Inheritance Laws, time sensitive?
-
Peace,
One verse dedicated to this matter is 2215
They ask you, what they should spend. Say, "Whatever you spend of good is for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler. And whatever you do of good - indeed, Allah is Knowing of it."So, if the family really wanted to follow the Quran honestly and entirely, then the family must also observe those verses. This includes before and after the inheritance (from the person who didn't leave a will). Thus i think whenever there is objection of 'injustice' regarding inheritance, we should also refer people to these verses.
What do you say?
What does "spend" & "inheritance" have to do with each other san?
Are these verses referring to giving inheritances?
One verse dedicated to this matter is 2215
They ask you, what they should spend. Say, "Whatever you spend of good is for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler. And whatever you do of good - indeed, Allah is Knowing of it."Does spending & inheritance mean the same thing? A daughter's or widow's rights to inheritances aren't charity, its a right.
If men & women, & male & female children are truly equal, then words need to proclaim this equality, not leave it to other verses.
Indeed, by following your verse, people can give more to the beggar child on the street than the daughter!
Here are the verses
"Whatever you spend of good is for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler.
So my cousin's widow & daughter were needy, more needy would be the Afghan illegal immigrants on the street!
So my relatives could well donate to those more needy orphans & needy folks! )
Do modern Constitutions give daughters & widows inheritances by saying, "Give to orphans & the needy," or do they give her the same rights automatically?
-
The Quran does say that men are maintainers of women, the Quran also says that men must pay ujur to women on marriage. It is sure that not everywhere and all the time that happens tht wy. In fact many women are not only not maintained by men but in fact maintain them and how many of them do get ujur on marriage. I that there are countries where the contributions of women and the default of them by the males are counted as debts in favour of women and against the defaulters. Tht is a way of reckoning things. Another one is to even the shares in case of death without will if circumstances are not the standard ones there being the possibility of making maintenance and ujur equivalente to equal or reversed distribution. In an ideal world the Quranic idea of men being always the maintainers is also ideal, since it would mean a stronger social bond for everybody, self-esteem for them and respect from others.
As things stand today that would be very difficult to uphold depending also on the location. Today a job must be kept by whoever is lucky to get it and the rest revolve on it, but what cannot be forgotten is that the overall and overuling value in the Quran is juste and equitativeness for all. You cannot overburden someone over others. You cannot heap on women the heavy part of reproduction of breadwinning and mny times of houselholding and on top of it let her inherit half, that is plain exploitation, and that cannot and is not what the Quran intends. Technically clutching to straws to maintain unwarranted privileges is inmoral and God knows.
Salaam
-
Peace,
This book I was reading referred to the inheritance laws where the share of a man is the same as a share of two women. The author was saying that that injunction only applied in certain historical conditions, i.e. when the man is the sole bread-winner. He said once a certain society ceases to be that way, when men and women are bread-winners, then the injunction no longer applies to that society. What do you guys think? Any Qur'anic basis for that explanation? Here's the quote I read by the way
"In the matter of inheritance laws, the two portions given to men is a rule stipulated in the light of historical conditions. These historical conditions refer the times and places when and where men assume the role of bread-winners, thus deserving of two portions one for the family and one for himself. But when this condition changes and women become equal and assume an equal role for the family, the rule also changes, as provided for by this general rule
'The men get a share of what parents and relatives leave. The women too shall get a share of what parents and relatives leave. Whether it is small or large, a definite share.' "
Inheritance laws are blind justice to be distributed exactly as stipulated without regard to circumstances or time.
Afterward the inheritors are free to dispense as they see fit with their property.
In addition, it's still a matter of interpretation that a male inherits twice that of female in all instances; see thread...
Peace all -
Different societies in different times/ages will interpret differently although these are clear verses using straight calculations so there can only be one solution (i.e. correct view) and that is the one without contradiction.
-
Peace,
For the male is (the) likeness to (the) opulence/satisfaction of the two females . 4/11 and 4/176
A few things worthy of note
The word hazz (opulence/fortune/without need) is used instead of naseeb (share/portion) like in 4/7 and 4/33.
I believe this is important because the majority of us will never inherit a fortune from our parents, or anything that will satiate our needs/desires, which is what the word denotes. So why is this word used instead of naseeb?
The word mithlu (likeness/similar) is used instead of sawaan (equal/equivalent) as in 22/25.
When examining all the other ratios/shares in the rest of the verse, no word like mithlu is used anywhere except in this phrase. It could have said, ?for the male is the hazz/naseeb of the two females?. There doesn't seem to be any reason for the word mithlu to be there if the phrase was actually about a ratio.
Hence, why I question whether this phrase is a ratio at all. It may be suggesting that males are inclined to want more before they are satisfied or feel they are in good circumstance - like as much as the two females. Are we being reminded to keep this in mind when dividing the estate?
3/36 And not is the male like the female .
The phrase in question also appears in 4/176, after the mentioning of "ikhwatun" (brothers, or possibly siblings). Again, the way every other fraction/ratio is worded in the verse, this phrase seems a bit odd.
-
Peace Mushu,
Peace,
For the male is (the) likeness to (the) opulence/satisfaction of the two females . 4/11 and 4/176
A few things worthy of note
The word hazz (opulence/fortune/without need) is used instead of naseeb (share/portion) like in 4/7 and 4/33.
I believe this is important because the majority of us will never inherit a fortune from our parents, or anything that will satiate our needs/desires, which is what the word denotes. So why is this word used instead of naseeb?
The word mithlu (likeness/similar) is used instead of sawaan (equal/equivalent) as in 22/25.
When examining all the other ratios/shares in the rest of the verse, no word like mithlu is used anywhere except in this phrase. It could have said, ?for the male is the hazz/naseeb of the two females?. There doesn't seem to be any reason for the word mithlu to be there if the phrase was actually about a ratio.
Hence, why I question whether this phrase is a ratio at all. It may be suggesting that males are inclined to want more before they are satisfied or feel they are in good circumstance - like as much as the two females. Are we being reminded to keep this in mind when dividing the estate?
3/36 And not is the male like the female .
The phrase in question also appears in 4/176, after the mentioning of "ikhwatun" (brothers, or possibly siblings). Again, the way every other fraction/ratio is worded in the verse, this phrase seems a bit odd.
mith'lu/like or equivalent to mathematical equal sign
hazzin is their piece or part of the pie being inherited
2879 so he went forth to his people in his adornment; said those who desire the life the world
"O! Would that for us mith'la/like what has been given to Qarun
Indeed he owner hazzin/part great."411 and 4176 are different....
411 in your children -
a. to the male mith'lu/like ai/part the two/feminine
If above was left alone traditional understanding would apply, to each male = part the two femalesb. so if they are females over two so for them two thirds what left
This excludes any case over two i.e. 3+ from the first statement abovec. and if she is one so for her the half
This excludes the case of one daughter from the first statement aboveExamples
1 son 1/2, 2 daughters 1/2
1 son 1/3, 3 daughters 2/3 (2/9 each daughter)
1 son 1/2, 1 daughter 1/22 sons 2/3, 2 daughters 1/3 (or 1/3 each son, 1/6 each daughter)
2 sons 1/3, 3 daughters 2/3 (or 1/6 each son, 2/9 each daughter)
2 sons 1/2, 1 daughter 1/23 sons 3/4, 2 daughters 1/4 (or 1/4 each son, 1/8 each daughter)
3 sons 1/3, 3 daughters 2/3 (or 1/9 each son, 2/9 each daughter) for this case girls are favored 2x!
3 sons 1/2, 1 daughter 1/2 (or 1/6 each son, 3/6 daughter) case of a single daughter is favored 3x!4176 the case of kalala and siblings? disbursements is according to traditional understanding; shares 1/2 or 2/3 for the sisters are when they are alone (no brothers) and Qur'an precisely 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.
Here is the template for all cases? The Inheritance Issue Revisited
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599979.msg240753#msg240753
Peace
-
mith'lu/like or equivalent to mathematical equal sign
I understand why one would interpret it this way, however, my question is why the word is even there to begin with. If the phrase is a ratio, why not "for the male is the hazz of the two females"? That would have made it a clear ratio and would have matched every other fraction/share in the verse.
hazzin is their piece or part of the pie being inherited
2879 so he went forth to his people in his adornment; said those who desire the life the world
"O! Would that for us mith'la/like what has been given to Qarun
Indeed he owner hazzin/part great."From Lane's
Ha-Za-Za = To be in good circumstances, to be fortunate, to be rich/wealthy/opulent, possess competence or sufficiency, in no need, without wants or with few wants, prefer one person above another.
-
I understand why one would interpret it this way, however, my question is why the word is even there to begin with. If the phrase is a ratio, why not "for the male is the hazz of the two females"? That would have made it a clear ratio and would have matched every other fraction/share in the verse.
The rest are direct payouts while mith'lu describes the fortune pie chart or ratio, it helps visualize ...
411 in your children -
to the male mith'lu/like/equal ai/fortune the two femaleshttp//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1,2&chs=300x100&chl=female|%20female|%20male&chco=
so if they are females over two so for them two thirds what left
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t2,2,2,3&chs=300x100&chl=female|%20female|%20female|%20male&chco=
and if she is one so for her the half
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1&chs=200x100&chl=female|%20male&chco=
-
Peace SEid
The rest are direct payouts while mith'lu describes the fortune pie chart or ratio, it helps visualize ...
411 in your children -
to the male mith'lu/like/equal ai/fortune the two femaleshttp//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1,2&chs=300x100&chl=female|%20female|%20male&chco=
This is what I'm questioning. Mithlu is not "equals/equivalent", there is a word for that in the quran - sawaan (see 22/25). Mithlu means likeness/similar to, so to me it is evident the phrase is not referring to a clear-cut ratio.
Also, hazz does not mean portion. If a son and two daughters were inheriting ?30 from their deceased parents, you would find it difficult to find anyone who would consider that a fortune. Hazz means to be without need/opulent, which does not describe the reality for most people, who will inherit only small amounts from their parents.
-
Peace SEid
This is what I'm questioning. Mithlu is not "equals/equivalent", there is a word for that in the quran - sawaan (see 22/25). Mithlu means likeness/similar to, so to me it is evident the phrase is not referring to a clear-cut ratio.
Also, hazz does not mean portion. If a son and two daughters were inheriting ?30 from their deceased parents, you would find it difficult to find anyone who would consider that a fortune. Hazz means to be without need/opulent, which does not describe the reality for most people, who will inherit only small amounts from their parents.
Peace Mushu,
It's relative and "like portion" perfectly fits the verse and describes a ratio.
From Lane's
Ha-Za-Za = To be in good circumstances, to be fortunate, to be rich/wealthy/opulent, possess competence or sufficiency, in no need, without wants or with few wants, prefer one person above another.
Cannot always go by Lane's which was compiled in 1863, closest English meaning using context is part/portion...
3176 intends Allah that not He will set for them hazz/part in the Hereafter
411/176 to the male mith'lu/like ai/part the two females
513/14 forgot hazz/part from what they were reminded
2879 "O! Would that for us mith'la/like what has been given to Qarun
Indeed he owner hazz/part great."4135 and not it is granted only (to the) owner hazz/part great
-
Peace SEid,
Peace Mushu,
It's relative and "like portion" perfectly fits the verse and describes a ratio.
I disagree. A 'perfect' fit with the verse would have been "for the male is the naseeb of the two females", but that's not what the phrase says.
Cannot always go by Lane's which was compiled in 1863, closest English meaning using context is part/portion...
3176 intends Allah that not He will set for them hazz/part in the Hereafter
411/176 to the male mith'lu/like ai/part the two females
513/14 forgot hazz/part from what they were reminded
2879 "O! Would that for us mith'la/like what has been given to Qarun
Indeed he owner hazz/part great."4135 and not it is granted only (to the) owner hazz/part great
Fortune/opulence fits in every one of those verses, so I see no reason why one would translate it as part/portion when the dictionary says otherwise. In fact, 41/35 makes little sense if you translated hazz as part/portion. Besides, if you make hazz into portion, you end up with a synonym with naseeb. Why would the quran have synonyms?
Anyway, this was just a repetition of the things I've said before. From what I see, the language in this phrase doesn't lend itself well to being a ratio.
-
Peace Mushu,
Peace SEid,
I disagree. A 'perfect' fit with the verse would have been "for the male is the naseeb of the two females", but that's not what the phrase says.
Fortune/opulence fits in every one of those verses, so I see no reason why one would translate it as part/portion when the dictionary says otherwise. In fact, 41/35 makes little sense if you translated hazz as part/portion. Besides, if you make hazz into portion, you end up with a synonym with naseeb. Why would the quran have synonyms?
Anyway, this was just a repetition of the things I've said before. From what I see, the language in this phrase doesn't lend itself well to being a ratio.
Peace Mushu,
It?s written as it is written and context is on inheritance, dividing shares (i.e. math, ratios, and portions).
Lanes http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000231.pdf
Fortune; or particularly good fortune; syn. . (S, Nh, Myb, K) and (Nh and a share, portion, or lot (S, Msb, K or particularly a share, portion, or lot, of something good or excellent ...
411 in your children - to the male like the two females
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1,2&chs=300x100&chl=female|%20female|%20male&chco=
-
Peace,
Usually and in most cases the main problem with issues like these is not with the interpretation or explanation, but mainly with justification.
Yes, we often do hear or justify such and such and use it as a substitute of an argument.
For example in this case, many are trying to understand why God has decided that a female take 1/2 share of that of a man? And then try and justify it by saying that men are the one who provide for the family..
I think we still need to do some work into learning how to use logic and science rather than social statusRegards
-
For example in this case, many are trying to understand why God has decided that a female take 1/2 share of that of a man? And then try and justify it by saying that men are the one who provide for the family..
I think we still need to do some work into learning how to use logic and science rather than social statusPeace,
It's not always the case, rather a straight distribution depending on # of females.
Example case of only one daughter, she gets 1/2 regardless # of sons...
411 ...and if she is one so for her the half
1 daughter, 1 son -- each gets equal share or 1/2
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1&chs=200x100&chl=female|%20males&chco=
1 daughter, 2 sons -- daughter gets 1/2, each son 1/4 (she gets 2X)
1 daughter, 3 sons -- daughter gets 1/2, each son 1/6 (she gets 3X)There's nothing to interpret or explain, it's a case of follow the instructions verbatim.
-
Peace,
It's not always the case, rather a straight distribution depending on # of females.
Example case of only one daughter, she gets 1/2 regardless # of sons...
411 ...and if she is one so for her the half
1 daughter, 1 son -- each gets equal share or 1/2
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1&chs=200x100&chl=female|%20males&chco=
1 daughter, 2 sons -- daughter gets 1/2, each son 1/4 (she gets 2X)
1 daughter, 3 sons -- daughter gets 1/2, each son 1/6 (she gets 3X)There's nothing to interpret or explain, it's a case of follow the instructions verbatim.
My understanding or misunderstanding is as follows (Pls clarify so i can get rid of the confusion)
If 1 daughter alone (with no sons), then she gets 50%, but if 1 daughter and 1 son, then the daughter gets 1 share and the son gets 2 shares i.e. 33.33% to daughter and 66.67% to son.
-
My understanding or misunderstanding is as follows (Pls clarify so i can get rid of the confusion)
If 1 daughter alone (with no sons), then she gets 50%, but if 1 daughter and 1 son, then the daughter gets 1 share and the son gets 2 shares i.e. 33.33% to daughter and 66.67% to son.
That's where a lot of confusion and numerous contradictions come from assuming the case for the daughters in 411 is only when they are alone and miss reading the over two part which then leaves no instructions for when there are exactly two daughters?
General formula 1 - Parents - Spouse = Children (depends on # of females)
Example inheritors Children
1 daughter/son = 100% any sole inheritor, no need for inheritance laws.If mixed, distribute per 411 Instructs you Allah in your children -
to the male like portion the two (feminine)
so if there are females over two (feminine), so for them 2/3 what he left
and if she is one, so for her the 1/2If 2 daughters -- to the male like portion the two (feminine)
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1,2&chs=300x100&chl=female|%20female|%20each%20male&chco=
2 daughters 1/4 each, 1 son gets 2/4
2 daugthers 1/6 each, 2 sons 2/6 each
2 daughters 1/8 each, 3 sons 2/8 eachIf 3+ daughters -- so if there are females over two (feminine), so for them 2/3 what he left
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t2,2,2,3&chs=300x100&chl=female|%20female|%20female|%20males&chco=
3 daugthers 2/9 each (2/3 total), 1 son gets 1/3 remaining
3 daugthers 2/9 each (2/3 total), 2 sons get 1/3 remaining or 1/6 each
3 daugthers 2/9 each (2/3 total), 3 sons get 1/3 remaining or 1/9 eachIf 1 daughter -- and if she is one, so for her the 1/2 (i.e. she always gets half the children's pie)
http//chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chd=t1,1&chs=200x100&chl=female|%20males&chco=
1 daughter 1/2 total, 1 son gets 1/2 remaining
1 daughter 1/2 total, 2 sons get 1/2 remaining or 1/4 each
1 daughter 1/2 total, 3 sons get 1/2 remaining or 1/6 eachThe fully detailed explanation and for all cases is at the end of this thread?
The Inheritance Issue Revisited
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599979.msg240753#msg240753
Peace
-
Thanks SEid
What will be distribution guideline in case the deceased man leaves behind
3 daughters (2/3rd)
1 wife (1/8th)
1 father (1/6th)
1 mother (1/6th)
because the above exceeds 100%Thanks for your help
Peace Patanahi,
In this case ...
1 - 1/6 father - 1/6 mother - 1/8 wife = children
1 - 4/24 - 4/24 - 3/24 = 13/24 children
Now we go to children and since it's only girls they get the whole 13/24;
it would be exactly the same if for example there were 3 sons instead.3 daughters (i.e. if over two) get 2/3 of remainder of the children's pie if they were mixed.