Inheritance according to Qur?an
-
Salaam Mazhar, there is no concept of an adopted son in Qur'an...
335 and call ye them to fathers theirs it more just near the god so if not know ye of fathers theirs so brethren yours in the practice
Salamun alaika
Yes I know adopted son is not son he is brother in Deen islam but is also amongst beneficiaries
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.033c.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.033d.gif
Would you not like to give those mentioned here some share as is directed by Allah to give them? -
so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above two (f/d) so for them (f/p i.e. 3+) third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left
Above two means three, four or more.
Itself means three women or more than three women.
"Over two" is thus redundant according to this translation.
-
Salamun alaika
Yes I know adopted son is not son he is brother in Deen islam but is also amongst beneficiaries
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.033c.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.033d.gif
Would you not like to give those mentioned here some share as is directed by Allah to give them?Peace Mazhar, exactly where does it say adopted are direct heirs?
432 and not covet ye of what favor the god with it some you over others to the menfolk share from what earned they of and to the womenfolk share from what earned they and ask ye of the god from bounty his surely the god be in every thing knowledgeable 433 and to each made we heirs from what left the parents and the close relatives and the ones pledged right hands/oaths yours so give ye them share theirs surely the god be on each thing witness of
Likewise "brethren" includes everyone even those at war and repent which one is free to give after they inherit...
911 so if repented they of and guard they of the prayer and give they of the recompense alms so brethren yours in the practice and we explain the signs to people are knowing
Above two means three, four or more.
Itself means three women or more than three women.
"Over two" is thus redundant according to this translation.
Yes above two (> 2) means three or more (3+) and it cannot ever mean exactly two.
Exactly two is written thus...
4176 .... so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
-
Hence below is the only two attribute definition which does not contradict!
IF kalala no spouse & no daughter/s! (412 if son else use 4176 no child)
1/6 mother + 1/3 father + 1/2 (4176) sister/s = 1This also contradicts
In 4176 if two sisters the portion is two third. -
Yes above two (> 2) means three or more (3+) and it cannot ever mean exactly two.
Exactly two is written thus...
4176 .... so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
But what does "over two" means and what is the need to write two unnecessary words when the word Nisa itself means three or more women?
-
This also contradicts
In 4176 if two sisters the portion is two third.Not two sisters -- read without verse numbers getting in the way.
If 3+ daughters
411 ... so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (f) so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what leftIf exactly 2 daughters
4176 ... if not yakun that be for her waladun/offspring (child) so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)If exactly 1 daughter
411 and if knat/be she (f/s) widatan/one (f/s) so for her the halfBut what does "over two" means and what is the need to write two unnecessary words when the word Nisa itself means three or more women?
It clarifies depends on context which nisa can pertain to 1+ as example any combination 1+ males and 1+ females...
361 so from argues you in it from after what came you from the knowledge so say come let sons ours and sons yours and womenfolk ours and womenfolk yours ...
4176 ... and if kn /be they of (2+) ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine) shows the god for you lest stray ye of and the god in every thing knower
-
If you guys may excuse me for it, I find these inheritance laws pretty much nonsensical. Trying to stuff in mathematical ratios as best as possible within the weird fractions, and extremely unjust at times, having a degree of sexism and not much regard for how things work in reality. One thing I appreciate is the laws giving some priority to parents.
Frankly overall I would expect a God to come up with better than this. An educated adult who have good knowledge of the real world would come up with better laws than these type of laws in the Quran.
-
If exactly 2 daughters
4176 ... if not yakun that be for her waladun/offspring (child) so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)Dear, recheck
There is no mention of daughter in 4176. It is about a sister, two sisters, siblings comprising men and women. -
If you guys may excuse me for it, I find these inheritance laws pretty much nonsensical.
Peace -- you are excused. What is nonsensical are god was born absurdities by missionary trolls.
Dear, recheck
There is no mention of daughter in 4176. It is about a sister, two sisters, siblings comprising men and women.Dear, is not child mentioned twice in the verse?
4176 ... and he inheritor hers if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child) so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
Likewise if two sisters explain how to distribute exactly two daughters (where are instructions?) and 3+ sisters no child?
411
so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3*2=2/3) what leftand if knat/be she (f/s) widatan/one (f/s) so for her the half
Lane, An Arabic English Lexicon
? thus one says, (Mgh, Msb) i. e. Ten is above nine; meaning ten exceeds nine
... also, in the Kur iii. 12], (Mgh, Msb) exceeding two -
@Noon waalqalami
Peace -- you are excused. What is nonsensical are god was born absurdities by missionary trolls.
Um, what do you mean? You think I am a Christian? I am a woman born in a quite devout Sunni Muslim family. I gave my O Level London Board exam in Islamic Studies too. Just because my opinions may coincide with Christian ones, you would say I am a Christian? Oh man.
This seems to be quite common. A person who criticizes Islam may immediately be labeled as a Christian in disguise, or a person working for the Jews, or never tasted the sweetness of faith in their hearts while being a Muslim, or being grappled by Shaytan. In my case all of these are false. I am simply a truth seeker. And I try to give my honest opinions in several matters. I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.
Noon, I know you spend a lot of time trying to figure out these quranic ayahs letter by letter. I do not criticize your work. I appreciate your will and your intellect. I criticize the writer behind these verses, who would give instructions which make no sense in a civilized progressive world which acknowledges human rights, and is sexist and unrealistic in the share-giving. Surely a just, compassionate and merciful God would have had come up with better than this? Instead of creating such laws and carving them in stone for eternity?
Which is what questions me on the whole scripture on it's authenticity on it's divinity. Or at least whether the Arabic language was ever properly interpreted as was supposed to be. The Old Testament faced distortions on God's word, on being misinterpreted, I am suspecting the Quran may have gone through similar phase as well, however disappointing that may sound to us Muslims.
Peace.
-
Noon, I know you spend a lot of time trying to figure out these quranic ayahs letter by letter. I do not criticize your work. I appreciate your will and your intellect. I criticize the writer behind these verses, who would give instructions which make no sense in a civilized progressive world which acknowledges human rights, and is sexist and unrealistic in the share-giving. Surely a just, compassionate and merciful God would have had come up with better than this? Instead of creating such laws and carving them in stone for eternity?
Peace Samira1234 -- which are sexist and unrealistic "from after a will one dictates believes is fair" or if one neglects duty to write a will?
411
instructs you the god in awldikum/offspring yours lildhakari/to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above two (f/d) so for them (f/p i.e. 3+) third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left
and if knat/be she (f/s) widatan/one (f/s) so for her al-ni'fu/the half
wali-abawayhi/and to parents dual said person to each one from them dual the sixth from what left if kna/be (m/s) for said person waladun/offspring (son) so if not yakun that be for said person waladun/offspring (child) wawarithahu/and bestows to inherit said person parents dual said person so to mother said person the third so if kna/be (s/m) for said person ikh'watun/brother so to mother said person the sixth from after will instructs in it or judgment
fathers yours and sons yours not thou knowing which of them closer to you benefit of obligation from the god surely the god be knowledgeable wisdom of
412
and for you half what left azwjukum/spouses yours if not yakun that be for them waladun/offspring (child) so if kna/be (m/s) for them waladun/offspring (son) so for you the fourth from what left they from after will made they in it or judgmentand for them the fourth from what left you if not yakun that be for you waladun/offspring (child) so if kna/be (s/m) for you waladun/offspring (son) so to them the eight from what left you from after will thou making in it or judgment
and if kna/be (m/s) rajulun/man yrathu/he bestows to inherit kalalatan (spouse-less without daughter) or im'ra-atun/woman and to said person brother or sister so to each one from them dual the sixth so if kn/be they of (2+) more from such so they partners in the third from after will instructs in it or judgment other than harmful will from the god and the god knower tolerant
4176
they seek ruling your say the god gives ruling you in al-kalalati (the spouseless without daughter) if im'ru-on/person perished not for him waladun/offspring (child) and for him sister so for her half what left and he yarithuh/he inheritor hers if not yakun that be for her waladun/offspring (child)so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
and if kn /be they of (2+) ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
shows the god for you lest/that stray ye of and the god in every thing knower
http//oi60.tinypic.com/4g2lbb.jpg
-
@Noon
Peace Samira1234 -- which are sexist and unrealistic "from after a will one dictates believes is fair" or if one neglects duty to write a will?
There are may be several reasons why a person may fail to write a will. Accidental death, being unsure over property distribution and facing a sudden death, etc. The highest priority should be given to the spouse and kids, and also a portion to parents. Here the wife gets 1/4th or even 1/8th share if she has kids. Is that fair to him as a wife? And why should a wife get half share compared to husband? That's clearly sexist. Women being frequently left vulnerable due to life situations, raising children and being homemakers, can be left more vulnerable due to these distributions.
And have you taken this portion of verse into account in your calculations
"...But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate..."
That's another example of sexism in regards to daughters.
Sons get twice that of daughters, no matter what, no matter what at all. Whether the children are married, unmarried, rich, poor, widow, etc. That's another example of sexism.
What if a person only left a spouse as a heir and nobody else? How will the distribution take place?
Seeing your fractions, I know you put a lot of work into them, but they look like you are trying to force fractions into being a complete 1, regardless of the actual justice behind the distributions.
Frankly these shares look outdated, like an ancient inheritance distribution. Bringing ancient patriarchal laws into a timeless society carved in stone. That is a form of injustice by itself.
Peace.
-
@Noon
There are may be several reasons why a person may fail to write a will. Accidental death, being unsure over property distribution and facing a sudden death, etc. The highest priority should be given to the spouse and kids, and also a portion to parents. Here the wife gets 1/4th or even 1/8th share if she has kids. Is that fair to him as a wife? And why should a wife get half share compared to husband? That's clearly sexist. Women being frequently left vulnerable due to life situations, raising children and being homemakers, can be left more vulnerable due to these distributions.
Yes fair, men have responsibility to support women and wife may re-marry thus major portion is left to children.
And have you taken this portion of verse into account in your calculations
"...But if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate..."
Yes I've taken into account "every" combination including these three situations...
- and if be she (f/s) wahidatan/one (f/s) so for her the half
- so if be dual (f/d) ith'natayni/two (f/d) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
- so if be (f/p) nisaan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (f) so for them third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left
That's another example of sexism in regards to daughters.
What's sexist about daughters alone getting major share?
Sons get twice that of daughters, no matter what, no matter what at all. Whether the children are married, unmarried, rich, poor, widow, etc. That's another example of sexism.
Correct, sons are responsible for their mother and/or their sisters until they marry.
Again, if don't like it then don't be lazy with excuses write a will, a partial will, etc.What if a person only left a spouse as a heir and nobody else? How will the distribution take place?
Distribution is same if only son or only mother or only father or only sister or only brother; sole inheritor receives the whole; none to contest; no need for distribution laws; to divide something needs minimum two participants.
Seeing your fractions, I know you put a lot of work into them, but they look like you are trying to force fractions into being a complete 1, regardless of the actual justice behind the distributions.
Frankly these shares look outdated, like an ancient inheritance distribution. Bringing ancient patriarchal laws into a timeless society carved in stone. That is a form of injustice by itself.
Please show an example I'm not adhering to the text and forcing the whole?
What's modern justice women portrayed as sex objects and forced to work?Peace
-
4176 ... and he inheritor hers if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child) so if knat/be dual ith'natayni/two (i.e. daughters) so to them dual (f/d) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) from what left
Dear, there is no daughter in 4176. Daughter and daughters are mentioned in 411.
It is about sisters
-
Dear, there is no daughter in 4176. Daughter and daughters are mentioned in 411.
It is about sisters
Dear Mazhar,
Why assume "the two sisters" written thus al-ukh'tayni
When it clearly states -- IF NO CHILD ELSE IF TWO FEMALES?
if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child)
else if knat/be dual (f) ith'natayni/two femalesAgain, research exactly "two daughters" and "three or more sisters" and "two or more brothers" no child?
-
Dear Mazhar,
Why assume "the two sisters" written thus al-ukh'tayni
When it clearly states -- IF NO CHILD ELSE IF TWO FEMALES?
if not that be for her waladun/offspring (child)
else if knat/be dual (f) ith'natayni/two femalesAgain, research exactly "two daughters" and "three or more sisters" and "two or more brothers" no child?
two sisters is not assumption; two daughters is certainly assumption. Firstly a man-kalala died without a surviving son but one sister is surviving who gets half; similarly if the deceased were this sister without a son his brother will get half. And in case instead of one sister they were two sisters of this man the share will be two third; and if they were brothers and sisters in plural number the share will remain two third and distributed in ratio 21.
Particle Fa connects the sentence with single sister sentence.Dear Noon, please see the difference
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.12f.gif
compare with 4176
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.176d.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.176PPP.gif
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.176PPQ.gif -
@Noon
Yes fair, men have responsibility to support women and wife may re-marry thus major portion is left to children.
That's one-sided reasoning being used here. What about cases where the daughters are grown, can support themselves or get married and the mother is old and/or disabled (like my family's case)? Mother deserves at least quarter to half share, isn't it? That is why a fairer share for everyone should be there to prevent severe injustice for all potential cases.
We live in a Sunni country so writing a will is difficult here. So we have to abide by the Divine Law.
sole inheritor receives the whole; none to contest; no need for distribution laws; to divide something needs minimum two participants.
Where did you get that from? Is it from the Quran itself?
Peace.
-
That's one-sided reasoning being used here. What about cases where the daughters are grown, can support themselves or get married and the mother is old and/or disabled (like my family's case)? Mother deserves at least quarter to half share, isn't it? That is why a fairer share for everyone should be there to prevent severe injustice for all potential cases.
We live in a Sunni country so writing a will is difficult here. So we have to abide by the Divine Law.
Salamun alaiki.
- Grand Qur'aan is for entire humanity in time line; for men of ordinary prudence, as well for scholars and intelligentsia. Therefore, all its injunctions regarding conduct and relationships need necessarily be simple and understandable for majority, who understand simple mathematics but not advanced calculators and algebra etc. Therefore, we need not act like Diophantus, Hero of Alexandria, or al-Khw?rizm? to understand the injunctions given in the Qur'aan about division and distribution of inheritance since it is mentioned succinctly and explicitly in simple terms. The legal stakeholders for whom Allah the Exalted has apportioned mandatory shares in inheritance are the following
(a) Off-springs of parents;
(b) Parents of offsprings;
(c) Spouses;
(3) Siblings; brothers and sisters
Other blood relatives like grand progeny and adopted or under patronage collateral child-person are not allocated any share but it is left to the discretion of deceased to bequeath for them in the left over.
Inheritance from siblings when died kalala]Inheritance Grand Qur'aan, disapproving patrilineal inheritance, declared daughter not Son as the central theme of Inheritance
-
Hello Mazhar,
If the Quran is supposed to be a timeless piece of guidance for all mankind, reality should also reflect the result of such guidance as well. As in the implementation of the Quran should produce good fruit in society as well, and no solid injustice being caused to any party for whichever case, no matter what reasoning is applied. But then, I see the reverse being true in several of cases. Such as in the case of inheritance. If it was simply said in the Quran that off-springs, spouses, parents and potentially siblings (for absence of the immediate family) are to inherit shares and left at it, it would have been good. Then societies could choose to implement the ratios by themselves however they see fit. But actually specifying fixed ratios for each in the Quran, in an unequal manner between the sexes regardless of whether the men are actually providers for the women or not, is frankly, ridiculous. This is my opinion only.
I find the Quran having a more materialistic position at times instead of a more spiritual position which is actually expected from a God. Such as this verse
314 It has been adorned for people to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.
Mentioning desire of women and of having sons, and that they are made as the enjoyment of this world, is incredibly misogynistic. The verse should also have mentioned desire of men (which many of us women struggle from) and of having daughters as well. But then this verse takes a misogynistic and materialistic stand. There are many more verses like this which are incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic and totally unexpected from a just God. These look more like the words of men than of a God. I see similar statements being made in Hadith, but here people laughing them off and calling them evidently the made-up words by man.
If people try to defend these verses, that the desire of women is stronger in men hence mentioned singularly this way, and that people usually want sons rather than daughters, etc, then they should also try to defend the concept of hoor, and of having big-breasted companions (7833), both of the concepts which are carefully tackled around by the modern Quranist translations.
Unless such verses are completely re-translated, the Muslim world would remain forever patriarchal and misogynistic. And people would keep blaming one another for their problems rather than directly at the very source that they are trying to follow, and getting the due results.
Peace.
-
But actually specifying fixed ratios for each in the Quran, in an unequal manner between the sexes regardless of whether the men are actually providers for the women or not, is frankly, ridiculous. This is my opinion only.
The ground realities vary for different families. Leaving everything at the judgment of testator, rights of some would be at jeapardy. In inheritance discourse, there is no consideration whether the men are actually providers for the women or not. That is the subject of marriage not inheritance. Husband can inherit from the wealth of wife which obviously shows she was taking care of her own economic activities/status.