Is this inheritance article correct?
-
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 sons4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get the sme amount3 daughters and 3 sons The women would get two thirds and the sons 1 third
1 daughter and 3 sons
-
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 eyesYou 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
-
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 sons4176
1 sister and 3 brothers
2 sisters and 3 brothers
3 sisters and 3 brothers4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount3 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
-
4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount3 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 instruction4.176
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) -
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/s7 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 -
-
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.
-
4.11
2 daughters and 3 sons all would get each the same amount3 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? -
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
-
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 instructiondeceased 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)I disagree completely in making the share of the two females into a pooled share, no, it is not that it is a full part for each of them, s I wuoted and as logic demands
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.
You might be right had God said not ithlu but mithlain in the dual) in the singular it is like each of the females not the sum of the females. There are many ways in Arabic to say that and it is not said.
As to 4.12, from the formulation I cannot see that mixed brothers and sisters are excluded, from where do you get that it is only if they are not mixed? In fact what I understand is that it is fixing a sixth for each the grother nd the sister as being at the same time, and it continues saying if the are more. To me tht means sisters or brothers or a mixture of them both.
Salaam
-
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
ok
-
As a general remark on this question of inheritance, I have to say that , either through misconstruing through the ages or because in the Qur'an a lot of trouble is taken to refine it so as to make it as adapted to different circumstances as possible, it looks as it was some sort of penance for some of us who see it not as a social need but rather as means of punishment for the bad sex.
I think you should take the face values the Qur'an stresses and not loose sight of them justice, solidarity and distribution of wealth. Each of the different distributions, I think, attempts to refine what in other legislations on this is very much simplified for instance, all for the oldest son, or equal shares for all, children or siblings.
In the Qur'an, I think in the distinction between sexes, women are slightly favoured whent hey inherit as children, but either sex tends to be favoured when it is much in minority. Bearing in mind that, for instance if it several sisters, they might tend to be more solidarious with each other, it is understandable. On the other hand, if it is many males, they do not have the burden of children if they need to work and therefore are also in better conditions earn their lives. Women ont he other hand usually have the burden of children, so the should have more provision for eventuality and depending on the society, they may be very likely not to earn much.
All in all, again, we must come to the origin of it all. It is not a matter of giving prizes but a question of solidarity and fairness.
And if there legislation for inheritance, any legislation, it is to guarantee that individual whim should not deprive any natural inheritor without reason.
Salaam
-
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.There is a pattern on average females get equal or are favored.
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 son favored
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 two sons (1/4 each) equal
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 three sons (1/6 each) less
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each); 1/2 four sons (1/8 each) less2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 son favored
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each) less
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each) less
2/3 three daughters (2/9 each); 1/3 four sons (1/12 each) less2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 son favored
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 two sons (1/6 each) equal
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 three sons (1/9 each) less
2/3 four daughters (1/6 each); 1/3 four sons (1/12 each) less1/2 daughter; 1/2 son equal
1/2 daughter; 1/2 two sons (1/4 each) less
1/2 daughter; 1/2 three sons (1/6 each) less
1/2 daughter; 1/2 four sons (1/8 each) less -
I disagree completely in making the share of the two females into a pooled share, no, it is not that it is a full part for each of them, s I wuoted and as logic demands
You might be right had God said not ithlu but mithlain in the dual) in the singular it is like each of the females not the sum of the females. There are many ways in Arabic to say that and it is not said.
Salaam, not sure what context of 6143-144 has to do with inheritance; same words used; no sharing mentioned...
6143 octet spouses (i.e. 8 group 4 x 2 pairs) from the sheep ith'nayni/twosome and from the goat ith'nayni/twosome say ldhakarayni/the two (males) prohibit or l-unthayayni/the two (females) as for contains on it wombs l-unthayayni/the two (females) inform ye of me with knowledge if be you truthful
6144 and from the camel ith'nayni/twosome and from the cow ith'nayni/twosome say ldhakarayni/the two (males) prohibit or l-unthayayni/the two (females) as for contains on it wombs l-unthayayni/the two (females) or be you witnesses when advise you the god in this so who wrongs than who fabricates he on/about the god lie of to misguided the humankind in other than/without knowledge indeed the god not guided the folk the wrongdoers
411 instructed you (pl) the god in offspring yours lildhakari/to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (females) so if kunna/be (f/p) nisan/womenfolk fawqa/above ith'natayni/two so for them (f/p) third dual (1/3 x 2 = 2/3) what left and if knat/be she one (f) so for her the half...
4176 ... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+) falildhakari/so to the male (i.e. gender) similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (females)...
As to 4.12, from the formulation I cannot see that mixed brothers and sisters are excluded, from where do you get that it is only if they are not mixed? In fact what I understand is that it is fixing a sixth for each the grother nd the sister as being at the same time, and it continues saying if the are more. To me tht means sisters or brothers or a mixture of them both.
Salaam
Read closely obvious 4176 is mixed and 412 is an ?OR? statement; likewise you?ll run into issues which verse to apply 1/6 or 1/2 to the sole sister. Lastly siblings inherit with parents? per 411 kalala case.
411 ? so if not that be for said person offspring and inherit said person parents dual said person (i.e. parents alive) so to mother said person the third so if be for said person siblings (3+ brothers, 2+ brothers & sister, 1+ brother/s & 2+ sisters) so to mother said person the sixth ...
412 ? and if be rajulun/man inherited kallatan (no spouse; no child) or im'ra-atun/woman and to said person brother or sister so to each one from them dual the sixth so if be they of more from such so they partners in the third ?
1/6 brother/sister; 5/6 parent
1/6 brother/sister; 1/3 mother (411); 1/2 father1/3 two+ brothers/sisters; 2/3 parent
1/3 two+ brothers/sisters; 1/3 mother (411); 1/3 fatherinheritance summary https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg395789#msg395789
-
6.143, speaks of the arham of the unthiyain, it is not attributing a bunch or arham to them undivided, but clearly it is understood that each untha has her own womb, regardless of the total of wombs, and so it is in 4.11 and 4.176, it is each a shar, her share, her womb, not a share in a pool to be determined, it is already determined and it is hers. Never the Qur'an says HAZ for persons as something in which thir haz is pooled or is a pool but always is something the individual has undivided.
It was understood like that in the first times till the abbasids changed it and against Qur'an and against grammar.
As previously said, it does not say mithlain HAZ al unthiayin mut mithlu, it is singular, not dual, not the sum, not double, but "like", and the haz is for each, not to a group or a pool without distinction.
So it is inadmissible to make out of it a double for him or a half for the females.
I know "aw" is or, but it does not exclude that there are both of them. It is clear that there can be only one sister or only one brother but I do not see it excluded that there are both only one sister and only one brother. What is it in what you read that excludes that? If it had said "a sister and a brother" it would be clear that they are both there and that it cannot be only one sister or only one brother but there must be both of them, but with the formulation used I do not see it excludes both of them at the same time, and when it continues "wa in kaanw akthar min thalika", how can you exclude that they are mixed, since there are both anticedents male and female?
Salaam
-
6.143, speaks of the arham of the unthiyain, it is not attributing a bunch or arham to them undivided, but clearly it is understood that each untha has her own womb, regardless of the total of wombs, and so it is in 4.11 and 4.176, it is each a shar, her share, her womb, not a share in a pool to be determined, it is already determined and it is hers. Never the Qur'an says HAZ for persons as something in which thir haz is pooled or is a pool but always is something the individual has undivided.
It was understood like that in the first times till the abbasids changed it and against Qur'an and against grammar.
As previously said, it does not say mithlain HAZ al unthiayin mut mithlu, it is singular, not dual, not the sum, not double, but "like", and the haz is for each, not to a group or a pool without distinction.
So it is inadmissible to make out of it a double for him or a half for the females.
Don't see how 6143 is relevant which l-unthayayni/the two (f) refers to 1 female sheep + 1 female goat.
Please try to apply in a few other cases perhaps you'll see there is no other way to solve this.
4176 ... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)...3 sisters
3x + 2x = 1
x = 1/5 (amount to one sister)
3/5 three sisters (1/5 each)
2/5 brothers or "like" l-unthayayni/the two (f)it's exactly the same distribution formula or "view" for two daughters...
411 ... lildhakari/to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)
2 daughters
2x + 2x = 1
x = 1/4 (amount to one daughter)
1/2 two daughters (1/4 each)
1/2 sons or "like" l-unthayayni/the two (f)I know "aw" is or, but it does not exclude that there are both of them. It is clear that there can be only one sister or only one brother but I do not see it excluded that there are both only one sister and only one brother. What is it in what you read that excludes that? If it had said "a sister and a brother" it would be clear that they are both there and that it cannot be only one sister or only one brother but there must be both of them, but with the formulation used I do not see it excludes both of them at the same time, and when it continues "wa in kaanw akthar min thalika", how can you exclude that they are mixed, since there are both anticedents male and female?
not "excluded" read 412 and 4176 together which first part 412 gives 1/6 either gender...
412 ? brother or sister so to each one from them dual the sixth
then second part sets 1/3 limit either gender and also for mixed gender (4176) kalala case...
412 ? so if be they of more from such so they partners in the third ?
examples siblings and parents...
1/6 brother OR sister (412); 5/6 parent/s
1/3 brothers OR sisters (412); 2/3 parent/s
1/3 brothers AND sisters (412, distribute 1/3 according to mixed 4176); 2/3 parent/se.g. $90k inheritance 1/3 ($30k) siblings; 2/3 ($60k) parent/s
4176... and for said person sister so for her half
1/2 x $30k ($15k) sister; $15k brothers
4176... so if knat/be dual (f) ith'natayni/two (f) so to them dual (f) the third each (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
2/3 x $30k ($20k) two sisters; $10k brothers
most hearsay "experts" apply above to also mean "above two" i.e. 3+ ignoring clear dual.
4176... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)...8 sisters
8x + 2x = 1
x = 1/10 (amount to one sister)
8/10 x $30k = $24k eight sisters ($3k each sister)
2/10 x $30k = $6k brothers or "like" l-unthayayni/the two (f)Salaam
-
Your arrangement, male twice the female and your contention to my mention of 6.143 is not a mater of inheritance or non inheritance it is quesiton ogrammar,meaning.
Does nto matter whether it is women, sheep, daughters, sisters or potatos or whatever, whatever it is that belongs to the two of them, is a distinct amount that belong sto each of them, not that they have in common or pooled.
And no matter how many conbinations you contrive to make it right it does not mean that, it does not mean to somebody corresponds double than to the other, or to some of them correpsondes half as the other. That is not so.
No matter whether it is sheep or people, wombs are not held in common nor divided giving to ech half womb or 1 one and a half womb, it is a womb each. So is it with the HAZ , it is not shared it is each her HAZ, not half the male nor the male doublebut the same as each of the two women, just like it
were arham.Again, HAZ in he Qur'an when it refers to a person is always individual, not pooled or shared.
As to the
not "excluded" read 412 and 4176 together which first part 412 gives 1/6 either gender...
Well, that is what I was saying and you denied it before.
What I see is that as much 4.12 as 4.176 refer to kalala.
Salaam
-
Your arrangement, male twice the female and your contention to my mention of 6.143 is not a mater of inheritance or non inheritance it is quesiton ogrammar,meaning.
Does nto matter whether it is women, sheep, daughters, sisters or potatos or whatever, whatever it is that belongs to the two of them, is a distinct amount that belong sto each of them, not that they have in common or pooled.
And no matter how many conbinations you contrive to make it right it does not mean that, it does not mean to somebody corresponds double than to the other, or to some of them correpsondes half as the other. That is not so.
No matter whether it is sheep or people, wombs are not held in common nor divided giving to ech half womb or 1 one and a half womb, it is a womb each. So is it with the HAZ , it is not shared it is each her HAZ, not half the male nor the male doublebut the same as each of the two women, just like it
were arham.Again, HAZ in he Qur'an when it refers to a person is always individual, not pooled or shared.
As to the
Well, that is what I was saying and you denied it before.
What I see is that as much 4.12 as 4.176 refer to kalala.
Salaam
Peace, don't understand what you're saying; never wrote double?
Please apply your meaning only heirs 3 sisters AND 3 brothers?
Have it thus each sister gets 1/5 (3/15) which is 1/15 more than to each brother 2/15.
4176 ... and if be they of siblings menfolk of wanisan/and womenfolk (3+)
falildhakari/so to the male similitude apportion l-unthayayni/the two (f)...3 sisters
3x + 2x = 1
x = 1/5 (amount to one sister)
3/5 three sisters (1/5 each)
2/5 three brothers or to the male "like share" l-unthayayni/the two (f) -
After reading http//submission.org/Inheritance_Wills.html it all has started to make sense.
We overlooked "what you left after any will" found inside 412.
It seems that we skipped the real inheritance law which happens to be this
For the men a portion of what (is) left (by) the parents, and the near relatives and for the women a portion of what (is) left (by) parents and the near relatives of what (is) little of it or much - a portion obligatory.47
Notice that Allah makes it clear that you can give little or much to both women and men. He repeats the same words for both without numbers. That means we can choose. That is consistent with the verse in which Allah tells that the person must be judged for maturity before they are handed the property.