Quran inheritance mistake
-
Salaam Samia,
Verse numbers are markers not topic separators. Read the context and the paragraph above it and everything else pertaining to which the correct definition is the non contradicting.
Salaam Eid
If you pay attention to the last line I wrote in the part you are quoting, I am mentioning the "paragraph above " and putting the part of verse quoted in context. The context is "spouses", and the proof that this kelala has a spouse is the fact that the shares for his siblings does not add up to the whole inheritance. The logical understanding is that the rest goes to the "spouse" who is in the "contecxt" of the "paragraph above".
Please read more carefully what I write before hurrying to criticism.nheritance verses are an exercise in logic and the best way to deal with them is by case examples
Ex mother, father
1 - 1/3 mother (411) = 2/3 father is deduced by reason/logic.Yes I agree, but the logic should also be in accordance to the "logic" of the language in which these verses are written
First, when children are mentioned, we understand that what follows concerns "children" and not one gender. In the one case whre males are mentioned, it's in a context of formula. Apart from that, it's always the female, then we use the "logic" to deduce the share of the male.
Same thing ith parents. Once the verse mentions "parents", we should understand that both parents are pesumably there (no point in mentioning when the it's only the father or when it's only the mother, becasue, again by "logic", the suviving parent will take both shares, just like the case of "girls only" or "boys only" or one child only). We also notice in the verse dealing with parents, only the share of the mother is mentioned. We do not wonder what the share of the fathe is when the verse says "and if the deceased has no children and is inherited by his parents, his mother gets the 1/3". The verse, "logically" does not tell us what the share of the mother would be if she was the sole parent alive, because this presumption is not even there, not because it is unlikely, but because there is no need for it.When the verse continues and if the deceased has siblings, his mother gets 1/6, we should go back to the beginning of the sentence (if the deceased has no children and his parents inherit him/her, his mother gets one third; if he/she has siblings, his mother gets 1/6). Why should we presume that father does not exist?!
Ex mother, brother
1 - 1/6 mother (411) = 5/6 brother is deduced by reason/logic.Ex father, brother
what do we do?father 1/6; brother 1/6 , remainder goes to father (higher in hierarchy)
By same reasoning no mention of parents, spouses don?t share with parents
This verse speaks of two kinds of deceased standard (beginning of verse) and kelala. By "logic", the first one has parents, otherwise, what is the difference between the kelala and the standard when they do not leave a child?
We should presume the deceased (no kelala) left parents, spouse and children, unless it's explicitly mentioned that there are no children.. We only have "if deceased leaves no children". We do not have "if deceased does not leave parents or does not leave spouse".
The heirarchy of heirs is in this order
Children always heirs
Parents always heirs
Spouses always heirs
Siblings restricted heirsThis helps in case there's remainder after paying the specified shared, this remainder will be added to the share of the heir higher in hierarchy (according to their mentioning in the verses of inheritance, which also reflects the nearness to the deceased).
So, in case the deceased leaves a mother and a wife. No childrenWife 1/4
Mother= 1/3
Rest of inheritance goes to the mother, since she is higher in hierarchyEx husband, parents
Husband gets 100% is not trueYes. In the presence of an always heir, husband can't get 100%.
- Fathers share only stated if child, without child father's share is variable.
Agree.
Husband gets 1/2
Father gets 1/2
Yes?Where is the solution?
Mother, father, sister
Mother 1/6; father 1/6, sister 2/3 the rest. The remainder goes back to the parents.
Ex inheritance is 18,000. Father 3,000; mother 3,000; sister 1/2 of what is left 6,000. Rest goes back to parents.411 says parents get 1/6 each of them IF CHILD. Without child the father?s share is variable.
The brother does not get 2/3 while each parent gets a 1/6.And without child but brethrens, mother still gets 1/6, so "by logic" father's share is also 1/6, since his share is specified only when there are children.
It's not 1/2 the inheritance but 1/2 the rest (what he left verse 4176), since their share is not specified. If there's a spouse, or if they were more, they get even less.Again with no child father?s share is not stated.
1 ? 1/3 parents = 2/3 siblings is not correct!You are right.
Parents 1/3, brethrens 1/3, (i/2 of which for the 2 sisters and the other half for the brother). Rest goes back to parentsDistribution of siblings is different than that of the children.
Siblings 1 sister = 1/2 applicable when there is ONLY 1 sister.
Siblings 2 (e.i. if two present or at least two) applicable when ONLY sisters.The same wording is used for children and brethren. I would rather look at it as "distribution between siblings". Again, the verses do not speak of one gender when it is discussing brethren or children, because it's by logic that they will divide it evenly between them and we do not really need this unnecessary detail.
I am coming to change my definition of kelala Maybe it's someone who does not have parents, or does not have children or does not have either.
-
Salaam Samia,
When the verse continues and if the deceased has siblings, his mother gets 1/6, we should go back to the beginning of the sentence (if the deceased has no children and his parents inherit him/her, his mother gets one third; if he/she has siblings, his mother gets 1/6). Why should we presume that father does not exist?!
Because of the contradiction in any case involving a father and sibling!
Ex father, sibling = two unknown {one has to be dropped, i.e. the sibling)father 1/6; brother 1/6 , remainder goes to father (higher in hierarchy)
That is contradiction father if child = 1/6; if no child = variable
To brother if no child only stated in case of Kalala (4176)
We know the deceased is not Kalala, thus two unknowns/variables ? sibling has to be dropped.This verse speaks of two kinds of deceased standard (beginning of verse) and kelala. By "logic", the first one has parents, otherwise, what is the difference between the kelala and the standard when they do not leave a child?
It is stated twice if no child...
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...
Kalala logically cannot mean childless -- the case IF child has to be a possibility!
So, in case the deceased leaves a mother and a wife. No children
Wife 1/4
Mother= 1/3
Rest of inheritance goes to the mother, since she is higher in hierarchyNo need to allocate 1/3 to mother and the remainder to mother since
IF no children, no father, no siblings, the mother?s share is variable, therefore?1 ? 1/4 wife = 3/4 mother
Husband gets 1/2
Father gets 1/2
Yes?Yes, same as for mother above, father share is variable; general formula
1 ? spouse = parentMother, father, sister
Mother 1/6; father 1/6, sister 2/3 the rest. The remainder goes back to the parents.
Ex inheritance is 18,000. Father 3,000; mother 3,000; sister 1/2 of what is left 6,000. Rest goes back to parents.No, leads to contradictions with no child father share is variable.
Same situation ex father, sister {deceased not Kalala; father is only inheritor}And without child but brethrens, mother still gets 1/6, so "by logic" father's share is also 1/6, since his share is specified only when there are children.
It's not 1/2 the inheritance but 1/2 the rest (what he left verse 4176), since their share is not specified. If there's a spouse, or if they were more, they get even less.No.
Ex wife, sister
1 ? 1/4 = 3/4 sister is not correct! {the case for 1 sister is stated either 1/6 or 1/2)Ex mother, father, sister {deceased not Kalala; mother and father are the only inheritors}
1 ? 1/3 mother = 2/3 father {sister gets nothing}
The same wording is used for children and brethren. I would rather look at it as "distribution between siblings". Again, the verses do not speak of one gender when it is discussing brethren or children, because it's by logic that they will divide it evenly between them and we do not really need this unnecessary detail.
No, distributions for siblings are different, please note highlighted in red...
Children male = 2 females; IF > 2 females = 2/3; IF 1 female = 1/2
Siblings male = 2 females {if mixed}; IF 2 females = 2/3; IF 1 female = 1/2
I am coming to change my definition of kelala Maybe it's someone who does not have parents, or does not have children or does not have either.
4176 Illogical IF childless person (Kalala) dies NOT for him/her a child!
Ex father, siblings {two unknowns, sibling gets bounced}
Father gets 100%Ex husband, mother, siblings, father {412 Kalala with spouse according to you}
1 ? 1/2 husband ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 siblings = 0 fatherSiblings get bounced; father = 1/3 or twice the mother
Likewise, ex wife, sibling, mother leads to under allocation of shares...
1 - 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sibling ? 1/6 mother = 5/12 unallocated
Peace
-
(َ = It was, or became, dim, dull, or hebetated. He was, or became fatigued, tired, or wearied.
Kalla is used in verse verse 1676Therefore in my opinion Kalalah means someone without parents, children, and spouse. One may became fatigued, tired, or wearied only when he has no parents, no children and no spouse.
-
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations
From Lane's Lexicon
-
Salaam Eid, all
You can never find in the inheritance verses mention of son or father without mention of the fmale counterpart, and that their share depends, or revolve around the share of this female. Nor would we have a female alone (except explicitly in case of brethren). When there's a share of female, we presume that there is a male opposite her, becaue such verses discuss (your children) and (parents). This male share is not variable but is dependant on the share of the female according to a formula which we can deduce from a given principle.
Case of sons We were able to deduce a formula for the share of the son because we were given examples of the share of female/s in different settings one; two or more and according to set principles.
Father We had the share of the mother (1/3) when there are no children, and deduced the share of the father (2/3); and when there are children both will have 1/6 each. No need to search further when there are no children but there are brethren, because we are given the share of the mother (1/6) unchanged, and are made to understand that existance of brethren does not change her share (and therefore does not change the share of the father).
-
(َ = It was, or became, dim, dull, or hebetated. He was, or became fatigued, tired, or wearied.
Kalla is used in verse verse 1676Therefore in my opinion Kalalah means someone without parents, children, and spouse. One may became fatigued, tired, or wearied only when he has no parents, no children and no spouse.
Salaam Tlepsh
You are right, this word shares the same root, but how do you deduce from this that a kelala is someone (without parents, children and spouse)?
The word used in this verse means "burden", like "a slave being a burden on his/her master). One cannot be a burden on his/her children or parents; and cannot be a burden on anyone else if he/she has children and/or parents. So if one is a burden, he/she must be childless and parentless. -
Salaam
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations
From Lane's Lexicon
Yes, all CA dictionaries say the same thing. I wanted to see if this is the meaning the quraan is using, or these dictionaries are just repeating a preconception
-
Salaam Samia,
In my opinion a person is not burden on any one of these three Parents, children, or spouse.
If this person has any one of those three he is not a burden. He becomes burden when he has ?none? of those three.Salaam Tlepsh
The qur'aan spoke of marital problems and set a final solution for them divorce. Also, Until this solution, one of them is a burden on the other.
As for inheritance verses the kelala was only mentioned in context of spouses' share (verse 411) and again alone in verse (4176). It was not mentioned in verse 411 when discussing the shares of children and parents. -
Salam Samia,
Please once more verify the meaning of Kalala as per the following devision of the inheritance statements in verses 411, 412, and 4176. My earlier definition is incorrect. A KALALA may or may not have children. This is clearly stated in verse 4176. I believe Kalala is one who has no parents and spose.Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance)
Normal Person
? 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.
? 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.
Kalala with children
? If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, is KALALA, 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.
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in ALKALALATI,
Kalala without children
? if (a) human(kalala) died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what he left,
? and he inherits her (kalala) 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. -
Kalala with children
? If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, is KALALA, 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.
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in ALKALALATI,Salaam Tlepsh
This is where we differ. I suppose you are refereing to verse 412, which is about the share of spouses in all cases, including the kelala. I do not know how you infer from this that kalal here has children, when they are not mentioned
We should look now from the side of the heirs, i.e the children here. Verse 411, the main verse about children, does not mention siblings except in case there are no children. It's quite clear that the presence of children curtails brethrens right to inherit -
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations
From Lane's Lexicon
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.
-
Peace Tlepsh, Samia, all,
(ّ = It was, or became, dim, dull, or hebetated. He was, or became fatigued, tired, or wearied.
Kalla is used in verse verse 1676Therefore in my opinion Kalalah means someone without parents, children, and spouse. One may became fatigued, tired, or wearied only when he has no parents, no children and no spouse.
kallun in 1676 definition and example is given has little to do with marital/personal status more about character; i.e. tiresome useless incompetent devoid of qualities requisite for effective conduct or action. We can infer from the root of the word is they are lacking and at issue is to solve the case examples involving all the possibilities without contradiction which the meaning clearly comes out as fatherless and spouse-less
Ex father, sibling
Distributions for various combinations of siblings are only stated in case of Kalala (412 and 4176)
With father alive deceased not Kalala, thus two unknowns variables ? sibling has to be dropped.4176 They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in the Childless, if human died, not for him a Child
Illogical to state IF CHILDLESS not for him/her a CHILD.
Ex husband, mother, siblings, father {does not work, siblings are not inheritors with father}
1 ? 1/2 husband ? 1/6 mother ? 1/3 siblings = 0 fatherEx 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
Yes, all CA dictionaries say the same thing. I wanted to see if this is the meaning the quraan is using, or these dictionaries are just repeating a preconception
Lane et al, are repeating preconceptions from contradictive hadith; see case stated earlier...
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 = 12+ sisters, mother
2/3 sisters + 1/3 mother = 11+ brother, mother (411...if brothers were for him, so to his mother the 1/6)
5/6 brothers + 1/6 mother = 12+ 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.
-
Salam Samia,
Please once more verify the meaning of Kalala as per the following devision of the inheritance statements in verses 411, 412, and 4176. My earlier definition is incorrect. A KALALA may or may not have children. This is clearly stated in verse 4176. I believe Kalala is one who has no parents and spose.Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance)
Normal Person
? 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.
? 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.
Kalala with children
? If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, is KALALA, 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.
They ask your clarification, say "God decrees in ALKALALATI,
Kalala without children
? if (a) human(kalala) died, not for him a child, and for him a sister, so for her half what he left,
? and he inherits her (kalala) 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.Peace Tlepsh,
That is correct except for mother; i.e. Kalala = Fatherless and/or Spouse-less
All the case examples work; if child use 412 else without child use 4176
-
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 questionVerse 411 How many deceased/kinds of deceased does this verse speak about? Please explain why?
-
Pease Samia,
Please re-check the following
The inheritance verses are411
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. -
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? -
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?
