The Inheritance Issue Revisited
-
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 ) -
-
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 1/31/2 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 daughterTry 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 sixthHave 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.
-
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 -
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 -
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.
The 1/2 assigned to the one daughter is in relation to the male (i.e. son/s)?
he directs you God in your CHILDREN
to the male equal luck the two females
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'UnthayayniELSE IF they are women above two, so for them two thirds what left
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M TarakaAND IF she was one, so for her the half
Wa 'In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu1 ? Spouse = CHILDREN (distributed according to above female to male ratios)
10 or 01 if daughter/s or son/s alone get the whole remaining amount.1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 CHILDREN or son/s get whole 3/4 with no daughters and likewise...
1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 CHILDREN or daughter gets the whole 3/4 with no son/s.Otherwise, with daughter and son/s, she gets the half (3/4 - 1/2 = 3/; male/s get remaining 3/8 or half.
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)
Yes, I understand and went through all combinations; also it is 3+ (i.e. > 2 daughters get 2/3)?
ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M TarakaEarlier 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?
I?m not sympathetic and change my mind based on evidence after careful study; reason never accept idea of ?trinity? -- god praying to god or god killed by people to forgive people which there are a billion who believe, another billion who worship stones and pray to dead prophets, and a billion into cows. As stated, I try to follow instructions, non-contradicting view without predisposition to bias as to what people think is right or wrong. It is easy to see algebra ?trick? can be used solve any theory, assumption, shortfalls, or excess discrepancies by normalizing the equation. E.g., everyone inherits?
1 - 1/4x husband ? 1/3x parents ? 1/2x daughter ? 1/2x sister = 0
Solving for x and using substitution?
1 = 3/12x + 4/12x + 6/12x + 6/12x = 19/12x; x = 12/1912/191/4 = 3/19 husband
12/191/3 = 4/19 parents
12/191/2 = 6/19 daughter
12/191/2 = 6/19 sister3/19 husband + 4/19 parents + 6/19 daughter + 6/19 sister = 19/19 = 1
Above is similar to how nineteen followers ?make it fit? with most of their calculations.
I'm working on a summary with all combinations; especially notice precise language and transition logic used
M Taraka ? what left (multiply fraction what left)
Mimm Taraka ? from what left (subtract/take from what left)
Min Ba`di Wayatin Y Bih 'Aw Daynin ? from after a bequest/will he bequeaths with it or a debtWa /Wa 'In ? logical AND/AND IF statement
Fa'in ? logical ELSE IF (i.e. switch to different circumstance)Peace
-
I don't see how the shares of 1 daughter as 1/2 and 2+daughters as 2/3 can be read in relation to sons, especially when the next sentence in the verse clearly gives the general comparative formula 1 male=2 female for all cases involving sons and daughters at the same time. The earlier shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are applicable when there are no sons.
Plus, using algebra is not a trick in a pejorative sense.
For example, if there is only one inheritor assigned the share of 1/4 from 40 dollars, we would still give her 40 dollars, right. When we divide 40 by 4 and give her 10 dollars, the remaining 30 dollars is still to be regarded as "what is left," (well, because it is something left) which further needs to be divided by 4 and so on. This is another way of applying the formula x/4=1, x=4, her share is 1, that is 40 dollars.
I think the gist of the complexity behind the inheritance verses is that Quran wants to convey the idea of a "variable" which must be solved with a view regarding to the entire structure.
All the best,
Onur -
Peace Onur,
I don't see how the shares of 1 daughter as 1/2 and 2+daughters as 2/3 can be read in relation to sons, especially when the next sentence in the verse clearly gives the general comparative formula 1 male=2 female for all cases involving sons and daughters at the same time.
The verse precisely says over/above two (> 2 or 3+) they get 2/3 not 2+ daughters?
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa (over) Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka
The earlier shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are applicable when there are no sons.
Then there is no case given for when there are exactly two daughters alone.
Plus, using algebra is not a trick in a pejorative sense.
For example, if there is only one inheritor assigned the share of 1/4 from 40 dollars, we would still give her 40 dollars, right.Right -- no need for inheritance verses to distribute/arbitrate shares to a sole inheritor.
How to justify using algebra to calculate inheritance of sole inheritors
father or mother or son which is unstated? Why would there be since no one left to contest.I think the gist of the complexity behind the inheritance verses is that Quran wants to convey the idea of a "variable" which must be solved with a view regarding to the entire structure.
As stated, any distribution can be justified or fixed using algebra; another example?
1 ? 1/4x husband ? 2/3x daughters ? 1/3x siblings = 0
1 = 3/12x + 8/12x + 4/12x = 15/12x; x = 12/15
1/412/15 = 3/15 husband
2/312/15 = 8/15 daughters
1/3*12/15 = 4/15 siblings3/15 husband + 8/15 daughters + 4/15 siblings = 15/15 = 1
All the best,
OnurLikewise.
-
Peace Nun,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth is the following in those cases, we are implicitly using algebra because we are acknowledging that the phrase "what he left" is not necessarily the entire wealth as it would be in a literal reading but is rather a variable(X) In a literal reading of the phrase, the entire wealth would not be distributed .
Please go back to my earlier example with this point in mind. Why not explicitly use a method that is already being implicitly used?
On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Onur -
I tried to modify my earlier post but time limit has not allowed that. Below I explained my point a little better
Peace Nun,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth was an example to demonstrate the implicit logic of distribution in those cases, along with others, we are implicitly using the idea of a variable because we are acknowledging that the phrase 1/a of what is left or 1/a from what is left is not necessarily the (totalmoney.1/a) as it would be in a literal reading of the phrase. It is rather a variable which takes different meanings from case to case, depending on the number and identity of inheritors, say, whether there is one inheritor or more. In a literal reading of the phrase "1/a of what is left" or "1/a from what is left", the entire wealth would not be distributed in all cases, such as a case with one inheritor with an assigned ratio. If the wealth left behind was 40 dollars and only a husband was inheritor, a literal reading would give him 1/2, that is 20 dolars and leave the rest to the community. But this literal reading is wrong. As you know and we agree, he gets all of 40 dollars because the meaning of the phrase 1/2 from what is left varies from case to case and in a case where the husband is the sole inheritor means the whole 40 dolars. In other words, the idea of a variable which is the basis of algebra is implicit in the logic of the verses. It is also supported by common-sense if there is only one inheritor, he should get all wealth, right. Why not then make this common-sense method explicit by finding X such that the sum of fractions(1/a, 1/b) equals 1?
On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Onur -
Peace Onur,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth was an example to demonstrate the implicit logic of distribution in those cases, along with others, we are implicitly using the idea of a variable because we are acknowledging that the phrase 1/a of what is left or 1/a from what is left is not necessarily the (totalmoney.1/a) as it would be in a literal reading of the phrase. It is rather a variable which takes different meanings from case to case, depending on the number and identity of inheritors, say, whether there is one inheritor or more. In a literal reading of the phrase "1/a of what is left" or "1/a from what is left", the entire wealth would not be distributed in all cases, such as a case with one inheritor with an assigned ratio. If the wealth left behind was 40 dollars and only a husband was inheritor, a literal reading would give him 1/2, that is 20 dolars and leave the rest to the community. But this literal reading is wrong. As you know and we agree, he gets all of 40 dollars because the meaning of the phrase 1/2 from what is left varies from case to case and in a case where the husband is the sole inheritor means the whole 40 dolars. In other words, the idea of a variable which is the basis of algebra is implicit in the logic of the verses. It is also supported by common-sense if there is only one inheritor, he should get all wealth, right. Why not then make this common-sense method explicit by finding X such that the sum of fractions(1/a, 1/b) equals 1?
As already stated, for a sole inheritor there is no need for inheritance ruling, and algebra cannot be applied in all cases. E.g. sole inheritor father, mother, son, sister, or brother ? either unstated or fixed value.
Using algebra, Kalala can be anyone with any shortfall or excess normalized or fixed. Example one can conjecture Kalala means a person under 4 feet tall, someone with blonde hair or whatever?
1 ? 1/6x father ? 1/6x mother - 1/4x wife ? 1/3 siblings ? 2/3x daughters = 0
1 = 2/12x + 2/12x + 3/12x + 4/12x + 8/12x; 1 = 19/12x; x = 12/19
1/612/19 = 2/19 father
1/612/19 = 2/19 mother
1/412/19 = 3/19 wife
1/312/19 = 4/19 siblings
2/3*12/19 = 8/19 daughters
Total of distributions = 1On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
The phrase for => 2 (i.e. presence of two or more) is given as?
4176 Fa?in Knat Athnatayni Falahum Ath-Thuluthni Mimm TarakaCute picture?lol
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Albaniancosumegirls.JPG/406px-
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Seems to be a way when realizing Fa?in ELSE IF when combined with Wa/Wa ?In logical AND/AND IF statements one can write a program following the exact instructions?
START case CHILDREN
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni
He directs you God in your CHILDREN ? to the male equal fortune the two females
2 daughters; 1 son -- 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/2; males get equal share the two females
2 daughters; 2 sons -- 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/3 + 1/3
Fa?in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka
ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
1 - 2/3 daughters = 1/3 son/s; males get 1/3 when females > 2
Wa ?In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu
AND IF she was one, so for her the half
1 - 1/2 daughter = 1/2 son/s; males get 1/2 when she is oneSTART case PARENTS
Wa Li'abawayhi Likulli Widin Minhum As-Sudusu Mimm Taraka 'In Kna Lahu Waladun
And to his PARENTS, to each one from them the sixth from what left if for him was a child
1 ? 1/6 mother/father = 5/6 CHILDREN
Fa?in Lam Yakun Lahu Waladun Wa Warithahu 'Abawhu Fali'ammihi Ath-Thuluthu
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
Fa?in Kna Lahu 'Ikhwatun Fali'ammihi As-Sudusu
ELSE IF Ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (Ikhwatun + CHILDREN); see 412 for sibling distribution
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 Ikhwatun; see 4176 for sibling distributionMin Ba
di Wayatin Y Bih 'Aw Daynin 'b'uukum Wa 'Abn'uukum L Tadrna 'Ayyuhum 'Aqrabu Lakum Nafan Faratan Mina Allhi 'Inna Allha Kna `Alman akmanSTART case HUSBAND
Wa Lakum Nifu M Taraka 'Azwjukum 'In Lam Yakun Lahunna Waladun
And for you half what left your spouse, if is not for them a child
1 - 1/2 husband = 1/2 father/mother
Fa?in Kna Lahunna Waladun Falakumu Ar-Rubu`u Mimm Tarakna
ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left
1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/4 husband ? 1/6 father/mother = 7/12 CHILDRENMin Ba`di Wayatin Yna Bih 'Aw Daynin
START case WIFE
Wa Lahunna Ar-Rubu`u Mimm Taraktum 'In Lam Yakun Lakum Waladun
And for them the quarter from what you left, if was not for you a child
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 parent/s
Fa?in Kna Lakum Waladun Falahunna Ath-Thumunu Mimm Taraktum
ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left
1 ? 1/8 wife = 7/8 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/8 wife ? 1/3 parents = 13/24 CHILDRENMin Ba`di Wayatin Tna Bih 'Aw Daynin
START case Kallatan (spouse-less and father-less with child)
Wa ?In Kna Rajulun Yrathu Kallatan 'Aw Amra'atun
AND IF was a man to be inherited Kallatan or a woman
Wa Lahu 'Akhun 'Aw 'Ukhtun Falikulli Widin Minhum As-Sudusu
And for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth
1 ? 1/6 sister/ brother = 5/6 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 sister/ brother = 2/3 CHILDREN
Fa?in Kn 'Akthara Min Dhlika Fahum Shurak'u F Ath-Thuluthi
ELSE IF they were more than that, so they are partners in the third
1 ? 1/3 sister/s +brother/s = 2/3 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1/2 CHILDRENMin Ba
di Wayatin Y? Bih 'Aw Daynin Ghayra Murrin Wayatan Mina Allhi Wa AllhuAlmun almunSTART case Al-Kallati (spouse-less and father-less; no child)
Yastaftnaka Quli Allhu Yuftkum F Al-Kallati 'Ini Amru'uun Halaka Laysa Lahu Waladun
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child
Wa Lahu 'Ukhtun Falah Nifu M Taraka
And for him a sister, so for her half what left
1 - 1/2 sister = 1/2 mother
Wa Huwa Yarithuh 'In Lam Yakun Lah Waladun
And he inherits her if was not for her a child
1 = brother; 0 = mother
Fa?in Knat Athnatayni Falahum Ath-Thuluthni Mimm Taraka
ELSE IF they were two, so to them (F) the two thirds from what left
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother
Wa ?In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an Falildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni
AND IF they were 'Ikhwatan Rijlan and Nis'an so to the male equal fortune the two females
1 sister; 1 brother -- 1/3 + 2/3
3 sisters; 2 brothers -- 1/7 + 1/7 + 1/7 + 2/7 + 2/7
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister/s + brother/s); males get equal share the two femalesYubayyinu Allhu Lakum 'An Taill Wa Allhu Bikulli Shay'in `Almun
Clarifies God for you that you are (not) misguided and God is with all things knowledgeable. -
Hi Nun,
You wrote "As already stated, for a sole inheritor there is no need for inheritance ruling"
That is exactly my point. You have to ask why. Because inheritance ratios make sense only comparatively. When there is one inheritor, the ratios don't mean anything. Ratios get their full meaning only in comparison to each other. This common-sense insight would allow us to compare ratios to each other under a common denominator. What I mean the algebraic method is nothing more than that. We don't really need the term algebra. In fact, traditional Muslims used that method by giving a different name to it.
Onur -
Hi Onur,
Correct on the sole inheritor although going through all the combinations, the ratios given NEVER come in to play with two or more inheritors with always a surplus or shortfall; regardless what amounts are stated or meaning of Kalala one can fix using a common denominator (i.e. decreasing the surplus or increasing the shortfall/remainder) method.
The template posted above is precise according to the wording which after working all the posibilities the entire night last week, it finally dawned on me (no pun...lol) the exact shares to the children and siblings and difference between 411 and 4176...
411 starts with to the male equal share the two females
Above if left alone would be as understood today includes all mixed daughter/s & son/s combinations;
Qur'an continues with...ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
This excludes all combinations when > 2 or 3+ females from the first statement.Further continues...
AND IF she was one, so for her the half
This excludes the case of one female from the first statement above.Thus the only possibility to apply "to the male equal share the two females" is when they are exactly two!
Whereas in 4176 the shares 1/2 or 2/3 for the sisters are when they are alone (i.e. no brothers) and Qur'an precisley states "Wa ?In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an" which covers all possibilities for mixed siblings apply "to the male equal share the two females" and gives definition of Ikhwatun in 411 -- at least two persons, one is male.
The study is an exercise in logic and articulates how Qur'an explains itself using cross-reference and non-contradiction. They should give this in place of those bizarre LSAT tests for law students; although make it two years, open book, use Google, or even bring a friend. ;D
Peace
-
Whereas in 4176 the shares 1/2 or 2/3 for the sisters are when they are alone (i.e. no brothers) and Qur'an precisley states "Wa ?In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an" which covers all possibilities for mixed siblings apply "to the male equal share the two females" and gives definition of Ikhwatun in 411 -- at least two persons, one is male.
Peace
Salaam, Noon de plume,
I do not get what you mean en that paragraph, because en 4.11 there is no mention of the word 'Ikhwatan. I must be missing something.
Thanks
Salaam
-
Salaam, Noon de plume,
I do not get what you mean en that paragraph, because en 4.11 there is no mention of the word 'Ikhwatan. I must be missing something.
Thanks
Salaam
Salaam huruf,
411 Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka Wa 'In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu Wa Li'abawayhi Likulli Widin Minhum As-Sudusu Mimm Taraka 'In Kna Lahu Waladun Fa'in Lam Yakun Lahu Waladun Wa Warithahu 'Abawhu Fali'ammihi Ath-Thuluthu Fa'in Kna Lahu 'Ikhwatun Fali'ammihi As-Sudusu Min Ba
di Wayatin Y Bih 'Aw Daynin 'b'uukum Wa 'Abn'uukum L Tadrna 'Ayyuhum 'Aqrabu Lakum Nafan Faratan Mina Allhi 'Inna Allha Kna `Alman akmanPeace
-
Hi Nun,
When sisters are over two, do you take the share 2/3 in comparison to 1 share of a son or do you take it as a fraction of the whole?
If the latter, then it does not seem fair to me. In that case,
In a case of 3 daughters and 2 sons, each daughter would get 2/9 and sons would get 1/6
In a case of 3 daughters and 6 sons, each daughter would still get 2/9 and sons would get 1/18
Only sons would be being disadvantaged by the increasing number of siblings. That wouldn't be fair. -
Hi Onur,
Likewise with 6 daughters and 1 son
2/3 or 6 x 1/9 each daugther
1/3 or 3/9 to the one sonThe son getting 3 times amount of each daughter may not seem fair to them.
Not a question of what seems fair to you or to guys 1000 years ago who interpreted put a spin on distributions which favored them led to all sorts of contradictions and work arounds parroted to this day not only on inheritance verses. The lanquage rules used are precise and reason for distributions the way they are one can look all sorts of things.
It's a clear case of follow the instructions exaclty as stated and only God knows best.
Peace
-
I grant that fairness is not totally objective. But it is not a wholly arbitrary judgment either and should be a factor to keep in mind in distributive justice. At the very least, we should give plausible reasons for our distributions even if we do not necessarily require that everyone should strictly agree to them.
You have a good point with the example you gave. It actually supports my position and shows that it is better to stick with the 1 male= 2 female formula(each son getting only twice as much as each daughter) for all mixed cases as stated in the beginning of the verse, treating the following sentences as cases involving daughters only(either 1 or "two or above" as based on the peculiar nature of the Arabic phrase "above two" ). It seems absurd to me to specify only daughters' shares for mixed cases.(that's your understanding)
I know that 1 male=2 female might not seem fair to everyone. But at least we can think of a reason for it whether it is true or not for everyone. We can say that Quran takes into account the burden generally assigned to sons in most cultures through history to take care of the families. Some people might disagree with this but it is not wholly an implausible/random/crazy idea.
Can you give any reasons for your random distributions among sons and daughters- say in the examples we gave like 6 daughters and 1 son, 3 daughters and 6 sons and so on? Please reflect on this important issue. -
Hi Onur,
It doesn?t say for all mixed cases use ?to the male equal share the two females? as explicitly stated in 4176 and leads to contradictions if girls are assumed alone without brothers as we discussed earlier.
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu ai Al-'Unthayayni
He directs you God in your CHILDREN to the male equal fortune the two females
2 daughters; 1 son -- 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/2; males get equal share the two females
2 daughters; 2 sons -- 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/3 + 1/3
Fain Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka
ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
1 - 2/3 daughters = 1/3 son/s; males get 1/3 when females > 2
Wa In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu
AND IF she was one, so for her the half
1 - 1/2 daughter = 1/2 son/s; males get 1/2 when she is one...
AND IF they were 'Ikhwatan Rijlan and Nis'an so to the male equal fortune the two females
I do not know why an only daughter or son is favored considered at a disadvantage compared to the rest and can only guess has something with psychology of pairings ? an only son having to fend for himself, his sisters, or only daughter not having a sister or why daughter and son share equally or why the two daughters always get half as much the sons; perhaps they are close taking care of each other while three or more girls again are favored considered at a slight disadvantage compared to the sons, only God knows.
Perhaps reflect on ?
411 ? and your children, you do not know which of them closer to you (in) benefit, a religious duty from God, that God is knowledgeable, wise/judicious.
Peace
-
Salaam huruf,
411 Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka Wa 'In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu Wa Li'abawayhi Likulli Widin Minhum As-Sudusu Mimm Taraka 'In Kna Lahu Waladun Fa'in Lam Yakun Lahu Waladun Wa Warithahu 'Abawhu Fali'ammihi Ath-Thuluthu Fa'in Kna Lahu 'Ikhwatun Fali'ammihi As-Sudusu Min Ba
di Wayatin Y Bih 'Aw Daynin 'b'uukum Wa 'Abn'uukum L Tadrna 'Ayyuhum 'Aqrabu Lakum Nafan Faratan Mina Allhi 'Inna Allha Kna `Alman akmanPeace
?Uf! ?Where was i? Thank you verymuch.
Salaam