Inheritance according to Qur?an

[Noon_waalqalami]

Could you drop the emotional garbage, please? Thanks. I would prefer a civilised discussion.

You are playing games. Please don't.

Peace be upon you! I know that it bothers you that all calculations work perfectly!

This fatwa also interprets and deviates from the decree in the Koran by insinuating that the father receives what is left, which not in the Koranic text.

Another opinion says

Another one says

This means that your view of walad being a single boy is not universally accepted.

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?

I do not care about the univeral opions or fatwa's of the ignorant and explained earlier that one of the issues has to do with walad/son; it can also mean waladun child/born/begot or offspring.

http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Waw-Lam-Dal = to beget, give birth.

Walada (prf. 3rd. p. m. sing.) he has begotten.
Waladna (prf. 3rd. p. f. plu.) They (f.) gave birth.
Wulida (pp. 3rd. p. m. sing.) He was born.
Wulidtu (pp. 1st. p. sing.) I was born.
Yalid (imp. 3rd. p. sing. juss.) He begets.
Yaliduu (imp. 3rd. p. m. plu. acc.) They will beget.
Alidu (imp. 1st. sing.) I will give birth, will bear a child.
Yuulad (pip. 3rd. p. m. sing. juss.) He is begotten.
Waladun (n.) Child; Offspring.
Aulaad (plu.) Children.
Waalidun (act. pic. m. sing.) Begotten, Real father.
Waalidatun (act. pic. f. sing.) Mother.
Waalidaan/Waalidain (act. pic. dual) Parents.
Waalidai (act. pic. duel. f. d.) Parents.
Wildaan (n. plu.) Youths; Children.
Waliidun (act. 2nd. pic. m. sing.) Child.
Mauluudun (pis. pic. m. sing. ) Begotten one; One who is born.

walada vb. (1)
perf. act. 37152, 582, 903
impf. act. 1172, 7127, 1123
perf. pass. 1915, 1933
impf. pass. 1123
pcple. act. (f. walidah, du. walidan) 283, 2180, 2215, 2233, 2233, 47, 47, 433, 436, 4135, 5110, 6151, 1441, 1723, 1914, 1932, 2719, 298, 3114, 3114, 3133, 3133, 4615, 4615, 4617, 7128, 903
pcple. pass. 2233, 2233, 3133

walad n.m. (pl. awlad) 2116, 2233, 2233, 2233, 2233, 310, 347, 3116, 411, 411, 411, 412, 412, 412, 412, 4171, 4176, 4176, 6101, 6137, 6140, 6151, 828, 955, 969, 985, 1068, 1221, 1731, 1764, 17111, 184, 1839, 1935, 1977, 1988, 1991, 1992, 2126, 2391, 252, 289, 3133, 3435, 3437, 394, 4381, 5720, 5817, 603, 6012, 639, 6414, 6415, 7121, 723

walid n.m. (pl. wildan) 475, 498, 4127, 2618, 5617, 7317, 7619

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages 220, 221, 222

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.

2240 and the ones who die from you and leave spouse?s a will for their spouse?s matan provision to al-awli the cycle not driving out so if they leave so not blame on you in what they do in themselves from honorably and The God Mighty Wise

Inheritance verses are applied separate (IF no will) and after all bequests are paid.

Sorry, but your argument is based on the obfuscation of a word, which you are re-assigning a new meaning to and then following it up with re-interpretation.

See above http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm Waw-Lam-Dal = to beget, give birth

37152 child/born/begot The God and indeed they surely liars
347 said Lord how will be to me walad/son
411 if is to person walad/son so if not is to person child/born/begot

Plenty of examples 411 and 5417 to the male/remembrance (use context best non-contradicting meaning).

Now carefully read and re-test your basic IF THEN ELSE logic... 3 daughters, parents, wife

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

IF no child/born THEN wife share = 1/4 (false, there are daughters i.e. children)
ELSE IF son THEN wife share = 1/8 (false, no son)
Thus wife share and parents for this case = variable

Therefore 1 - 2/3 (3 daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 (1/9 mother, 1/9 father, 1/9 wife)

Peace!

[StopS]

And?

What have you added or improved? Nothing. You just repeat your position and think it suddenly works by magic.
On the one hand you show the multitude of meanings and then you assert that, when it suits you, it MUST only this.

You come up with this faulty "IF THEN ELSE logic" and abort it in the very next line. Why do you insist on introducing a son? Only because it serves your purpose?

I ask you some questions to try and narrow it down, but you can't answer them and choose to simply ignore them.

Come on, stop being so dogmatic and boring and bring some real arguments.

[Noon_waalqalami]

And?

What have you added or improved? Nothing.

The verses distribute perfectly for every possible case...

I ask you some questions to try and narrow it down, but you can't answer them and choose to simply ignore them.

All your questions were answered -- do you want to try another example?

Come on, stop being so dogmatic and boring and bring some real arguments.

You come up with this faulty "IF THEN ELSE logic" and abort it in the very next line. Why do you insist on introducing a son? Only because it serves your purpose?

Most the reciters have correct sequence for verse 411 walad/son followed by waladun child/born/begot.

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

That was to show slight difference in reading and we are to use the best (391 non-contradicting meaning.
The case was 3 daughters, parents, and wife.

Simply read exactly as stated and apply basic IF THEN ELSE logic what differentiates the human from cattle...

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine) so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left and if she was one so for her the half and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is to person walad/son so if not is to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third so if 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 is Knowing Wise

412 and for you half what left your spouse?s if not is for them waladun child/born so if 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 is to you waladun child/born so if 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 is a man inherited kallatan (fatherless spouseless) or woman and has a brother or sister so for each one from them the sixth so if they were more 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

4176 they seek your ruling say The God gives you a ruling in al-kallati (the fatherless spouseless) if a person died is not to that person waladun child/born and has sister so for her half what left and he inherits it if not is to her waladun child/born so if were two (feminine) so to them the two thirds from what left and if they were ikh'watun brothers/siblings men/males and females 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

[Wakas]

peace StopS,

I am disappointed in your replies to Nun.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Wakas]

peace Nun,

I have little interest in evangelizing or proving anything to anyone especially annoying missionaries, followers of hearsay, math deficiate numerologists or the godless aroused at miss-leading others into the abysss chanting...

I agree that most of the time, telling such people can be a waste of time, however, sometimes, it can help refine/prove/disproe one's understanding. It is sometimes handy channelling their seemingly anti-islam fervour for one's own use, e.g. checking a theory one has.

For example, in the past, I posted Quran434.com's understanding on faithfreedom and offered a $ incentive if they were able to disprove it. No-one challenged. I did this to check my understanding, but also to expose the type of people you described. Some are heedless, and parrot what they've been told, but I like to think it may have made some think differently. God knows best.

My offer still stands.

[Noon_waalqalami]

Peace Wakas,

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.

1221 and said the one who bought him from Egypt to his woman/wife make comfortable his stay perhaps that he will benefit us or we take him for a son (trailing alif denotes for)
411... and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is to person walad/son

Yes, the first in verse 411 means son therefore parents get 1/6 fixed share only IF there is a son present else their shares are variable.

1 - 1/6 mother - 1/6 father = 2/3 son/s (variable)
1 - 1/6 mother/father = 5/6 (son/s + daughter/s) 21 ratio male to female

1 - 1/2 one daughter = 1/2 mother/father (variable)
1 - 2/3 three daughters (2/9 each) = 1/3 mother/father

Likewise the word can also mean child/born e.g. 412 husband only gets the fixed 1/4 if son is present, 1/2 if no child/born else if only daughters husband shares are variable/unstated.

1915 and peace upon him day wulida/born and day he dies and day he is raised alive
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

1 - 1/4 husband (fixed, son=true) = 3/4 son/s (variable)
1 - 1/4 husband (fixed, son=true) = 3/4 (son/s + daughter/s) 21 ratio male to female

1 - 2/3 three daughters (2/9 each) = 1/3 husband (variable; son=false; no child/born=false)

1 - 1/2 husband (fixed, no child/born=true) = 1/2 mother/father (variable; son=false)

[StopS]

The verses distribute perfectly for every possible case...

All your questions were answered -- do you want to try another example?

Most the reciters have correct sequence for verse 411 walad/son followed by waladun child/born/begot.

That was to show slight difference in reading and we are to use the best (391 non-contradicting meaning.
The case was 3 daughters, parents, and wife.

Simply read exactly as stated and apply basic IF THEN ELSE logic what differentiates the human from cattle...

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?

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.

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.

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.

What Noon does is perform some magic and comes up with

1 - 2/3 (3 daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 (1/9 mother, 1/9 father, 1/9 wife)

or 1 - 2/3 = 1/3 = 9/27

He specifies this as 3 daughters, 2/9 each, where the 2/9 each is not mentioned anywhere, least of all the Koran. He just makes it up.

Noon is now left with 1/3, which he splits evenly between parents and wife, where the Koran says

each one of the two the sixth and for them of what you leave an eighth

Why does Noon think the Koran requires his personal adjustment? Because apologists over the years have noticed the same problems and have tried to find ways around this by re-re-interpreting the words.

So Noon changes the word walad from children into son and the inheritance laws are suddenly different. But do they make any sense?

In 411 we have a reference to sons Allah instructs you concerning your children for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.
A male child is commonly known as a son. Is the word walad used here? No. Why not?
If walad really would mean son, then why is the portion of the parents reduced to 1/9 and not 1/12 or 1/123? Where in the Koran does it aspecify 1/9 if the condition is not met?

In 412 we have the word 4 times. Are all 4 times considered to mean "son"? Are all these instances excluding female children completely? Why does this version discriminate against females? Young females!

In 4176 we have "If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child", which would need to be changed to "If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no son". Also, "he would have inherited from her had she died childless" would be changed to "he would have inherited from her had she died sonless". What a mess!

So up until now all I see is someone arbitrarily changing what has been universally accepted for hundreds of years and now apparently requires an adjustment.

Let me look at what others say about this. I have no idea what level of knowledge Noon has and whether he has studied ancient or classical Arabic and is qualified to make changes to the interpretation of the Koran, so let me look at what people say who DO have these qualifications.

World of Islam says

This is because, in a strictly patriarchal family as envisaged by Islam, men shoulder most of the financial burdens of their dependants, who often include parents of both spouses, their siblings in need, their own children, orphans within the inner family, consanguines from the wider family, their education, their marriages, their medical bills etc.

ii) If the deceased has no sons but is survived by daughters only, two or more, they inherit two thirds of the estate after deducting all valid bequests and outstanding debts and the rest is divided between other relatives;

iii) If the deceased has one daughter, she inherits half the estate after deductions as above and the rest is divided between other relatives;

iv) If the deceased has children as well as both the parents, the parents inherit one sixth of the estate each

Ibn Kathir
Then Allah cancelled whatever He willed from that custom and ordained that the male get twice the amount inherited by the female, and for each parent a sixth (of the whole legacy), for the wife an eighth or a fourth, and for the husband a half or a fourth.

(For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each) There are several forms of the share that the parents get in the inheritance. 1. If the deceased left behind children, the parents get a sixth each.

Hilali-Khan
For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each if the deceased left children;

Dr. Susmit Kumar
A male shall inherit twice as much as a female. If there be more than two girls, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance, but if there be one only, she shall inherit the half. Parents shall inherit a sixth each, if the deceased have a child; but if he leave no child and his parents be his heirs, his mother shall have a third.

Nope, they don't agree.

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.
The inheritance calculation does not take into account contextual sentences which also claim a portion of the estate, which I pointed out but Noon chose to ignore. The entire construct does not use the Koran as was decreed many centuries ago, but hinges solely around the re-translation of a word, which has been is use in a sense different than what Noon is trying to use it as.

[Mazhar]

Yes, the first in verse 411 means son

"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.

[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.

1. Three daughters only
   2.Father
2. Mother
3. Wife
4. Brother 1

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

1. One son only
   2.Father
2. Mother
3. 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.

1. Three daughters only = 2/3 fixed
   411 so if kunna/are (feminine plural) females above two so for them two thirds
2. Father = variable/unstated no son and there is a child
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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

1. One son only = variable/unstated
2. Father = 1/6
3. 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
4. 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.