The Inheritance Issue Revisited

Onur

Dear All
I had earlier raised the issue of the verses in Quran regarding the distribution of inheritance. I think that with the help of friend Nun de Plume we had managed to find a logical solution to some difficultie. Below is my recapitulation of what I took from that debate(please pay extra attention to the debate around kalala at the end)

The relevant verses are 411-12 and 4176. At first, it seems like Quran wants us to divide the whole inheritance by the fraction assigned to a relative to find out the amount to be given to him/her. But, what if the fractions are also given to compare the respective shares of particular relatives? Or, in other words, what if the fractions have this additional meaning?

This insight finds support in the language that Quran uses. In a literal translation, while assigning the fractions Quran sometimes uses the phrase ?1/A of what the deceased left?(ma taraka) and at other times the phrase ?1/A from what the deceased left.?(mimma taraka) Two words are used of and from. Now, when I say, ?Person A will receive 1/6 and person B will receive 1/8 from the inheritance which equals 120 dollars,? it is probable that I mention these two fractions just to compare them to each other. I don?t necessarily mean that person A will receive 20 dollars and person B 15 dollars, the rest being left undistributed. 20 dollars might perhaps be considered 1/6 of 120 dollars, but what ?1/6 from 120 dollars? means might be more easily thought as a variable, something that varies in accordance with the shares of others. By using two different styles of expression, Quran likely points to the multiplicity in the meaning of the fractions given. More specifically, by sometimes omitting the use of the word ?of?, Quran perhaps wants to show that context of the shares, meaning the comparison of a particular share to the share of other relatives, is the decisive element in the logic of the verses. Quran wants us to consider that fractions have meaning in two different ways- both with respect to the whole wealth and in comparison to each other. It is up to our practical judgment to determine which meaning to use in which scenario. (I don?t necessarily mean that we need to stop comparing the shares to each other whenever the expression involves only the word of and not the word from. I simply claim that we can take both meanings into account according to context and the scenario at hand. We are given freedom and flexibility, in other words. Also, it is not difficult to understand that the logic of any fair distribution has to privilege the comparison of fractions to each other. The issue at hand is distributive justice which always has to prioritize relativities)

This method has multiple benefits. It allows us to distribute the wealth without remainder or excess in all cases with an eye to distributive/relative justice. But, more importantly, it urges believers to use algebra as a short-cut to find a general formula (To use a formal algebraic equation is not an unavoidable necessity. But it definitely helps to a great extent, especially in the more complex situation which emerges with the comparison of shares to each other)

(1/OriginalShareofPersonA)X +(1/OriginalShareofPersonB)X=1
Find X
Person A receives the following share of the whole= X times 1/OriginalShareof Person A
And the same for Person B

For example,
(1/1/6)X + (1/1/X=1
X=1/14
Person A receives 6/14 and person B receives 8/14
If the wealth is 140 dollars Person A gets 60 dollars person B gets 80 dollars

Quran hence leads the believer to a higher form of knowledge and reasoning through this verse with multiple/two meanings. Equation solving through algebra is critical for abstract thinking and natural and social sciences. That is the message God wants to teach us.

Another ?ambiguity? in Quran?s treatment of inheritance concerns the curious category of a ?kalala.? 412 says,

And for you is half of what your wives leave behind if they have no child; but if they have a child then to you is one quarter of/from what they leave behind. All after a will is carried through or a debt. And to them is one quarter of/from what you leave behind if you have no child; but if you have a child then to them is one eighth of/from what you leave behind. All after a will is carried through or a debt. And if a man or a woman is a kalala, but has a brother or sister, then to each one of them is one sixth, but if they are more than this then they are to share in one third. All after a will is carried through or a debt, which does not cause harm. A directive from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Compassionate.

And 4176 says,

They seek a ruling from you, say "God gives you the ruling for the kalala. If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of/from what he leaves behind. And he will inherit from her fully if she has no child. However, if he has two sisters, then they will receive two thirds of/from what he left behind; and if he has siblings, male and female, then the male shall receive twice what the female receives." God makes clear to you that you do not stray; God is aware of all things.

Now, most translations render the kalala as someone who has no parents, spouses and children. This creates an intriguing and yet rarely noticed problem. 4176 gives the single sister of the kalala a share of 1/2 whereas 412 gives her, the same person, a share of 1/6. The same category of inheritor receives different shares in the very same situation. The way out of this difficulty is to differentiate the situations mentioned in the two verses and then reconsider the meaning of the word kalala. Now, while describing the kalala, 4176 brings an additional clause, ?if the kalala who passes away has no children?. This should alert us to the fact that being childless is not intrinsic to the definition of a person who is a kalala it is an additional clause. Therefore, we can speculate that the kalala mentioned in 412 has children whereas the kalala mentioned in 4176 lacks children. That solves the problem of the different shares the sister of the kalala receives in the two cases. What then does the kalala mean? I propose that the kalala is a person who dies without a father and without a spouse. The kalala needs to have a mother because 411 gives the mother a share in the presence of siblings. (Remember that siblings are entitled to a share only when the deceased is a kalala). This reasoning consistently resolves the issue of kalala leading us to a proper understanding of the verses.

unknownuser

Peace and greeting Onur;

It?s been awhile and good thing you posted for I was puzzled with the reason for the toggle case of husband M Taraka (no child) and Mimm Taraka (with child) and unresolved case which most scholars/commentators wrongly interpreted below as parents are the only heirs?

ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third

E.g. spouse, mother, father? If the above is interpreted as parents are the only heirs then both the mother and father are unknown and thus unsolvable as any problem with two unknowns.

M Taraka ? multiply what left by stated amount, e.g. husband, parents...

And for you half what left/M Taraka your wives/Azwjukum, if is not for them a child
ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third

1 ? 1/3 mother= 2/3 (what left for husband + father)

1/2 * 2/3 or half what left/M Taraka = 1/3 husband

1/3 father

Mimm Taraka ? subtract amount from whole inheritance.

E.g. husband, parents, children?

ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left/Mimm Tarakna from after a bequest/will
And to his parents, to each one from them the sixth from what left/Mimm Taraka, if for him was a child

1 ? 1/4 husband ? 1/6 mother - 1/6 father = 5/12 children

Also agree the Kalla as being fatherless and spouse-less with toggle between which verse to use, 412 or 4176 depends on with/without child as clearly stated although disagree on the need to use Algebra (introduced over 100 years after Qur'an) normalization. Only need simple math and to follow the explicit logical instructions...

he directs you God in your CHILDREN
to the male equal luck the two females
ELSE IF they are women above two, so for them two thirds what left/M Taraka,
AND IF she was one, so for her the half

And to his parents, to each one from them the sixth from what left/Mimm Taraka, if for him was a child
ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third,
ELSE IF brethren/Ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth

And for you half what left/M Taraka your wives/Azwjukum, if is not for them a child,
ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left/Mimm Tarakna from after a bequest/will

And for them the quarter from what you left/Mimm Taraktum, if was not for you a child,
ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will

AND IF was a Rajulun/man to be inherited Kallatan or a woman-spouse/'AwAmra'atun, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth,
ELSE IF they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child,
and for him a sister, so for her half what left/M Taraka, and he inherits her if was not for her a child,
ELSE IF they were two, so to them (F) the two thirds from what left/Mimm Taraka,
AND IF they were brethren men and women
so to the male equal luck the two females,
God clarifies for you that you (not) be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.

thegod

Luck as in 'fortune'?

unknownuser

Luck as in 'fortune'?

Luck, good fortune, providence, a slice of pie ? or as some say kismet? peace

thegod

Okay. cool.

Onur

Peace Nun,
Thanks for your reply. You are right; we can solve these without any formal algebraic equation but I think such an equation helps when we need to come up with a general principle and I think it would be reasonable for us to infer an important subject like algebra from God's message.
By the way, did you check whether "from=subtraction and of=multiplication" works consistently for all possible cases? I had just inferred that the dual usage of these two words allows for flexibility so that we can handle all cases without excess/remainder. Your inference is better if it consistently works for all cases.
Onur

unknownuser

Peace Onur,

See below with definitions of Kalla and Ikhwatun logically deduced which seem consistent throughout; and of course the case with 1 sister use 412 if Kalla with child (i.e. single or widowed person) else use 4176 if Kalla without child as stated. Let me know if there is a specific example you like to see.

he directs you God in your CHILDREN
to the male equal fortune the two females
ELSE IF they are women above two, so for them two thirds what left/M Taraka,
AND IF she was one, so for her the half

And to his PARENTS, to each one from them the sixth from what left/Mimm Taraka, if for him was a child
? 1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father = 2/3 children

ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third,
? 1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

ELSE IF brethren/Ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth
? 1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 Ikhwatun

And for you half what left/M Taraka your wives/Azwjukum, if is not for them a child,
? 1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 (husband + father)
2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 husband; 1/3 father

ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left/Mimm Tarakna from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/4 husband ? 1/3 parents = 5/12 children

And for them the quarter from what you left/Mimm Taraktum, if was not for you a child,
? 1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/3 mother = 5/12 father

ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/8 wife - 1/3 parents = 13/24 children

AND IF was a Rajulun/man to be inherited Kallatan or a woman-spouse/'AwAmra'atun, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth,
? 1 ? 1/6 brother/sister ? 1/4 wife = 7/12??

No wife with siblings!

? 1 ? 1/6 brother/sister = 5/6 husband
5/6 * 1/2 = 5/12 husband; 5/12??

No husband with siblings!

ELSE IF they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what left/M Taraka, and he inherits her if was not for her a child,

? 1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (husband + sister + father + brother) unsolvable!
? 1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (husband + sister + brother) unsolvable!
? 1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (husband + sister + father) unsolvable!
? 1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister + father + brother) unsolvable!

Any combination of husband and sister or father and brother is unsolvable!

ELSE IF they were two, so to them the two thirds from what left/Mimm Taraka,

? 1 ? 2/3 sisters ? 1/6 mother ? 1/4 wife = -1/12 father unsolvable! rules out the father!
? 1 ? 2/3 sisters ? 1/6 mother ? 1/4 wife = -1/12 rules out either the wife or mother
? 1 ? 2/3 sisters ? 1/6 mother = 1/6??

Ikhwatun needs at least one male to make mother variable no child, father, or Ikhwatun.

? 1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother
? 1 ? 2/3 sisters ? 1/4 wife = 1/12??

No wife with siblings!

? 1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 husband
1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6 husband; 1/6??

No husband with siblings!

AND IF they were 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an
so to the male equal fortune the two females,

Any combination of brothers and sisters + father is unsolvable!

? 1 = brothers and sisters
? 1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brothers and sisters

God clarifies for you that you (not) be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.

unknownuser

Peace Onur,

Here are issues which were puzzling and wanted to post final thoughts which came to light?

? Where is the case for 3+ sisters in 4176?
? Could it be that Kalala is without a mother as well?

411
he directs you God in your CHILDREN
to the male equal fortune the two females

The above is same as traditionally calculated with exception given ?

ELSE IF they are Nis'an above two, so for them two thirds what left/M Taraka,
AND IF she was one, so for her the half

412 Kalala (no father, no mother, and no spouse) has children

If siblings are the only inheritors?

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what left/M Taraka, and he inherits her if was not for her a child,

1/2 sister; 1/2 brother

ELSE IF they were two, so to them the two thirds from what left/Mimm Taraka,

1 - 2/3 two sisters = 1/3 brother

AND IF they were 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an (meaning for Nis'an in 411 above two!!!)
so to the male equal fortune the two females,

Thus above traditionally as calculated for combination brothers and 3+ sisters.

Onur

Hi Nun,
I think I am not clear what the implication of the distinction of=multiplication and from=subtraction is? Does this distinction determine when to change the fractions Quran gives and when not? (For example, in the scenario we began with, 3 girls-1 mother-1 father-wife, we end up changing the fractions by using an equation with an unknown we call X; but, what does this "unknown" mean in real terms? If it is "what he left," then it is not really an unknown because it is simply the amount of wealth left behind)
As for the kalala, I think the kalala can have a mother because in 411 mother's share reduces to 1/6 from 1/3 due to the presence of a sibling. So, the logic is that the sibling is reducing the mother's share. And siblings inherit only if the deceased is kalala.
As for 3+ sister in 4176 scenario, it would be illogical if the brother got more in comparison to his siblings if he has 3 sisters than he would get if he has just 2 sisters. I have to think on that.
By the way, I just came across a book which argues that 4176 and the word kalala have been later insertions in the Quran by humans. http//books.google.com/books?id=KH2FUBSOQ8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mohammad+is+not+the+father+of+any+of+your+men&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This is a very prominent scholar and he claims to present material evidence. The word kalala has been such a mystery. Two of us can be the only people who know its real meaning D

Onur

Hi Nun,
I have just recalled from our earlier discussion that for you "what is left" is not the entire inheritance but a variable that changes from case to case. Therefore, using X for it might make sense. And then while finding the equation necessary to solve for X, you use subtraction when the word "from" and multiplication when the word used is "of". Is that correct? I think I am more clear now.
Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur,

Sorry for the late response; was on vacation pondering this on the plane, actually left my notes flying around...lol

Hi Nun,
I have just recalled from our earlier discussion that for you "what is left" is not the entire inheritance but a variable that changes from case to case. Therefore, using X for it might make sense. And then while finding the equation necessary to solve for X, you use subtraction when the word "from" and multiplication when the word used is "of". Is that correct? I think I am more clear now.
Onur

No need for assigning X using Algebra which any solution or theory can be normalized. M or Mimm is only to distinguish if first to subtract from the whole "Mimm Taraka" or take the specified fraction multiply what's left M Taraka after the subtraction.

Correct there has to be the possibility of a mother in Kalala case since her shares are given along with Ikhwatun which nullifies the parent-less theory and leads to numerous contradiction since the sisters in 4176 have to share with someone.

It also works with Kalala simply being spouse-less which goes with the logical flow of the text and works with all combinations following the verbatim instructions and lanquage; first to hubands and wives then finally the case of a spouse-less person with child and without child to distinguish between which to use 412 or 4176 like it says and nullifies the Kalala being childless and has to be the only toggle between the two verses...

412 spouse-less (Kallatan or loner) with children
1 - 1/3 parents (1/6 each per 411) - 1/6 sister - 1/6 brother (or - 1/3 siblings max) = 1/3 children

4176 spouse-less (Al-Kallati or the loner) without children; both parents could be alive...

1 = sister + mother (no father, child, or brother; mother's share unstated/variable)
1/2*1 = 1/2 sister; 1/2 mother
1 - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 mother

1 = sister + father (no child; father's share unstated and variable)
1/2*1 = 1/2 sister; 1/2 father

1 - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 father

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister + father)
1/2*5/6 = 5/12 sister; 5/12 father

1 - 1/6 mother - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/6 father

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

1 = brother/s; father gets nothing

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s; father gets nothing

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s + sister/s distribute at 21 male to female ratio

The other which works is spouse-less/father-less with/without child...

412 spouse-less and father-less (Kallatan or loner) with children
1 - 1/6 mother - 1/6 sister - 1/6 brother (or - 1/3 siblings max) = 1/2 children

4176 spouse-less and father-less (Al-Kallati or the loner) without children...

1 = sister + mother
1/2*1 = 1/2 sister; 1/2 mother

1 - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 mother

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

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s + sister/s distribute at 21 male to female ratio

so to the male equal luck the two females

Onur

Hi Nun,
I hope you had a restful vacation. If we go with your understaning of the distinction between ma taraka and mimma taraka, then in solving the case with a wife, parents and 3 daughters we use

ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/8 wife - 1/3 parents = 13/24 children
13/24*2/3=13/36 for the 3 daughters
13/72 remains undistributed
But if we take the phrase "what he left" as a variable(X) and solve for X and then change the shares accordingly we can distribute everything as we had been doing before.
3/27 for the wife, 8/27 for parents and 16/27 for the 3 daughters
It seems like the algebraic method or at least the technique of denominator equalization&nominator comparison seems indispensable.

As for your suggestion that kalala might mean either just spouseless, it looks logical but wouldn't Arabic have a less mysterious word for a man/woman without a spouse? )

Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur, thanks always does the body good to hang out in ocean water and get some sun... sun

Hi Nun,
I hope you had a restful vacation. If we go with your understaning of the distinction between ma taraka and mimma taraka, then in solving the case with a wife, parents and 3 daughters we use

ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/8 wife - 1/3 parents = 13/24 children
13/24*2/3=13/36 for the 3 daughters
13/72 remains undistributed
But if we take the phrase "what he left" as a variable(X) and solve for X and then change the shares accordingly we can distribute everything as we had been doing before.
3/27 for the wife, 8/27 for parents and 16/27 for the 3 daughters
It seems like the algebraic method or at least the technique of denominator equalization&nominator comparison seems indispensable.

Not really made up my mind on the children yet and was going to leave that part for last; I know the siblings? case the girls are alone (i.e. without brothers) which all the equations work whereas in the children case could be that it revolves around the number of females
If two
If three+
If one

The husband shares toggling from Mimm with children and M Taraka without a child is a definite clue?

1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband (all fixed) = children
1 = (husband + mother + father) which can be solved two ways depending on if the term below means the parents are alone or if not their shares are variable?

ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third?

1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father -- ratio twice to the father

?*1 = 1/2 husband; 1/2 (1/6 mother + 1/3 father) consistent with above, and not...

1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 (husband + father)
?*2/3 = 1/3 husband; 1/3 father

As for your suggestion that kalala might mean either just spouseless, it looks logical but wouldn't Arabic have a less mysterious word for a man/woman without a spouse?

Don?t really know and only threw it out there because the equations work. The whole thing can be solved with the case of a father and brother which one of them has to bounce, either the father or brother -- and it says?

ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third,
ELSE IF brethren/Ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth

Likewise 4176 ?and he inherits her if was not for her a child?

I?m trying to look it from a purely follow the instructions non-contradicting point of view without predisposition to bias opinions as to what people think is right or wrong or a fair distribution which is the way we are supposed to read Qur'an.

Man leaves children, parents, wife, and siblings
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/8 wife = 13/24 children

Woman leaves children, parents, husband, and siblings
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband = 5/12 children

Man/woman leaves parents and children (spouseless/Kalala)
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/6 sister ? 1/6 brother = 1/3 children

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

?*1=1/2 husband; 1/2 (mother + father)
OR
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 (husband + father)
?*2/3=1/3 husband; 1/3 father

Man/woman leaves parents and siblings (spouseless/Kalala) ? no child
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother

?*1=1/2 sister; 1/2 mother/father
1 ? 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 mother/father

?*1 =1/2 sister; 1/2 (mother + father)
1 ? 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 (mother + father)

1 = (brother + father)?

1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister + brother); father=0

Onur

Hi Nun,
Especially considering the cases when the daughters' shares are specified as mimma taraka, especially the case with 3 daughters, I am increasingly becoming convinced that we need to regard "what he left" as a variable(X) which might change from case to case. After we establish that, we can create the equations using subtraction when "from" and "multiplication" when "of". Algebra is handy and formal while doing that. But, it is not totally necessary since making denominators equal and re-calculating shares according to new nominators might do the trick as well. Still, I feel excited that God's book might point to such an important subject as algebra, even if indirectly.
As for the kalala issue, it seems like things work if kalala just means spouseless, but I still think it is "spouseless+fatherless" due to two reasons;

Because there should be a simpler and widely-known word for spouseless in Arabic
411 reduces the mother's share due to the presence of siblings whereas does not make a similar reduction with regard to the father's share. It might imply that siblings and father do not inherit at the same time. And siblings just inherit when the deceased is kalala
It might be the case that brothers become responsible for the family only if fathers and spouses are missing.
Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur,

Especially considering the cases when the daughters' shares are specified as mimma taraka, especially the case with 3 daughters, I am increasingly becoming convinced that we need to regard "what he left" as a variable(X) which might change from case to case. After we establish that, we can create the equations using subtraction when "from" and "multiplication" when "of". Algebra is handy and formal while doing that. But, it is not totally necessary since making denominators equal and re-calculating shares according to new nominators might do the trick as well. Still, I feel excited that God's book might point to such an important subject as algebra, even if indirectly.

I've looked into it and so far what works for dividing children's shares revolves around #of females...

http//i45.tinypic.com/2zz4z0m.jpg

He directs you God in your children to the male equal fortune the two females
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni

ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka

AND IF she was one, so for her the half
Wa 'In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu

Also doesn't allow algebra for husband and daughter unless M Taraka is implied after "so for her the half" ...

ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left
Fa'in Kna Lahunna Waladun Falakumu Ar-Rubu`u Mimm Tarakna

1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 daughter ?
1 - 1/2 daughter - 1/4 husband = 1/4 ?

As for the kalala issue, it seems like things work if kalala just means spouseless, but I still think it is "spouseless+fatherless" due to two reasons;

Because there should be a simpler and widely-known word for spouseless in Arabic
411 reduces the mother's share due to the presence of siblings whereas does not make a similar reduction with regard to the father's share. It might imply that siblings and father do not inherit at the same time. And siblings just inherit when the deceased is kalala
It might be the case that brothers become responsible for the family only if fathers and spouses are missing.

Yes does make sense and we know it works if we bounce the father; who would thing of naming such a person yet I'm looking at my neighbors house who's middle-age fellow Al-Kallati living with his mother; actually he's the one that gave me the idea two years ago when we started this whole discussion in the other thread...

412 Spouseless and fatherless Kallatan leaves mother and/or sibling/s with children

1 ? 1/6 sister/brother = 5/6 children
1 ? 1/3 siblings = 2/3 children

1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 sister/brother = 2/3 children
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 siblings = 1/2 children

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child,
Yastaftnaka Quli Allhu Yuftkum F Al-Kallati 'Ini Amru'uun Halaka Laysa Lahu Waladun

And for him a sister, so for her half what left
Wa Lahu 'Ukhtun Falah Nifu M Taraka

?*1=1/2 sister; 1/2 mother

And he inherits her if was not for her a child
Wa Huwa Yarithuh 'In Lam Yakun Lah Waladun

1 = brother; mother = 0

The above would contradict 411 unless Ikhwatun is plural with at least one male.
411 Fa'in Kna Lahu 'Ikhwatun Fali'ammihi As-Sudusu

ELSE IF they were two, so to them (F) the two thirds from what left
Fa'in Knat Athnatayni Falahum Ath-Thuluthni Mimm Taraka

1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

AND IF they were brethren men and women so to the male equal fortune the two females
Wa 'In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an Falildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni

1 = (brother/s + sister/s)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (brother/s + sister/s)

He clarifies God for you that you (not) be misguided and God with everything knowledgeable
Yubayyinu Allhu Lakum 'An Taill Wa Allhu Bikulli Shay'in `Almun

Peace

Nn Wa Al-Qalami Wa M Yasurna

Onur

For the 1 husband, 1 daughter case, the equation would be
1-x/4=x/2
Thinking about it, it seems like when we use algebra like that, we might not really need the mimma and ma distinction
If all shares are given in the form of mimma we can set the right side of the equation equal to 0, 1-X/A-X/B= O
If some shares are given in the form of mimma and some in the form of ma, then we can set the right side of the equation equal to the share in the form of ma as in the husband, daughter case above 1-x/a=x/b, which actually means the same thing.
The trick seems to be to regard the phrase what he left as a variable, as X in fact, as we have been discussing, this is the only way to distribute without excess or remainder.
I guess traditional Muslims recognized this point and devised an appropriate method but did not express it in formal mathematical terms.
As for the kalala issue, I think two of us might really be the only ones who know the word's real intended meaning )

noble

Salam Bro Onur,
I have an interesting and complicated inheritance issue I need advice on from your insight and understanding using Quran only.
Please kindly help me, I will post the details soon, it is regarding a (biological) sister of mine.

Peace

Idriss

unknownuser

For the 1 husband, 1 daughter case, the equation would be
1-x/4=x/2
Thinking about it, it seems like when we use algebra like that, we might not really need the mimma and ma distinction
If all shares are given in the form of mimma we can set the right side of the equation equal to 0, 1-X/A-X/B= O
If some shares are given in the form of mimma and some in the form of ma, then we can set the right side of the equation equal to the share in the form of ma as in the husband, daughter case above 1-x/a=x/b, which actually means the same thing.
The trick seems to be to regard the phrase what he left as a variable, as X in fact, as we have been discussing, this is the only way to distribute without excess or remainder.

Algebra normalization "trick" is not the only way...

1 - 1/4 husband = 3/4 children (10 female to male ratio; no sons, daughter gets whole 3/4)

Regardless of amounts given any excess or reminder can be fixed using algebra;
normalazation -- increase/decrease proportionately compensate for shortfall/excess...

Works with any fractions given...

husband 1/6
daughter 1/3

1/2 excess; solve for x to proportionately allocate...
1-x/6=x/3; 1= x/2; x= 2
21/6 = 1/3 husband
21/3 = 2/3 daughter

Try daughter + sister (no ma/mimma)...

411 AND IF she was one, so for her the half
412 And for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth

Have it thus...

1 - 1/6 sister = 5/6 children (femalemale ratio 10 daugther gets whole 5/6 amount)

Otherwise if son/s; daughter = 1/2*5/6; son/s get remaining half.

Onur

But, in the case with 1 daughter and 1 husband, if you give the husband 1/4 and the remaining 3/4 to the daughter, you are basically ignoring the share 1/2 assigned to the daughter in the beginning of 411 when doing the calculations.
I understand the beginning of 411 to mean 1 daughter 1/2, 2+ daughter 2/3 and if sons and daughters are present together, then a comparative formula of 1 male=2 female. ( Do you understand all of the shares of children in comparison to each other? I remember you once believing that and then leaving that position)
Earlier you were symphatetic to seeing "what he left" as a variable and changing the shares. In fact, that was your initial position. Why did you change it?
Peace,
Onur

Onur

Salam Bro Onur,
I have an interesting and complicated inheritance issue I need advice on from your insight and understanding using Quran only.
Please kindly help me, I will post the details soon, it is regarding a (biological) sister of mine.

Peace

Idriss

Sure Idriss, I will be happy to help once you explain the situation.
Peace,
Onur