Is this inheritance article correct?
-
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
-
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.Peace,
Not question of fair/unfair -- it does not say girls always get half or if 3+ or if one they're alone.
Main issue is people do not read or read into Qu'ran words parroted for ages that are not there.
Indeed this exchange has helped me greatly to see a bit more than before in the question of inheritance.
...
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 huruf,
Verse numbers are not topic separators only for easy reference and whole Qu'ran should be cross-reference.
Yes any dept always needs to be taken care of first...
2282 O you the ones believes ye of when contracted among you bidaynin/in debt
411 ... from after instruction/behest instructed in it or daynin/dept
412 and for you ... from after instruction/behest instructed they (f/p) in it or dept
and for them ... from after instruction/behest thou making in it or dept ...
and if be man inherited kallatan (spouse-less childless case) or woman ...
from after instruction/behest instructed in it or dept