Inheritance according to Qur?an

StopS

peace StopS,

I am disappointed in your replies to Nun.

I am sorry to hear that. I will try to improve.

For example, you seem to imply that he did not answer any of your questions when he did, or at the very least, answered some/most. The right response from you should have been to explain why his answers did not satisfy.

Here are some clear examples

StopS said
Where is the adherence of the text which says very explicitly "parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children"
Why do you insist on introducing a son?

Nun clearly explained why in reply 19, and then later.

This is what I asked
Please show me where in the Koran it says that the inheritance is divided into shares which can be re-allocated?
Where in my example is there a son?
Please show me where in the Koran the 1/9 comes up.
Where is the adherence of the text which says very explicitly "parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children" or "parents, a sixth share to each"
What happened to the decree for the wives "if you have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth"?
Can 1/8 decided in the Koran, be changed to 1/9 by a human?
Why do you insist on introducing a son? Only because it serves your purpose?

Nothing was clearly explained. He just repeated a claim, without explanation. His main effort was a simple copy/paste exercise and repeating the inheritance paragraphs. I can do that myself, which is why I asked Why? Where? Show me, what happened etc etc.

So the disagreement between you two is the meaning of "walad/waladun".

Not really. I disagree with the re-interpretation of a word, rendering the rest of the sentences largely useless, which has already been demonstrated above.

You previously said "This means that your view of walad being a single boy is not universally accepted.". This implicitly admits that there are different views on this. Nun is one of those with a differing view.

So you admit, indirectly, that theoretically "wld" could be taken as "son" or "children". So Nun's view is theoretically possible, according to you.

Yes. Absolutely. Not only indirectly.

The point you should be arguing is that whether this is a valid reading/recitation of Quran. Since Quran had no tashkeel/vocalisation initially, then it would seem so. If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forth.

And that has been my point all along.

Perhaps Nun could have clarified he is alluding to different recitation/reading of Quran script, without vocalisation marks. I believe this is what he is saying. Nun, please correct me if I am wrong.

Ah, that could be an explanation, but does not answer the why.

And lastly, another example, you did not even refer to his answering of your statement on 2240 "What you also leave out is the "bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence" stated in 2240, which is also not considered."
Nun said "Inheritance verses are applied separate (IF no will) and after all bequests are paid."

If you disagree, even though this seems fairly straightforward, please state why.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not identify this as the answer to my question. ) My mistake, sorry.

And you are right, I disagree. WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?
Here, we have an over-subscription - which, by the way, online inheritance calculators acknowledge - and there should still be "a year's maintenance and residence" paid from this? How?

In summary, if I have understood correctly, Nun's view is certainly unorthodox (nothing wrong with that however) but not impossible. If you can prove it is impossible, I am all ears.

I agree and that's why it requires a clear explanation.

Noon_waalqalami

Peace and welcome back StopS,

You are kidding yourself. No, the calculation is almost always faulty and requires human intervention.

No, you did not answer my questions.

Why are you doing this? Do you really believe you have solved something?

No, the calculations are correct.
Yes, answered your questions.
To accurately distribute shares.
Yes.

Let me explain it again as there seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere
I asked for the calculation of an inheritance according to the Koran, where the estate needs to be divided amongst just a few people
a wife, 3 daughters, and 2 parents.

In the Koran, in 411 it states regarding inheritance of daughters
if they be women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves

I understand this to mean if there are more than 2 daughters, i.e. 3 daughters, they inherit 2/3rds of the estate. This is an interpretation as it does not explicitly or literally say daughter and only mentions "more than 2" and what "he" leaves.

It explicitly starts and specifically addresses "your children" therefore about daughters...

411 directs you The God in your children
to the male like share the two (feminine) ... IF MIXED 21 ratio male to female
so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds ... ELSE IF females/daughters > 2 = 2/3
and if she was one so for her the half ... AND IF one/daughter = 1/2

Note case of exactly two daughters "alone" is unstated and therefore variable.

Next in 411 it says regarding the inheritance of the parents
and to his parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children

I understand this to mean if there are children, then the parents each receive 1/6th of the estate. Why do I think this? Well, because it then says but if he has no children, which makes sense logically, because you have a case for the presence of children, which is different than the case for no children.

No. It says they get 1/6 fixed IF male/child/son present and continues ELSE IF no child/born (it's like a computer program) ...

411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is to person walad/son
so if not was to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents so to his mother the third

Logically it all makes perfect sense since all the combinations/calculations distribute perfectly!

Finally, for this simple example, the Koran specifies in 411
but if you have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth

This is again an interpretation, as the Koran does not specify whom this is addressing, but the context shows us this is directed at the wives. Again we have the same split of a couple having children or no children, which changes the portion of the estate, in this case, because there are children, the Koran specifies an eighth for the wife.

So if I take above fractions and use the closest common denominator, we get 3 + 16 + 8 = 27/24 which is a bit too much.

No. You are not following the instructions in Qur'an which leads to errors and bad math.

Let me ask this -- why are all my calculations correct for all combinations and yours not?

son/s, daughter/s distribute 21 ratio male to female

mother/father, son/s 1/6 5/6
mother/father, 1 daughter 1/2 1/2 no son, mother/father variable
mother/father, 2 daughters 1/3 2/3 (2 daughters variable) all share equally
mother/father, 3 daughters 1/3 2/3

mother, father 1/3 2/3
mother, brother/s 1/6 5/6

mother/father, husband 1/2 1/2
mother/father, wife 3/4 1/4

husband/wife, 1 daughter 1/2 1/2 not childless; no son; husband/wife variable
husband/wife, 2 daughters 1/3 2/3
husband/wife, 3 daughters 1/3 2/3

continue every case...

If I look at other instances of the word, I come across only the description of a god with children, where it is used as son because the Christians say Jesus was a son of a god.

In conclusion I see that someone uses parlour tricks to obfuscate the shortfalls of a literal usage of the Koran. Not convincing and a common apologetic trick I see from Christians all the time.

Have a closer look it can mean son or child/born (use context apply best non-contradicting meaning).

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wld#(41133)

Noon_waalqalami

"son" may be substitued since it denotes only male. The word is however . It includes a daughter. This is the subject noun of deficient verb. "Lahu" is relating to its predicate. "provided a child exists as heir of him". The response clause for the condition is not needed since its effect is narrated prior to it.

Peace Mazhar,

If "it includes a daughter" solve mother, father, 3 daughters, husband?

Please explain if these are grammatically correct?

411 ... so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is lahu/to person walad/son
412 and for you half what left your spouse?s if not was for them waladun/child born so if is for them walad/son so for you the fourth

StopS

Peace and welcome back StopS,

No, the calculations are correct.
Yes, answered your questions.
To accurately distribute shares.

Ok, I have shown you why I think the methodology is wrong. If you insist on your interpretation it is your choice.

Thanks

Noon_waalqalami

Ok, I have shown you why I think the methodology is wrong. If you insist on your interpretation it is your choice.

Thanks

Like the rest you chose to interpret child/born where it should be son thus your math errors, contradicts, and reading makes no sense.

1934-35 that Isa/Jesus son Mary speech the truth the one in it they dispute not is to God that He should take from a son Glory be to Him when He decrees a matter so only He says to it be so it becomes

289 and said woman Pharaoh joy eye to me and to you not kill him perhaps that he will benefit us or we take him for a son and they not they realize

411 ? and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is to person a son

Parents get 1/6 IF son present ELSE their share is variable.

1 - 1/6 mother/father (fixed) = 5/6 son (variable)
1 ? 1/2 daughter (fixed) = 1/2 mother/father (variable)
1 ? 2/3 (3 daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 parents (variable)

Thank you, best wishes (I did like your video), and peace!

Mazhar

Please explain if these are grammatically correct?

411 ... so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is lahu/to person walad/son

I hope no one disputes that the pattern of understanding English and Arabic are quite different. The above style of translating Arabic text into English is reflective as if both the languages are considered of similar origins and nature. It has all the possibilities of leading to a perception that might not be present in the original Arabic text.

This is inverted nominal sentence where the Subject-Topic of sentence is red word.

This is a conditional clause. The Subject of the Deficient Past Verb in Jussive state is the red word which is delayed and relates to the fronted Predicate which is not visible there but is understood because of the verb and its subject, denoting presence-existence of the Subject. The apodosis of this conditional clause is elided since it is described in the preceding sentence. The masculine Pronoun third person refers back to the subject of verb -meaning the deceased man.
This clause stands amended in case the situation on ground is this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

Noon_waalqalami

I hope no one disputes that the pattern of understanding English and Arabic are quite different. The above style of translating Arabic text into English is reflective as if both the languages are considered of similar origins and nature. It has all the possibilities of leading to a perception that might not be present in the original Arabic text.

This is inverted nominal sentence where the Subject-Topic of sentence is red word.

This is a conditional clause. The Subject of the Deficient Past Verb in Jussive state is the red word which is delayed and relates to the fronted Predicate which is not visible there but is understood because of the verb and its subject, denoting presence-existence of the Subject. The apodosis of this conditional clause is elided since it is described in the preceding sentence. The masculine Pronoun third person refers back to the subject of verb -meaning the deceased man.
This clause stands amended in case the situation on ground is this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

Peace Mazhar,

Yes it can also mean both i.e. child/born although in that part of verse 411 it does not.

Apply to case mother, father, 3 daughters, husband -- what's left to give the husband?

Apply what you wrote to verses below; how can these also pertain to child/born or daughter?

1934-35 that Isa/Jesus son Mary speech the truth the one in it they dispute not is to God that He should take from a son Glory be to Him when He decrees a matter so only He says to it be so it becomes

289 and said woman Pharaoh joy eye to me and to you not kill him perhaps that he will benefit us or we take him for a son and they not they realize

411 if is to person son so if not was to person child/born

Surah 04 An-Nisaa Complete http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4tyaki83aY
Scroll 411 at 0429 minute, walad/son 0503 minute, waladun child/born 0507 minute.

What?s missing is slight difference in recitation even though spelling is identical as in?

411 to the male
5417 to the remembrance

Mazhar

The point-evidence in post 33 first needs to be rebutted. Thereafter one could proclaim

Yes it can also mean both i.e. child/born although in that part of verse 411 it does not.

Noon_waalqalami

The point-evidence in post 33 first needs to be rebutted. Thereafter one could proclaim

Already replied, evidence shown, see my last post above...

Now are you going to avoid applying your interpretation and logic to solve this simple case or not?

mother, father, 3 daughters, husband

Thus according to Mazhar's interpretation 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 daughters = 1 leaves husband nothing!

Then they use algebra to normalize which can be applied to fix any shortfall/excess.

See stupid calculator and input to see amounts which are never stated in Qur'an.

http//www.islamicsoftware.org/irth/irth.html

Daughters get 8/45 each
Husband gets 1/5
Father gets 2/15
Mother gets 2/15

Mazhar

Dear, I am not in mathematics or algebra. My point is simply this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

For my convenience to understand the Ayah through your mathematics please be simple for me showing only the amount by the percentage of share allowed for them.

Inheritance left by a Deceased Man=Rs. 1000/-

Mourners left.

Three daughters only
2.Father
Mother
Wife
Brother 1

.......................
Mourners

One son only
2.Father
Mother
Wife

Noon_waalqalami

Peace Mazhar,

Dear, I am not in mathematics or algebra. My point is simply this

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier to son only. is the subject of Verb showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

You are correct in that 2nd occurrence waladun child/born means deceased had no child/born/begot.
My argument is 1st occurrence walad/son is different from 2nd occurrence waladun/child/born/begot.

It?s always IF kna/is to person walad/son which kna points to singular masculine.

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine) so if kunna/are (feminine plural) females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left and if knat/is (feminine singular) one so for her the half and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/son so if not yakun/was to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third so if kna/is to person ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) so to his mother the sixth from after a will have made in it or judgment your parents and your children not you know which of them closer to you benefit obligation from The God indeed The God kna/is Knowing Wise

412 and for you half what left your spouse?s if not yakun/was for them waladun child/born so if kna/is for them walad/son so for you the fourth from what they left from after a will they made in it or judgment and for them the fourth from what you left if not yakun/was to you waladun child/born so if kna/is to you walad/son so for them the eight from what you left from after a will you made in it or judgment and if kna/is a man inherited kallatan (fatherless spouseless) or woman and has brother or sister so for each one from them the sixth so if kn/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

For my convenience to understand the Ayah through your mathematics please be simple for me showing only the amount by the percentage of share allowed for them.

Inheritance left by a Deceased Man=Rs. 1000/-

Mourners left.

Three daughters only = 2/3 fixed
411 so if kunna/are (feminine plural) females above two so for them two thirds
Father = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
Mother = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/son
411 so if not yakun/was to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third
Wife = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
412 and for them the fourth from what you left if not yakun/was to you waladun/child born
412 so if kna/is to you walad/son so for them the eight
Brother 1 = 0 siblings only inherit if deceased was kalala; not case father/spouse present

1 ? 2/3 three daughters 2/9 each = 1/3 divided equally; all are variable/unstated (1/9 father + 1/9 mother + 1/9 wife)

2/31000 = 666.667 three daughters 2/91000 = 222.222 each
1/91000 = 111.111 father
1/91000 = 111.111 mother
1/9*1000 = 111.111 wife

.......................
Mourners

One son only = variable/unstated
Father = 1/6
Mother = 1/6
411 and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kna/is (masculine singular) to person walad/son
Wife = 1/8
412 so if kna/is to you walad/son so for them the eight

1 ? 1/6 father ? 1/6 mother ? 1/8 wife = 13/24 son (variable/unstated gets remainder)
13/24*1000 = 541.667 son
1/6 * 1000 = 166.667 father
1/6 * 1000 = 166.667 mother
1/8 * 1000 = 125.000 wife

Mazhar

1 ? 2/3 three daughters 2/9 each = 1/3 divided equally; all are variable/unstated (1/9 father + 1/9 mother + 1/9 wife)

2/31000 = 666.667 three daughters 2/91000 = 222.222 each
1/91000 = 111.111 father
1/91000 = 111.111 mother
1/9*1000 = 111.111 wife

So you are proposing that after meeting the injunction about daughters the left over should be equally distrubted amonst the other three father, mother and wife.

Wakas

peace StopS,

What I find odd about your questions is that you mix seemingly poor questions with seemingly good ones, e.g.

You said
"WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?"

This is well understood by the verses 411, 412 e.g.

Various translations
...All after a will is carried through or a debt....
after any bequest he may have made, or any debt .

*the word debt can also mean obligation.

Granted, I have not studied the inheritance issue, but I think the above is fairly obvious. What say you?

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Noon_waalqalami

So you are proposing that after meeting the injunction about daughters the left over should be equally distrubted amonst the other three father, mother and wife.

Correct. Any case when shares are variable/unstated an equal split; examples...

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/stated) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/6 mother (fixed/stated) = 5/6 son/s (variable/unstated share equally)

1 - 1/4 wife (fixed/stated) = 3/4 mother/father (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/2 husband (fixed/stated) = 1/2 parents share equally (variable/unstated)

1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/stated) = 1/2 spouse (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/stated) = 1/2 spouse and parent/s share equally (variable/unstated)

1 - 1/8 wife (fixed/stated) = 7/8 children mixed (variable/unstated)
In above case only ratio 21 male to female is known, amount is not

When looking at the precise word selection and each case the logic is amazing!

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Nisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.

42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat their wealth to your wealth indeed it is sin large

46 and test the orphans until when reached the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is poor so let eat/consume in fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on them and sufficient with The God Reckoner

StopS

peace StopS,

What I find odd about your questions is that you mix seemingly poor questions with seemingly good ones, e.g.

You said
"WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?"

This is well understood by the verses 411, 412 e.g.

Various translations
...All after a will is carried through or a debt....
after any bequest he may have made, or any debt .

*the word debt can also mean obligation.

Granted, I have not studied the inheritance issue, but I think the above is fairly obvious. What say you?

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Why do you find odd that some things are more difficult for me than others? I am unable at times to concisely express what I want to know. It proves I am human )

My point is I can't see any consistency here. Yes, as you say it CAN mean this or that or something else.

If I look at the Koran and look at what has been said about the sentences for 1000 years and now see that a person says it actually does not mean "A", but it means "C" and then I check this with a Koran teacher who says it means "B" and a Koran scholar says it means "D" and the Islamic calculators disagree with all of them, I ask myself what am I supposed to believe?

Wakas

peace,

Nisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.

AFAIK "untha" is for females, hence my comment. Girls could be covered under waladun/children. I have not studied it, so cant say.

IF you have studied it AND shown it does not work, can you provide one clear example? This would then take this theory off the table.

Background
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11583.0

Wakas

peace StopS,

My point was your questioning (and apparently video - I have not watched it) indicated you have somewhat studied this topic, thus when you come out with something obviously not an issue (as if you haven't read it), it makes me wonder about credibility/sincerity/etc.

If you feel you are looking at this objectively, sincerely etc, fair enough.

If I look at the Koran and look at what has been said about the sentences for 1000 years and now see that a person says it actually does not mean "A", but it means "C" and then I check this with a Koran teacher who says it means "B" and a Koran scholar says it means "D" and the Islamic calculators disagree with all of them, I ask myself what am I supposed to believe?

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

If a person finds a problem with Quran's content based only upon what they can prove from Quran, then fair enough. From my experience, I know that Traditional understandings are often filled with errors. For a brilliant example of this, see www.Quran434.com

StopS

peace StopS,

My point was your questioning (and apparently video - I have not watched it) indicated you have somewhat studied this topic, thus when you come out with something obviously not an issue (as if you haven't read it), it makes me wonder about credibility/sincerity/etc.

Ah, now I understand. You don't say which is what, so I can't comment.

If you feel you are looking at this objectively, sincerely etc, fair enough.

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

If a person finds a problem with Quran's content based only upon what they can prove from Quran, then fair enough. From my experience, I know that Traditional understandings are often filled with errors. For a brilliant example of this, see www.Quran434.com

Ok, you started off well enough - and I find a second half missing somehow.

Oh dear, I am not trying to disprove the Koran. I disprove claims. Or try to, anyway. But here and now I am trying to understand how Muslims handle "problematic" areas of the Koran in 2012. Looking at the 3 inheritance verses it is obvious they are not so clear and easy to understand as we see a lot of interpretation and wriggling and different results every time you ask.

Mazhar

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

StopS

But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.

http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/11/default.htm

Wakas

But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Many examples. One www.Quran434.com