Is this inheritance article correct?

Bender

Hi Bender,

Children
411 ? so if be/are (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two (females)
so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 * 2 = 2/3) what left

2/3 * $90 = $60 three daughters (2/9 * $90 = $20 each)
1/3 * $90 = $30 ten sons ($3 each)

Hi,

For me this simply does not make sense.
On basis of what should the females in this family get almost 7 times more than the males?

huruf

Need to apply consistently same distribution 4176 i.e. 3+ females...

411 to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)

1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 son/s = like the two females

NOT

2/3 two daughters (1/3 each); 1/3 son/s

4176 ? and if be they of ikh'watan/siblings rijlan/menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion the two (f)

3/5 three sisters (1/5 each); 2/5 brother/s = like the two females
2/3 four sisters (1/6 each); 1/3 brother/s = like the two females
5/7 five sisters (1/7 each); 2/7 brother/s = like the two females

http//oi65.tinypic.com/689ekn.jpg

Salaam

Salaam noon,

I am afraid I disagree. I think you are mixing two comletely different kinds of relationship. Children and siblings.

We do not have to subject dhildren to whatever is provided for siblings. That for one. Even it is clearly stated in 4.11 that we do not know who are more beneficial to us whether ancestors or descendants, but the siblings are not taken amonst those we do not know who are more beneficia to us. They are secondary to both ascendants and descendants.

On the other hand, clearly in 4.11 says Gods instructs you regrding your children, all children, females and males, no hint at all that it is not about both sexes that it is speaking. Whereas in 4.176 it does state first if there is one sister and then it is to be understood that if it is a woman who dies and has a brother, he inherits equally, and if there are two sisters, two thirds, (that is not like with he children, where it is more than two women that get two thirds, and I do not see why this case should get a treatment as if it was something to weigh on the children's inheritance) and it is to be understood that if it is two brothers that inherit a woman it would equally be as the two sisters, and if there are brothers and sisters, then to the male as to the two sisters, so again whatever is assigned to the two sisters, to the males it would be the same. In this case it is any number of males and any number of females, which would be two thirds to share equally. In this case there is clear mention in the sentence of the ithnatany (the two sisters) so there is no need to go back to 4.11 to ascertain anything.

Now I suppose that you being a mathematician you are going to find difficulties with this, but that is a mathemtical question and I understand that he mathematics in this case are subservient to the righteousness of the law and that they are not there to have the law submit to them but to apply mathematics so as to apply the law, not to modify it.

I apreciate very much your dedicated efforts to the theme, although I do not always understand fully what youtry to explain.

Like when you write 3/5* I do not know what you are exactly saying, I guess three out of 5, but what? three what out of 5 what?

Salaam, noon

Noon_waalqalami

For me this simply does not make sense.
On basis of what should the females in this family get almost 7 times more than the males?

Hi, on basis of what it says if 3+ daughters and what part of verse does not make sense?

411 ? so if are (f/p) womenfolk fawqa/above two (f) i.e. 3+
so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 * 2 = 2/3)

2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 son
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each)
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each)
...
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 ten sons (1/30 each)

2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 son
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each)
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each)
...
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 ten sons (1/30 each)

411 ? and if be she one (f) so for her the half

1/2 daughter; 1/2 son
1/2 daughter; 1/2 two sons (1/4 each)
1/2 daughter; 1/2 three sons (1/6 each)
...
1/2 daughter; 1/2 ten sons (1/20 each)

Noon_waalqalami

I am afraid I disagree. I think you are mixing two comletely different kinds of relationship. Children and siblings.

I apreciate very much your dedicated efforts to the theme, although I do not always understand fully what youtry to explain.

Like when you write 3/5* I do not know what you are exactly saying, I guess three out of 5, but what? three what out of 5 what?

Salaam huruf,

3/5 * amount e.g. if $90k inheritance

It's exactly the same instruction 411 two daughters 4176 three+ sisters

411 to the male similitude apportion the two (females)

1/2 * $90k = $45k two daughters ($22.5k each)
1/2 * $90k = $45k son/s i.e. "to the male like share the two females"

NOT
2/3 * $90k = $60k two daughters ($30k each)
1/3 * $90k = $30k son/s i.e. "to the male like share the one female"

4176 so to the male similitude apportion the two (females)

3/5 * $90k = $54k three sisters ($18k each or $36k two sisters)
2/5 * $90k = $36k brother/s i.e. "to the male like share the two females"

2/3 * $90k = $60k four sisters ($15k each or $30k two sisters)
1/3 * $90k = $30k brother/s i.e. "to the male like share the two females"

huruf

In my previous message I already pointed out all the inconsistencies which afflict your theory and you have not answered the one questi?n I asked about your explanations.

On a single phrase wrongly understood you build a distribution which has nothing to do with the aya and inheritors you compare it with. Nothing is similar. It is siblings not children, it is to the two sisters two thirds, not the three or more two thirds, and yes it is the share of each woman not a share for both of them

6.143.
144.

(Take) eight (head of cattle) in (four) pairs of sheep a pair, and of goats a pair; say, hath He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Tell me with knowledge if ye are truthful (143) Of camels a pair, and oxen a pair; say, hath He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? - Were ye present when Allah ordered you such a thing? But who doth more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah, to lead astray men without knowledge? For Allah guideth not people who do wrong. (144)

Obviously the females are not sharing in any number of wombs, but each one has her own womb.

So HaZ al unthiyain is not a share to share between them but the chare each one gets which would be the result of dividing the two thirds between them.

And you have not solved anything saying the male twice the female, which is not by any stretch the same as the share of the two females, you have not solved anything because what do two brothers get if there are only brothers and what do three sisters get if there are no males?, and to what refers the ithnatain that should get between them two thirds of the what left the deceased, das it refer to the mn who dies or to the woman who dies? And what follows, what does it refer to, to the man who dies or to the woman who dies?

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

In my previous message I already pointed out all the inconsistencies which afflict your theory and you have not answered the one questi?n I asked about your explanations.

On a single phrase wrongly understood you build a distribution which has nothing to do with the aya and inheritors you compare it with. Nothing is similar. It is siblings not children, it is to the two sisters two thirds, not the three or more two thirds, and yes it is the share of each woman not a share for both of them

ok let's reset please distribute $90 tell us which part of verse you are using?

411
2 daughters and 3 sons
3 daughters and 3 sons
1 daughter and 3 sons

4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers

huruf

So ok,
I understand that the number you said is the parts you take from the parts in which you have divided.

Salaam

huruf

ok let's reset please distribute $90 tell us which part of verse you are using?

411
2 daughters and 3 sons
3 daughters and 3 sons
1 daughter and 3 sons

4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers

4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get the sme amount

3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third

1 daughter and 3 sons

unknownuser

Where you come from does not represent the world.
And trying to change it the other way around in favor of women is just the same religion, just a gender switch.
But lets act we do not see that, lets close our eyes

You say "no divine being could be sexist" and then you give 2 sexist models.
So, how could both of them be from God? Like I said God is not a sexist, both are nonsense.

I am open to hear all opinions from any one, but I hate nonsense, be it from a man or woman or poster I like or a poster I don't like.
If people do not like their views questioned then most of times people have something to hide.

Sorry I thought we were talking about the verse where it implies (or so we think) men getting more money.
I wish it had just said "divide equally" but nah the verse doesn't say that.

ANYWAY...

peacee?eeeeeeeeeeeeeeew peace peace peace

huruf

Sorry, I did not complete the previous message

Here it is

link=topic=9609483.msg404506#msg404506 date=1494078139]
ok let's reset please distribute $90 tell us which part of verse you are using?

411
2 daughters and 3 sons
3 daughters and 3 sons
1 daughter and 3 sons

4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers

4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount

3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third

1 daughter and 3 sons she gets half, the sons get the other half

4.176

Since when they are mixed male and female the male would get the same as the two females, that is whatever comes out of dividing two thirds between all of them, brothers and sisters, if the sisters are two. If the are more than two, I do not know, but I would say that the same amount each. Making it the male twice the female does not solve the problem, first because that is not what the phrase means, no matter how it can make things easy or difficult and secondly because the fact that there may be more tha two sisters nd may be no brothers is still not contemplated in the aya, and so I can't see that simplifying to make males inherit double solves the question of the whole. It serves so that naybody can go and dish the money, but it does not solve that that is not what the Qur'an says.

Also, we have seen that if we have just one sister inherit she gets half and we take that if there is just one brother inherit he gets half, but if there are brothers and sisters in any number it is not stated whether the whole is attributed to them or whether there is a limit. If we suppose that the whole is atributed to them then, what is the problem, each the same amount, just as if it was the unthiyain. If there are more than two sisters, the two are within the set.

You have not stated, which is the deceased which I guess would make a difference in your numbers or is it the same whether the deceased is male or female, according to your understanding?

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount

3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third

1 daughter and 3 sons she gets half, the sons get the other half

incorrect 2 daughters and 3 sons all get same amount correct last two.

to the male similitude apportion the two (f)

411 need at least two females and # of males
4176 also applies when three+ females and # of males exactly the same instruction

4.176

Since when they are mixed male and female the male would get the same as the two females, that is whatever comes out of dividing two thirds between all of them, brothers and sisters, if the sisters are two. If the are more than two, I do not know, but I would say that the same amount each. Making it the male twice the female does not solve the problem, first because that is not what the phrase means, no matter how it can make things easy or difficult and secondly because the fact that there may be more tha two sisters nd may be no brothers is still not contemplated in the aya, and so I can't see that simplifying to make males inherit double solves the question of the whole. It serves so that naybody can go and dish the money, but it does not solve that that is not what the Qur'an says.

Also, we have seen that if we have just one sister inherit she gets half and we take that if there is just one brother inherit he gets half, but if there are brothers and sisters in any number it is not stated whether the whole is attributed to them or whether there is a limit. If we suppose that the whole is atributed to them then, what is the problem, each the same amount, just as if it was the unthiyain. If there are more than two sisters, the two are within the set.

You have not stated, which is the deceased which I guess would make a difference in your numbers or is it the same whether the deceased is male or female, according to your understanding?

deceased is kalala (no spouse, no child); 4176 use if mixed gender siblings; 412 use if either sister/s or brother/s not mixed.

OK distribute $90 mixed gender children and siblings; need to show someone else don't want to be only one laugh

2 daughters and 3 sons
411 to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
$45 two daughters ($22.5 each)
$45 three sons ($15 each)

3 daughters and 3 sons
411 ? so if are (f/p) womenfolk fawqa/above two (f) so for them third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3)
$60 three daughters ($20 each)
$30 three sons ($10 each)

1 daughter and 3 sons
411 ? and if be she one (f) so for her the half
$45 daughter
$45 three sons ($15 each)

1 sister and 3 brothers
4176... and for said person sister so for her half
$45 sister
$45 three brothers ($15 each)

2 sisters and 3 brothers
4176... so if be dual (f) two (f) so to them dual the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
$60 two sisters ($30 each)
$30 three brothers ($10 each)

3 sisters and 3 brothers
4176 and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
$54 three sisters ($18 each or $36 two sisters)
$36 three brothers ($12 each)

Noon_waalqalami

few more examples perhaps can see it now?

4 sisters and brother/s
4176 and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
$60 four sisters ($15 each or $30 two sisters)
$30 brother/s

7 sisters and brother/s
4176 and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
so to the male similitude apportion the two (f)
$70 seven sisters ($10 each or $20 two sisters)
$20 brother/s

Bender

Hi, on basis of what it says if 3+ daughters and what part of verse does not make sense?

There is no wisdom behind the distribution, at least I don't see any.
It's a lottery based on the distribution of genders, and besides that it's not a fair lottery.

Bender

Sorry I thought we were talking about the verse where it implies (or so we think) men getting more money.
I wish it had just said "divide equally" but nah the verse doesn't say that.

ANYWAY...

peacee?eeeeeeeeeeeeeeew peace peace peace

But you did not complain when you heard the pro women version of Huruf, you actually applauded it.

Bender

4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount

3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third

1 daughter and 3 sons she gets half, the sons get the other half

You are of course totally ok with this?
This is justice?

huruf

But you did not complain when you heard the pro women version of Huruf, you actually applauded it.

The most common form of inheritance is for children and universally applied is the concept that males get double the female, that seems not to make you blink, but for most uncommon case of one daughter and 10 sons, for instance you get all overboard. If you had been so outraged at women consistently getting half in every case even when they are the only child, I would have had more understanding. As it is really you get upset for a very rare "unjust" distribution and you shut up when universal injsutice against women is practiced.

When people are so biased it is hard to ake them seriously.

Salaam

huruf