Inheritance: Daughter not Son is the central theme of Inheritance.
-
In just two preceding lengthy posts that is what is explained. Pl be attentive what is stated therein.
I did read and you did not answer rather you wrote more errors on distributions for siblings as well.
Dying wealthy person is given discretion to bequeath for parents and near blood relatives. This aspect is seldom taken care while discussing this subject.
Daughter not Son is the central theme of Inheritance
The whole topic above starts to error once you get to the actual inheritance verses when you wrongly allocate 2/3 which is only to be applied if females (no males) over two... this is a very clear verse...
411 so if are (feminine plural) nisa above two falahunna so to them (feminine plural) thulutha 2/3
This is exactly clear and correct according to Qur'an.
411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine)
1 daughter 2 sons
1/5 (1 daughter) + 4/5 (2 sons, 2/5 each) = 14176 and if they were siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)
1 sister 2 brothers
1/5 (1 sister) + 4/5 (2 brothers, 2/5 each) = 1clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing
I have work to do and leave you in peace!
-
4176 and if they were siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)
1 sister 2 brothers
1/5 (1 sister) + 4/5 (2 brothers, 2/5 each) = 1But where did you find in this sentence that one sister and two brothers own hundred percent of the inheritance?
The above sentence is descriptive only defining , a plural noun. Whenvever there is combination, the base share is that of feminine to start with. Share of two sisters is two third. It will not enhance when they are composite , otherwise a plural noun signifying brothers; a sister and brother, a sister two brothers or exceeding that. -
4176 and if they were siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)
The Red Waw is translated as "they", but to whom this "they" refers?
This Waw is the Subject of Verb Kana. Its Predicate is evident from its accusative state. It is plural, and followed by both in accusative state is disambiguation clause called . This clarifies that if sisters are in the state of being plural alongwith brothers, the distribution of the allocated 2/3 shall be on the basis of two feminine shares going to a male. -
4176 and if they were siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)
The Red Waw is translated as "they", but to whom this "they" refers?
This Waw is the Subject of Verb Kana. Its Predicate is evident from its accusative state. It is plural, and followed by both in accusative state is disambiguation clause called . This clarifies that if sisters are in the state of being plural alongwith brothers, the distribution of the allocated 2/3 shall be on the basis of two feminine shares going to a male.Noon
In the above part of Ayah where is the 2/3 part of inheritance allocated for them sincle only a principle is given?
-
Noon
In the above part of Ayah where is the 2/3 part of inheritance allocated for them sincle only a principle is given?
Nowhere, 2/3 was prior case IF two sisters which you missed switch case AND IF siblings mixed 21 ratio male to female...
4176 so IF kanata/they were (feminine) two so to them the 2/3 from what left
AND IF kanu ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa 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
-
Hi guys,
I appreciate the effort, but this whole inheritance is very confusing to me. Is there anything in Quran which states I can't just make a will and distribute the way I feel is best? I looked and I did not see anything, but I am not as versed as most of you.
I have (so far ) 1 daughter and 2 sons. (and my hubby of course) After my husband, I have everything split up even amongst my children, regardless of gender. I guess I don't understand why the female get less than the male.
Hi Indelwyn,
The reason that women got less in those days was very simple; men were providing for women. So the reason men got more was to create a balance. But today, the situation has changed dramatically. A lot of women work and earn money too, so this rule is not set in stone. This is the opinion of a reputable scholar in Turkey. I hope I didn't forget anything, but I remember him saying this. Although this scholar accepts hadith, he rejects basically everything that contradicts the Qur'an, or adds to/subtract from it.
-
Nowhere, 2/3 was prior case IF two sisters which you missed switch case AND IF siblings mixed 21 ratio male to female...
4176 so IF kanata/they were (feminine) two so to them the 2/3 from what left
AND IF kanu ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa 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
Good.
Kanoo is masculine plural Verb. is plural masculine noun, which can denote combined sisters and brothers if clarified in the text. Here it is described after conjunct Waw with only feminines. Unlike that needs Tameez clause, Aaulad includes daughters and sons. In 411 Aaulad is mentioned first and then feminines preceded by the same principle which is mentioned afterwards in 4176. Fa in 411 is much clearer and stronger conjunct. All Aaulad will get only 2/3 if the share exceeds two feminines.
-
Good.
Kanoo is masculine plural Verb. is plural masculine noun, which can denote combined sisters and brothers if clarified in the text. Here it is described after conjunct Waw with only feminines. Unlike that needs Tameez clause, Aaulad includes daughters and sons. In 411 Aaulad is mentioned first and then feminines preceded by the same principle which is mentioned afterwards in 4176. Fa in 411 is much clearer and stronger conjunct. All Aaulad will get only 2/3 if the share exceeds two feminines.
What are you ranting again? It says AND IF mixed siblings it's 21 ratio male to female!
It's exactly the same 21 ratio to mixed children "to the male like share the two (feminine)"
How the heck can you allocate 2/3 to males and females when it clearly says falahunna/so to them (feminine) 2/3!
What you are proposing is ridiculous!
-
Hi Indelwyn,
The reason that women got less in those days was very simple; men were providing for women. So the reason men got more was to create a balance. But today, the situation has changed dramatically. A lot of women work and earn money too, so this rule is not set in stone. This is the opinion of a reputable scholar in Turkey. I hope I didn't forget anything, but I remember him saying this. Although this scholar accepts hadith, he rejects basically everything that contradicts the Qur'an, or adds to/subtract from it.
Peace, they don't always get less and there situations where they get equal or more.
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 son/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father = 11 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s share equally) = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 husband = 1
1/4 wife + 3/8 mother + 3/8 father = 1
-
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 045105 PM
Good.Kanoo is masculine plural Verb. is plural masculine noun, which can denote combined sisters and brothers if clarified in the text. Here it is described after conjunct Waw with only feminines. Unlike that needs Tameez clause, Aaulad includes daughters and sons. In 411 Aaulad is mentioned first and then feminines preceded by the same principle which is mentioned afterwards in 4176. Fa in 411 is much clearer and stronger conjunct. All Aaulad will get only 2/3 if the share exceeds two feminines.
What are you ranting again? It says AND IF mixed siblings it's 21 ratio male to female!
It's exactly the same 21 ratio to mixed children "to the male like share the two (feminine)"
How the heck can you allocate 2/3 to males and females when it clearly says falahunna/so to them (feminine) 2/3!
What you are proposing is ridiculous!
This is exactly what is denoted by ranting. Now you have forgotten presence of Waw conjunction. Where do you find that if siblings are not only sisters but include brothers also, they will get hundred percent of inheritance? This is the question needing legality which you nowhere find necessitating ranting.
4176 so IF kanata/they were (feminine) two so to them the 2/3 from what left
AND IF kanu ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine) .
-
This is exactly what is denoted by ranting. Now you have forgotten presence of Waw conjunction. Where do you find that if siblings are not only sisters but include brothers also, they will get hundred percent of inheritance? This is the question needing legality which you nowhere find necessitating ranting.
I strongly advise you to lay off this subject and go play with that premarital sex thread; you are utterly a clueless ranter!
4176 they seek your ruling say The God gives you a ruling in al-kalalah (the fatherless and spouseless; deceased left no crown/head of household)
if person died is not to person waladun/offspring/child and has sister so to her half what left and he inherits it if not was to her waladun/offspring/child
ELSE IF they were two (feminine) so to them the 2/3 from what left
AND IF they were ikh'watun/siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)
1 sister 1/2 + 1/2 mother = 100%
2 sisters 2/3 (1/3 each) + 1/3 mother = 100%
3 sisters (1/4 each x 3) + 1/4 mother = 100%sister/s + brother/s distribute at 21 ratio male to female = 100%
1/6 mother + 5/6 (sister/s + brother/s) distribute at 21 ratio male to female = 100% -
I strongly advise you to lay off this subject and go play with that premarital sex thread; you are utterly a clueless ranter!
4176 they seek your ruling say The God gives you a ruling in al-kalalah (the fatherless and spouseless; deceased left no crown/head of household)
if person died is not to person waladun/offspring/child and has sister so to her half what left and he inherits it if not was to her waladun/offspring/child
ELSE IF they were two (feminine) so to them the 2/3 from what left
AND IF they were ikh'watun/siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)
1 sister 1/2 + 1/2 mother = 100%
2 sisters 2/3 (1/3 each) + 1/3 mother = 100%
3 sisters (1/4 each x 3) + 1/4 mother = 100%sister/s + brother/s distribute at 21 ratio male to female = 100%
1/6 mother + 5/6 (sister/s + brother/s) distribute at 21 ratio male to female = 100%You simply avoid the question since you have no answer and keep repeating irrelevant figures.
Without relating authority you keep adding speculative figures to make hundred percent by making it sometimes 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6 for mother. 1/6 for mother in case of living siblings is when father is also living told in 411. For your mathemtatic equation you have killed him in the last equation. -
You simply avoid the question since you have no answer and keep repeating irrelevant figures.
Without relating authority you keep adding speculative figures to make hundred percent by making it sometimes 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6 for mother. 1/6 for mother in case of living siblings is when father is also living told in 411. For your mathemtatic equation you have killed him in the last equation.That is false; I did not kill him; it means the father cannot inherit with siblings; they get nothing if father is present.
It causes numerous contradictions the same if spouse is alive which is also non-kalalah case; siblings get nothing!Example case mother, father, sister, brother is proven NOT solvable!
Likewise case father, sister, brother is proven NOT solvable!father, sister/s, brother/s (unsolvable)
1 = father (variable) + siblings 21 ratio male to female
1 = y + 2x + x
1 = y + 3x (no solution exists without negative numbers (-2=y, 1=x))I'll advise you once again, you are clueless on this simple math/logic and you should stay away from this subject go play with grammar definitions where you can hide since the more you write the greater you make yourself look ridiculously absurd!
-
Quote from Mazhar on Today at 092148 AM
You simply avoid the question since you have no answer and keep repeating irrelevant figures.
Without relating authority you keep adding speculative figures to make hundred percent by making it sometimes 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6 for mother. 1/6 for mother in case of living siblings is when father is also living told in 411. For your mathemtatic equation you have killed him in the last equation.That is false; I did not kill him; it means the father cannot inherit with siblings; they get nothing if father is present.
You are still running away from the question. 1/6 for mother is mentioned only when father is also living. And that is a Non Kalala case. How can you bring that with Kalala and start allocating at your own discretion without the support of legal provision.
For every allocation, there must be a legal provision coverage otherwise it is meaningless utterence. You do not have legal provision to quote for your stance.
-
You are still running away from the question. 1/6 for mother is mentioned only when father is also living. And that is a Non Kalala case. How can you bring that with Kalala and start allocating at your own discretion without the support of legal provision.
For every allocation, there must be a legal provision coverage otherwise it is meaningless utterence. You do not have legal provision to quote for your stance.
I'm not running away from anything and the fact is siblings ONLY inherit if kalalah (i.e. no father/spouse) therefore.
Now it's you who cannot apply Qur'an in practice if your life depended on it and only rant gibberish and run away!You can simply prove me wrong and distribute according to Qur'an (tell us which verses you are using)
mother, father, wife, 1 daughter, 1 son, 1 sister, 1 brother
OK let's go, prove me wrong and I'll thank you; people are waiting for your answer -- please?
-
Cant we just let people themselves decide who they want to inherit after them ?? If someone wants to give all his property to his daughter and nothing to his son, then let him.
Peace
Allah the Exalted has given him the authority to bequeath in respect of part of his wealth at the time of death. But Noon wishes to take it away to keep his mathematics hundred percent.
He can transfer the title of his entire wealth to whomever he wishes during his life time, thereby, he will be leaving nothing as inheritance since that wealth was no more owned by him in case of his death. However, he will make himself as unjust person by giving his wealth to only one of his relative ignoring the rights of others. -
Cant we just let people themselves decide who they want to inherit after them ?? If someone wants to give all his property to his daughter and nothing to his son, then let him.
Peace
Peace -- that is always the case, one can make out a will at anytime.
We are talking case no will the inheritance verses kick in to arbitrate.Mazhar -- people are still waiting for your answer to the above case.
-
Allah the Exalted has given him the authority to bequeath in respect of part of his wealth at the time of death. But Noon wishes to take it away to keep his mathematics hundred percent.
He can transfer the title of his entire wealth to whomever he wishes during his life time, thereby, he will be leaving nothing as inheritance since that wealth was no more owned by him in case of his death. However, he will make himself as unjust person by giving his wealth to only one of his relative ignoring the rights of others.He would also be unjust if he gave more of his wealth to one relative than the other. If someone wants to giv everything to his daughter and not his son than why is that a problem ? Isn't he the owner ?
And I actually agree more with noon here than you. You dont really answer his questions. Somehow you seem have very "Sunni" ideas .