Quran inheritance mistake
-
"alkilaala" is what God gave a definition for a person whose parents died before him/her and has no children. He/she may or may not have a spouse.
This is my understanding of the two verses concerning the kilaala
The 2 verses (412) and (4176) discuss a kilaala once with a spouse and another without spouse. That's why we have discrepency in the ratios of siblings in the two verses. But if we start from the beginning of verse 412, we notice that it addresses the share of spouses, and so the "kilaala" with a spouse and siblings appears.
Verse 4176 is about a kilaala that does not have a spouse.
If we contemplate all the verses on inhertance, they discuss the case of sisters and brothers/daughters and sons as a group. There's no reason to discuss one gender, since all the inheritance will go to them/him/her. Also we notice that the female is the centre of the divison of shares the male's share is dependent on hers. If a female is mentioned, there's a male in opposition, but not vise-versa. Moreover, the fact that there's no mention of the remaining of the inheritance or where it goes contributes to this understanding.Similar to daughters and sons, if there's one female (and one male) she will get the half; he will only get the whole heritage if he is alone. If there are two sisters (and one male), they take 2/3; and above that (each of the three will have 1/3) and if they are four and more then we apply the rule (for the male twice the share of the two females).
Did I miss something?
-
Peace Samia,
Did I miss something?
Thank you again for pointing out what is too obvious if we read without preconceptions.
The translations are awful and inject misleading words including the literal.
http//islamawakened.com/Quran/4/12/
Literal?and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father or a woman (wife)The above make it seem it pertains only to a man deceased ? what if it was a woman?
412 ?wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun
...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a womanYou are correct 412 deals with spouses and case is given for kalala with spouse.
It means exactly what it says -- if a man or a woman (the deceased) was kalalatan.The case of alkalalati with no spouse...
4176 They ask your opinion/clarification, say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him a child?
I'll work a few case examples and see if there are any discrepencies.
-
salam onur. there is no problem in any of the quran's verses. the problem is that you are not paying attention to what you read.
411 says allah directs you regarding the inheritance of the children... 412 says for you is half what your wives leave behind if they have no children... then you propose when a man dies...
411 addresses the category of an individual, 412 addresses the category of the estate of a man's wife. your facts, when a man dies, address the category found in 411, not the category found in 412. a dead man cannot inherit from a wife.
please re-analyze your situation using only the rule found in 411, and you will have no problem. the problem is not in the quran verses, the problem is with you.
before you proceed to analyze, you must be aware of the next fact. allah states things in a particular order. the order in which allah states things is important. for example if allah says give half to joe, one third to charlie, and the rest to john. give joe the half first, then of the remaining half give one third to charlie, and the remainder to john.
allah is the lawgiver.
-
Peace Al Araf,
Onur brings valid questions and the issue involves being able to solve a case similar to this...
IF sister, mother -- what do we give the sister 1/6 or 1/2?
412...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3...
4176 They ask your opinion/clarification , say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her half what he left...
It appears the key difference is not spouse and is stated in the verse --- "not for him a child"
-
Al Araf
All verses on inheritance(411, 412 and 4176) deal with the distribution of money when a person dies and leaves money. Now, if the deceased person leaves behind a wife, a mother, a father and 3 sisters, all of these people should be given their shares as specified in the inheritance verses 411 and 412. If we do not give the share of each of these inheritors, then we are not applying the inheritance verses at all. You cannot just apply 411 because you have to give the deceased man's wife her share as specified in 412. It is not the dead man who is inheriting. It is the alive wife who is inheriting. Please read carefully.
Shares of the 3 sisters is specified in 411(2/3). Shares of the parents are specified in 411(1/6 and 1/6) and share of the wife is specified in 412(1/. When you add those shares, you get a number bigger than 1. That was the problem. The problem is not with me.
There is an algebraic solution to this problem and it consists in changing the shares by regarding them as relative to each other and comparing them. Whether this is feasible or not, each has to decide for himself(I go back and forth about this). Nun and Samia have a different and rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the first part of 411 that I do not agree with for the reasons you may find in this thread.
Kalala is a different matter and is the second problem. Quran does not define kalala. I disagree with Samia's last proposal for the following reason. Now, 1) siblings are given shares only when a kalala dies. 2) 411 tells us what the mother's share is when there are siblings(mother gets 1/6) The logical conclusion is that the mother should inherit simultaneosly with the brothers(since her share is made dependent on the share of brothers) And since siblings get a share only in the case of kalala, definition of kalala cannot include motherless.
Again, Quran does not define kalala. Therefore, we have to do guesswork about it. On top of that, we need not just one but two definitions/two guessesfor the same word (one for 412 and one for 4176)
-
salam nun de plume.
i attempted to use onur's translation. then i read the actual verse in arabic. the translaton onur is using is flawed. please permit me some time to come to an accurate rendering of the verse, and i will post a reply to your question.
Allah is the best teacher.
-
salam nun de plume. i painstakingly went throught the text in arabic and used the best english terms for the arabic terms. this correction changes my prior post appropriately.
sura 412 says and half of your estate is your spouses if you have no child but if there is a child you to you one fourth of it after payments of legacies and debts and family one quarter of it estate they have no child and if they have a child one eighth of their estate after payment of legacies and debts but if the husband has no ascendants or descendants and a brother or a sister each one of them a sixth if they are more than that they share in a third after payment of legacies and debts without harm and loss from allah and allah knows forbears.
please review this corrected translation and see if it clears up the issue for you. it may lead you to another question. if so, i will be glad to reply to your questions.
Allah is the teacher.
-
Peace Al Araf,
What happened to the woman in your translation?
412 ?wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun
...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a womanAlso please distribute accordingly if his only heirs are 1 sister and mother.
-
salam nun de plume. i read your question as to what happened to woman in your translation. you then offered that imraatun means woman. i went looking in dictionaries, root word lists, lexicons, and come up with this. other translators claim this means ascendants and descendants and for that reason i deferred to their translation.
... yawrs kalalatan wa amratan... please dont focus on how we use english letters as substitutes, that is not the point
i have at this point found yawrs to mean inherit, kalal to mean rule, and amar to mean command. i am not claiming that i am certain of this, at this time. however, i am sharing this with forum members and requesting input from other forum members here. i have four possible paths of analysis in my mind, either this is a phrase like "white on rice" in which case more research is needed, or this is related to a guardianship issue, or this is related to bequests in a will, or this relates to rulership issues. at this point i have an open mind because none of these analyses are convincing enough to be called conclusive. i am still working on the analysis.
allah raises man by stages.
-
Salam Al Araf,
i read your question as to what happened to woman in your translation. you then offered that imraatun means woman. i went looking in dictionaries, root word lists, lexicons, and come up with this. other translators claim this means ascendants and descendants and for that reason i deferred to their translation.
... yawrs kalalatan wa amratan... please dont focus on how we use english letters as substitutes, that is not the point
i have at this point found yawrs to mean inherit, kalal to mean rule, and amar to mean command.
Please focus on using search tools and cross-reference...
http//www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?inc=PhoneticSearch.asp
Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)>
An-Nisa (The Women)>
Al-A'raf (The Heights) >
Hud (The Prophet Hud)>
Yusuf (Joseph)>
Al-Hijr (The Rocky Tract)
Maryam (Mary)
An-Naml (The Ants)
Al-Qasas (The Narration)
Al-'Ankabut (The Spider)
Az-Zariyat (The Winds that Scatter)
At-Tahrem (The Banning)
Al-Masad (The Palm Fiber)
Daraba Allahu mathalan lillatheena kafaroo imraata noohin waimraata lootin
6610 God gave an example to those who disbelieved, Noah's woman (wife), and Lot's woman (wife)Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushoozan
4128 And if a woman feared from her husband quarrel/despise412 Walakum nisfu ma taraka azwajukum in lam yakun lahunna waladun fa-in kana lahunna waladun falakumu alrrubuAAu mimma tarakna min baAAdi wasiyyatin yooseena biha aw daynin walahunna alrrubuAAu mimma taraktum in lam yakun lakum waladun fa-in kana lakum waladun falahunna alththumunu mimma taraktum min baAAdi wasiyyatin toosoona biha aw daynin wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun walahu akhun aw okhtun falikulli wahidin minhuma alssudusu fa-in kanoo akthara min thalika fahum shurakao fee alththuluthi min baAAdi wasiyyatin yoosa biha aw daynin ghayra mudarrin wasiyyatan mina Allahi waAllahu AAaleemun haleemun
412...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3?
4176 They ask your opinion/clarification, say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her 1/2 what he left...
The point is how do we correctly distribute an estate according to Quran when there is no will and which verses to use.
Example...2 sisters, mother
It works if 412 is the case with father and 4176 is the case with no father.
4176...and if they were two, so to them the 2/3 from what he left...
1 - 2/3 sisters = 1/3 mother
I believe (have not checked all possibilities) that it also works if 412 is with children and 4176 is with no child as stated in the verse.
Example...siblings, children
412...so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3
1 - 1/3 siblings = 2/3 children (distributed according to #of females)
-
salam nun de plume. thank you for providing me the resource of the islamicity search engine, i have added it to my favorites.
i conducted a search on the word kalalatan on this search engine this is the url.
http//www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?UserString=kalalatan&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffree-minds.org%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%D16179.180&ShowTranslation=on&ShowTransliteration=on&ShowArabic=on
if you look at the results of the search it shows two verses 412 and 4176. the search engine translates the sentence fragment as "... those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs..." in 412 and "...those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs..." in 4176.
this is why i stated originally that "kalalatan aw imratan" translate as ascendants and descendants, to which you replied imratan means woman, the source of this discussion.
i then reviewed what you offered and found errors. you translate 4128 as "if a woman feared from her husband" i know the word aal in arabic means family and not husband, and using the word ascendant for imraatan renders 4128 "if the ascendants fear from the family a quarrel" a perfectly plausible translation.
we have to remember, that when the quran was revealed by allah, civil society was not the same as it is today. there were mothers of children who has been willingly inherited by their sons, there were slaves, and other categories of persons in a household, that are not common today. what people of the time of muhammad knew and understood of their world was very different to the world in which we live today. one major source of confusion is an utter misunderstanding of the word nikah.
the quran states men are the protectors and maintainers of women. this use of the term protector renders the understanding of a nikah, not the current fashion of western marriage, but similar to the older form of western marriage in part. the word protector is very similar to the current term guardian or conservator. i am cautious to conclude this is the case because western laws are notorious for changing the defintion of a word based on the whim of the public. a practice inconsistent with law. therefore my conclusion is nikah currently translates as a conservatorship/marriage hybrid, and does not translate as marriage.
therefore i reccomend we not use the term women for imaraatun, use the term ascendants for imraatan, at the present. of course if a person comes up with an example of an arab inscription or writing from the time of muhammad that uses the phrases kalalatan aw imraatan as descendants and ascendant this would confirm the conclusion, it may be that kalalatan aw imratan means a yet unknown category of persons.
allah is the teacher.
-
salam Al Araf,
salam nun de plume. thank you for providing me the resource of the islamicity search engine, i have added it to my favorites.
That one limits results to about 100; here is an even better one...
http//www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=imraat&chapter=&translator=6&search=1&start=0&records_display=100&search_word=all
412 and 4176 Al?Kal?lah (those who leave neither descendants nor ascendants as heirs).
That is the classic definition given for the word Kal?lah (by itself).
awi imraatun "or a woman" (wife) is separate from the above definition of Kal?lah.
wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun
412...and if was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a womanThis can be read in two ways...
412...and if was/is a man to be inherited "without descendants nor ascendants" or a woman (spouse/wife)
Or
412...and if was/is a man to be inherited "without descendants nor ascendants" or a woman
"without descendants nor ascendants"
Obviously the first would only be applicable in the case of man whereas the second to both.
-
salam nun de plume. the point you are missing is that search engine, and translators, are translating ...kalalatun wa imratan.. as ascendants and descendants. you believe for your own reasons that imaratun means women.
what this means is there is a dispute over the meaning of the word. you have not provided any evidence to show that imratan does not mean ascendant. there are women who are ascendants, which makes women a supercategory, and ascendants a subcategory. you cannot go backwards in reasoning. let me give you an example of what you are doing. mammals are a supercategory, humans are a subcategory, monkeys are a subcategory. if i write, humans, you would say this includes mammals and extend this to say monkeys are included. what you are ignoring is the subcategory of ascendants does not include all women. therefore to use the term women is incorrent. there is a definition of your method, it is called a fallacy, the particular fallacy you are employing is "inferring from the specific to the general"
secondly the claim on site says one thing and 99 sites says something else is also called a fallacy, in this case "argumentum ad populum" fallacies are not logic or reasoning, they are examples of erroneous reasoning. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
for this reason i believe it cannot be read both ways. because this is an unresolved issue at this point, you believe it means women, i believe it may means ascendants, you are incorrect to claim anything is obvious at this point.
allah is the teacher.
-
the point you are missing is that search engine, and translators, are translating ...kalalatun wa imratan.. as ascendants and descendants. you believe for your own reasons that imaratun means women.
Salam Al Araf -- no the point you are missing completely is they are translating kalalatun ONLY!
Most translate the word kalalatun as being without "ascendants and descendants."
Do some research on this; below are various translations... I've highlighted or woman!
412...wa-in kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun
Literal ...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited without a child or father or a woman (wife)
Yusuf Ali If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants
Pickthal And if a man or a woman have a distant heir (having left neither parent nor child)
Shakir and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring,
Sarwar If the deceased, either male or female, has no surviving heirs such as parents or children
Khalifa If the deceased man or woman was a loner
Hilali/Khan If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left neither ascendants nor descendants
H/K/Saheeh And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants
Malik If a man or a woman leaves neither ascendant nor descendants
QXP If a man or a woman, whose inheritance is in question, was a loner, in the sense of leaving behind no ascendants or descendants
Free Minds And if a man or a woman has no one
Obviously there was/is disagreement on the meaning of kalalatun even in hadith.
awi imraatun (in this verse) everyone agrees means or a WOMAN.
The only scholar who agrees with my conclusion that both parents are alive in 412 is Parwez...
http//www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/expo/expo_004.htm
412 If the deceased leaves no children and his heirs are parents and brothers and sisters*, then-
Perhaps try and work this case example and you'll understand the issue better...
A man dies leaving an estate valued at $100,000.
1 sister and mother are his only heirs.
How do we distribute the estate according to Quran?
-
Peace all --
A final summary on inheritance verses as to my understanding...
First distributions are given for children, parents, and spouses.
411 God directs/commands/recommends you in your CHILDREN,
...to the male equal (the) fortune (share of) the two females,
IF 2 daughters; son
25,000 + 25,000 + 50,000 = $100,000411...so if they are/were women over two, so for them 2/3 what he left
IF 3+ daughters; son
66,667 + 33,333 = $100,000411...and if she was one, so for her the 1/2
IF 1 daughter; 1 son
50,000 + 50,000 = $100,000Females to males (daughters sons) ratio diagram
1m 2m 3m 4m
1f 11 11 11 11
2f 12 11 12 12
3f 21 21 11 21
4f 21 12 21 11
PARENTS
411...and to his PARENTS, to each one from them the 1/6 from what he left, if for him was a child,
?so if was not for him a child, and his parents inherited him, so to his mother the 1/3,
?so if brothers/brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6,IF both parents alive, mother?s share is fixed at 1/3
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 fatherIF brothers/brethren ikhwatun mother?s share fixed at 1/6
IF no father or brothers/brethren ikhwatun, mother?s share is variable.
HUSBAND
412 And for you 1/2 what your spouses/wives left, if (there) was/is not for them a child, so if (there) was/is for them a child, so for you the 1/4 from what they left from after a bequest/will they bequeath/direct with it or a debt
WIVES
412...and for them the 1/4 from what you left, if (there) was not for you a child, so
if (there) was for you a child, so for them the 1/8 from what you left from after a bequest/will you bequeath/direct with it or a debtIF mother; father; husband; 3 daughters
1 ? 1/6 mother - 1/6 father ? 1/4 husband = children?s share (i.e. 3 daughters; ratio 10)IF husband; mother; father
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 parents (1/6 mother + 1/3 father)IF wife; mother; father
1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 parents (1/4 mother + 1/2 father)The case for spouseless/widower kalalatan (fatherless person) with children
412...and if (he) was/is a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the 1/6, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the 1/3
IF 2+ siblings, mother, children
1 ? 1/3 siblings ? 1/6 mother = 1/2 childrenIF 1 sibling, children
1 ? 1/6 sibling = 5/6 children (distributed according to 411)Finally, the case of a spouseless man or woman alkalalati (fatherless) without child.
4176 They ask your opinion/clarification , say "God decrees/decides in alkalalati, if (a) man/human died, not for him (without) a child, and for him (is) a sister, so for her half what he left, and he inherits her if (there) 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 brothers/brethren men and women, so to the male equal/alike (the) share (of) the two females?
IF 1+ brothers, mother
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 brothersIF sister, mother
1 ? ? sister = ? motherIF 2 sisters, mother
1 ? 2/3 sisters = 1/3 motherIF 2+ siblings mixed, mother
1 ? 1/6 mother = 5/6 siblings (distributed according to #of females similar as children)Females to males (sibling) ratio diagram
1m 2m 3m 4m
1f 11 11 11 11
2f 21 11 21 21
3f 12 12 11 12
4f 12 21 12 11
4176 ?God clarifies for you that you not be misguided, and God is with everything knowledgeable.
Peace
-
Nun, in your latest interpretation, when there are Children and Siblings, siblings receive a share. When there is a mother and siblings, siblings receive a share too. But, when there is a father and siblings or when there is a spouse and siblings, siblings do not receive any share. The presence of siblings reduces the share of children (and mother) but increase the share of father and spouses. Isn't that weird given the fact that children should have the upper hand in the general logic of verses. Why do you think is the rationale behind denying siblings their share when there is a father and spouse but giving them their shares when there are children?
-
Why do you think is the rationale behind denying siblings their share when there is a father and spouse but giving them their shares when there are children?
This is like asking the rational why the husband gets ? and wife gets ?.
If spouse, he/she is primarily responsible for the family.
If father no spouse, he is primarily responsible.
If siblings no spouse or father, they are primarily responsible for the children.
Of course this is conjecture (not good) assuming general case that the children are young.
God knows.
-
Samia, according to Nun's latest interpretation, kalala status is the deprivation of father and spouse-not the deprivation of children. What supports Nun's thesis is the fact that 4176 talks about the lack of children as an additional condition, not inherent in the definition of kalala. This interpretation has the advantage of distinguishing between 412 and 4176 as far as the share of siblings is concerned.(412 talking about the share of siblings of the kalala with children whereas 4176 talks about the shares of siblings of the kalala with no children)
Unfortunately, Quran does not define the kalala. In fact, some research I made revealed to me that the meaning of this word has been hotly contested. Indeed, there have been commentators who suggest that kalala does not refer to deceased but to the distant relative inheritors. Among the commentators who agree that it refers to the deceased, there are disagreements about whether it means deprivation of different combinations of children,spouse,parents. etc.
As I have suggested before, what we can be sure about is that kalala cannot mean the deprivation of a mother because 411 clearly states that the mother inherits along with siblings her share being reduced to 1/6 due to the presence of siblings. So, I believe, you have to modify your definition of kalala insofar as you include the deprivation of a mother in your definition.