Is this inheritance article correct?
-
It's flipping the coin the other way around for some weird reasons.
Peace, typically girls get equal share or more and odd for centuries people read 3+ = 2 and exactly 2 = 3+ as well.
How is it flipping the the coin to give the same amount the three of two daughters and a son?
Peace, slight error (2) daughters and (1) son don't each get equal share unless there is a will of course; see below you'll run into consistency issue when applying 3+ sisters 4176 using exactly the same distribution.
http//oi63.tinypic.com/iglocn.jpg
-
Peace, slight error (2) daughters and (1) son don't each get equal share unless there is a will of course; see below you'll run into consistency issue when applying 3+ sisters 4176 using exactly the same distribution.
http//oi63.tinypic.com/iglocn.jpg
I do not get what you are trying to say.
Salaam
-
I do not get what you are trying to say.
Salaam
i think what huruf is saying that the first picture is wrong. by saying 'male like the two females" doesn't mean double it infact means same as what each would get.
ofcourse this is beyond my scope ... i leave this upto the professionals. however i do not like this fixed thing of "male double the female' because if you read closely that is not what the verse says. ahhhhh this is so confusing im going to put it behind me, but i trust hurufs explanation! handshake ignore
like i mentioned in my reply to bender, the logic that a man should get more doesnt make sense to me personally because men always have an income, where up until the 21st centuary most women infact had no income thus it makes sense to me that Allah is actually giving them more, but people are just misreading and misinterpreting it to give men more offtopic brickwall
ofcourse again, i dont wanna start a debate cuz this is just my speculation and i will leave the brainy work upto huruf! hmm !
-
No, you should not, but if at all I would be "la sabia".
Salaam
haha sorry my spanish is rough. &
Peace sun
-
I do not get what you are trying to say.
Need to apply consistently same distribution 4176 i.e. 3+ females...
411 to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 son/s = like the two females
NOT
2/3 two daughters (1/3 each); 1/3 son/s
4176 ? and if be they of ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)3/5 three sisters (1/5 each); 2/5 brother/s = like the two females
2/3 four sisters (1/6 each); 1/3 brother/s = like the two females
5/7 five sisters (1/7 each); 2/7 brother/s = like the two femaleshttp//oi65.tinypic.com/689ekn.jpg
Salaam
-
How is it flipping the the coin to give the same amount the three of two daughters and a son?
So if women are not given hal the male but the same amount it is flipping the coin? I am ashtounded.
Salaam
$90 dollars 3 females and 10 males
according to your understanding or at least how I understand what you wrote will be split like this
3 females get $60 and 10 males get $30 ($20/f and $3/m)But on the other hand if there is 1 male and 3 females then the females still get $20 each but the male does not get $30 but equal to what the females get thus also $20, why and what happens with the $10?
OF COURSE this is how I understood your posts in this thread and in another thread some days ago.
If you meant something else please share your understanding how things should be split in the example I gave, thus $90 and 3 females and 10 males.
And $90 and 1 male and 3 females. -
Salam Bender
If you really think of it......
Many traditionalists support the fact that men get more because men need to spend on women...
But if you think of it up until the 21st century everywhere around the world men earned and women stayed at home. A woman's entire livelihood was dependant on her husband. Very rare for a woman to earn.. so doesn't it make MORE sense for it to be pro woman and for women to get more? I mean since men are going to get money by earning and women aren't they could use extra money as support and protection if anything ever happened to their breadwinner.
How easily you find excuses when there is an advantage for you.
I just know so many women who stayed in abusive relationships because they had no finances to escape (not just muslim women women everywhere). It just makes more sense for God to wanna give her an extra protection rather than less... so I'm hoping huruf the wise yay bravo rotfl is correct.
Ok that's clear.
But fortunately God is not a sexist. -
How easily you find excuses when there is an advantage for you.
Ok that's clear.
But fortunately God is not a sexist.but men get more money .... haha one would call that sexist. no divine being could be sexist. only humans are.
this is how it is
- men should get more money because they provide for their family as a duty (although ive yet to meet one working woman who doesnt spend on her family)
or
- women should get more money since women (atleast before the 20th century ) tend to have no income so they need a safety net. infact even when women do earn they tend to earn less than men.
its not an argument, its just two sides of the coin and i just shared my opinion. Please don't say things like that because honestly its a salafi's job to downplay other peoples opinions and speculations, a free minder should be open to hear from all.
-
Hi,
How should $90 be split between 3f and 10m in your model, and how with 3f and 1m?
Hi Bender,
Children
411 ? so if be/are (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (females)
so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 * 2 = 2/3) what left2/3 * $90 = $60 three daughters (2/9 * $90 = $20 each)
1/3 * $90 = $30 ten sons ($3 each)OR
1/3 * $90 = $30 son
Siblings (i.e. kalala case no spouse; no children)
4176 ? and if be they of ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)3/5 * $90 = $54 three sisters (1/5 * $90 = $18 each)
2/5 * $90 = $36 ten brothers ($3.6 each)OR
2/5 * $90 = $36 brother
-
but men get more money .... haha one would call that sexist.
Where you come from does not represent the world.
And trying to change it the other way around in favor of women is just the same religion, just a gender switch.
But lets act we do not see that, lets close our eyesno divine being could be sexist. only humans are.
this is how it is
- men should get more money because they provide for their family as a duty (although ive yet to meet one working woman who doesnt spend on her family)
or
- women should get more money since women (atleast before the 20th century ) tend to have no income so they need a safety net. infact even when women do earn they tend to earn less than men.
its not an argument, its just two sides of the coin and i just shared my opinion.
You say "no divine being could be sexist" and then you give 2 sexist models.
So, how could both of them be from God? Like I said God is not a sexist, both are nonsense.Please don't say things like that because honestly its a salafi's job to downplay other peoples opinions and speculations, a free minder should be open to hear from all.
I am open to hear all opinions from any one, but I hate nonsense, be it from a man or woman or poster I like or a poster I don't like.
If people do not like their views questioned then most of times people have something to hide. -
Hi Bender,
Children
411 ? so if be/are (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (females)
so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 * 2 = 2/3) what left2/3 * $90 = $60 three daughters (2/9 * $90 = $20 each)
1/3 * $90 = $30 ten sons ($3 each)Hi,
For me this simply does not make sense.
On basis of what should the females in this family get almost 7 times more than the males? -
Need to apply consistently same distribution 4176 i.e. 3+ females...
411 to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 son/s = like the two females
NOT
2/3 two daughters (1/3 each); 1/3 son/s
4176 ? and if be they of ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)3/5 three sisters (1/5 each); 2/5 brother/s = like the two females
2/3 four sisters (1/6 each); 1/3 brother/s = like the two females
5/7 five sisters (1/7 each); 2/7 brother/s = like the two femaleshttp//oi65.tinypic.com/689ekn.jpg
Salaam
Salaam noon,
I am afraid I disagree. I think you are mixing two comletely different kinds of relationship. Children and siblings.
We do not have to subject dhildren to whatever is provided for siblings. That for one. Even it is clearly stated in 4.11 that we do not know who are more beneficial to us whether ancestors or descendants, but the siblings are not taken amonst those we do not know who are more beneficia to us. They are secondary to both ascendants and descendants.
On the other hand, clearly in 4.11 says Gods instructs you regrding your children, all children, females and males, no hint at all that it is not about both sexes that it is speaking. Whereas in 4.176 it does state first if there is one sister and then it is to be understood that if it is a woman who dies and has a brother, he inherits equally, and if there are two sisters, two thirds, (that is not like with he children, where it is more than two women that get two thirds, and I do not see why this case should get a treatment as if it was something to weigh on the children's inheritance) and it is to be understood that if it is two brothers that inherit a woman it would equally be as the two sisters, and if there are brothers and sisters, then to the male as to the two sisters, so again whatever is assigned to the two sisters, to the males it would be the same. In this case it is any number of males and any number of females, which would be two thirds to share equally. In this case there is clear mention in the sentence of the ithnatany (the two sisters) so there is no need to go back to 4.11 to ascertain anything.
Now I suppose that you being a mathematician you are going to find difficulties with this, but that is a mathemtical question and I understand that he mathematics in this case are subservient to the righteousness of the law and that they are not there to have the law submit to them but to apply mathematics so as to apply the law, not to modify it.
I apreciate very much your dedicated efforts to the theme, although I do not always understand fully what youtry to explain.
Like when you write 3/5* I do not know what you are exactly saying, I guess three out of 5, but what? three what out of 5 what?
Salaam, noon
-
For me this simply does not make sense.
On basis of what should the females in this family get almost 7 times more than the males?Hi, on basis of what it says if 3+ daughters and what part of verse does not make sense?
411 ? so if are (f/p) womenfolk fawqa/above two (f) i.e. 3+
so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 * 2 = 2/3)2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 son
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each)
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each)
...
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 ten sons (1/30 each)2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 son
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each)
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each)
...
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 ten sons (1/30 each)411 ? and if be she one (f) so for her the half
1/2 daughter; 1/2 son
1/2 daughter; 1/2 two sons (1/4 each)
1/2 daughter; 1/2 three sons (1/6 each)
...
1/2 daughter; 1/2 ten sons (1/20 each) -
I am afraid I disagree. I think you are mixing two comletely different kinds of relationship. Children and siblings.
I apreciate very much your dedicated efforts to the theme, although I do not always understand fully what youtry to explain.
Like when you write 3/5* I do not know what you are exactly saying, I guess three out of 5, but what? three what out of 5 what?
Salaam huruf,
3/5 * amount e.g. if $90k inheritance
It's exactly the same instruction 411 two daughters 4176 three+ sisters
411 to the male similitude apportion the two (females)
1/2 * $90k = $45k two daughters ($22.5k each)
1/2 * $90k = $45k son/s i.e. "to the male like share the two females"NOT
2/3 * $90k = $60k two daughters ($30k each)
1/3 * $90k = $30k son/s i.e. "to the male like share the one female"4176 so to the male similitude apportion the two (females)
3/5 * $90k = $54k three sisters ($18k each or $36k two sisters)
2/5 * $90k = $36k brother/s i.e. "to the male like share the two females"2/3 * $90k = $60k four sisters ($15k each or $30k two sisters)
1/3 * $90k = $30k brother/s i.e. "to the male like share the two females" -
In my previous message I already pointed out all the inconsistencies which afflict your theory and you have not answered the one questi?n I asked about your explanations.
On a single phrase wrongly understood you build a distribution which has nothing to do with the aya and inheritors you compare it with. Nothing is similar. It is siblings not children, it is to the two sisters two thirds, not the three or more two thirds, and yes it is the share of each woman not a share for both of them
6.143.
144.- (Take) eight (head of cattle) in (four) pairs of sheep a pair, and of goats a pair; say, hath He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Tell me with knowledge if ye are truthful (143) Of camels a pair, and oxen a pair; say, hath He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? - Were ye present when Allah ordered you such a thing? But who doth more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah, to lead astray men without knowledge? For Allah guideth not people who do wrong. (144)
Obviously the females are not sharing in any number of wombs, but each one has her own womb.
So HaZ al unthiyain is not a share to share between them but the chare each one gets which would be the result of dividing the two thirds between them.
And you have not solved anything saying the male twice the female, which is not by any stretch the same as the share of the two females, you have not solved anything because what do two brothers get if there are only brothers and what do three sisters get if there are no males?, and to what refers the ithnatain that should get between them two thirds of the what left the deceased, das it refer to the mn who dies or to the woman who dies? And what follows, what does it refer to, to the man who dies or to the woman who dies?
Salaam
-
In my previous message I already pointed out all the inconsistencies which afflict your theory and you have not answered the one questi?n I asked about your explanations.
On a single phrase wrongly understood you build a distribution which has nothing to do with the aya and inheritors you compare it with. Nothing is similar. It is siblings not children, it is to the two sisters two thirds, not the three or more two thirds, and yes it is the share of each woman not a share for both of them
ok let's reset please distribute $90 tell us which part of verse you are using?
411
2 daughters and 3 sons
3 daughters and 3 sons
1 daughter and 3 sons4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers -
ok let's reset please distribute $90 tell us which part of verse you are using?
411
2 daughters and 3 sons
3 daughters and 3 sons
1 daughter and 3 sons4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get the sme amount3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third
1 daughter and 3 sons