Quran inheritance mistake

arista

Salam,

I have question

412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister, then to each one of them is one sixth... "

Is it 412 said
if only have 1 brother, then his brother get 1/6?
if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/6?

Then how about reference it to 4176 " .... If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind.... ". This part said if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/2?

So, is it 412 only talk about single man / woman and 4176 talk about married person who's leave spouse but have no descendants?

Samia

Salaam Samia,

This was already explained by Onur in a prior post

In fact Onur's post is full of errors, and he enfers too much fom the simplest verse on inheritence. Neither you nor onur showed where mother or parent is/are shown in verses 412 / 176. The kelala is a parentless childless person
Onur says

Siblings acquire the status of inheritors only when the deceased is kilalah.
411 specifies the share of the mother when the deceased has siblings.
From 2, we infer that the presence of siblings has an effect on the share of the mother which would make sense only if siblings and mothers are inheritors at the same scenario. Since siblings are inheritors, this scenario happens when the deceased is a kilala.
From 1 and 3, we infer that a person may die as a kilala leaving behind mother and siblings and both of these can become inheritors at the same time.

Once Onur looked at verse 411 as about mother, he made the first mistake. The verse is about "your children".
The second mistake is to infer that the deceased can be a kelala, when it's undebatable that the kelala does not have children (if this is what he meant by siblings) or siblings are not even mentioned in this verse and they are not guaranteed heirs ( if he meant brethren).
This mix up and misunderstanding of what a kelala is, is the cause of a lot of confusion.

Samia

Salam,

I have question

412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister, then to each one of them is one sixth... "

Is it 412 said
if only have 1 brother, then his brother get 1/6?
if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/6?

Then how about reference it to 4176 " .... If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind.... ". This part said if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/2?

So, is it 412 only talk about single man / woman and 4176 talk about married person who's leave spouse but have no descendants?

Salaam arista
It's the opposite. Verse 412 is mainly about the share of spouses. If a kelala is mentioned in this context, then it's a kelala leaving a spouse.
Verse 4176 is about share of brethren without any other heir No spouse, and of course no parents nor children since this verse is exclusively about the kelala.

huruf

Verse 411 is about a deceased leaving children and a spouse. If you mean brothers and sisters of the deceased, they get nothing.
Verse 4176 is the second verse about a deceased without parents nor children (kelala). This one is if this deceased "kelala" does not have a spouse. The first one about a kelala with a spouse is verse 412., which deals in cases of left spouses, including the spouse of a kelala

Actually this was not the important part of my question on the comparison of 4.11 and 4.176, it only struck me that if it starts talking about a man kelala, why does it specify then that a sister who dies, besides being kelala leaves no child. It doesn't specify such a thing when talking about a brother who dies.

That is one thing, but the important part of what I meant to be compared between 4.11 and 4.176 was the parallel formulation of what the children inherit in 4.11 and what the brothers or sisters inherit in 4.176 particularly in what regards de distribution between males and females as it is provide in 4.176 and compared to what was discussed in the thread regarding the distribution of inheritance between the children of the deceased according tot he different mix of males and females, as you suggested following shahrour's ideas and that is why I pointed out

"In 4.11 it says it is speaking fi awladikum, thus grouping the first grade descendants, whereas it is not so formulated when dealing with the brethren. It speaks first about when there is a sister, then two sisters, and then goes onto the disribution if there both sisters and brothers. That is not done in 4.11. Also en 4.11 it says if more than two of the children are females, then they get two thirds of the succession. Whereas in 4.176 if there are two sisters, they get two thirds."

So, I will formulate again the question ?does the wording in 4.11 warrant any interpretation that regarding the male and females parts should be similar as in 4.176?

Salaam

arista

Salam,

Salaam arista
It's the opposite. Verse 412 is mainly about the share of spouses. If a kelala is mentioned in this context, then it's a kelala leaving a spouse.
Verse 4176 is about share of brethren without any other heir No spouse, and of course no parents nor children since this verse is exclusively about the kelala.

So, what is mean by 412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister .... " ? NO ONE? no spouse, no children, no parents?

unknownuser

In fact Onur's post is full of errors, and he enfers too much fom the simplest verse on inheritence. Neither you nor onur showed where mother or parent is/are shown in verses 412 / 176. The kelala is a parentless childless person
Onur saysOnce Onur looked at verse 411 as about mother, he made the first mistake. The verse is about "your children".

Onur is correct.

411-12 along with 476 is read as a continues paragraph which have to be logically tied toghether without contradiction!

Also, you keep posting without addressing any examples above?

Inheritance distributions are mathematics and cannot be ambiguous with shares not adding up or not enough.

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 brethren were for him, so to his mother the 1/6,

As you see above, the fathers share is only stated if a child, all other cases have to be inferred logically calculated.

Ex mother, father (no child father?s share is variable)
1 - 1/3 mother = 2/3 father

Ex husband, father
1 ? 1/2 husband = 1/2 father

The second mistake is to infer that the deceased can be a kelala, when it's undebatable that the kelala does not have children (if this is what he meant by siblings) or siblings are not even mentioned in this verse and they are not guaranteed heirs ( if he meant brethren).
This mix up and misunderstanding of what a kelala is, is the cause of a lot of confusion.

Undebatable, really? According to what, grammar based off tradition that says Kalala was never understood and conjectured having neither ascendants nor descendants which caused most of the contradictions as in the simple case posted?

Ex wife, brother (if kalala has spouse per 412)

1 - 1/4 wife - 1/6 brother = 7/12 unallocated?

http//www.mathcracker.com/piechartimage.php?data=3,%202,%207&cat=wife,%20brother,%20unallocated

Does the above distribution according to your understanding look reasonable and who gets the unallocated?

Peace

Samia

Salam,

So, what is mean by 412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister .... " ? NO ONE? no spouse, no children, no parents?

The verse does not say (has no one), but (if a man - or a woman - is inherited as a kelala). A kelala is someone who has no descendants nor parents. This is when brethren /siblings come into the inheritance

unknownuser

Salaam arista,

I have question

412 ".... If a man or a woman has no one, but has a brother or sister, then to each one of them is one sixth... "

Is it 412 said
if only have 1 brother, then his brother get 1/6?
if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/6?

Good questions; verse literally says ?

412...and if was a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

if only 1 brother = 1/6
if only 1 sister = 1/6
if 2+ brothers = 1/3
if 2+ sisters = 1/3
if brethren men and women any combination mixed = 1/3
Distributed according to 4176 to the male equal fortune the two females

Then how about reference it to 4176 " .... If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind.... ". This part said if only have 1 sister, then his sister get 1/2?

The verse says ?

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 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.

So, is it 412 only talk about single man / woman and 4176 talk about married person who's leave spouse but have no descendants?

There lies the main issue, which verse to use as in the case for example of a sister and mother?

Do we give the sister 1/6 or 1/2?

A work around was that 412 refers to uterine siblings or half sisters and brothers having the same mother but a different father to resolve the issue which brought about other confusion when total distribution is greater than the whole fix was to use algebra to proportionately decrease each amount by a common denominator called al-awl.

Ex husband, mother, 3 uterine brothers, 2 full brothers

1/2 husband + 1/6 mother + 1/3 uterine brothers (412) = 0 full brothers (4176)

The above was a supposed case during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab who ruled the 2 full brothers got nothing since there was nothing remaining to share. The full brothers argued that even if their father was a donkey or a stone cast into the sea and they had no paternal relationship, they still had the same and equal relationship with the deceased as the uterine brothers through the same mother. Umar reconsidered his ruling and allowed the full brothers to inherit equally with the uterine brothers in the shares thus

1 ? 1/2 husband ? 1/6 mother = 1/3 brothers

Which is both incorrect according to Qur'an because when there is a spouse siblings get NOTHING!

It is stated in 4176 kalala no child whereas 412 is a progression from children, parents, spouses, then spouseless person who can be a widower, divorced, or single person with children and reason sibling?s share limited to maximum of 1/3 and we use for this case 4176 no child

1 sister, mother
1/2 sister + 1/2 mother = 1

2+ sisters, mother
2/3 sisters + 1/3 mother = 1

1+ brother, mother (411...if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6)
5/6 brothers + 1/6 mother = 1

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

2+ siblings mixed any combination - to the male equal fortune the two females

There can be no contradictions; that is the correct interpretation.

Samia

Onur is correct.

411-12 along with 476 is read as a continues paragraph which have to be logically tied toghether without contradiction!

Also, you keep posting without addressing any examples above?

Inheritance distributions are mathematics and cannot be ambiguous with shares not adding up or not enough.

I know it's mathematics, but first of all we should understand the parameters before setting a formula. And it does not matter whether you read them individually or as acontinous peragraph there are some points that should not be ignored.
If the kelala has children, brothers, parents and wife, why is a kelala defined? And what makes it different from a standard person?

Undebatable, really? According to what, grammar based off tradition that says Kalala was never understood and conjectured having neither ascendants nor descendants which caused most of the contradictions as in the simple case posted?

Ex wife, brother (if kalala has spouse per 412)

1 - 1/4 wife - 1/6 brother = 7/12 unallocated?

I gave my definition of kelala. I do not know your definition when you give them all relatives. This simple case only gets into contradictions when one does not pay very good attention to the different contexts. You suggest (reading the verses as continuation) but you quickly drop this idea
Why should the wife get 1/4? This is not mentioned in case of kelala, but in continuation of 411. The deceased is not a kella, so, and in continuation with 411, there are parents. Kelala starts after that in case there are siblings and spouse

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance) to the male, a portion equal to that of two females if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
412

In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.

In this "simple case", brother gets 1/6 and the rest goes to the spouse, whose share is not defined in this case and who is the only eligible heir left.
There are different formulae for each case, depending on who the heirs are. Unless you define the situation, you cannot put a universal formula for the inheritance.

Samia

I forgot to mention that I am not taking any credit in this explanation. It's sha7rour's explanation (and BTW he is a professor in engineering, so very much mathematician) from his book (New approach to the principles of "islamic law&quot. I checked all his formulae and could not find any contradictions so far. He also explains the different opinions of scholars and critically confirms/refutes them.

unknownuser

I know it's mathematics, but first of all we should understand the parameters before setting a formula. And it does not matter whether you read them individually or as acontinous peragraph there are some points that should not be ignored.
If the kelala has children, brothers, parents and wife, why is a kelala defined? And what makes it different from a standard person?

Kalala no father, no spouse.
4176 says if Kalala (no father, no spouse) has no child.

Simple.

I gave my definition of kelala. I do not know your definition when you give them all relatives. This simple case only gets into contradictions when one does not pay very good attention to the different contexts
.

there are no contradictions, please post a contradiction example case if you believe so.

You suggest (reading the verses as continuation) but you quickly drop this idea
Why should the wife get 1/4? This is not mentioned in case of kelala, but in continuation of 411. The deceased is not a kella, so, and in continuation with 411, there are parents. Kelala starts after that in case there are siblings and spouse

Not sure what you are asking; please post an example case and I'll solve line by line explanation.

412
And for you half what your spouses/wives left, if is not for them a child, so if was for them a child, so for you the quarter from what they left from after a bequest/will they bequeath with it or a debt
And for them the quarter from what you left, if was not for you a child, so
if was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left from after a bequest/will you bequeath with it or a debt
And if was a man to be inherited kalalatan or a woman, and for him a brother, or a sister, so for each one from them the sixth, so if they were more than that, so they are partners in the third

If you believe Kalala has no parents, please solve sister, mother

I forgot to mention that I am not taking any credit in this explanation. It's sha7rour's explanation (and BTW he is a professor in engineering, so very much mathematician) from his book (New approach to the principles of "islamic law&quot. I checked all his formulae and could not find any contradictions so far. He also explains the different opinions of scholars and critically confirms/refutes them.

Good you are not taking credit for his contradictions as shown in all the pie charts above.

Good for him that he is a professor and mathematician; not good that he has little logic.

Peace

huruf

Samia, salaam all

I do not seem to get over the point I want to and one last post I sent seems to have lost in the underworld. I will try again.

Samia, regarding Shahrour's understanding of the distribution between the children as stated in 4.11 and when compared with the distribution provided for for brethren un 4.176, what I would want is a comparison of both formulations, because there are some similarities which might be taken to indicate that it is the same formula, and that therefore the 1=2 females en both are the same and that therefore could invalidate the understanding of 4.11 as per Sharour's. I already posted a coment on this a few posts back, but would like to have this ayas examined as throughly as possible. I quote from my previous message

"In 4.11 it says it is speaking fi awladikum, thus grouping the first grade descendants, whereas it is not so formulated when dealing with the brethren. It speaks first about when there is a sister, then two sisters, and then goes onto the disribution if there both sisters and brothers. That is not done in 4.11. Also en 4.11 it says if more than two of the children are females, then they get two thirds of the succession. Whereas in 4.176 if there are two sisters, they get two thirds."

I Would be gratefully to have as detailed an analisis of these dispositions because I think we migh get some more light and precisions on the matter.

Salaam

unknownuser

Peace huruf,

Samia, salaam all

I do not seem to get over the point I want to and one last post I sent seems to have lost in the underworld. I will try again.

Samia, regarding Shahrour's understanding of the distribution between the children as stated in 4.11 and when compared with the distribution provided for for brethren un 4.176, what I would want is a comparison of both formulations, because there are some similarities which might be taken to indicate that it is the same formula, and that therefore the 1=2 females en both are the same and that therefore could invalidate the understanding of 4.11 as per Sharour's. I already posted a coment on this a few posts back, but would like to have this ayas examined as throughly as possible. I quote from my previous message

"In 4.11 it says it is speaking fi awladikum, thus grouping the first grade descendants, whereas it is not so formulated when dealing with the brethren. It speaks first about when there is a sister, then two sisters, and then goes onto the disribution if there both sisters and brothers. That is not done in 4.11. Also en 4.11 it says if more than two of the children are females, then they get two thirds of the succession. Whereas in 4.176 if there are two sisters, they get two thirds."

I Would be gratefully to have as detailed an analisis of these dispositions because I think we migh get some more light and precisions on the matter.

Salaam

the key difference is in 4176 the sisters are alone except for possibility of mother (no brothers) else there would be a contradiction.

cannot state if there are 2 sisters they get 2/3;
then in next sentence male gets equal the 2 sisters or 2/3

2/3 + 2/3 = 1 plus 1/3 too much

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 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

Kalala no father, no spouse.
4176 says if Kalala (no father, no spouse) has no child.

Simple.
.

Thiese words between paranthese Are they there in the verse or they are your understanding? Let's see verse 4176

They ask thee for a legal decision. Say Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them) if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.
(Translation by A. Y. Ali)

Samia

salaam huruf

Can you please be more precise, because Shahrour discusses many points in one problem, and I do not know which explanation to translate to you.

arista

Salam Samia,

Thanks, I get it...

Trying to solve sister, mother mother get 1/6 and sister get 5/6 ?

Samia

Salam Samia,

Thanks, I get it...

Trying to solve sister, mother mother get 1/6 and sister get 5/6 ?

Yes

huruf

Thiese words between paranthese Are they there in the verse or they are your understanding? Let's see verse 4176

They ask thee for a legal decision. Say Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them) if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.
(Translation by A. Y. Ali)

If kalala is those who do not leave descendants or ascendants why is it stated that "if a woman, who ledt no child". If it is a kalala she left no child aboviously, why is it stated?

huruf

Well, I may be wrong in assuming it, but the fact that the formula "to the male the part of two females" appears exactly alike in 4.11 and 4. 176 might serve to uphold that that is a general formulation that rules in both cases, and which even though in 4.11 it is not stated that if there are sons and daughters, the same as in 4.176 it is stated if there are brothers and sisters, it is assumed that in both cases, the the male twice the two females is a general rule when there are mixed sexes. So I ould like to know how Sharour deals with that, and any other point of view which may throw light on the matter.

SALAAM

Samia

If kalala is those who do not leave descendants or ascendants why is it stated that "if a woman, who ledt no child". If it is a kalala she left no child aboviously, why is it stated?

The literal translation is hey ask you about the kelala say God tells you if a man dies and does not have descendents, and he has a sister she will get half of what he left - and he will inherit all that she left if (when she dies) she has no descendents- and if they were two (sisters of the kelala) they get the two thirds and if they wre siblings men and women the male gets twice the share of the two females.

This woman is the sister of the kelala, and she does not have to be kelala.