Inheritance according to Qur?an

Mazhar

Noon,

Do open it and read it carefully. Don't be childish, take some time reading it, and then come back if you find objection on any para. Just quote para No. and what you say about it.

Noon_waalqalami

Noon,

Do open it and read it carefully. Don't be childish, take some time reading it, and then come back if you find objection on any para. Just quote para No. and what you say about it.

No one should waste time reading your stupid stuff. Stop spamming/polluting this thread.

Mazhar

No one should waste time reading your stupid stuff. Stop spamming/polluting this thread.

Allah the Exalted has covered all, even if there are hundreds of ground situations, in just five sub classifications. You can have hundreds of mathematical equations by just referring to those 5 classifications.

Daughter not Son is the central theme of Inheritance. It is incumbent upon death expecting wealthy person to bequeath for the Mother and Father; and nearer relatives.

Admin attention please! Placing of this thread under sticky by some was a mere reflexive fascination by lengthy table. It should be a cause of concern for the Administrator of the Forum as many visitors will think that this ridiculous thread by a person who does not know ABC of Arabic, even its vowel, has the approval and agreement of Free Minds. Should we give impression to general public how poor is Free Minds in Arabic and yet claims "Qur'aan alone"!!!

Mazhar

Admn Pl look into this

Yes this topic should be a sticky; it teaches logic, how to read Qur'an using cross-reference and context to extrapolate certain words and to take the best non-contradicting meaning.

He translates one word at two places in the same Ayah which are identical in all aspects, both in nominative case and absolute state , once masculine son, and then says it is genderless--any gender?

Is this the way we on this widely visited forum interpret Qur'aan making even mockery of word "logic"?

Noon_waalqalami

Allah the Exalted has covered all, even if there are hundreds of ground situations, in just five sub classifications.

Yes, I've answered all combinations while you write stupid rants, are a coward, and don't answer questions.

Thread is distributing shares according to Qur'an; either provide alternative distributions or stop spamming!

Here are all combinations for reference; obviously sole inheritor gets the whole, no need for arbitration laws.

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine)...

son/s + daughter/s distribute at 21 ratio male to female = 1

411 ... so if kunna/are nisa above two falahunna/so to them (feminine plural) thulutha (2/3) what left

and if kanat/is (feminine) one so to her the half

and to their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kana/is (masculine) to person walad/son (if male child/born)

so if not was to person waladun/offspring/child born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third

so if kana/is (masculine singular) to person ikh'wat (if male sibling/brother) so to his mother the sixth

from after a will have made in it or judgment your fathers and your children not you know which of them closer to you benefit obligation from The God indeed The God is Knowing Wise

1 father + 0 sibling/s = 1

1/3 mother + 2/3 father = 1
1/6 mother + 5/6 brother/s = 1

1/6 mother/father + 5/6 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 son/s = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 mother/father = 1
2 daughters + mother/father equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 mother/father = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
2 daughters + mother + father all equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father = 1

1/6 mother/father + 5/6 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1

411 kalalah fatherless and spouseless no son (sibling/s variable/unstated)
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 (mother + sister/s) = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 brother/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

2 daughters + mother + sister/s (all share equally) = 1
2 daughters + brother/s 5/6 share equally + 1/6 mother = 1
2 daughters + brother/s + sister/s 5/6 share equally + 1/6 mother = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (mother + sister/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 sister/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 brother/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

2 daughters + sister/s = 1
2 daughters + brother/s = 1
2 daughters + sister/s + brother/s = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 sister/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

412 and to you half what left your spouse?s if not was to them waladun/offspring/child

so if kana is (masculine) to them walad/son (if is male child/born) so to you the fourth

from what they left from after a will they made in it or judgment

and to them the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/offspring/child

so if kana is (masculine) to you walad/son (i.e. if to person male child/born) falahunna/so to them the eight

from what you left from after a will you made in it or judgment...

1 spouse + 0 sibling/s = 1

1/4 husband + 3/4 son/s = 1
1/8 wife + 7/8 son/s = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 spouse = 1
2 daughters + spouse equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 spouse = 1

1/2 husband + 1/2 mother/father = 1
1/4 wife + 3/4 mother/father = 1

1/2 husband + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
1/4 wife + 3/8 mother + 3/8 father = 1

1/6 mother/father + 1/4 husband + 7/12 son/s = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife + 17/24 son/s = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother/father + 1/4 spouse = 1
2 daughters + mother/father + spouse all equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother/father + 1/6 spouse = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/8 wife + 13/24 son/s = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/6 spouse = 1
2 daughters + mother + father + spouse (share equally) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/9 mother + 1/9 father + 1/9 spouse = 1

1/4 husband + 3/4 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother/father + 1/4 husband + 7/12 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife + 17/24 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 children mixed (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1

412 kalalah fatherless and spouseless has son; sibling/s fixed at 1/6 or 1/3
412 .. and if is a man inherited kalalah (no crown/head of household; fatherless and spouseless) or woman

and has brother or sister so to each one from them the sixth

so if they were greater from that so they partners in the third

from after a will is recommended in it or judgment not harmful a will from The God and The God Knowing Forbearing

1/6 sister/brother + 5/6 son/s = 1
1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 2/3 son/s = 1

1/6 sister/brother + 5/6 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1
1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 2/3 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 sister/brother + 2/3 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 1/2 son/s = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 sister/brother + 2/3 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 1/2 (daughter/s + son/s) 21 ratio male to female = 1

4176 al-kalalah the fatherless and spouseless no offspring/child born
4176 they seek your ruling say The God gives you a ruling in al-kalalah (the fatherless and spouseless; deceased left no crown/head of household)

if person died is not to person waladun/offspring/child and has sister so to her half what left and he inherits it if not was to her waladun/offspring/child

so if they were two (feminine) so to them the third twice (2/3) from what left

and if they were ikh'watun/siblings rijal wanisa so to the male like share the two (feminine)

clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing

1 sister 1/2 + 1/2 mother = 1
2 sisters 2/3 (1/3 each) + 1/3 mother = 1
3 sisters (1/4 each x 3) + 1/4 mother = 1

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

Admin attention please!

Admin this clueless person is hijacking/spamming this thread to promote his stupid article -- can we do something?

Mazhar

Admin this clueless person is hijacking/spamming this thread to promote his stupid article -- can we do something?

You are a dumb OX devoid of simple logic and you wrote stupid article. Noon

Learned Noon writes in his Post 127

Peace brother Mazhar,

Well written with slight miss-reading of solitary son and applying "to the male like share the two females" and the females in 411 are alone, otherwise numerous cases math does not add.

The most interesting part of the story is that after having read his premises and responses to few others, I wanted to get him out of his trap and self styled trick with the word which he now called "slight mis-reading of solitary son" in my article. I suggested him that it can be child. He scholarly corrected me earning my thanks.

Post 86. Sorry Noon, I forgot to acknowledge your point regarding Waladun as singular son for reason of Kana. Yes, there it means only son because of masculine deficient verb and it being its Ism-Noun subject.

Noon naively reponded in Post 87

Thank you Mazhar, that was what makes all the calculations work and rather amazing logic.

I got worried. He was behaving like late Rashad Khalifa. I kept confronting him to take him out of that state with simple and evident facts about the Ayaat. But it did not work since he starts reproducing his first lenghty page.

Noon_waalqalami

Learned Noon writes in his Post 127

Well written with slight miss-reading of solitary son and applying "to the male like share the two females" and the females in 411 are alone, otherwise numerous cases math does not add.

Yeah it was fine until you got to the actual verses. I asked you to distribute/apply then you went on a STUPID rant!

huruf

Lildhakar mithlu haz el unthayain, (to the male like the portion of the two females)

I do not understand that as meaning he gets double of each of them, but that he gets the same as each of them. His portion is like the portion of the two females, who have already been aportionned their portion so as to aportion after for the others. It is not stating that when you calculate the shares you automatically aportion double to males. In fact if it was so, the Qur'an could have said stright out for the males double than for the females. But it doesn't say so nor proceeds that way. So first a portion is assigned for the females when they are two. So two females one male they would there would be three equal portions. Then after considering the case when there are two females, comes the case when it is one female, and finally the case when it is more than two females. So the first thing is to set the share of the females when they are two to one, which would be the same share for all the offspring.

As has already been stated, inheritance es calculated or fixed taking it as a function of the number of female offspring.

If two, then the male takes the part like the two females

If there is only one daughter she takes half regardless of the number of males

If there are more than two they take two thirds, regardless equally of the number of males.

On the other hand, there is a curious thing and I do not know whether anybody has commented on it

There are two expressions which occur in succession in the three ayas 4.11 4.12 and 3.176

First we read in 4.11

thuluthaa ma taraka

later in the same aya speakign about the parents it says li kulli wahid minhuma as-sudus min ma taraka

The same phenomenon we observe in the ayas I have mentioned the use first of ma taraka and then the use of min ma taraka

So ?Any idea as to what is the difference between them "ma taraka" and "min ma taraka"?

I think it must necessarily mean something. Looks systematic.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

Lildhakar mithlu haz el unthayain, (to the male like the portion of the two females)

I do not understand that as meaning he gets double of each of them, but that he gets the same as each of them. His portion is like the portion of the two females, who have already been aportionned their portion so as to aportion after for the others. It is not stating that when you calculate the shares you automatically aportion double to males. In fact if it was so, the Qur'an could have said stright out for the males double than for the females. But it doesn't say so nor proceeds that way. So first a portion is assigned for the females when they are two. So two females one male they would there would be three equal portions. Then after considering the case when there are two females, comes the case when it is one female, and finally the case when it is more than two females. So the first thing is to set the share of the females when they are two to one, which would be the same share for all the offspring.

As has already been stated, inheritance es calculated or fixed taking it as a function of the number of female offspring.

If two, then the male takes the part like the two females

If there is only one daughter she takes half regardless of the number of males

If there are more than two they take two thirds, regardless equally of the number of males.

Salaam huruf,

There is a problem using that train of thought not only with 1 daughter for example $200,000 inheritance gets 1/2 or $100,000 while 10 sons would get $10,000 each or 1/10 that of the girl. It's precisely stated for any mixed siblings 4176 and same wording is used ? ?to the male like share the two females.?

Therefore cannot solve for example unless using 21 male to female ratio 3 sisters, 2 brothers?

411 directs you The God in your children?
to the male like share the two (feminine)

4176 and if they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)

On the other hand, there is a curious thing and I do not know whether anybody has commented on it

There are two expressions which occur in succession in the three ayas 4.11 4.12 and 3.176

First we read in 4.11

thuluthaa ma taraka

later in the same aya speakign about the parents it says li kulli wahid minhuma as-sudus min ma taraka

The same phenomenon we observe in the ayas I have mentioned the use first of ma taraka and then the use of min ma taraka

So ?Any idea as to what is the difference between them "ma taraka" and "min ma taraka"?

I think it must necessarily mean something. Looks systematic.

I've looked into both these and need to examine further; my first thought was it has to do with priority of who gets paid first. Mathematically in all languages ma/what/of left is multiplication like in English we say 1/2 "of" Y (1/2 x Y) whereas from what left implies subtraction first or Y - 1/2 although ran into an issue with consistency with distributions to husband and wife likewise other fractions are given without ma or mimma...

411 so to his mother the third

412
and to you half what left your spouses (if no child)
so to you the fourth from what they left (if son)

and to them the fourth from what you left (if no child)
so to them the eight from what you left (if son)

huruf

On the first part of your answer I do not agree. I have been a long time turning that in my mind, and logically it makes sense the way I said, to me at least, whereas textually the the male like twice the female is exotic o estraneous. I also had taken notice of 4.176, which is different, but in that particular expression may be the same.

As to the unfairness, no. What is absolutely unfair is that women get punished with half for the heck of it on the asumption, not made int he Qur'an that in all cases the men will be angels and they will look after them better than themselves. The money given to women is consistently better spent that the money gone to males. Women spend on their family.I am old enough to have seen with my own eyes what happens with inheritance when women are desregarded. There are very good men around, but God knows as I know and many people know that to trample on women does not take a lot of trouble or effort and that it is better that the power over themselves (the women) in in their own hands (of the women) rather and in other hands.

I think inheritance has also been coloniazed by the boys hypnotic club.

Thanks for your efforts with the ma and min ma. I also thought it might be something to do with whether you take out first whatever legacies and liabilities, but same I am lost. Let us hope we well get some light on that, because it might also help on other aspects.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

On the first part of your answer I do not agree. I have been a long time turning that in my mind, and logically it makes sense the way I said, to me at least, whereas textually the the male like twice the female is exotic o estraneous. I also had taken notice of 4.176, which is different, but in that particular expression may be the same.

Then distribute 3 sisters and 2 brothers using your understanding apply it consistently?

4176 and if they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)

As to the unfairness, no. What is absolutely unfair is that women get punished with half

They don't always get half; depends on the situation; here are a few examples they get more or share equally...

so if they were greater from that so they partners in the third

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/8 wife + 13/24 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12 son/s = 1

1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 husband = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 brother/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 brother/s = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/4 mother/father + 1/4 husband = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/6 husband = 1
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 (2/9 each) + 1/9 mother + 1/9 father + 1/9 husband = 1

Peace

huruf

I am not going to distribute anything. I leave that to specialists, but that is not an argument. You cannot mix justice and mathematics. You first find out what is just and then find the mathematics to apply it.

To say that not always is less for the female really must be a joke, it is almost always. So the "almost" should compensate for the bulk of the injustice? Whom are we kidding?

In inheritance the bulk of it is from ascendants to descendants, from parents to children, so you trample there, the rest is peanuts.

So no, fundamentally the male twice as the female is not fair and it is not what the Qur'an says.

I acknowledge that there are holes in the whole set up of inheritance in my view, in your view, in evrybody's view that I know off, but I do not believe that cutting justice corners helps en solving them. We need patience and the intelligence and vision of persons like you and others and all of us who try to find as much of the truth that we can. The Qur'an, when I have got through to the end of some question has never disappointed me. It has surprised me many times, but not disappointed.

I keep hoping we get some light in the ma taraka and min ma taraka.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

I am not going to distribute anything. I leave that to specialists,

Then you should not have posted below unless you are ready to distribute 4176 mixed siblings...

If two, then the male takes the part like the two females

If there is only one daughter she takes half regardless of the number of males

If there are more than two they take two thirds, regardless equally of the number of males.

Therefore be consistent apply what you wrote above to all combinations of mixed siblings...

4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)

You cannot mix justice and mathematics. You first find out what is just and then find the mathematics to apply it.

No, you cannot write your own book according what you think is just.
Math is oblivious to any justice and the distributions explicitly stated.
411 and 4176 does not say "to the male like share the female."

To say that not always is less for the female really must be a joke, it is almost always. So the "almost" should compensate for the bulk of the injustice? Whom are we kidding?

Check for yourself how many are equal, favor male, favor female, and circumstances.

Here are all combinations again for reference; obviously sole inheritor gets the whole, no need for arbitration laws.

So no, fundamentally the male twice as the female is not fair and it is not what the Qur'an says.

Inheritance verses are clear and precise. People are free to make a will if they disagree.

411 from after a will have made in it or judgment

Peace

huruf

Like share THE two females is not = double than the females, That would be a twisted interpetation, an interested interpretation. Because what it indicates is that there are two concrete females who have already been attributed their part on the basis precisely that they are two, the two females, so they have their share on the basis of that proportion. The share of the male, that male that is in proportion to the two females, well he gets a share the same as the share they have got, not double, not twice their share, but the same share.

For the rest, I admire your mathematical capacity, but I do not hold it sacred. It is not part of the Qur'an.

And it is very rare that the proportion of males to females in a family be something like 1 to 10, although there are cases, but they are rare, proportions tend to be more equal. The equity is far, far far more guaranteed when the distribution is done quranically than when it is done according to the interested manipulations of those who interpret freely. Because in this case every female in the world gets punished, because every female is somebody's daughter, whereas in the proportions stated by the Qur'an, even in the extreme cases of 1 female to 10 males (?how many of those do you know?), ten males are far more capable of getting ahead and helping each other along, than if you leave one single, lonely, alone female with 1/22nd part of the whole inheritance. If the brothers, as many of them do, do not give a damn about her, she is done.

?For God's sake! Next we will want what, to sell what bridge? Everybody, universally, many, many muslims included, say that woman half the male, is not fair not because they hate islam, that is apart, but simply because that is their gut feeling. And the gut feeling usually does not lie.

Yes we may react piously and since it is holy we look for those little instances where according to the ulemas in fact, ?isn't that great! females get the same, or ?EVEN!?EVEN! more and with that we shut up because we are good girls or boys and accept the pretty status quo... Whom are we cheating?

No, the Qur'an does not say to the male twice what the female, or double the female. That is a lie. If the Qur'an wanted to say that, it would have said it. As clear as when it says you require four witnesses for something.

Males in proportion one to two females, get the same as them, not double as them. An only daughter gets half. The discourse in aya 4.11 has not changed, it continuews speaking about the children, it doesn't say if there are only daughters and no males, it doesn't. But if it is too much for us, it is our problem not the Qur'an speaking.

And I am sorry again, I am not going to distribute anything. I do not think that would be a problem. Mathematics and algebra are a pretty good tool if one knows how to use it. If by one means you cannot get a result, another means should be tried. To say you cannot and therefore you must change the Qur'an dispositions so that you can do your mathematics for me is not acceptable. Rather to have bad mathematics than injustice.

Also, you yourself recognize that we do not know what to do with ma taraka and min ma taraka, and I suspect that there are things that are still obscure. May be that will throw some light on the whole thing.

The problem is that along the centuries we have let so many accretions muddle the understanding and the clarity of the Qur'an that many times we do not see its clarity even when it is shining on our nose. We have seen that so many times!

As far as I am concerned, the "to the male twice as to the female" is a heinous lie, a treacherous act of hipnotism. There is something indeed very hypnotic to the traditional interpretations, as if they were inescapable, like fate, or sacred.

They are not, and they are escapable.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

No, the Qur'an does not say to the male twice what the female, or double the female. That is a lie. If the Qur'an wanted to say that, it would have said it. As clear as when it says you require four witnesses for something.

These are logically incorrect; two cannot have same result as three...

to the male like share the two females?
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=255236612

to the male like share the three females?
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=833522170

4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)

Above starts new case "mixed" siblings and logically this is correct...

to the male like share the female
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1957586161

to the male like share the two females
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1230912497

to the male like share the three females
http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1029359866

Peace

huruf

I do not get what you are trying to say.

The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls.

What? He has twenty fingers?

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

I do not get what you are trying to say.

The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls.

What? He has twenty fingers?

Salaam

No, it's not about him having twenty fingers and toes. That analogy is true regardless of the number of girls.

The boy has the same amount of fingers as the one girl
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the three girls

It's an illogical analogy when applied to sharing inheritance. Two females is used for a reason; not one, three, etc.

The boy has the same amount of money as the one girl (11 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the two girls (21 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the three girls (31 ratio)

4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)

http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1230912497

Peace

huruf

No, it's not about him having twenty fingers and toes. That analogy is true regardless of the number of girls.

The boy has the same amount of fingers as the one girl
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the two girls
The boy has the same amount of fingers as the three girls

It's an illogical analogy when applied to sharing inheritance. Two females is used for a reason; not one, three, etc.

The boy has the same amount of money as the one girl (11 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the two girls (21 ratio)
The boy has the same amount of money as the three girls (31 ratio)

4176 AND IF (i.e. begin new case) they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)

http//easycalculation.com/charts/imagedisplay.php?rand=1230912497

Peace

Of course, it is used for a reason, but the reason is to fix the part of the inheritance as a function of the number of girls, Therefore it alots first to the girls it is not, again, a male the same amount as the amount given to two girls together, it is if there are two girls he gets the same amount as them. There is a determinate article and it is the number of girls that maters. And then it continues with the case of more than two girls and then with the case of one girl and at no time in all that it suggests or hints or says that in the first case it is speaking about mixed gender and then only about one gender, it is still speaking about mixed gender.

The amount of twisting of the arabic in order to uphold "the male double the female" is fantastic. And the maths is not going to change what the Arabic says.

And the Qur'an if it wasn't a question of the shares as a function of the number of females, could have said with no trouble and no esoteric idioms that the male takes double as the female, which it doesn't say.

No matter how many cakes to cut you put in the messages, the fact that it does not say to the male double the female, but that it says the share of the male is the same as the share of the two females, it is the same as if you say the salary of that employee is the same as the salary of those two employees, it is not saying it is double, but that those emplooyees get a salary which the same as the salary of the first. not the summ of both salaries amount to the salary of the one.

But I suppose it is very hard to rennounce privilege and arabic and Qur'an will be twisted and pressed in every way so as to get what one wants to get out of it, no matter how preposterous.

It is preposterous that somebody is shocked and reject such possibility because in some very rare cases some males might get less than some female, but that the fact that all the females in existence will be skimmed of half their inheritance is taken for granted with no qualms or exclamations of it being unfair.

The problem is not in the Arabic or the maths or anything, the problem is somewhere else.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

Of course, it is used for a reason, but the reason is to fix the part of the inheritance as a function of the number of girls, Therefore it alots first to the girls it is not, again, a male the same amount as the amount given to two girls together, it is if there are two girls he gets the same amount as them.

Peace huruf, with that reasoning you cannot ever distribute

411 directs you The God in your children
to the male like share the two (feminine)

2 daughters 2 sons
2 daughters 3 sons

Nor can you distribute when parents or spouse are included above.
That is mathematical/logical proof that your reading is contradicting.

4176 ? and if they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijal wanisa
so to the male like share the two (feminine)
clarifies The God to you lest you stray
and The God in every a thing Knowing

Peace

huruf

If the distribution is as a function of the number of female daughters,
It says the male like the share of the two females, and the number of males does not matter, wht is fixed is what is alotted to the females, then what is left is alotted to the males, in whatever number.

The females are the ones that are numbered, one, two, over two. So the the effects one, the male is any number of males. So the male (any number of males) is one third between them.

Or you can use proportion if they are one to two they will get the same as the two females, or if they are three, the three get the same amount as one of the females, which is what goes on when there are over two females and they get two thirds. The third that is left is for the males.

Now, please, please, please don't cringe that that would be unfair, because you are pushing all along the principle with no qualms and no trouble that to disinherit the whole feminine population is quite acceptable and no big deal, in spite of the Qur'an itself considering women generally as more vulnerable than men.

How would you find that the first care of those who are supposedly qawwamun (carers) dor the women would be to snatch as dilligently as possible any parte that might fall on the women as inheritance?

Some jokes are funny, others are not.

Salaam