Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
On the first part of your answer I do not agree. I have been a long time turning that in my mind, and logically it makes sense the way I said, to me at least, whereas textually the the male like twice the female is exotic o estraneous. I also had taken notice of 4.176, which is different, but in that particular expression may be the same.
As to the unfairness, no. What is absolutely unfair is that women get punished with half for the heck of it on the asumption, not made int he Qur'an that in all cases the men will be angels and they will look after them better than themselves. The money given to women is consistently better spent that the money gone to males. Women spend on their family.I am old enough to have seen with my own eyes what happens with inheritance when women are desregarded. There are very good men around, but God knows as I know and many people know that to trample on women does not take a lot of trouble or effort and that it is better that the power over themselves (the women) in in their own hands (of the women) rather and in other hands.
I think inheritance has also been coloniazed by the boys hypnotic club.
Thanks for your efforts with the ma and min ma. I also thought it might be something to do with whether you take out first whatever legacies and liabilities, but same I am lost. Let us hope we well get some light on that, because it might also help on other aspects.
Salaam
-
On the first part of your answer I do not agree. I have been a long time turning that in my mind, and logically it makes sense the way I said, to me at least, whereas textually the the male like twice the female is exotic o estraneous. I also had taken notice of 4.176, which is different, but in that particular expression may be the same.
Then distribute 3 sisters and 2 brothers using your understanding apply it consistently?
4176 and if they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)As to the unfairness, no. What is absolutely unfair is that women get punished with half
They don't always get half; depends on the situation; here are a few examples they get more or share equally...
so if they were greater from that so they partners in the third
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/8 wife + 13/24 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12 son/s = 11 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 husband = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 brother/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 brother/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother/father + 1/4 husband = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/6 husband = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 13 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 (2/9 each) + 1/9 mother + 1/9 father + 1/9 husband = 1Peace
-
I am not going to distribute anything. I leave that to specialists, but that is not an argument. You cannot mix justice and mathematics. You first find out what is just and then find the mathematics to apply it.
To say that not always is less for the female really must be a joke, it is almost always. So the "almost" should compensate for the bulk of the injustice? Whom are we kidding?
In inheritance the bulk of it is from ascendants to descendants, from parents to children, so you trample there, the rest is peanuts.
So no, fundamentally the male twice as the female is not fair and it is not what the Qur'an says.
I acknowledge that there are holes in the whole set up of inheritance in my view, in your view, in evrybody's view that I know off, but I do not believe that cutting justice corners helps en solving them. We need patience and the intelligence and vision of persons like you and others and all of us who try to find as much of the truth that we can. The Qur'an, when I have got through to the end of some question has never disappointed me. It has surprised me many times, but not disappointed.
I keep hoping we get some light in the ma taraka and min ma taraka.
Salaam
-
I am not going to distribute anything. I leave that to specialists,
Then you should not have posted below unless you are ready to distribute 4176 mixed siblings...
If two, then the male takes the part like the two females
If there is only one daughter she takes half regardless of the number of males
If there are more than two they take two thirds, regardless equally of the number of males.
Therefore be consistent apply what you wrote above to all combinations of mixed siblings...
4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)You cannot mix justice and mathematics. You first find out what is just and then find the mathematics to apply it.
No, you cannot write your own book according what you think is just.
Math is oblivious to any justice and the distributions explicitly stated.
411 and 4176 does not say "to the male like share the female."To say that not always is less for the female really must be a joke, it is almost always. So the "almost" should compensate for the bulk of the injustice? Whom are we kidding?
Check for yourself how many are equal, favor male, favor female, and circumstances.
Here are all combinations again for reference; obviously sole inheritor gets the whole, no need for arbitration laws.
So no, fundamentally the male twice as the female is not fair and it is not what the Qur'an says.
Inheritance verses are clear and precise. People are free to make a will if they disagree.
411 from after a will have made in it or judgment
Peace
-
Like share THE two females is not = double than the females, That would be a twisted interpetation, an interested interpretation. Because what it indicates is that there are two concrete females who have already been attributed their part on the basis precisely that they are two, the two females, so they have their share on the basis of that proportion. The share of the male, that male that is in proportion to the two females, well he gets a share the same as the share they have got, not double, not twice their share, but the same share.
For the rest, I admire your mathematical capacity, but I do not hold it sacred. It is not part of the Qur'an.
And it is very rare that the proportion of males to females in a family be something like 1 to 10, although there are cases, but they are rare, proportions tend to be more equal. The equity is far, far far more guaranteed when the distribution is done quranically than when it is done according to the interested manipulations of those who interpret freely. Because in this case every female in the world gets punished, because every female is somebody's daughter, whereas in the proportions stated by the Qur'an, even in the extreme cases of 1 female to 10 males (?how many of those do you know?), ten males are far more capable of getting ahead and helping each other along, than if you leave one single, lonely, alone female with 1/22nd part of the whole inheritance. If the brothers, as many of them do, do not give a damn about her, she is done.
?For God's sake! Next we will want what, to sell what bridge? Everybody, universally, many, many muslims included, say that woman half the male, is not fair not because they hate islam, that is apart, but simply because that is their gut feeling. And the gut feeling usually does not lie.
Yes we may react piously and since it is holy we look for those little instances where according to the ulemas in fact, ?isn't that great! females get the same, or ?EVEN!?EVEN! more and with that we shut up because we are good girls or boys and accept the pretty status quo... Whom are we cheating?
No, the Qur'an does not say to the male twice what the female, or double the female. That is a lie. If the Qur'an wanted to say that, it would have said it. As clear as when it says you require four witnesses for something.
Males in proportion one to two females, get the same as them, not double as them. An only daughter gets half. The discourse in aya 4.11 has not changed, it continuews speaking about the children, it doesn't say if there are only daughters and no males, it doesn't. But if it is too much for us, it is our problem not the Qur'an speaking.
And I am sorry again, I am not going to distribute anything. I do not think that would be a problem. Mathematics and algebra are a pretty good tool if one knows how to use it. If by one means you cannot get a result, another means should be tried. To say you cannot and therefore you must change the Qur'an dispositions so that you can do your mathematics for me is not acceptable. Rather to have bad mathematics than injustice.
Also, you yourself recognize that we do not know what to do with ma taraka and min ma taraka, and I suspect that there are things that are still obscure. May be that will throw some light on the whole thing.
The problem is that along the centuries we have let so many accretions muddle the understanding and the clarity of the Qur'an that many times we do not see its clarity even when it is shining on our nose. We have seen that so many times!
As far as I am concerned, the "to the male twice as to the female" is a heinous lie, a treacherous act of hipnotism. There is something indeed very hypnotic to the traditional interpretations, as if they were inescapable, like fate, or sacred.
They are not, and they are escapable.
Salaam
-
No, the Qur'an does not say to the male twice what the female, or double the female. That is a lie. If the Qur'an wanted to say that, it would have said it. As clear as when it says you require four witnesses for something.
These are logically incorrect; two cannot have same result as three...
to the male like share the two females?
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=255236612to the male like share the three females?
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=8335221704176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)Above starts new case "mixed" siblings and logically this is correct...
to the male like share the female
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1957586161to the male like share the two females
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1230912497to the male like share the three females
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1029359866Peace
-
I do not get what you are trying to say.
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls.
What? He has twenty fingers?
Salaam
No, it's not about him having twenty fingers and toes. That analogy is true regardless of the number of girls.
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the one girl
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the three girlsIt's an illogical analogy when applied to sharing inheritance. Two females is used for a reason; not one, three, etc.
The boy has the same amount of money as the one girl (11 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the two girls (21 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the three girls (31 ratio)4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1230912497
Peace
-
No, it's not about him having twenty fingers and toes. That analogy is true regardless of the number of girls.
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the one girl
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the three girlsIt's an illogical analogy when applied to sharing inheritance. Two females is used for a reason; not one, three, etc.
The boy has the same amount of money as the one girl (11 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the two girls (21 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the three girls (31 ratio)4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1230912497
Peace
Of course, it is used for a reason, but the reason is to fix the part of the inheritance as a function of the number of girls, Therefore it alots first to the girls it is not, again, a male the same amount as the amount given to two girls together, it is if there are two girls he gets the same amount as them. There is a determinate article and it is the number of girls that maters. And then it continues with the case of more than two girls and then with the case of one girl and at no time in all that it suggests or hints or says that in the first case it is speaking about mixed gender and then only about one gender, it is still speaking about mixed gender.
The amount of twisting of the arabic in order to uphold "the male double the female" is fantastic. And the maths is not going to change what the Arabic says.
And the Qur'an if it wasn't a question of the shares as a function of the number of females, could have said with no trouble and no esoteric idioms that the male takes double as the female, which it doesn't say.
No matter how many cakes to cut you put in the messages, the fact that it does not say to the male double the female, but that it says the share of the male is the same as the share of the two females, it is the same as if you say the salary of that employee is the same as the salary of those two employees, it is not saying it is double, but that those emplooyees get a salary which the same as the salary of the first. not the summ of both salaries amount to the salary of the one.
But I suppose it is very hard to rennounce privilege and arabic and Qur'an will be twisted and pressed in every way so as to get what one wants to get out of it, no matter how preposterous.
It is preposterous that somebody is shocked and reject such possibility because in some very rare cases some males might get less than some female, but that the fact that all the females in existence will be skimmed of half their inheritance is taken for granted with no qualms or exclamations of it being unfair.
The problem is not in the Arabic or the maths or anything, the problem is somewhere else.
Salaam
-
Of course, it is used for a reason, but the reason is to fix the part of the inheritance as a function of the number of girls, Therefore it alots first to the girls it is not, again, a male the same amount as the amount given to two girls together, it is if there are two girls he gets the same amount as them.
Peace huruf, with that reasoning you cannot ever distribute
411 directs you The God in your children
to the male like share the two (feminine)2 daughters 2 sons
2 daughters 3 sonsNor can you distribute when parents or spouse are included above.
That is mathematical/logical proof that your reading is contradicting.4176 ? and if they were 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 KnowingPeace
-
If the distribution is as a function of the number of female daughters,
It says the male like the share of the two females, and the number of males does not matter, wht is fixed is what is alotted to the females, then what is left is alotted to the males, in whatever number.The females are the ones that are numbered, one, two, over two. So the the effects one, the male is any number of males. So the male (any number of males) is one third between them.
Or you can use proportion if they are one to two they will get the same as the two females, or if they are three, the three get the same amount as one of the females, which is what goes on when there are over two females and they get two thirds. The third that is left is for the males.
Now, please, please, please don't cringe that that would be unfair, because you are pushing all along the principle with no qualms and no trouble that to disinherit the whole feminine population is quite acceptable and no big deal, in spite of the Qur'an itself considering women generally as more vulnerable than men.
How would you find that the first care of those who are supposedly qawwamun (carers) dor the women would be to snatch as dilligently as possible any parte that might fall on the women as inheritance?
Some jokes are funny, others are not.
Salaam
-
If the distribution is as a function of the number of female daughters,
It says the male like the share of the two females, and the number of males does not matter, wht is fixed is what is alotted to the females, then what is left is alotted to the males, in whatever number.The females are the ones that are numbered, one, two, over two. So the the effects one, the male is any number of males. So the male (any number of males) is one third between them.
What I'm trying to explain is that it contradicts 4176 which does not revolve around the number of females.
It leads to unsolvable combinations. Examples2 daughters 2 sons
2 daughters 3 sons
The above with siblings (two unknowns; hence unsolvable)3 sisters 2 brothers
3 sisters 3 brothersEven with your interpretation revolving around females you still end up with male getting twice. Example
3 daughters 1 son
girls get 2/3 (2/9 each) 1 son gets 1/3 (3/9) or 1.5 times.4 daughters 1 son
girls get 2/3 (1/6 each) 1 son gets 1/3 or twice as muchYou really have to study all cases and correct interpretation cannot contradict give unsolvable results. It is the same proof for example we know the spouse or father cannot share together with siblings.
Proof
1 = father (variable) + siblings mixed 21 ratio male to female (undefined in your interpretation)
1 = y + 2x + x
1 = y + 3x (no solution without involving negative numbers (-2=y, 1=x))In conclusion to the male like share the two (feminine) is a simple 21 ratio.
Peace
-
So with the children nothing to complain about. The gretaer the number of the same sex, individually they may have less, but also they are more to help and share along. It goes the same for the males as for the females. It is fair and I think wise that precisely those who might be in a minority are better protected. That s single daughter among many males should inherit more is sensible, she is more protected. the other way around are less fvoured but still with lesser number reltively more favoured. For a measure that is general I think it is very thoughtful.
Of course, there is for all cases the possibility to make wills based on the individual needs. A general dispositions cannot fullfill individual need nor it is its purpose.
The distribution for the children I already answered that. And for the restin another forum in Spansih we hve been dealing with it, and now, as far as I can judge, I have may be a good idea of what the
ma taraka
and the
min ma taraka entails.Ma taraka is the first distribution which is stated, and min ma taraka comes after as a "correction" in the sense that what it refers to should be charged to that same first inheritance. So that from the inheritance you take out at the same time the two sixths for the parents as the parts for the twos of sisters, or the two thirds for the more than two or the half for the one girl child.
If there is left an amount without being ditributed, if the inheritors are poor it me be attributed to them in the same proportion as the same attribution, if they are well off, it can go for social purposes. That I am not inventing the Qur'an commands to do that, so either to the needy inheritors, or to the needy non natural inheritors.
I think all combinations following that pattern can be had.
If not there may be an error in interpretation of the dispositions of the Qur'an or no the right proceedure has been applied.
I uote form the spanish site
"
- Se considera que hay un solo legado inicial, que consta de la suma de la parte correspondiente a los progenitores y a la viuda.
- Sobre los 1.000? se aplica una sola cantidad de 333,33? (2 sextos) + 125? (1 octavo)
- La cantidad restante de esta operaci?n es 541,67?
- Sobre la cantidad de 541,67? se aplican 2 tercios para las f?minas y 1 tercio para los varones
"
Salaam
-
Of course, there is for all cases the possibility to make wills based on the individual needs. A general dispositions cannot fullfill individual need nor it is its purpose.
Of course!
The distribution for the children I already answered that. And for the restin another forum in Spansih we hve been dealing with it, and now, as far as I can judge, I have may be a good idea of what the
ma taraka
and the
min ma taraka entails.Ma taraka is the first distribution which is stated, and min ma taraka comes after as a "correction" in the sense that what it refers to should be charged to that same first inheritance. So that from the inheritance you take out at the same time the two sixths for the parents as the parts for the twos of sisters, or the two thirds for the more than two or the half for the one girl child.
If there is left an amount without being ditributed, if the inheritors are poor it me be attributed to them in the same proportion as the same attribution, if they are well off, it can go for social purposes. That I am not inventing the Qur'an commands to do that, so either to the needy inheritors, or to the needy non natural inheritors.
I think all combinations following that pattern can be had.
If not there may be an error in interpretation of the dispositions of the Qur'an or no the right proceedure has been applied.
I uote form the spanish site
"
- Se considera que hay un solo legado inicial, que consta de la suma de la parte correspondiente a los progenitores y a la viuda.
- Sobre los 1.000? se aplica una sola cantidad de 333,33? (2 sextos) + 125? (1 octavo)
- La cantidad restante de esta operaci?n es 541,67?
- Sobre la cantidad de 541,67? se aplican 2 tercios para las f?minas y 1 tercio para los varones
"
Salaam
OK to translate, case is parents, wife, 3+ daughters, 2+ sons
1 - 1/3 parents (2/6 x 1000 = 333.33) - 1/8 wife (?1000 x 1/8 = 125) = 13/24 to children (1000 x 13/24 = 541.67)
children 541.67
541.67 x 2/3 = 361.113 to girls
541.67 x 1/3 = 180.557 to boysProblema/contradiccion numero uno -- take out the sons try distributing...
3 daughters, parents, wife?
3 daughters, mother?
3 daughters, sister?Problema/contradiccion numero dos -- be consistent with 4176 where 1/2 and 2/3 is not applicable nor are ma/what taraka/left or mimma/from what tarakna/left mentioned; it's clearly about mixed siblings and we are only given this function...
4176... so to the male like share the two (feminine)
How for example using only the above to distribute 3 sisters and 2 brothers?
Interesting discussion guys!! I'm going to read this thread from the beginning and see what I can deduce.
Gracias!
Paz!
-
Salam, Peace, Nun, Huruf, all,
just a question that come to me, I don't know if you already looked at it or maybe discussed it before
In the verses regarding inheritence, in the scenario where the husband die, and leave behind wife and children, the usual scenario is having one wife and children. Do we have any case where verses speak about 2, 3, 4 wives, is it 1/8 each etc...
Does the verse say 3-"To the wife...1/8" or "To wives ...1/8"This can help to conclude if "polygamy" was the default or not.
Thanks
-
Salam, Peace, Nun, Huruf, all,
just a question that come to me, I don't know if you already looked at it or maybe discussed it before
In the verses regarding inheritence, in the scenario where the husband die, and leave behind wife and children, the usual scenario is having one wife and children. Do we have any case where verses speak about 2, 3, 4 wives, is it 1/8 each etc...
Does the verse say 3-"To the wife...1/8" or "To wives ...1/8"This can help to conclude if "polygamy" was the default or not.
Thanks
Peace herbman,
It cannot be confirmed since verses addresses the community as a whole (plural).
412
and for you (masculine plural) half what left your spouses
and for them (feminine plural) the fourth from what you left (plural)Having multiple wives is clear since prohibition of marrying sisters is stated.
423
prohibited onto you ...
and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passedThis is basic logic...
IF marrying multiple sisters = FALSE
THEN marrying non-sisters = TRUEDistribution same any like category inheritors (e.g. sons) they all share evenly.
2 wives, 2 sons
1 - 1/8 wives (1/16 each) = 7/8 sons (7/16 each)
-
Peace herbman,
Notice the switch " to them" with " to you" otherwise the math would not work.
Example 4 wives, no child, each wife would get 1/4, leaves nothing for the parents.412
and to you half what left your spouses if not was to them waladun/offspring/child
so if kana/is (masculine) to them walad (if to deceased/wife a male child/born) so to you the fourthand to them the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/offspring/child
so if kana/is (masculine) to you walad (if to deceased/husband a male child/born) so to them (feminine plural) the eightFew more examples...
wife-1 (son)
wife-2 (son)
wife-3 (no child)
wife-4 (no child)
if son = true
if no child = false
wives share = 1/8 fixed
parent share = 1/6 fixed
1 - 1/3 parents - 1/8 wives = 13/24 sonswife-1 (daughter)
wife-2 (no child)
wife-3 (no child)
wife-4 (no child)
if son = false
if no child = false
wives share = variable
1 - 1/2 daughter = 1/2 wives (1/8 each)wife-1 (son)
wife-2 (daughter)
wife-3 (no child)
wife-4 (no child)
if son = true
if no child = false
wives share = 1/8 fixed
1 - 1/8 wives = 7/8 children (7/24 daughter + 7/12 son) 21 ratio male to female -
Hi guys,
I think I finally worked out inheritance.
https//drive.google.com/file/d/0B6KVs7S_G7YEQkN5Y3RlZmJzOFE/edit?usp=sharing
Here is a simple questionnaire that highlights the respective ayat related to your situation.
Answer the 5 questions, Get your answer.
Let me know if there are any problems....Been testing it seems to work fine.
Go to File and press download (doesnt work on the google drive, requires conditional formatting)
I need all the feedback I can get. Test it and tell me if you find errors.