Is this inheritance article correct?
-
4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third
1 daughter and 3 sons she gets half, the sons get the other half
You are of course totally ok with this?
This is justice? -
But you did not complain when you heard the pro women version of Huruf, you actually applauded it.
The most common form of inheritance is for children and universally applied is the concept that males get double the female, that seems not to make you blink, but for most uncommon case of one daughter and 10 sons, for instance you get all overboard. If you had been so outraged at women consistently getting half in every case even when they are the only child, I would have had more understanding. As it is really you get upset for a very rare "unjust" distribution and you shut up when universal injsutice against women is practiced.
When people are so biased it is hard to ake them seriously.
Salaam
-
incorrect 2 daughters and 3 sons all get same amount correct last two.
to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
411 need at least two females and # of males
4176 also applies when three+ females and # of males exactly the same instructiondeceased is kalala (no spouse, no child); 4176 use if mixed gender siblings; 412 use if either sister/s or brother/s not mixed.
OK distribute $90 mixed gender children and siblings; need to show someone else don't want to be only one laugh
2 daughters and 3 sons
411 to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
$45 two daughters ($22.5 each)
$45 three sons ($15 each)3 daughters and 3 sons
411 ? so if are (f/p) womenfolk fawqa/above two (f) so for them third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3)
$60 three daughters ($20 each)
$30 three sons ($10 each)1 daughter and 3 sons
411 ? and if be she one (f) so for her the half
$45 daughter
$45 three sons ($15 each)1 sister and 3 brothers
4176... and for said person sister so for her half
$45 sister
$45 three brothers ($15 each)2 sisters and 3 brothers
4176... so if be dual (f) two (f) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
$60 two sisters ($30 each)
$30 three brothers ($10 each)3 sisters and 3 brothers
4176 and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
$54 three sisters ($18 each or $36 two sisters)
$36 three brothers ($12 each)I disagree completely in making the share of the two females into a pooled share, no, it is not that it is a full part for each of them, s I wuoted and as logic demands
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.
You might be right had God said not ithlu but mithlain in the dual) in the singular it is like each of the females not the sum of the females. There are many ways in Arabic to say that and it is not said.
As to 4.12, from the formulation I cannot see that mixed brothers and sisters are excluded, from where do you get that it is only if they are not mixed? In fact what I understand is that it is fixing a sixth for each the grother nd the sister as being at the same time, and it continues saying if the are more. To me tht means sisters or brothers or a mixture of them both.
Salaam
-
The most common form of inheritance is for children and universally applied is the concept that males get double the female, that seems not to make you blink, but for most uncommon case of one daughter and 10 sons, for instance you get all overboard. If you had been so outraged at women consistently getting half in every case even when they are the only child, I would have had more understanding. As it is really you get upset for a very rare "unjust" distribution and you shut up when universal injsutice against women is practiced.
When people are so biased it is hard to ake them seriously.
Salaam
ok
-
As a general remark on this question of inheritance, I have to say that , either through misconstruing through the ages or because in the Qur'an a lot of trouble is taken to refine it so as to make it as adapted to different circumstances as possible, it looks as it was some sort of penance for some of us who see it not as a social need but rather as means of punishment for the bad sex.
I think you should take the face values the Qur'an stresses and not loose sight of them justice, solidarity and distribution of wealth. Each of the different distributions, I think, attempts to refine what in other legislations on this is very much simplified for instance, all for the oldest son, or equal shares for all, children or siblings.
In the Qur'an, I think in the distinction between sexes, women are slightly favoured whent hey inherit as children, but either sex tends to be favoured when it is much in minority. Bearing in mind that, for instance if it several sisters, they might tend to be more solidarious with each other, it is understandable. On the other hand, if it is many males, they do not have the burden of children if they need to work and therefore are also in better conditions earn their lives. Women ont he other hand usually have the burden of children, so the should have more provision for eventuality and depending on the society, they may be very likely not to earn much.
All in all, again, we must come to the origin of it all. It is not a matter of giving prizes but a question of solidarity and fairness.
And if there legislation for inheritance, any legislation, it is to guarantee that individual whim should not deprive any natural inheritor without reason.
Salaam
-
There is no wisdom behind the distribution, at least I don't see any.
It's a lottery based on the distribution of genders, and besides that it's not a fair lottery.There is a pattern on average females get equal or are favored.
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 son favored
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 two sons (1/4 each) equal
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 three sons (1/6 each) less
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 four sons (1/8 each) less2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 son favored
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each) less
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each) less
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 four sons (1/12 each) less2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 son favored
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each) equal
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each) less
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 four sons (1/12 each) less1/2 daughter; 1/2 son equal
1/2 daughter; 1/2 two sons (1/4 each) less
1/2 daughter; 1/2 three sons (1/6 each) less
1/2 daughter; 1/2 four sons (1/8 each) less -
I disagree completely in making the share of the two females into a pooled share, no, it is not that it is a full part for each of them, s I wuoted and as logic demands
You might be right had God said not ithlu but mithlain in the dual) in the singular it is like each of the females not the sum of the females. There are many ways in Arabic to say that and it is not said.
Salaam, not sure what context of 6143-144 has to do with inheritance; same words used; no sharing mentioned...
6143 octet spouses (i.e. 8 group 4 x 2 pairs) from the sheep ith'nayni/twosome and from the goat ith'nayni/twosome say ldhakarayni/the two (males) prohibit or l-unthayayni/the two (females) as for contains on it wombs l-unthayayni/the two (females) inform ye of me with knowledge if be you truthful
6144 and from the camel ith'nayni/twosome and from the cow ith'nayni/twosome say ldhakarayni/the two (males) prohibit or l-unthayayni/the two (females) as for contains on it wombs l-unthayayni/the two (females) or be you witnesses when advise you the god in this so who wrongs than who fabricates he on/about the god lie of to misguided the humankind in other than/without knowledge indeed the god not guided the folk the wrongdoers
411 instructed you (pl) the god in offspring yours lildhakari/to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (females) so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left and if knat/be she one (f) so for her the half...
4176 ... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+) falildhakari/so to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (females)...
As to 4.12, from the formulation I cannot see that mixed brothers and sisters are excluded, from where do you get that it is only if they are not mixed? In fact what I understand is that it is fixing a sixth for each the grother nd the sister as being at the same time, and it continues saying if the are more. To me tht means sisters or brothers or a mixture of them both.
Salaam
Read closely obvious 4176 is mixed and 412 is an ?OR? statement; likewise you?ll run into issues which verse to apply 1/6 or 1/2 to the sole sister. Lastly siblings inherit with parents? per 411 kalala case.
411 ? so if not that be for said person offspring and inherit said person parents dual said person (i.e. parents alive) so to mother said person the third so if be for said person siblings (3+ brothers, 2+ brothers & sister, 1+ brother/s & 2+ sisters) so to mother said person the sixth ...
412 ? and if be rajulun/man inherited kallatan (no spouse; no child) or im'ra-atun/woman and to said person brother or sister so to each one from them dual the sixth so if be they of more from such so they partners in the third ?
1/6 brother/sister; 5/6 parent
1/6 brother/sister; 1/3 mother (411); 1/2 father1/3 two+ brothers/sisters; 2/3 parent
1/3 two+ brothers/sisters; 1/3 mother (411); 1/3 fatherinheritance summary https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg395789#msg395789
-
6.143, speaks of the arham of the unthiyain, it is not attributing a bunch or arham to them undivided, but clearly it is understood that each untha has her own womb, regardless of the total of wombs, and so it is in 4.11 and 4.176, it is each a shar, her share, her womb, not a share in a pool to be determined, it is already determined and it is hers. Never the Qur'an says HAZ for persons as something in which thir haz is pooled or is a pool but always is something the individual has undivided.
It was understood like that in the first times till the abbasids changed it and against Qur'an and against grammar.
As previously said, it does not say mithlain HAZ al unthiayin mut mithlu, it is singular, not dual, not the sum, not double, but "like", and the haz is for each, not to a group or a pool without distinction.
So it is inadmissible to make out of it a double for him or a half for the females.
I know "aw" is or, but it does not exclude that there are both of them. It is clear that there can be only one sister or only one brother but I do not see it excluded that there are both only one sister and only one brother. What is it in what you read that excludes that? If it had said "a sister and a brother" it would be clear that they are both there and that it cannot be only one sister or only one brother but there must be both of them, but with the formulation used I do not see it excludes both of them at the same time, and when it continues "wa in kaanw akthar min thalika", how can you exclude that they are mixed, since there are both anticedents male and female?
Salaam
-
6.143, speaks of the arham of the unthiyain, it is not attributing a bunch or arham to them undivided, but clearly it is understood that each untha has her own womb, regardless of the total of wombs, and so it is in 4.11 and 4.176, it is each a shar, her share, her womb, not a share in a pool to be determined, it is already determined and it is hers. Never the Qur'an says HAZ for persons as something in which thir haz is pooled or is a pool but always is something the individual has undivided.
It was understood like that in the first times till the abbasids changed it and against Qur'an and against grammar.
As previously said, it does not say mithlain HAZ al unthiayin mut mithlu, it is singular, not dual, not the sum, not double, but "like", and the haz is for each, not to a group or a pool without distinction.
So it is inadmissible to make out of it a double for him or a half for the females.
Don't see how 6143 is relevant which l-unthayayni/the two (f) refers to 1 female sheep + 1 female goat.
Please try to apply in a few other cases perhaps you'll see there is no other way to solve this.
4176 ... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)...3 sisters
3x + 2x = 1
x = 1/5 (amount to one sister)
3/5 three sisters (1/5 each)
2/5 brothers or "like" l-unthayayni/the two (f)it's exactly the same distribution formula or "view" for two daughters...
411 ... lildhakari/to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)
2 daughters
2x + 2x = 1
x = 1/4 (amount to one daughter)
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each)
1/2 sons or "like" l-unthayayni/the two (f)I know "aw" is or, but it does not exclude that there are both of them. It is clear that there can be only one sister or only one brother but I do not see it excluded that there are both only one sister and only one brother. What is it in what you read that excludes that? If it had said "a sister and a brother" it would be clear that they are both there and that it cannot be only one sister or only one brother but there must be both of them, but with the formulation used I do not see it excludes both of them at the same time, and when it continues "wa in kaanw akthar min thalika", how can you exclude that they are mixed, since there are both anticedents male and female?
not "excluded" read 412 and 4176 together which first part 412 gives 1/6 either gender...
412 ? brother or sister so to each one from them dual the sixth
then second part sets 1/3 limit either gender and also for mixed gender (4176) kalala case...
412 ? so if be they of more from such so they partners in the third ?
examples siblings and parents...
1/6 brother OR sister (412); 5/6 parent/s
1/3 brothers OR sisters (412); 2/3 parent/s
1/3 brothers AND sisters (412, distribute 1/3 according to mixed 4176); 2/3 parent/se.g. $90k inheritance 1/3 ($30k) siblings; 2/3 ($60k) parent/s
4176... and for said person sister so for her half
1/2 x $30k ($15k) sister; $15k brothers
4176... so if knat/be dual (f) ith'natayni/two (f) so to them dual (f) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
2/3 x $30k ($20k) two sisters; $10k brothers
most hearsay "experts" apply above to also mean "above two" i.e. 3+ ignoring clear dual.
4176... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)...8 sisters
8x + 2x = 1
x = 1/10 (amount to one sister)
8/10 x $30k = $24k eight sisters ($3k each sister)
2/10 x $30k = $6k brothers or "like" l-unthayayni/the two (f)Salaam
-
Your arrangement, male twice the female and your contention to my mention of 6.143 is not a mater of inheritance or non inheritance it is quesiton ogrammar,meaning.
Does nto matter whether it is women, sheep, daughters, sisters or potatos or whatever, whatever it is that belongs to the two of them, is a distinct amount that belong sto each of them, not that they have in common or pooled.
And no matter how many conbinations you contrive to make it right it does not mean that, it does not mean to somebody corresponds double than to the other, or to some of them correpsondes half as the other. That is not so.
No matter whether it is sheep or people, wombs are not held in common nor divided giving to ech half womb or 1 one and a half womb, it is a womb each. So is it with the HAZ , it is not shared it is each her HAZ, not half the male nor the male doublebut the same as each of the two women, just like it
were arham.Again, HAZ in he Qur'an when it refers to a person is always individual, not pooled or shared.
As to the
not "excluded" read 412 and 4176 together which first part 412 gives 1/6 either gender...
Well, that is what I was saying and you denied it before.
What I see is that as much 4.12 as 4.176 refer to kalala.
Salaam
-
Your arrangement, male twice the female and your contention to my mention of 6.143 is not a mater of inheritance or non inheritance it is quesiton ogrammar,meaning.
Does nto matter whether it is women, sheep, daughters, sisters or potatos or whatever, whatever it is that belongs to the two of them, is a distinct amount that belong sto each of them, not that they have in common or pooled.
And no matter how many conbinations you contrive to make it right it does not mean that, it does not mean to somebody corresponds double than to the other, or to some of them correpsondes half as the other. That is not so.
No matter whether it is sheep or people, wombs are not held in common nor divided giving to ech half womb or 1 one and a half womb, it is a womb each. So is it with the HAZ , it is not shared it is each her HAZ, not half the male nor the male doublebut the same as each of the two women, just like it
were arham.Again, HAZ in he Qur'an when it refers to a person is always individual, not pooled or shared.
As to the
Well, that is what I was saying and you denied it before.
What I see is that as much 4.12 as 4.176 refer to kalala.
Salaam
Peace, don't understand what you're saying; never wrote double?
Please apply your meaning only heirs 3 sisters AND 3 brothers?
Have it thus each sister gets 1/5 (3/15) which is 1/15 more than to each brother 2/15.
4176 ... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)...3 sisters
3x + 2x = 1
x = 1/5 (amount to one sister)
3/5 three sisters (1/5 each)
2/5 three brothers or to the male "like share" l-unthayayni/the two (f) -
After reading http//submission.org/Inheritance_Wills.html it all has started to make sense.
We overlooked "what you left after any will" found inside 412.
It seems that we skipped the real inheritance law which happens to be this
For the men a portion of what (is) left (by) the parents, and the near relatives and for the women a portion of what (is) left (by) parents and the near relatives of what (is) little of it or much - a portion obligatory.47
Notice that Allah makes it clear that you can give little or much to both women and men. He repeats the same words for both without numbers. That means we can choose. That is consistent with the verse in which Allah tells that the person must be judged for maturity before they are handed the property.
-
After reading http//submission.org/Inheritance_Wills.html it all has started to make sense.
We overlooked "what you left after any will" found inside 412.
It seems that we skipped the real inheritance law which happens to be this
For the men a portion of what (is) left (by) the parents, and the near relatives and for the women a portion of what (is) left (by) parents and the near relatives of what (is) little of it or much - a portion obligatory.47
Notice that Allah makes it clear that you can give little or much to both women and men. He repeats the same words for both without numbers. That means we can choose. That is consistent with the verse in which Allah tells that the person must be judged for maturity before they are handed the property.
Right. When the deceased has not given any instructions then by default would the rules given in Qur'an apply. Also they are a guidance for what might be fair, other things being equal. They are general, and therefore, probably, since every case is always different from all other cses, the injunctions serve as some orientation where no altering factor comes in, which again is not the most common thing.
Salaam
-
Right. When the deceased has not given any instructions then by default would the rules given in Qur'an apply. Also they are a guidance for what might be fair, other things being equal. They are general, and therefore, probably, since every case is always different from all other cses, the injunctions serve as some orientation where no altering factor comes in, which again is not the most common thing.
Salaam
But it says, "after what you left after any will". I see the math verse to be about leftover.
-
But it says, "after what you left after any will". I see the math verse to be about leftover.
I would have thought tht when somebody makes a will, there is no left overs. One usually disposes of the own whole furtune. I do not think there is any obligation stated of leaving any left overs.
At any rate I want to study all this more carefully. Anyway I should think that when it is a question of a person having made all his fortune or wealth by him or herself she shoudl dipose of the whole of it at will, on the other hand when that fortune is inherited, seems to me that the the person who has it should not give it away to people who ar enot natural inheritors. So, I would expect the Qur'an to provide for some obligation to natural inheritors, and leave room for legacies to other people and that while one should expect flexibility for the owner as to whm he wants to favour, the should also be some safeguards for natural inheritors in these are not irresponsible or disqualified by some fault in them.
Salaam
-
I would have thought tht when somebody makes a will, there is no left overs. One usually disposes of the own whole furtune. I do not think there is any obligation stated of leaving any left overs.
At any rate I want to study all this more carefully. Anyway I should think that when it is a question of a person having made all his fortune or wealth by him or herself she shoudl dipose of the whole of it at will, on the other hand when that fortune is inherited, seems to me that the the person who has it should not give it away to people who ar enot natural inheritors. So, I would expect the Qur'an to provide for some obligation to natural inheritors, and leave room for legacies to other people and that while one should expect flexibility for the owner as to whm he wants to favour, the should also be some safeguards for natural inheritors in these are not irresponsible or disqualified by some fault in them.
Salaam
The will can leave out future profits though. Sometimes you will never know which future business you might open/acquire. Sometimes people end up with an extra bank account after doing the will. It is easy to be lenient about leftover. But yeah, the verse is about after the death of the person. Mullahs did a poor job of translating 411 though.
-
The will can leave out future profits though. Sometimes you will never know which future business you might open/acquire. Sometimes people end up with an extra bank account after doing the will. It is easy to be lenient about leftover. But yeah, the verse is about after the death of the person. Mullahs did a poor job of translating 411 though.
Yes, you are right. One does not do a will everyday and many times there are changes and one has not thought of doing over the will.
As to translations, and worse than that, interpretations, because many times the translationsjust take over the interpretations done by the dominant "culture" at the time, they are shaed by the dominant will and outlook of the society in which they are done. They are far from objective or unbiased.
Thank you all who have posted on this subject. It is one of those matters I had pending and may be now I am in a better mind to tackle it.
Right now I am trying to determine what is the space of freedom for disposing of different amounts in favour of relatives particularly ascendants and escendants and in which proportions, and factors that would mean input into the question.
Salaam
-
Indeed this exchange has helped me greatly to see a bit more than before in the question of inheritance.
If we go by what is said on wills (apart from the frequently mentionned ayas of sura An-Nisaa' 4.7-9, 4.11-12, 4.19, 4.33 and 4.176), 2.180-182, 2.240 and 5.106, it seems that the Qur'an gives much weight to the fact of making a will. Several times it mentions the proximity of death.
This reminds me of the remark by reel of the fact that left over may come from not making modifications to a will already made while the fortune of the decesead may have varied after the last will. So insisting on the approachin death and the writing of a will makes one think that indeed that is the best a person can do write his or her will so as to rid of problems their successors.
- It says that that in that will a bequest must be made to parents and next of kin, according to what is fair. Wht is fair is always mentiooned in I would say every case in the Qur'an. Nothing can be done or disposed of without due regard to equity and fairness and the closest relatives must be provided for. The question f fairness is so important that the will can be questionned by those who fear partiality or vice.
This answers one of my questions about the freedom of the testator. The testator cannot not provide for close relatives, which includes the widow mentionned in 2.240.
In 2.241 there is a disposition for the divorced women of the deceased and it is not included in the ayas speaking of bequests, bbut it coming right after the disposition for the widow, I wonder whether this is also a question of bequests for the divorced wives, for instance like in the contributions to welfare where there are divorced wives and they have rights proportional to the time they remained married. I would appreciate your views.
in 5.106 like out of the blue, we have another aya instructing us to make a will when we feel death approaching, and then goes on to speak of the wirtnesses at length. As a side note, quite interesting to notice that no sex is required to be a witness in this case, but to have sense of justice.
Then, when we go to sura 4 and start distribution what we are told is that from what parents and close relatives leave there is a part which necessarily must go to the children and close relatives. There is no choice there as we were told with the wills.
So it all comes to what may have been bequeathed by will to other persons, since the forced inheritors share into what is left after legacies and debts.
in 4.176 the is nomention of the shares being distributed after any legacies or debts, but I supposed by now it is to be self-evident that it is so.
I would appreciate comments.
Salaam
-
https//free-minds.org/inheritance-and-testament
The article says that in every situation (even if a person makes a bequest) the ratio of the boy getting double of the girl exists.
I don't think that's correct, only in a few situations mostly the daughter son situations is the male getting double of the female. Sister-brother, mother-father get same in some situations, so to downright say "male gets double" is incorrect.
Personally I do not approve of the above mentioned situation at all either, and think it's unfair and should remain in the 7th century, however we have been told we can make a will, where we can distribute our wealth fairly and equally amongs males and females. However the article above states that even within the will the 21 male to female ration works. That's pretty absurd, the whole point of the will is to distribute it according to your own will.
Aaaah Im just sick of this topic now tempt Too many conflicting contradictions , misogynistic and unfair (well to today's standards maybe not in the 7th century hence we're allowed to make a will you dumb sectarians!)
I'm surprised to read this article on free mind's though, I thought only sectarians believed in the fixed 21 ratio.
I agree with you.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Why is it unfair? I think it is fair.
Girl gets half of inheritance because she will get the dowry anyway from her husband. Alternatively she will be supported by her brother etc.
A boy doesn't have this luxury. He needs to work and "leave" parent house.In a society where a boy nd his sister are uneducated and have less opportunities; a boy works as a truck driver while his sister marries. Men do not enjoy financial benefits from women. However, women do. It is the same in the ME and Europe.
Plus, women have more issues at work than men. Menstrual leave, pregnancy. Government can't pay for it. Guess who does? A male (husband, brother).
I don't think it is unfair. It is justice. Women and men are different. Thus, they get different rules.
IMO we shouldn't actually fight here for this inheritance. It is not an issue. Money or other material goods are not our primary concern. God is. Sometimes some of you guys forget about what God Alone really means. /
Peace