The Inheritance Issue Revisited

Onur

Hi Nun,
I have just recalled from our earlier discussion that for you "what is left" is not the entire inheritance but a variable that changes from case to case. Therefore, using X for it might make sense. And then while finding the equation necessary to solve for X, you use subtraction when the word "from" and multiplication when the word used is "of". Is that correct? I think I am more clear now.
Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur,

Sorry for the late response; was on vacation pondering this on the plane, actually left my notes flying around...lol

Hi Nun,
I have just recalled from our earlier discussion that for you "what is left" is not the entire inheritance but a variable that changes from case to case. Therefore, using X for it might make sense. And then while finding the equation necessary to solve for X, you use subtraction when the word "from" and multiplication when the word used is "of". Is that correct? I think I am more clear now.
Onur

No need for assigning X using Algebra which any solution or theory can be normalized. M or Mimm is only to distinguish if first to subtract from the whole "Mimm Taraka" or take the specified fraction multiply what's left M Taraka after the subtraction.

Correct there has to be the possibility of a mother in Kalala case since her shares are given along with Ikhwatun which nullifies the parent-less theory and leads to numerous contradiction since the sisters in 4176 have to share with someone.

It also works with Kalala simply being spouse-less which goes with the logical flow of the text and works with all combinations following the verbatim instructions and lanquage; first to hubands and wives then finally the case of a spouse-less person with child and without child to distinguish between which to use 412 or 4176 like it says and nullifies the Kalala being childless and has to be the only toggle between the two verses...

412 spouse-less (Kallatan or loner) with children
1 - 1/3 parents (1/6 each per 411) - 1/6 sister - 1/6 brother (or - 1/3 siblings max) = 1/3 children

4176 spouse-less (Al-Kallati or the loner) without children; both parents could be alive...

1 = sister + mother (no father, child, or brother; mother's share unstated/variable)
1/2*1 = 1/2 sister; 1/2 mother
1 - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 mother

1 = sister + father (no child; father's share unstated and variable)
1/2*1 = 1/2 sister; 1/2 father

1 - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 father

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister + father)
1/2*5/6 = 5/12 sister; 5/12 father

1 - 1/6 mother - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/6 father

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s

1 = brother/s; father gets nothing

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s; father gets nothing

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s + sister/s distribute at 21 male to female ratio

The other which works is spouse-less/father-less with/without child...

412 spouse-less and father-less (Kallatan or loner) with children
1 - 1/6 mother - 1/6 sister - 1/6 brother (or - 1/3 siblings max) = 1/2 children

4176 spouse-less and father-less (Al-Kallati or the loner) without children...

1 = sister + mother
1/2*1 = 1/2 sister; 1/2 mother

1 - 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 mother

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s

1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother/s + sister/s distribute at 21 male to female ratio

so to the male equal luck the two females

Onur

Hi Nun,
I hope you had a restful vacation. If we go with your understaning of the distinction between ma taraka and mimma taraka, then in solving the case with a wife, parents and 3 daughters we use

ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/8 wife - 1/3 parents = 13/24 children
13/24*2/3=13/36 for the 3 daughters
13/72 remains undistributed
But if we take the phrase "what he left" as a variable(X) and solve for X and then change the shares accordingly we can distribute everything as we had been doing before.
3/27 for the wife, 8/27 for parents and 16/27 for the 3 daughters
It seems like the algebraic method or at least the technique of denominator equalization&nominator comparison seems indispensable.

As for your suggestion that kalala might mean either just spouseless, it looks logical but wouldn't Arabic have a less mysterious word for a man/woman without a spouse? )

Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur, thanks always does the body good to hang out in ocean water and get some sun... sun

Hi Nun,
I hope you had a restful vacation. If we go with your understaning of the distinction between ma taraka and mimma taraka, then in solving the case with a wife, parents and 3 daughters we use

ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/8 wife - 1/3 parents = 13/24 children
13/24*2/3=13/36 for the 3 daughters
13/72 remains undistributed
But if we take the phrase "what he left" as a variable(X) and solve for X and then change the shares accordingly we can distribute everything as we had been doing before.
3/27 for the wife, 8/27 for parents and 16/27 for the 3 daughters
It seems like the algebraic method or at least the technique of denominator equalization&nominator comparison seems indispensable.

Not really made up my mind on the children yet and was going to leave that part for last; I know the siblings? case the girls are alone (i.e. without brothers) which all the equations work whereas in the children case could be that it revolves around the number of females
If two
If three+
If one

The husband shares toggling from Mimm with children and M Taraka without a child is a definite clue?

1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband (all fixed) = children
1 = (husband + mother + father) which can be solved two ways depending on if the term below means the parents are alone or if not their shares are variable?

ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third?

1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father -- ratio twice to the father

?*1 = 1/2 husband; 1/2 (1/6 mother + 1/3 father) consistent with above, and not...

1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 (husband + father)
?*2/3 = 1/3 husband; 1/3 father

As for your suggestion that kalala might mean either just spouseless, it looks logical but wouldn't Arabic have a less mysterious word for a man/woman without a spouse?

Don?t really know and only threw it out there because the equations work. The whole thing can be solved with the case of a father and brother which one of them has to bounce, either the father or brother -- and it says?

ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third,
ELSE IF brethren/Ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth

Likewise 4176 ?and he inherits her if was not for her a child?

I?m trying to look it from a purely follow the instructions non-contradicting point of view without predisposition to bias opinions as to what people think is right or wrong or a fair distribution which is the way we are supposed to read Qur'an.

Man leaves children, parents, wife, and siblings
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/8 wife = 13/24 children

Woman leaves children, parents, husband, and siblings
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband = 5/12 children

Man/woman leaves parents and children (spouseless/Kalala)
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 father ? 1/6 sister ? 1/6 brother = 1/3 children

1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 (mother + father)

?*1=1/2 husband; 1/2 (mother + father)
OR
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 (husband + father)
?*2/3=1/3 husband; 1/3 father

Man/woman leaves parents and siblings (spouseless/Kalala) ? no child
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother

?*1=1/2 sister; 1/2 mother/father
1 ? 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 mother/father

?*1 =1/2 sister; 1/2 (mother + father)
1 ? 2/3 two+ sisters = 1/3 (mother + father)

1 = (brother + father)?

1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister + brother); father=0

Onur

Hi Nun,
Especially considering the cases when the daughters' shares are specified as mimma taraka, especially the case with 3 daughters, I am increasingly becoming convinced that we need to regard "what he left" as a variable(X) which might change from case to case. After we establish that, we can create the equations using subtraction when "from" and "multiplication" when "of". Algebra is handy and formal while doing that. But, it is not totally necessary since making denominators equal and re-calculating shares according to new nominators might do the trick as well. Still, I feel excited that God's book might point to such an important subject as algebra, even if indirectly.
As for the kalala issue, it seems like things work if kalala just means spouseless, but I still think it is "spouseless+fatherless" due to two reasons;

Because there should be a simpler and widely-known word for spouseless in Arabic
411 reduces the mother's share due to the presence of siblings whereas does not make a similar reduction with regard to the father's share. It might imply that siblings and father do not inherit at the same time. And siblings just inherit when the deceased is kalala
It might be the case that brothers become responsible for the family only if fathers and spouses are missing.
Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur,

Especially considering the cases when the daughters' shares are specified as mimma taraka, especially the case with 3 daughters, I am increasingly becoming convinced that we need to regard "what he left" as a variable(X) which might change from case to case. After we establish that, we can create the equations using subtraction when "from" and "multiplication" when "of". Algebra is handy and formal while doing that. But, it is not totally necessary since making denominators equal and re-calculating shares according to new nominators might do the trick as well. Still, I feel excited that God's book might point to such an important subject as algebra, even if indirectly.

I've looked into it and so far what works for dividing children's shares revolves around #of females...

http//i45.tinypic.com/2zz4z0m.jpg

He directs you God in your children to the male equal fortune the two females
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni

ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka

AND IF she was one, so for her the half
Wa 'In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu

Also doesn't allow algebra for husband and daughter unless M Taraka is implied after "so for her the half" ...

ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left
Fa'in Kna Lahunna Waladun Falakumu Ar-Rubu`u Mimm Tarakna

1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 daughter ?
1 - 1/2 daughter - 1/4 husband = 1/4 ?

As for the kalala issue, it seems like things work if kalala just means spouseless, but I still think it is "spouseless+fatherless" due to two reasons;

Because there should be a simpler and widely-known word for spouseless in Arabic
411 reduces the mother's share due to the presence of siblings whereas does not make a similar reduction with regard to the father's share. It might imply that siblings and father do not inherit at the same time. And siblings just inherit when the deceased is kalala
It might be the case that brothers become responsible for the family only if fathers and spouses are missing.

Yes does make sense and we know it works if we bounce the father; who would thing of naming such a person yet I'm looking at my neighbors house who's middle-age fellow Al-Kallati living with his mother; actually he's the one that gave me the idea two years ago when we started this whole discussion in the other thread...

412 Spouseless and fatherless Kallatan leaves mother and/or sibling/s with children

1 ? 1/6 sister/brother = 5/6 children
1 ? 1/3 siblings = 2/3 children

1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 sister/brother = 2/3 children
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 siblings = 1/2 children

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child,
Yastaftnaka Quli Allhu Yuftkum F Al-Kallati 'Ini Amru'uun Halaka Laysa Lahu Waladun

And for him a sister, so for her half what left
Wa Lahu 'Ukhtun Falah Nifu M Taraka

?*1=1/2 sister; 1/2 mother

And he inherits her if was not for her a child
Wa Huwa Yarithuh 'In Lam Yakun Lah Waladun

1 = brother; mother = 0

The above would contradict 411 unless Ikhwatun is plural with at least one male.
411 Fa'in Kna Lahu 'Ikhwatun Fali'ammihi As-Sudusu

ELSE IF they were two, so to them (F) the two thirds from what left
Fa'in Knat Athnatayni Falahum Ath-Thuluthni Mimm Taraka

1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

AND IF they were brethren men and women so to the male equal fortune the two females
Wa 'In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an Falildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni

1 = (brother/s + sister/s)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (brother/s + sister/s)

He clarifies God for you that you (not) be misguided and God with everything knowledgeable
Yubayyinu Allhu Lakum 'An Taill Wa Allhu Bikulli Shay'in `Almun

Peace

Nn Wa Al-Qalami Wa M Yasurna

Onur

For the 1 husband, 1 daughter case, the equation would be
1-x/4=x/2
Thinking about it, it seems like when we use algebra like that, we might not really need the mimma and ma distinction
If all shares are given in the form of mimma we can set the right side of the equation equal to 0, 1-X/A-X/B= O
If some shares are given in the form of mimma and some in the form of ma, then we can set the right side of the equation equal to the share in the form of ma as in the husband, daughter case above 1-x/a=x/b, which actually means the same thing.
The trick seems to be to regard the phrase what he left as a variable, as X in fact, as we have been discussing, this is the only way to distribute without excess or remainder.
I guess traditional Muslims recognized this point and devised an appropriate method but did not express it in formal mathematical terms.
As for the kalala issue, I think two of us might really be the only ones who know the word's real intended meaning )

noble

Salam Bro Onur,
I have an interesting and complicated inheritance issue I need advice on from your insight and understanding using Quran only.
Please kindly help me, I will post the details soon, it is regarding a (biological) sister of mine.

Peace

Idriss

unknownuser

For the 1 husband, 1 daughter case, the equation would be
1-x/4=x/2
Thinking about it, it seems like when we use algebra like that, we might not really need the mimma and ma distinction
If all shares are given in the form of mimma we can set the right side of the equation equal to 0, 1-X/A-X/B= O
If some shares are given in the form of mimma and some in the form of ma, then we can set the right side of the equation equal to the share in the form of ma as in the husband, daughter case above 1-x/a=x/b, which actually means the same thing.
The trick seems to be to regard the phrase what he left as a variable, as X in fact, as we have been discussing, this is the only way to distribute without excess or remainder.

Algebra normalization "trick" is not the only way...

1 - 1/4 husband = 3/4 children (10 female to male ratio; no sons, daughter gets whole 3/4)

Regardless of amounts given any excess or reminder can be fixed using algebra;
normalazation -- increase/decrease proportionately compensate for shortfall/excess...

Works with any fractions given...

husband 1/6
daughter 1/3

1/2 excess; solve for x to proportionately allocate...
1-x/6=x/3; 1= x/2; x= 2
21/6 = 1/3 husband
21/3 = 2/3 daughter

Try daughter + sister (no ma/mimma)...

411 AND IF she was one, so for her the half
412 And for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth

Have it thus...

1 - 1/6 sister = 5/6 children (femalemale ratio 10 daugther gets whole 5/6 amount)

Otherwise if son/s; daughter = 1/2*5/6; son/s get remaining half.

Onur

But, in the case with 1 daughter and 1 husband, if you give the husband 1/4 and the remaining 3/4 to the daughter, you are basically ignoring the share 1/2 assigned to the daughter in the beginning of 411 when doing the calculations.
I understand the beginning of 411 to mean 1 daughter 1/2, 2+ daughter 2/3 and if sons and daughters are present together, then a comparative formula of 1 male=2 female. ( Do you understand all of the shares of children in comparison to each other? I remember you once believing that and then leaving that position)
Earlier you were symphatetic to seeing "what he left" as a variable and changing the shares. In fact, that was your initial position. Why did you change it?
Peace,
Onur

Onur

Salam Bro Onur,
I have an interesting and complicated inheritance issue I need advice on from your insight and understanding using Quran only.
Please kindly help me, I will post the details soon, it is regarding a (biological) sister of mine.

Peace

Idriss

Sure Idriss, I will be happy to help once you explain the situation.
Peace,
Onur

unknownuser

But, in the case with 1 daughter and 1 husband, if you give the husband 1/4 and the remaining 3/4 to the daughter, you are basically ignoring the share 1/2 assigned to the daughter in the beginning of 411 when doing the calculations.

The 1/2 assigned to the one daughter is in relation to the male (i.e. son/s)?

he directs you God in your CHILDREN
to the male equal luck the two females
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni

ELSE IF they are women above two, so for them two thirds what left
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka

AND IF she was one, so for her the half
Wa 'In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu

1 ? Spouse = CHILDREN (distributed according to above female to male ratios)
10 or 01 if daughter/s or son/s alone get the whole remaining amount.

1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 CHILDREN or son/s get whole 3/4 with no daughters and likewise...
1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 CHILDREN or daughter gets the whole 3/4 with no son/s.

Otherwise, with daughter and son/s, she gets the half (3/4 - 1/2 = 3/; male/s get remaining 3/8 or half.

I understand the beginning of 411 to mean 1 daughter 1/2, 2+ daughter 2/3 and if sons and daughters are present together, then a comparative formula of 1 male=2 female. ( Do you understand all of the shares of children in comparison to each other? I remember you once believing that and then leaving that position)

Yes, I understand and went through all combinations; also it is 3+ (i.e. > 2 daughters get 2/3)?

ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka

Earlier you were symphatetic to seeing "what he left" as a variable and changing the shares. In fact, that was your initial position. Why did you change it?

I?m not sympathetic and change my mind based on evidence after careful study; reason never accept idea of ?trinity? -- god praying to god or god killed by people to forgive people which there are a billion who believe, another billion who worship stones and pray to dead prophets, and a billion into cows. As stated, I try to follow instructions, non-contradicting view without predisposition to bias as to what people think is right or wrong. It is easy to see algebra ?trick? can be used solve any theory, assumption, shortfalls, or excess discrepancies by normalizing the equation. E.g., everyone inherits?

1 - 1/4x husband ? 1/3x parents ? 1/2x daughter ? 1/2x sister = 0

Solving for x and using substitution?
1 = 3/12x + 4/12x + 6/12x + 6/12x = 19/12x; x = 12/19

12/191/4 = 3/19 husband
12/191/3 = 4/19 parents
12/191/2 = 6/19 daughter
12/191/2 = 6/19 sister

3/19 husband + 4/19 parents + 6/19 daughter + 6/19 sister = 19/19 = 1

Above is similar to how nineteen followers ?make it fit? with most of their calculations.

I'm working on a summary with all combinations; especially notice precise language and transition logic used

M Taraka ? what left (multiply fraction what left)

Mimm Taraka ? from what left (subtract/take from what left)
Min Ba`di Wayatin Y Bih 'Aw Daynin ? from after a bequest/will he bequeaths with it or a debt

Wa /Wa 'In ? logical AND/AND IF statement
Fa'in ? logical ELSE IF (i.e. switch to different circumstance)

Peace

Onur

I don't see how the shares of 1 daughter as 1/2 and 2+daughters as 2/3 can be read in relation to sons, especially when the next sentence in the verse clearly gives the general comparative formula 1 male=2 female for all cases involving sons and daughters at the same time. The earlier shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are applicable when there are no sons.
Plus, using algebra is not a trick in a pejorative sense.
For example, if there is only one inheritor assigned the share of 1/4 from 40 dollars, we would still give her 40 dollars, right. When we divide 40 by 4 and give her 10 dollars, the remaining 30 dollars is still to be regarded as "what is left," (well, because it is something left) which further needs to be divided by 4 and so on. This is another way of applying the formula x/4=1, x=4, her share is 1, that is 40 dollars.
I think the gist of the complexity behind the inheritance verses is that Quran wants to convey the idea of a "variable" which must be solved with a view regarding to the entire structure.
All the best,
Onur

unknownuser

Peace Onur,

I don't see how the shares of 1 daughter as 1/2 and 2+daughters as 2/3 can be read in relation to sons, especially when the next sentence in the verse clearly gives the general comparative formula 1 male=2 female for all cases involving sons and daughters at the same time.

The verse precisely says over/above two (> 2 or 3+) they get 2/3 not 2+ daughters?

Fa'in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa (over) Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka

The earlier shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are applicable when there are no sons.

Then there is no case given for when there are exactly two daughters alone.

Plus, using algebra is not a trick in a pejorative sense.
For example, if there is only one inheritor assigned the share of 1/4 from 40 dollars, we would still give her 40 dollars, right.

Right -- no need for inheritance verses to distribute/arbitrate shares to a sole inheritor.

How to justify using algebra to calculate inheritance of sole inheritors
father or mother or son which is unstated? Why would there be since no one left to contest.

I think the gist of the complexity behind the inheritance verses is that Quran wants to convey the idea of a "variable" which must be solved with a view regarding to the entire structure.

As stated, any distribution can be justified or fixed using algebra; another example?

1 ? 1/4x husband ? 2/3x daughters ? 1/3x siblings = 0

1 = 3/12x + 8/12x + 4/12x = 15/12x; x = 12/15

1/412/15 = 3/15 husband
2/312/15 = 8/15 daughters
1/3*12/15 = 4/15 siblings

3/15 husband + 8/15 daughters + 4/15 siblings = 15/15 = 1

All the best,
Onur

Likewise.

Onur

Peace Nun,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth is the following in those cases, we are implicitly using algebra because we are acknowledging that the phrase "what he left" is not necessarily the entire wealth as it would be in a literal reading but is rather a variable(X) In a literal reading of the phrase, the entire wealth would not be distributed .
Please go back to my earlier example with this point in mind. Why not explicitly use a method that is already being implicitly used?
On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Onur

Onur

I tried to modify my earlier post but time limit has not allowed that. Below I explained my point a little better

Peace Nun,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth was an example to demonstrate the implicit logic of distribution in those cases, along with others, we are implicitly using the idea of a variable because we are acknowledging that the phrase 1/a of what is left or 1/a from what is left is not necessarily the (totalmoney.1/a) as it would be in a literal reading of the phrase. It is rather a variable which takes different meanings from case to case, depending on the number and identity of inheritors, say, whether there is one inheritor or more. In a literal reading of the phrase "1/a of what is left" or "1/a from what is left", the entire wealth would not be distributed in all cases, such as a case with one inheritor with an assigned ratio. If the wealth left behind was 40 dollars and only a husband was inheritor, a literal reading would give him 1/2, that is 20 dolars and leave the rest to the community. But this literal reading is wrong. As you know and we agree, he gets all of 40 dollars because the meaning of the phrase 1/2 from what is left varies from case to case and in a case where the husband is the sole inheritor means the whole 40 dolars. In other words, the idea of a variable which is the basis of algebra is implicit in the logic of the verses. It is also supported by common-sense if there is only one inheritor, he should get all wealth, right. Why not then make this common-sense method explicit by finding X such that the sum of fractions(1/a, 1/b) equals 1?
On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Onur

unknownuser

Peace Onur,

My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth was an example to demonstrate the implicit logic of distribution in those cases, along with others, we are implicitly using the idea of a variable because we are acknowledging that the phrase 1/a of what is left or 1/a from what is left is not necessarily the (totalmoney.1/a) as it would be in a literal reading of the phrase. It is rather a variable which takes different meanings from case to case, depending on the number and identity of inheritors, say, whether there is one inheritor or more. In a literal reading of the phrase "1/a of what is left" or "1/a from what is left", the entire wealth would not be distributed in all cases, such as a case with one inheritor with an assigned ratio. If the wealth left behind was 40 dollars and only a husband was inheritor, a literal reading would give him 1/2, that is 20 dolars and leave the rest to the community. But this literal reading is wrong. As you know and we agree, he gets all of 40 dollars because the meaning of the phrase 1/2 from what is left varies from case to case and in a case where the husband is the sole inheritor means the whole 40 dolars. In other words, the idea of a variable which is the basis of algebra is implicit in the logic of the verses. It is also supported by common-sense if there is only one inheritor, he should get all wealth, right. Why not then make this common-sense method explicit by finding X such that the sum of fractions(1/a, 1/b) equals 1?

As already stated, for a sole inheritor there is no need for inheritance ruling, and algebra cannot be applied in all cases. E.g. sole inheritor father, mother, son, sister, or brother ? either unstated or fixed value.

Using algebra, Kalala can be anyone with any shortfall or excess normalized or fixed. Example one can conjecture Kalala means a person under 4 feet tall, someone with blonde hair or whatever?

1 ? 1/6x father ? 1/6x mother - 1/4x wife ? 1/3 siblings ? 2/3x daughters = 0
1 = 2/12x + 2/12x + 3/12x + 4/12x + 8/12x; 1 = 19/12x; x = 12/19
1/612/19 = 2/19 father
1/612/19 = 2/19 mother
1/412/19 = 3/19 wife
1/312/19 = 4/19 siblings
2/3*12/19 = 8/19 daughters
Total of distributions = 1

On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."

The phrase for => 2 (i.e. presence of two or more) is given as?
4176 Fa?in Knat Athnatayni Falahum Ath-Thuluthni Mimm Taraka

Cute picture?lol

http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Albaniancosumegirls.JPG/406px-

Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.

Seems to be a way when realizing Fa?in ELSE IF when combined with Wa/Wa ?In logical AND/AND IF statements one can write a program following the exact instructions?

START case CHILDREN
Ykumu Allhu F 'Awldikum Lildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni
He directs you God in your CHILDREN ? to the male equal fortune the two females
2 daughters; 1 son -- 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/2; males get equal share the two females
2 daughters; 2 sons -- 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/3 + 1/3
Fa?in Kunna Nis'an Fawqa Athnatayni Falahunna Thuluth M Taraka
ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
1 - 2/3 daughters = 1/3 son/s; males get 1/3 when females > 2
Wa ?In Knat Widatan Falah An-Nifu
AND IF she was one, so for her the half
1 - 1/2 daughter = 1/2 son/s; males get 1/2 when she is one

START case PARENTS
Wa Li'abawayhi Likulli Widin Minhum As-Sudusu Mimm Taraka 'In Kna Lahu Waladun
And to his PARENTS, to each one from them the sixth from what left if for him was a child
1 ? 1/6 mother/father = 5/6 CHILDREN
Fa?in Lam Yakun Lahu Waladun Wa Warithahu 'Abawhu Fali'ammihi Ath-Thuluthu
ELSE IF was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the third
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father
Fa?in Kna Lahu 'Ikhwatun Fali'ammihi As-Sudusu
ELSE IF Ikhwatun were for him, so to his mother the sixth
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (Ikhwatun + CHILDREN); see 412 for sibling distribution
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 Ikhwatun; see 4176 for sibling distribution

Min Badi Wayatin Y Bih 'Aw Daynin 'b'uukum Wa 'Abn'uukum L Tadrna 'Ayyuhum 'Aqrabu Lakum Nafan Faratan Mina Allhi 'Inna Allha Kna `Alman akman

START case HUSBAND
Wa Lakum Nifu M Taraka 'Azwjukum 'In Lam Yakun Lahunna Waladun
And for you half what left your spouse, if is not for them a child
1 - 1/2 husband = 1/2 father/mother
Fa?in Kna Lahunna Waladun Falakumu Ar-Rubu`u Mimm Tarakna
ELSE IF was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left
1 ? 1/4 husband = 3/4 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/4 husband ? 1/6 father/mother = 7/12 CHILDREN

Min Ba`di Wayatin Yna Bih 'Aw Daynin

START case WIFE
Wa Lahunna Ar-Rubu`u Mimm Taraktum 'In Lam Yakun Lakum Waladun
And for them the quarter from what you left, if was not for you a child
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 parent/s
Fa?in Kna Lakum Waladun Falahunna Ath-Thumunu Mimm Taraktum
ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left
1 ? 1/8 wife = 7/8 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/8 wife ? 1/3 parents = 13/24 CHILDREN

Min Ba`di Wayatin Tna Bih 'Aw Daynin

START case Kallatan (spouse-less and father-less with child)
Wa ?In Kna Rajulun Yrathu Kallatan 'Aw Amra'atun
AND IF was a man to be inherited Kallatan or a woman
Wa Lahu 'Akhun 'Aw 'Ukhtun Falikulli Widin Minhum As-Sudusu
And for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth
1 ? 1/6 sister/ brother = 5/6 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/6 sister/ brother = 2/3 CHILDREN
Fa?in Kn 'Akthara Min Dhlika Fahum Shurak'u F Ath-Thuluthi
ELSE IF they were more than that, so they are partners in the third
1 ? 1/3 sister/s +brother/s = 2/3 CHILDREN
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1/2 CHILDREN

Min Badi Wayatin Y? Bih 'Aw Daynin Ghayra Murrin Wayatan Mina Allhi Wa Allhu Almun almun

START case Al-Kallati (spouse-less and father-less; no child)
Yastaftnaka Quli Allhu Yuftkum F Al-Kallati 'Ini Amru'uun Halaka Laysa Lahu Waladun
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if human died, not for him a child
Wa Lahu 'Ukhtun Falah Nifu M Taraka
And for him a sister, so for her half what left
1 - 1/2 sister = 1/2 mother
Wa Huwa Yarithuh 'In Lam Yakun Lah Waladun
And he inherits her if was not for her a child
1 = brother; 0 = mother
Fa?in Knat Athnatayni Falahum Ath-Thuluthni Mimm Taraka
ELSE IF they were two, so to them (F) the two thirds from what left
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother
Wa ?In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an Falildhdhakari Mithlu a??i Al-'Unthayayni
AND IF they were 'Ikhwatan Rijlan and Nis'an so to the male equal fortune the two females
1 sister; 1 brother -- 1/3 + 2/3
3 sisters; 2 brothers -- 1/7 + 1/7 + 1/7 + 2/7 + 2/7
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 (sister/s + brother/s); males get equal share the two females

Yubayyinu Allhu Lakum 'An Taill Wa Allhu Bikulli Shay'in `Almun
Clarifies God for you that you are (not) misguided and God is with all things knowledgeable.

Onur

Hi Nun,
You wrote "As already stated, for a sole inheritor there is no need for inheritance ruling"
That is exactly my point. You have to ask why. Because inheritance ratios make sense only comparatively. When there is one inheritor, the ratios don't mean anything. Ratios get their full meaning only in comparison to each other. This common-sense insight would allow us to compare ratios to each other under a common denominator. What I mean the algebraic method is nothing more than that. We don't really need the term algebra. In fact, traditional Muslims used that method by giving a different name to it.
Onur

unknownuser

Hi Onur,

Correct on the sole inheritor although going through all the combinations, the ratios given NEVER come in to play with two or more inheritors with always a surplus or shortfall; regardless what amounts are stated or meaning of Kalala one can fix using a common denominator (i.e. decreasing the surplus or increasing the shortfall/remainder) method.

The template posted above is precise according to the wording which after working all the posibilities the entire night last week, it finally dawned on me (no pun...lol) the exact shares to the children and siblings and difference between 411 and 4176...

411 starts with to the male equal share the two females
Above if left alone would be as understood today includes all mixed daughter/s & son/s combinations;
Qur'an continues with...

ELSE IF they are women over two, so for them two thirds what left
This excludes all combinations when > 2 or 3+ females from the first statement.

Further continues...

AND IF she was one, so for her the half
This excludes the case of one female from the first statement above.

Thus the only possibility to apply "to the male equal share the two females" is when they are exactly two!

Whereas in 4176 the shares 1/2 or 2/3 for the sisters are when they are alone (i.e. no brothers) and Qur'an precisley states "Wa ?In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an" which covers all possibilities for mixed siblings apply "to the male equal share the two females" and gives definition of Ikhwatun in 411 -- at least two persons, one is male.

The study is an exercise in logic and articulates how Qur'an explains itself using cross-reference and non-contradiction. They should give this in place of those bizarre LSAT tests for law students; although make it two years, open book, use Google, or even bring a friend. ;D

Peace

huruf

Whereas in 4176 the shares 1/2 or 2/3 for the sisters are when they are alone (i.e. no brothers) and Qur'an precisley states "Wa ?In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an" which covers all possibilities for mixed siblings apply "to the male equal share the two females" and gives definition of Ikhwatun in 411 -- at least two persons, one is male.

Peace

Salaam, Noon de plume,

I do not get what you mean en that paragraph, because en 4.11 there is no mention of the word 'Ikhwatan. I must be missing something.

Thanks

Salaam