Quran inheritance mistake
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 motherEx mother, 1+ brothers
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brother -
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)
-
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 unallocatedOr 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 brothersEx sister, mother
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 motherEx 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), mother
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 motherEx 2+ siblings mixed, mother (411...mother 1/6)
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females) -
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 brothersEx sister, spouse
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 spouseEx 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), spouse
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 motherEx 2+ siblings mixed, spouse (412...spouse 1/4)
1 ? 1/4 spouse = 3/4 siblings (to the male equal fortune the two females) -
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 brothersEx sister, spouse
1 ? 1/2 sister = 1/2 spouseEx 2+ sisters (i.e. presence of two), spouse
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 motherEx 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 unallocatedhttp//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.
-
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#msg202338I 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.htmThey always give a reference to Lane's Lexicon. Check if you want to.
-
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.htmThey 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.
-
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. -
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
-
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.
-
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 = 1/2411 is only with distributions amongst children; then parents...
1 - parents = childrenThen spouses...
1 - parents - spouse = children
1 - parents = children
1 - spouse = childrenThen Kalala spouse-less fatherless with children...
1 - mother - siblings (1/3 max) = children
1 - siblings (1/3 max) = childrenFinally, 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 femalesOtherwise 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.
-
-
Salaam Samia -- Yes.
Then Kalala spouse-less fatherless with children...
1 - mother - siblings (1/3 max) = children
1 - siblings (1/3 max) = children -
peace Samia, Eid, all,
I have not been following the discussion, but if there is disagreement, can it be resolved by using examples which disprove the other side, thus only leaving one option? Or are there examples disproving both sides?
Salaam Wakas
I hoped more were following the discussion and could contribute with some input. The problem is that the thread went a bit far. I can summerize the disagreement in the definition of kelala (from the verses and not from dictionaries), whose definition for Eid and Tlepsh results in isiblings inheriting with the presence of children, and as for my definition, no siblings inherit in the presence of childrenKelala as per Tlepsh someone who has no parents nor spouse
Kelala as per Eid fatherless spouseless (differs with Tlepsh that a kelala may have a mother)
Kelala as per me parentless and childless.
It seems the problem resides mainly with verse 412. The other two verses that may help are 411 and 4176To all
Please, help! Don't be scared, especially from Eid's formulae and diagrams, they are not that complicated and are well explained ;D , besides, there are only three verses. But the most important thing is please come without preconceptions. No Arabic is necessary, and no dictionary is needed. -
peace sister Samia,
Thanks for the clarification. My main point was that can possibilities be eliminated by use of examples? i.e. do certain examples/combinations of family members cause problems for one view and not the other etc. This way is one way of determining the answer, that was my point.
