Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
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
- Three daughters only
-
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 - Three daughters only = 2/3 fixed
-
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 wifeSo 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.
-
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. -
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 notWhen 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
-
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?
-
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 -
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
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 childrenI 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!
-
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.Why do you call me names like apologist and trickster yet at same time admit you are lazy to study?
Everything I posted is according to Qur'an while majority scholars are ignorant who lack basic logic.These are few examples of poor comprehension, bad logic/study, and none use of cross-reference.
Cutting off hands for theft nowhere stated in Qur'an...
538 and the male thief and the female thief so cut off aydiyahum for their hands
(i.e. cut off their means to perpetrate crime which trailing alif only usage their hands denotes to/for)4176 al-kalla they are clueless only conjecture use funny math that you are familiar with.
Listen to this conspiracy ranter saying it means "daughter in law" and wrote a book on subject.http//quranconference.nd.edu/lecture-abstracts
David S. Powers ?BNF 328a and the Mystery of al-Kalala?The word kalala occurs twice in the Quran, first in Quran 412b and again in 4176. Although little-known today, even among native speakers of Arabic, this word was of great interest to the first Muslims. ?Umar b. al-Khattab, for example, is reported to have said that he would rather know the meaning of this word than possess a sum of money equal to the poll-tax levied on the fortresses of Byzantium. One might say that the meaning of kalala was a mystery. I will propose a solution to this mystery based upon examination of Biblioth?que Nationale de France 328a, a Quran codex written in the Hijazi script some time in the second half of the 1st century AH. Paleographic and codicological evidence indicates that the consonantal skeleton of Q. 412b was revised, with the result that the meaning of the sub-verse underwent a radical transformation. The revision of v. 12b, in turn, made it appear as if the inheritance rules contained in vv. 11-12 of surat al-nisa" are incomplete. This problem was solved by adding supplementary legislation at the end of surat al-nisa" ?what is now Q. 4176, the second verse in which the word kalala occurs.
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
You have problem with my showing readers which words are being translated exactly or what's your point?
Back to topic; it's clear from math which all fits logically and also from basic speech...
411 and if knat/is (feminine singular) one so for her the half
411 if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/sonpeace,
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=11583.0Peace Wakas,
It would also exclude all young siblings from inheriting and verse 4176 ties the two together...
4176... so if knat/they are (feminine dual) two so to them the two thirds from what left and if they were ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) men/males wanis and females so to the male like share the two (feminine) clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing
-
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.
Nothing gets excluded from inheritance. The word used is "Women". It has no singular, just plural with diminuiive "few women". It is nowhere used for female of any age since age starts from birth to death. It solely denotes women. A person leaving behind property could be one when his daughters are already women. Moreover, as you pointed out, they are handed over inheritance only when they become women-a female having become mature to enter marriage bond. The opposite gender of her is Man not boy or child.
-
peace,
It would also exclude all young siblings from inheriting and verse 4176 ties the two together...
4176... so if knat/they are (feminine dual) two so to them the two thirds from what left and if they were ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) men/males wanis and females so to the male like share the two (feminine) clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing
It could be that since they are incapable of managing they do not inherit. What I was after was an example, that would disprove the theory. One or two will suffice.
-
Salaam,
Because of this thread I wanted to study this subject.
But I got stuck already in the beginning of the verse.
I don?t understand why is translated everywhere as 2/3.
From other words I learned that when a couple is mentioned it finishes with ?ayni?.
So I expected here ?thulathayni? instead of ?thulathaa?.Also please check verse 7320
"... "
2 times the word thulatha is mentioned first time it?s translated as 2/3 and second time as 1/3. Does anybody know why?here are the other occurences from the corpusquran site
Nominal
(1) Noun
(41115) thuluth two thirds
(41142) l-thuluthu (is) one third
(41273) l-thuluthi the third
(417630) l-thuluthni two thirds
(73208 ) thuluthayi two-thirds(2) Time adverb
(732011) wathuluthahu and a third of itSalaam,
Bender -
It is a dual noun with Noon dropped for reason of being first-annexed noun of Possessive Phrase, Ma-Relative Pronoun is the Annexer.
Salaam brother,
I am not sure if I understood correctly.
What is the difference then with 4176 "... ..." looks to me almost the same.
and why is in 7320 no Noen?
7320 "... "Do you know any similar ayaat where this Noen is missing?
Salaam and thanks,
Bender -
This is Possessive Phrase, therefore following the rule the Noon- of dual noun is dropped as is dropped the Noon of plural in such construction. This is same word -two third. It is Nominative indicated by alif. When it is genitive you see it since it is preceded by Preposition. is the sign of genitive. Here too Noon of dual is dropped because of Possessive construct.
is singular in Possessive Phrase.
I hope it clarifies.
