Inheritance according to Qur?an

Noon_waalqalami

"son" may be substitued since it denotes only male. The word is however . It includes a daughter. This is the subject noun of deficient verb. "Lahu" is relating to its predicate. "provided a child exists as heir of him". The response clause for the condition is not needed since its effect is narrated prior to it.

Peace Mazhar,

If "it includes a daughter" solve mother, father, 3 daughters, husband?

Please explain if these are grammatically correct?

411 ... so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is lahu/to person walad/son
412 and for you half what left your spouse?s if not was for them waladun/child born so if is for them walad/son so for you the fourth

StopS

Peace and welcome back StopS,

No, the calculations are correct.
Yes, answered your questions.
To accurately distribute shares.

Ok, I have shown you why I think the methodology is wrong. If you insist on your interpretation it is your choice.

Thanks

Noon_waalqalami

Ok, I have shown you why I think the methodology is wrong. If you insist on your interpretation it is your choice.

Thanks

Like the rest you chose to interpret child/born where it should be son thus your math errors, contradicts, and reading makes no sense.

1934-35 that Isa/Jesus son Mary speech the truth the one in it they dispute not is to God that He should take from a son Glory be to Him when He decrees a matter so only He says to it be so it becomes

289 and said woman Pharaoh joy eye to me and to you not kill him perhaps that he will benefit us or we take him for a son and they not they realize

411 ? and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is to person a son

Parents get 1/6 IF son present ELSE their share is variable.

1 - 1/6 mother/father (fixed) = 5/6 son (variable)
1 ? 1/2 daughter (fixed) = 1/2 mother/father (variable)
1 ? 2/3 (3 daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 parents (variable)

Thank you, best wishes (I did like your video), and peace!

Mazhar

Please explain if these are grammatically correct?

411 ... so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is lahu/to person walad/son

I hope no one disputes that the pattern of understanding English and Arabic are quite different. The above style of translating Arabic text into English is reflective as if both the languages are considered of similar origins and nature. It has all the possibilities of leading to a perception that might not be present in the original Arabic text.

This is inverted nominal sentence where the Subject-Topic of sentence is red word.

This is a conditional clause. The Subject of the Deficient Past Verb in Jussive state is the red word which is delayed and relates to the fronted Predicate which is not visible there but is understood because of the verb and its subject, denoting presence-existence of the Subject. The apodosis of this conditional clause is elided since it is described in the preceding sentence. The masculine Pronoun third person refers back to the subject of verb -meaning the deceased man.
This clause stands amended in case the situation on ground is this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

Noon_waalqalami

I hope no one disputes that the pattern of understanding English and Arabic are quite different. The above style of translating Arabic text into English is reflective as if both the languages are considered of similar origins and nature. It has all the possibilities of leading to a perception that might not be present in the original Arabic text.

This is inverted nominal sentence where the Subject-Topic of sentence is red word.

This is a conditional clause. The Subject of the Deficient Past Verb in Jussive state is the red word which is delayed and relates to the fronted Predicate which is not visible there but is understood because of the verb and its subject, denoting presence-existence of the Subject. The apodosis of this conditional clause is elided since it is described in the preceding sentence. The masculine Pronoun third person refers back to the subject of verb -meaning the deceased man.
This clause stands amended in case the situation on ground is this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

Peace Mazhar,

Yes it can also mean both i.e. child/born although in that part of verse 411 it does not.

Apply to case mother, father, 3 daughters, husband -- what's left to give the husband?

Apply what you wrote to verses below; how can these also pertain to child/born or daughter?

1934-35 that Isa/Jesus son Mary speech the truth the one in it they dispute not is to God that He should take from a son Glory be to Him when He decrees a matter so only He says to it be so it becomes

289 and said woman Pharaoh joy eye to me and to you not kill him perhaps that he will benefit us or we take him for a son and they not they realize

411 if is to person son so if not was to person child/born

Surah 04 An-Nisaa Complete http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4tyaki83aY
Scroll 411 at 0429 minute, walad/son 0503 minute, waladun child/born 0507 minute.

What?s missing is slight difference in recitation even though spelling is identical as in?

411 to the male
5417 to the remembrance

Mazhar

The point-evidence in post 33 first needs to be rebutted. Thereafter one could proclaim

Yes it can also mean both i.e. child/born although in that part of verse 411 it does not.

Noon_waalqalami

The point-evidence in post 33 first needs to be rebutted. Thereafter one could proclaim

Already replied, evidence shown, see my last post above...

Now are you going to avoid applying your interpretation and logic to solve this simple case or not?

mother, father, 3 daughters, husband

Thus according to Mazhar's interpretation 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 daughters = 1 leaves husband nothing!

Then they use algebra to normalize which can be applied to fix any shortfall/excess.

See stupid calculator and input to see amounts which are never stated in Qur'an.

http//www.islamicsoftware.org/irth/irth.html

Daughters get 8/45 each
Husband gets 1/5
Father gets 2/15
Mother gets 2/15

Mazhar

Dear, I am not in mathematics or algebra. My point is simply this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

For my convenience to understand the Ayah through your mathematics please be simple for me showing only the amount by the percentage of share allowed for them.

Inheritance left by a Deceased Man=Rs. 1000/-

Mourners left.

Three daughters only
2.Father
Mother
Wife
Brother 1

.......................
Mourners

One son only
2.Father
Mother
Wife

Noon_waalqalami

Peace Mazhar,

Dear, I am not in mathematics or algebra. My point is simply this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

You are correct in that 2nd occurrence waladun child/born means deceased had no child/born/begot.
My argument is 1st occurrence walad/son is different from 2nd occurrence waladun/child/born/begot.

It?s always IF kna/is to person walad/son which kna points to singular masculine.

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine) so if kunna/are (feminine plural) females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left and if knat/is (feminine singular) one so for her the half and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/son so if not yakun/was to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third so if kna/is to person ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) so to his mother the sixth from after a will have made in it or judgment your parents and your children not you know which of them closer to you benefit obligation from The God indeed The God kna/is Knowing Wise

412 and for you half what left your spouse?s if not yakun/was for them waladun child/born so if kna/is for them walad/son so for you the fourth from what they left from after a will they made in it or judgment and for them the fourth from what you left if not yakun/was to you waladun child/born so if kna/is to you walad/son so for them the eight from what you left from after a will you made in it or judgment and if kna/is a man inherited kallatan (fatherless spouseless) or woman and has brother or sister so for each one from them the sixth so if kn/they were greater from that so they partners in the third from after a will is recommended in it or judgment not harmful a will from The God and The God Knowing Forbearing

For my convenience to understand the Ayah through your mathematics please be simple for me showing only the amount by the percentage of share allowed for them.

Inheritance left by a Deceased Man=Rs. 1000/-

Mourners left.

Three daughters only = 2/3 fixed
411 so if kunna/are (feminine plural) females above two so for them two thirds
Father = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
Mother = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/son
411 so if not yakun/was to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third
Wife = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
412 and for them the fourth from what you left if not yakun/was to you waladun/child born
412 so if kna/is to you walad/son so for them the eight
Brother 1 = 0 siblings only inherit if deceased was kalala; not case father/spouse present

1 ? 2/3 three daughters 2/9 each = 1/3 divided equally; all are variable/unstated (1/9 father + 1/9 mother + 1/9 wife)

2/31000 = 666.667 three daughters 2/91000 = 222.222 each
1/91000 = 111.111 father
1/91000 = 111.111 mother
1/9*1000 = 111.111 wife

.......................
Mourners

One son only = variable/unstated
Father = 1/6
Mother = 1/6
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/son
Wife = 1/8
412 so if kna/is to you walad/son so for them the eight

1 ? 1/6 father ? 1/6 mother ? 1/8 wife = 13/24 son (variable/unstated gets remainder)
13/24*1000 = 541.667 son
1/6 * 1000 = 166.667 father
1/6 * 1000 = 166.667 mother
1/8 * 1000 = 125.000 wife

Mazhar

1 ? 2/3 three daughters 2/9 each = 1/3 divided equally; all are variable/unstated (1/9 father + 1/9 mother + 1/9 wife)

2/31000 = 666.667 three daughters 2/91000 = 222.222 each
1/91000 = 111.111 father
1/91000 = 111.111 mother
1/9*1000 = 111.111 wife

So you are proposing that after meeting the injunction about daughters the left over should be equally distrubted amonst the other three father, mother and wife.

Wakas

peace StopS,

What I find odd about your questions is that you mix seemingly poor questions with seemingly good ones, e.g.

You said
"WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?"

This is well understood by the verses 411, 412 e.g.

Various translations
...All after a will is carried through or a debt....
after any bequest he may have made, or any debt .

*the word debt can also mean obligation.

Granted, I have not studied the inheritance issue, but I think the above is fairly obvious. What say you?

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Noon_waalqalami

So you are proposing that after meeting the injunction about daughters the left over should be equally distrubted amonst the other three father, mother and wife.

Correct. Any case when shares are variable/unstated an equal split; examples...

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/stated) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/6 mother (fixed/stated) = 5/6 son/s (variable/unstated share equally)

1 - 1/4 wife (fixed/stated) = 3/4 mother/father (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/2 husband (fixed/stated) = 1/2 parents share equally (variable/unstated)

1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/stated) = 1/2 spouse (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/stated) = 1/2 spouse and parent/s share equally (variable/unstated)

1 - 1/8 wife (fixed/stated) = 7/8 children mixed (variable/unstated)
In above case only ratio 21 male to female is known, amount is not

When looking at the precise word selection and each case the logic is amazing!

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Nisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.

42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat their wealth to your wealth indeed it is sin large

46 and test the orphans until when reached the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is poor so let eat/consume in fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on them and sufficient with The God Reckoner

StopS

peace StopS,

What I find odd about your questions is that you mix seemingly poor questions with seemingly good ones, e.g.

You said
"WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?"

This is well understood by the verses 411, 412 e.g.

Various translations
...All after a will is carried through or a debt....
after any bequest he may have made, or any debt .

*the word debt can also mean obligation.

Granted, I have not studied the inheritance issue, but I think the above is fairly obvious. What say you?

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Why do you find odd that some things are more difficult for me than others? I am unable at times to concisely express what I want to know. It proves I am human )

My point is I can't see any consistency here. Yes, as you say it CAN mean this or that or something else.

If I look at the Koran and look at what has been said about the sentences for 1000 years and now see that a person says it actually does not mean "A", but it means "C" and then I check this with a Koran teacher who says it means "B" and a Koran scholar says it means "D" and the Islamic calculators disagree with all of them, I ask myself what am I supposed to believe?

Wakas

peace,

Nisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.

AFAIK "untha" is for females, hence my comment. Girls could be covered under waladun/children. I have not studied it, so cant say.

IF you have studied it AND shown it does not work, can you provide one clear example? This would then take this theory off the table.

Background
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11583.0

Wakas

peace StopS,

My point was your questioning (and apparently video - I have not watched it) indicated you have somewhat studied this topic, thus when you come out with something obviously not an issue (as if you haven't read it), it makes me wonder about credibility/sincerity/etc.

If you feel you are looking at this objectively, sincerely etc, fair enough.

If I look at the Koran and look at what has been said about the sentences for 1000 years and now see that a person says it actually does not mean "A", but it means "C" and then I check this with a Koran teacher who says it means "B" and a Koran scholar says it means "D" and the Islamic calculators disagree with all of them, I ask myself what am I supposed to believe?

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

If a person finds a problem with Quran's content based only upon what they can prove from Quran, then fair enough. From my experience, I know that Traditional understandings are often filled with errors. For a brilliant example of this, see www.Quran434.com

StopS

peace StopS,

My point was your questioning (and apparently video - I have not watched it) indicated you have somewhat studied this topic, thus when you come out with something obviously not an issue (as if you haven't read it), it makes me wonder about credibility/sincerity/etc.

Ah, now I understand. You don't say which is what, so I can't comment.

If you feel you are looking at this objectively, sincerely etc, fair enough.

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

If a person finds a problem with Quran's content based only upon what they can prove from Quran, then fair enough. From my experience, I know that Traditional understandings are often filled with errors. For a brilliant example of this, see www.Quran434.com

Ok, you started off well enough - and I find a second half missing somehow.

Oh dear, I am not trying to disprove the Koran. I disprove claims. Or try to, anyway. But here and now I am trying to understand how Muslims handle "problematic" areas of the Koran in 2012. Looking at the 3 inheritance verses it is obvious they are not so clear and easy to understand as we see a lot of interpretation and wriggling and different results every time you ask.

Mazhar

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

StopS

But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.

http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/11/default.htm

Wakas

But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Many examples. One www.Quran434.com

Mazhar

Many examples. One www.Quran434.com

Today I again scrolled it only to fail to find the translation of the Ayah that is discussed therein.

StopS

StopS

But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.

I don't understand how inserting Arabic "exposes" anyone. Look at the page you offered.
in the event of his having a child
if he have a son
if he has a child
if the deceased left children
if he would have a child
if you have children
if he had a son
if he has children
if the deceased leaves children
if for him was a child (son)
if you have children
his having left a child
if he has children

I can continue for some time and anyone will see that the classical understanding has always been children.

Can this be wrong? Yes.
Would it make sense to substitute children with son?
Now it gets technical. I need to now construct different models to test this. And this is what apologists like Noon rely on the laziness of people like me. I am sure I can construct examples which will render this model useless, but I don't really need to, because it serves only one single purpose to make more rulings exempt so that the portions or beneficiaries can be freely distributed. That's the magic trick.

The more you remove from strict Koranic rulings and shift into the hands of humans, the more you can shift and wangle as desired. The consequence is the result you see in the online Islamic calculators which provide the most preposterous combinations which no longer have anything in common with the Koranic rules. Is it intellectually honest? In my eyes no!