Quran inheritance mistake

Samia

Salaam Eid and Tlepsh

Since my questions are not being answere by any of you, let's go step by step and try to see wher we agree and where we differ, and on what grounds.
First question

Verse 411 How many deceased/kinds of deceased does this verse speak about? Please explain why?

Tlepsh

Pease Samia,
Please re-check the following
The inheritance verses are

411
About children, parents and brethren (deceased standard not kelala) The share of parents and brethren depands on the precence of the children. In presence of children brethren get nothing from a normal peron. If the normal person has no children then parents and brethren get their share.

412
First part Share of spouses of a normal person with or witout children.
Second part Share of brethren in case of a Kalala with children (because not stated to be childless as in verse 4176) where the brethren get 1/3 of the total and the rest is for the children.

4 176
Share of brethern alone since here kalala is stated to be childless. And the distribution between the brethren is explained.

Samia

Thank you Tlepsh

411
About children, parents and brethren (deceased standard not kelala) The share of parents and brethren depands on the precence of the children. In presence of children brethren get nothing from a normal peron. If the normal person has no children then parents and brethren get their share.

412
First part Share of spouses of a normal person with or witout children.
Second part Share of brethren in case of a Kalala with children (because not stated to be childless as in verse 4176) where the brethren get 1/3 of the total and the rest is for the children.

Please look at the two underlined statemnet.
1- In verse 411, brethren get nothing in presence of children undr any case. What makes them get a share in case of a "kelala with children"?
2- Brethren are mentioned in verse 412, but are not the main theme. The main theme is "spouses". Why do you think in this verse the "kelala" is spouseless, though it is not mentioned?

Tlepsh

Salaam Samia,

? 412 is a continuation of 411 and 4176 is a completion of 412.
? If kalala is childless why to state it twice in verse 4176

? If kalalah may have a spouse why there is no mention of it same as the children? i.e. (lays lahu zawja) or (lem yakun laha zawj) since in your understanding kalala may or may not have a spouse.

Samia

Salaam Samia,

? 412 is a continuation of 411 and 4176 is a completion of 412.
? If kalala is childless why to state it twice in verse 4176

? If kalalah may have a spouse why there is no mention of it same as the children? i.e. (lays lahu zawja) or (lem yakun laha zawj) since in your understanding kalala may or may not have a spouse.

Who will get the other half?

Tlepsh

Who will get the other half?

So from the verses how do we know that the spouse will get the other half?

unknownuser

Peace,

In 4176 Kalala no child the only other possible inheritor along with siblings is the mother

Ex mother, sister
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 mother

Ex mother, 1+ brothers
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother

Samia

So from the verses how do we know that the spouse will get the other half?

Peace,

In 4176 Kalala no child the only other possible inheritor along with siblings is the mother

The mother's share is fixed at 1/6 in case there are no children and there are brethren (411)

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

The mother's share is fixed at 1/6 in case there are no children and there are brethren (411)

Ikhwatun requires the presence of a male same as with rijalan for example.

411

4176

1258

4910

If no father and no brethren/Ikhwatun, the mother?s share is variable else contradictions.

Ex mother, sister {4176 sister 1/2}
1 ? 1/6 mother ? 1/2 sister = 1/3 unallocated

Or if the assumption is that Kalala has no spouse, no parents, and no child, then 1/2 for sister never really comes in play since there is no one for her to share with and likewise with 2/3 if they are two.

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in alkalalati, if (a) human died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what he left, and he inherits her if was not for her a child, and if they were two, so to them the two thirds from what he left, and if they were brethren/Ikhwatun men and women, so to the male equal fortune the two females, God clarifies for you that you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.

Ex 1+ brothers, mother (411...mother 1/6)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brothers

Ex sister, mother
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 mother

Ex 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), mother
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

Ex 2+ siblings mixed, mother (411...mother 1/6)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females)

Samia

Salaam Eid

Ikhwatun requires the presence of a male same as with rijalan for example.

Thanks for the correction. I meant siblings
I also agree with the rest of the post, except that I consider the calculations are valid for the standard person. If it were a kelala as I understand, instead of mother, put spouse, and the calculations will slightly differ when the share of the spouse will be 1/4 (1/2 if husband) instead of the share of the mother at 1/6. Notice that the share of the spouse is mentioned in presence and absence of children, otherwise variable (i.e in presence of only siblings)

Case of a male kelala

Ex 1+ brothers, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 mother = 3/4 brothers

Ex sister, spouse
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 spouse

Ex 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), spouse
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

Ex 2+ siblings mixed, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 spouse = 3/4 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females)

unknownuser

Salaam Eid
Thanks for the correction. I meant siblings
I also agree with the rest of the post, except that I consider the calculations are valid for the standard person. If it were a kelala as I understand, instead of mother, put spouse, and the calculations will slightly differ when the share of the spouse will be 1/4 (1/2 if husband) instead of the share of the mother at 1/6. Notice that the share of the spouse is mentioned in presence and absence of children, otherwise variable (i.e in presence of only siblings)

Case of a male kelala

Ex 1+ brothers, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 mother = 3/4 brothers

Ex sister, spouse
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 spouse

Ex 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), spouse
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother

Ex 2+ siblings mixed, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 spouse = 3/4 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females)

Salaam Samia,

If spouse that's were the entanglement comes in, no way to distinguish whether to give for example the sister 1/6 mentioned in 412 or 1/2 in 4176; something has to toggle between the siblings in the two verses which historically it was conjectured that the siblings in 412 were half siblings or uterine siblings same mother different father whereas the siblings in 4176 are full siblings.

You of course argue (I think) that 412 is Kalala with spouse and 4176 Kalala who leaves no spouse.

I argue 412 is Kalala who leaves a child while 4176 is without child as stated.

Also, if Kalala with spouse is 412 then we have this issue....

Ex wife, sibling, mother {does not work, siblings are not inheritors with spouse}
1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sibling ? 1/6 mother = 5/12 unallocated

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=3,%202,%202,%205&cat=wife,%20sibling,%20mother,%20unallocated

In addition, if Kalala without spouse is 4176 and parent less, then no one to share 1/2 with sister.

Which makes the verse never applicable.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

That is not from Lane's Lexicon.

Are you repeating the same mistake you were corrected on only a few days ago?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598276.msg202338#msg202338

I recommend learning from one's mistakes and modifying actions/thinking appropriately.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

Besides, it is from Lane's if you can read what it says at Study Quran PRL.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

They always give a reference to Lane's Lexicon. Check if you want to.

Wakas

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

Besides, it is from Lane's if you can read what it says at Study Quran PRL.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

They always give a reference to Lane's Lexicon. Check if you want to.

After trying to correct you twice, it seems you still do not understand the blatantly obvious Lane's Lexicon does not equal PRL.

Thus if you quote something from PRL, which you did, you cannot say it is from Lane, because Lane is not the only Classical Arabic dictionary used in PRL, as blatantly stated on PRL's homepage. It is cleary stated for anyone with reading ability.... if they can read.

That is why when you were challenged you had to refer me to where you got it from, which was PRL, proving my point.

Lane does not have some of the meanings given in PRL for this entry, thus all of it cant be from Lane. Of course, only a person who took the 2 minutes it takes to read PRL's homepage might know this.

This will be the 3rd time you will have been corrected on this. Maybe the saying "3rd time lucky" will be proven right and you'll finally get it, and stop spreading misinformation on the forum.

Samia

Salaam Eid

Verse 411 finished with children. No more case is left. They curtail siblings, so if there are children, siblings inherit nothing. Do we agree on this?
If we do, then there's no way kelala has children, because whenevr kelala is mentioned, siblings inherit.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

After trying to correct you twice, it seems you still do not understand the blatantly obvious Lane's Lexicon does not equal PRL.

Thus if you quote something from PRL, which you did, you cannot say it is from Lane, because Lane is not the only Classical Arabic dictionary used in PRL, as blatantly stated on PRL's homepage. It is cleary stated for anyone with reading ability.... if they can read.

That is why when you were challenged you had to refer me to where you got it from, which was PRL, proving my point.

Lane does not have some of the meanings given in PRL for this entry, thus all of it cant be from Lane. Of course, only a person who took the 2 minutes it takes to read PRL's homepage might know this.

This will be the 3rd time you will have been corrected on this. Maybe the saying "3rd time lucky" will be proven right and you'll finally get it, and stop spreading misinformation on the forum.

Congratulations... ...

Don't worry.. next time I'll say its from studyquran.org, JUST FOR YOU.

I remind you of this, though http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

You are in the same position I was in in that thread. Maybe YOU will learn.

Peace

Wakas

Congratulations... ...

Don't worry.. next time I'll say its from studyquran.org, JUST FOR YOU.

I remind you of this, though http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202824#msg202824

You are in the same position I was in in that thread. Maybe YOU will learn

But it is not from StudyQuran.org so if you say that you will again be spreading misinformation. It is from PRL.

And you are not in the same position as me on that thread. No-one corrected me on that thread, let alone multiple times for a blatantly obvious error.

Thanks for the counsel on learning. I hope to learn, especially from my mistakes, unlike some.

unknownuser

Salaam Eid

Verse 411 finished with children. No more case is left. They curtail siblings, so if there are children, siblings inherit nothing. Do we agree on this?
If we do, then there's no way kelala has children, because whenevr kelala is mentioned, siblings inherit.

Salaam Samia,

No, I posted numerous times something has to distinguish siblings in 412 and 4176

if sister = 1/6
if sister = 1/2

411 is only with distributions amongst children; then parents...
1 - parents = children

Then spouses...
1 - parents - spouse = children
1 - parents = children
1 - spouse = children

Then Kalala spouse-less fatherless with children...
1 - mother - siblings (1/3 max) = children
1 - siblings (1/3 max) = children

Finally, the Kalala spouse-less and fatherless without children
1 - sister = mother
1 - 2+ sisters = mother
1 - 1/6 mother = siblings mixed
siblings only mixed = to the male equal share the two females

Otherwise we cannot change the math which does not add up with under allocation or over allocation.

I went through every possibility on this; above is the only one that works and makes sense especially the last verse should suffice which explicitly it is stated twice if no child and clearly indicates the Kalala can have a child.

4176

4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in Al-Kallati, if (a) human died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what he left, and he inherits her if was not for her a child, and if they were two, so to them the two thirds from what he left, and if they were brethren men and women, so to the male equal fortune the two females, God clarifies for you that you (not) be misguided, and God is with every thing knowledgeable.

Samia

Salaam Eid
My question is direct, and without answering it there is no use putting further cases tosolve. No case cannot be solved if we set the definition correctly. My question was do you state that with the presence of children, siblings can inherit?

unknownuser

Salaam Samia -- Yes.

Then Kalala spouse-less fatherless with children...
1 - mother - siblings (1/3 max) = children
1 - siblings (1/3 max) = children

Samia

Salaam Samia -- Yes.

Salaam Eid

This is the basis of our disagreement (that siblings inherit even in the presence of children), so let's agree to disagree.