) Sister gets 1/2 the remainder ? verse 411 and if she was one to her is 1/2

? A) 1- Mother 1/3 = Balance 2/3 ? Sister 1/3 = remainder 1/3 will be distributed to the near and relatives as known "".
Sister got 1/3 similar to Kalalah verse 4176

B1) Mother gets 1/3 same as A1 above
B2) Sister gets 1/2 the remainder same as A2 above
B3) Father gets the remainder

? B) 1- Mother 1/3 = Balance 2/3 ? Sister 1/3 = Father gets 1/3
Sister got 1/3 similar to Kalalah verse 4176

C1) Husband gets 1/2 ? verse 412
C2) Mother gets 1/6 of remainder ? verse 411
C3) Sister + brother + father share the remainder 5/6 " "
? C3-1 Sister gets 1/2 the remainder ? verse 411 and if she was one to her is 1/2
? C3-2 Brother and father share equally the last 1/2 of the remainder

Union

A1) Mother gets 1/3 ? verse 411 to his parents each is 1/6 if he has children, and if the deceased has no children and being inherited by his parents then to his mother is 1/3, but if he has siblings then to his mother is 1/6.

Mother always inherits under verse 411" "as you can see " " is not same as " "

Salam Mm.
Are not things getting hotchpotch ?

411 => ?. if he has siblings (brothr/sister) then to his mother is one sixth.

Then how can you give mother 1/3 ?

A2) Sister gets 1/2 the remainder ? verse 411 and if she was one to her is 1/2

? A) 1- Mother 1/3 = Balance 2/3 ? Sister 1/3 = remainder 1/3 will be distributed to the near and relatives as known "".
Sister got 1/3 similar to Kalalah verse 4176

No where in verse 411 it is stated that Sister will get 1/2 !! It is only stated in verse 4176 under 'Kalala' condition . Also getting unallocated portions of the inheritance is a sign of inconsistency in the share distributions .

B1) Mother gets 1/3 same as A1 above
B2) Sister gets 1/2 the remainder same as A2 above
B3) Father gets the remainder

? B) 1- Mother 1/3 = Balance 2/3 ? Sister 1/3 = Father gets 1/3
Sister got 1/3 similar to Kalalah verse 4176

Same inconsistency like before .

C1) Husband gets 1/2 ? verse 412
C2) Mother gets 1/6 of remainder ? verse 411

So far you are right .

C3) Sister + brother + father share the remainder 5/6 " "
? C3-1 Sister gets 1/2 the remainder ? verse 411 and if she was one to her is 1/2
? C3-2 Brother and father share equally the last 1/2 of the remainder

Again sister will not get 1/2 (as you reffered 411 ?)

Which verse have you used to ditribute father and brother equally ?

Please regard my respose as of learner's of the isuue ....

unknownuser

Peace Eid,

I see your points with the problems you brought forward. However, walk with me step by step and you might find that actually there are no problems.

First I think that the 3 categories at the beginning of verse 411 are universal and are not only applicable to children but also to all cases where shares are not allocated.

Peace mmouhammad,

Many issues with that first of which the verse says exactly concerning the Children...

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?

Then it really gets messy if including siblings; e.g. case

mother, father, daughter, son, sister, brother

1/6 + 1/6 + 1/2 + son? + sister? + brother? = 1

Or simply try case brother, father {two unknowns)

Have to go...

Peace

Union

Peace mmouhammad,

Many issues with that first of which the verse says exactly concerning the Children...

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?

Then it really gets messy if including siblings; e.g. case

mother, father, daughter, son, sister, brother

1/6 + 1/6 + 1/2 + son? + sister? + brother? = 1

Salam Eid A.

According to verse 412 and 4176 siblings will get only under ?Kelala? condition . Hence for this case brother and sister will not inherit anything . Therefore
Mother = 1/6 , Father = 1/6 , Daughter + Son = 1-(1/6+1/6) = 2/3 .

Now Daughter = ?*2/3 = 1/3 = Son

Or simply try case brother, father {two unknowns)

Have to go...

Peace

In presence of father , the case is not ?Kelala? , hence brother will be curtailed fully .

Union

Peace Eid,

A1) Mother gets 1/3 ? verse 411 to his parents each is 1/6 if he has children, and if the deceased has no children and being inherited by his parents then to his mother is 1/3, but if he has siblings then to his mother is 1/6.

Mother always inherits under verse 411" "as you can see " " is not same as " "

A2) Sister gets 1/2 the remainder ? verse 411 and if she was one to her is 1/2

? A) 1- Mother 1/3 = Balance 2/3 ? Sister 1/3 = remainder 1/3 will be distributed to the near and relatives as known "".
Sister got 1/3 similar to Kalalah verse 4176

Please discard my following part of response .

Salam Mm.

411 => . if he has siblings (brothr/sister) then to his mother is one sixth.

Then how can you give mother 1/3 ?

In 411 the term 'Ikhwattun' can't refer to Sister alone . It must be brother or brother+sister(s) . Therefore the only option left to distrubute share of a mother and sister is verse 4176 under 'Kelala' condition .

They consult you; say, "GOD advises you concerning the single person. If one dies and leaves no children, and he had a sister, she gets half the inheritance......

Therefore Sister = 1/2 amd mother =1/2.

Moreover this 'arithmatic-lingustic' representation of the case also negates the traditional understanding of excluding mother in 'Kelala'...

Thanks.

unknownuser

Salam Eid A.

According to verse 412 and 4176 siblings will get only under ?Kelala? condition . Hence for this case brother and sister will not inherit anything . Therefore
Mother = 1/6 , Father = 1/6 , Daughter + Son = 1-(1/6+1/6) = 2/3 .

Now Daughter = ?*2/3 = 1/3 = Son

In presence of father , the case is not ?Kelala? , hence brother will be curtailed fully .

Please discard my following part of response .

In 411 the term 'Ikhwattun' can't refer to Sister alone . It must be brother or brother+sister(s) . Therefore the only option left to distrubute share of a mother and sister is verse 4176 under 'Kelala' condition .

They consult you; say, "GOD advises you concerning the single person. If one dies and leaves no children, and he had a sister, she gets half the inheritance......

Therefore Sister = 1/2 amd mother =1/2.

Moreover this 'arithmatic-lingustic' representation of the case also negates the traditional understanding of excluding mother in 'Kelala'...

Thanks.

Peace Union -- agree with what you posted above which is inline with my understanding and the mathematics...

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.

nwryn

Salaam Eid, all,

Salaam nwryn or Nooreen (nicer... lol)

D

Yes, thanks for correcting I take back my earlier predisposition; that was not Quran.

OK. Any ideas why the one daughter bit begins with "wa" and not "fa"? A similar thing happens in 4176 ... perhaps this just means that the ELSE IF applies to both the statement before the wa and the statement after it.

Yes applies to one brother not sister

Ah ... so "he inherits her" in 4176 means he inherits the remainder (unknown amount)? And the sisters' (with no brothers) shares are specified because mother's share, in absence of children and father and brothers, is not specified in 411. This is making perfect sense.
But ... what if there are no children and no father and no brothers but a mother and 3 sisters (and maybe a spouse)? What is the sisters' share if there are more than two?
Also, can a brother inherit from a male kalaalah with no child? Can a sister inherit from a female kalaalah with no child (I assume yes, because the masculine gender is used in e.g. 411 even if the deceased is female)?

Is ikhwatun plural? Is waladun singular?

OK point was cannot have inherit father together with siblings?

husband, mother, siblings, father {two unknowns}

1 ? (1/2 husband + 1/6 mother + siblings?) = father?

brother, father {two unknowns}; with presence of father siblings get nothing.

Therefore, siblings only inherit distributions stated in case of Kalala 412 (child) and 4176 (no child).

You're right.

Yes seems right; next verse encourages to remember the relations or more distant and the destitute in society.

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.

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

Right, so 2180 instructs us to include parents, children, spouse and siblings(?) in the will.

42,3,6,10
What is the meaning of "yataamaa"? Children of the deceased, i.e. people who have at least one deceased parent and will therefore inherit? And who are the yataamaa in 48?

4176
"and if they are siblings men and women so to the male alike fortune the two females"
I was having trouble with this. On the one hand, we were assuming that the male children in 411 get the same share as the two daughters of the deceased (or, by the other interpretation, if there are two daughters per son, each son gets an amount equal to what two daughters would get). On the other hand, we were interpreting the same Arabic phrase in 4176 to mean, "each brother gets twice the share of a sister". I found this to be contradictory and illogical, as the exact same phrase was being used.
But both Samia's and Eid's views of 411 seem very logical - and I am leaning towards Eid's interpretation at the moment, since it appears to cover all scenarios where there are both daughters and sons. So I wondered whether we were overlooking something in 4176.
Now I'm thinking, going by the logic of 411, that "the two females" in 4176 must be referring to the "two (sisters?)" mentioned in the preceeding statement in the same verse! This share is 2/3, so, if there are both brothers and sisters, the brothers share in 2/3 and sisters share in 1/3.
I'd welcome any feedback on this - I haven't gone through examples so if there are any that don't work, please bring them up.

Samia

Please discard my following part of response .

In 411 the term 'Ikhwattun' can't refer to Sister alone . It must be brother or brother+sister(s) . Therefore the only option left to distrubute share of a mother and sister is verse 4176 under 'Kelala' condition .

Salaam Union, all

"ikhwatun" is plural. It can't be a brother. It can be a brother and a sister, or more than two brothers (minimum definition).

Moreover this 'arithmatic-lingustic' representation of the case also negates the traditional understanding of excluding mother in 'Kelala'...

Because kelala is parentless and childless.

To all

I have noticed that you eliminate the father whenever the mother alone is mentioned. Yet, we should notice that in case of parents and children, the male is mentioned once, and then the female is the centre of the distribution. This is the same mistake tradition understanding committed when they eliminate existance of male child and allocated to the only female half of the inheritance; then gave the remaining half to the siblings of the deceased.

The inheritance verses presumes the existance of all parties mentioned. They do not mention "no brothers" or "no father".

How to distribute is not the problem. We should first decide who should inherit and who shouldn't, or should with restrictions. But from what I have read so far, the definition of kelala does not deserve mentioning a kelala at all; and I mean this definition "a kelala has children and parents, perhaps a spouse, definitely siblings". uch a definition gives siblings share in the presence of children which contradicts 411 which deals with children and parents. Interestingly, this is the only verse where kelala is not mentioned.

herbman

Hi all, peace,

sorry for this but maybe other people will be interrested to learn from you too. In the verse in 411

why do we translate by 2/3????

I don't get it, please help.

Thanks

No one to help, please share knowledge.

Thanks

Samia

No one to help, please share knowledge.

Thanks

Maybe no one responded because you did not say what exactly you are confused about. "thulth" is 1/3 and thultha is the dual, i.e 2/3.

herbman

Maybe no one responded because you did not say what exactly you are confused about. "thulth" is 1/3 and thultha is the dual, i.e 2/3.

Thanks, I thought dual of THULTH would be THULUTHAIN, that is why I was confused.

God bless

huruf

It is is thuluthain, but it is declined here, I think, as modified by "ma taraka". Please someone with better grammar command explain this.

Salaam

Samia

It is is thuluthain, but it is declined here, I think, as modified by "ma taraka". Please someone with better grammar command explain this.

Salaam
[/quote

You're almost right. It's originally thulthaan (in the nominative) and is the first part of an idaafa construction (form of X of y) thulthaa maa tarak 2/3 of what he left, in which case it loses the "nuun" and becomes thulthaa.

unknownuser

Peace Noreen, all,

OK. Any ideas why the one daughter bit begins with "wa" and not "fa"? A similar thing happens in 4176 ... perhaps this just means that the ELSE IF applies to both the statement before the wa and the statement after it.

I once had a theory that - from what meant fixed and - what meant variable in order to support using algebra normalization of shares which exceeded total inheritance. That did not work out to be consistent.

As in Ockham's razor line of reasoning the simplest view is most likely correct thus read verbatim.

Seems both fa-in (so if) and wa-in (and if) are ELSE IF case separators.

But ... what if there are no children and no father and no brothers but a mother and 3 sisters (and maybe a spouse)? What is the sisters' share if there are more than two?

mother, 3 sisters (4176 - so if - they are - two (f) - so to them - the two thirds )
I interpret above as if at least two are present
1 - 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

mother, husband, 3 sisters {not Kalala, sisters get nothing)
1 - 1/2 husband = 1/2 mother

Also, can a brother inherit from a male kalaalah with no child?

Yes, deduced in 411

mother, brother
1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother

Can a sister inherit from a female kalaalah with no child (I assume yes, because the masculine gender is used in e.g. 411 even if the deceased is female)?

Yes the Arabic is masculine language; for him in verse applies also for her...

...say "God decrees in alkalalati, if human died, not for him a child, and for him a sister

sister, mother
1 - 1/2 sister = 1/2 mother

Likewise in 411 his, he, him apply equally to she and her.

411 ?and to his parents, to each one from them the sixth from what he left, if for him was a child (waladun), so if was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third, so if brothers were for him ?

Grammar rules as we have today are useless in most cases ? there was no written standard at the time.

Is ikhwatun plural? Is waladun singular?

This is like asking "do you have brothers and children?" How would a person in most languages who has only one brother or one child reply? If only plural 411 would be inapplicable for all cases with one child as an example.

Therefore, the answer to the question "do you have children?"

Would be correct to answer YES -- if one child.

Right, so 2180 instructs us to include parents, children, spouse and siblings(?) in the will.

I believe so -- browse
http//www.openburhan.net/ob_w.php?w=3292

What is the meaning of "yataamaa"? Children of the deceased, i.e. people who have at least one deceased parent and will therefore inherit? And who are the yataamaa in 48?

The destitute who are in need are
http//www.openburhan.net/ob_w.php?w=9811

Children fatherless are considered orphans.

4176
"and if they are siblings men and women so to the male alike fortune the two females"
I was having trouble with this. On the one hand, we were assuming that the male children in 411 get the same share as the two daughters of the deceased (or, by the other interpretation, if there are two daughters per son, each son gets an amount equal to what two daughters would get). On the other hand, we were interpreting the same Arabic phrase in 4176 to mean, "each brother gets twice the share of a sister". I found this to be contradictory and illogical, as the exact same phrase was being used.
But both Samia's and Eid's views of 411 seem very logical - and I am leaning towards Eid's interpretation at the moment, since it appears to cover all scenarios where there are both daughters and sons. So I wondered whether we were overlooking something in 4176.
Now I'm thinking, going by the logic of 411, that "the two females" in 4176 must be referring to the "two (sisters?)" mentioned in the preceeding statement in the same verse! This share is 2/3, so, if there are both brothers and sisters, the brothers share in 2/3 and sisters share in 1/3.
I'd welcome any feedback on this - I haven't gone through examples so if there are any that don't work, please bring them up.

The above has me pondering for a while with key difference being in 4176 ikhwatan rijalan wanisaan is specified.

2+ siblings mixed (i.e. at least 1 brother + 1 or more sisters)
OR
3+ siblings mixed (i.e. at least 1 brother + 2 or more sisters) distributed at 21 ratio male female

Have work out all combinations on this.

Salaam Samia,

"ikhwatun" is plural. It can't be a brother. It can be a brother and a sister, or more than two brothers (minimum definition).

If someone asks you do you have brothers, how would you answer if you only had one?

411 ?and to his parents, to each one from them the sixth from what he left, if for him was a child (waladun), so if was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third, so if ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth...

Try to solve with ikhwatun being plural

1 brother, mother {two unknowns}

1 son, mother -- what to give each?

Peace

Samia

Salaam Eid

Salaam Samia,

If someone asks you do you have brothers, how would you answer if you only had one?

I know where you are going ;D. My response was based on an isolated word not in a context. This is exactly like "awlaad" or "walad" in verse 411. It could be any number or gender of children. But if you ask me what "awlaad" is, I will answer the same way I answered for "ikhwatun"

1 brother, mother {two unknowns}

As I mentioned before, how to distribute be our problem AFTER we decide who will inherit and mostly who is the most important heir, becaue this heir will take the remaining after the distribution of fixed shares.

The main heirs (who always inherit) are the children, the parents and the spouses. This is also the order they appear in the inhereitance verses.
Siblings are secondary heirs, because they do not inherit in presence of children. They appear last of the heirs.
In the presence of a main heir and a secondary heir, the main gets the remaining of the inheritance and the secondary heir gets their minimum share.
This categorization of heirs is based on the nearest to the deceased (those he/she is mostly responsible for if he/she was alive).

Back to the problem
Why two unknowns? Mother's share is known from verse 411
mother 1/6
brother takes 1/6 (412. This is his share if there was a spouse)
remaining 2/3 go to the mother as she is the superior heir.

1 son, mother -- what to give each?

mother 1/6
son 5/6
Children share is never defined in any case, which shows that they are the most superior heirs and any other hei who inherits with them will get the minimum stated for them (those are the parents of the deceased and his/her spouse).

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

I know where you are going ;D. My response was based on an isolated word not in a context. This is exactly like "awlaad" or "walad" in verse 411. It could be any number or gender of children. But if you ask me what "awlaad" is, I will answer the same way I answered for "ikhwatun"

That's right context and cross-reference without contradiction is key to understanding Qur'an.

As I mentioned before, how to distribute be our problem AFTER we decide who will inherit and mostly who is the most important heir, becaue this heir will take the remaining after the distribution of fixed shares.

The main heirs (who always inherit) are the children, the parents and the spouses. This is also the order they appear in the inhereitance verses.
Siblings are secondary heirs, because they do not inherit in presence of children. They appear last of the heirs.
In the presence of a main heir and a secondary heir, the main gets the remaining of the inheritance and the secondary heir gets their minimum share.
This categorization of heirs is based on the nearest to the deceased (those he/she is mostly responsible for if he/she was alive).

Back to the problem
Why two unknowns? Mother's share is known from verse 411
mother 1/6
brother takes 1/6 (412. This is his share if there was a spouse)
remaining 2/3 go to the mother as she is the superior heir.

That is a speculative work around same as using algebra normalization to divide remainder evenly amongst all participants with only difference to push the remainder to a particular favorite.

contradicts 411 so if ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth
contradicts 412 only case of Kalala brother takes 1/6 {deceased needs to be Kalala to enter the verse}

Siblings cannot inherit with spouse or father

wife, mother, brother
1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 mother - 1/6 brother = 5/12 unallocated {who do we flip the remainder?}

husband, mother, sister, brother, father {which verse to use for siblings 412 or 4176?}
1 - 1/2 husband - 1/6 mother - 1/6 sister - 1/6 brother = 0 nothing to father {who do we bounce?}

The distributions are precise and there are no remaining or oversubscribed shares.

Samia

Salaam Eid

contradicts 411 so if ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth

The mother's share is not constant like the spous'e. She gets 1/6 and the brother 2/6 as per the verse. Where would the remaining go? These are the ligitmate heirs so far. The parent would definitely have the priority to get the rest.

contradicts 412 only case of Kalala brother takes 1/6 {deceased needs to be Kalala to enter the verse}

We have to find the share of the brother in similar cases. If the brother takes 1/6 in case of kelala who only has a wife and siblings "since 412 is mainly speaking of the share of the third heirs spouses" ( / If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; 412), the brother would not get more than the 1/6 if a parent is alive instead of the spouse. It's logical.

Siblings cannot inherit with spouse or father

Parents share is linked to each other not to the presence or absence of any heirs. There's no difference between mother and father. The mention of a mother alone is similar to the mention of a daughter/s alone presumes the existance of the male counterpart, especially when the start of the sentence/statement speaks of "children?awlaadukum/walad) or parents

411 ( / if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. 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..). It even ends with the mention of parents and are compared to children.

That is a speculative work around same as using algebra normalization to divide remainder evenly amongst all participants with only difference to push the remainder to a particular favorite.

This is not speculative. It's clear from the verses heirs are not the same in their degree of relationship to the deceased. Children and parents are top heirs / Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit (411). Children are top of the two, since siblings are not even mentioned in their presence, but are mentioned in the presence of parents presence of children curtails the right of siblings to inherit.

From this, we can conclude that the chronological appearance of heirs throught the three verses of inheritance indicates the degree of nearness and thus the importance of the heir. It therefore decides which heir would take the remaining inheritance after the distribution is done
411 Mainly about children and parents Children, then parents; then siblings in presence of parents and absence of children.
412 spouses in presence and absence of children; then siblings in presence of spouses. Notice that kalala is mentioned here but not in 411, which proves that with the presence of parents (dealt with in 411 and not mentioned again at all) we cannot speak of kelala. In both these verses siblings are never mentioned when children inherit, but are mentioned in presence of parents and spouses.
In verse 412 which is now discuaaing only spouses, we come for the first time with the term "kalala". We conclude that a kalal can have a spouse. Therefore we can have kalala, spouse and siblings. We do not have kalala + parents.
4176 All about siblings in absence of all other heirs. It follows 412 and is mainly about kalala.

From the above, I can conclude that

Children share the inheritance ONLY with parents and spouse.
Siblings have right to inheritance in presence of parents (no mention of kalala) and of spouse (first time kalala is mentioned in verse 412), never mentioned in presence of children.
Siblings are again mentioned with kalala, in absence of all other heirs
Kalal are mentioned n 412 where neither parents nor children ae mentioned but spouses are.
Kalala are again mentioned where no other heir is mentioned except siblings.
Therfore, kalal does not have children nor parents.
Therefore siblings inherit only in prsence of parents and spouses, never in presence of children.

wife, mother, brother
1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 mother - 1/6 brother = 5/12 unallocated {who do we flip the remainder?}

The remainder goes back to the top heir the mother. No way of giving it to someone who basically does not have the right to inherit in the presence of any of these three. If someone dies and left only one of the above (wife, mother or brother) wouldn't the inherit the lot? The shres are the minimum of what has the right to inherit, not the maximum.

The distributions are precise and there are no remaining or oversubscribed shares.

This is not a proof of understanding WHO should inherit. How would you distribute the inheritance of someone leaving behind a son, a daughter and a brother?
I would say half for the daughter and half for the son. The brother gets nothing.

husband, mother, sister, brother, father {which verse to use for siblings 412 or 4176?}
1 - 1/2 husband - 1/6 mother - 1/6 sister - 1/6 brother = 0 nothing to father {who do we bounce?}

Husband 1/2; parents 1/6 each (mention of the female presupposes the existance of the male counterpart), sister and brother 1/6 shared equally 1/2+1/3+1/6 = 1. Each one got their minimum share.

nwryn

Salaam all

Is it possible that siblings in 4176 (not 412) get remainder shared out amongst themselves after shares of mother (if specified) and spouse are subtracted from the whole? Like for children in 411.

e.g.

husband, mother, sister
husband = 1/2; sister = 1/2 of remainder = 1/4; mother = 1/4

husband, mother, 2 sisters
husband = 1/2; sisters = 2/3 of remainder; mother = 1/3 of remainder

husband, mother, brother(s)
husband = 1/2; mother = 1/6; brother(s) = remainder
unless ikhwatun cannot be one brother (then we will have two unknowns - mother and brother)

husband, mother, sister, brother(s)
husband = 1/2; mother = 1/6; sister = 1/2 of remainder; brother(s) = 1/2 of remainder
do not need to use "siblings men and women"

husband, mother, 2 sisters, brother(s)
husband = 1/2; mother = 1/6; sisters = 2/3 of remainder; brother(s) = 1/3 of remainder
similar to above

husband, mother, 3+ sisters, brother(s)
husband = 1/2; mother = 1/6; brother(s) = 2/3 of remainder; sisters = 1/3 of remainder.