Hi Leonardo,

This is a tricky issue. What translators do is they take the word "woman" and (mentally) place it in the beginning of the expression. Speaking grammatically, the subject of the expression becomes " a man or a woman "

In other words, the bifurcated subject becomes a compound subject by means of a mental operation.

Another way to look at is "If a man is inherited as/by kalalati or a woman and has a brother ...."
What is in the paranthesis is not in the actual text but translators take them as implied.

Kalalati in 412 is a verbal noun in the accusative form. Not many translators/interpreters ponder why it is in the accusative. In my view, the verb y-r-t-h should be read as an active verb(yurithu-cause someone to inherit) and the kalalati should become its direct object- hence accusative.

In my view, moreover, the correct translation is "If a man or a woman causes kalalati to inherit and has a brother..... "

In my view, kalalati refers to collateral heirs, that is, heirs other than parent, spouse and children. These heirs encompass the person from the sides or surround him. If you consult an etymological dictionary,http//web.archive.org/web/20110526023232/http//www.freeweb.hu/etymological/AEDweb.htm, kalala has something to do with surrounding in Semitic languages.

Also, the Quran uses the root k-l-l in 1676 to refer to someone who is dependent or who is a burden. So, all dependents of the deceased- not necessarily family members- can be included in the kalala category. These are dependents who surround the person and become a burden on him, kalalati.

Finally, I think the Quran has only fixed the shares of the siblings among the kalala. For the rest of the kalala, the community/courts can assign appropriate shares taking into account need/dependency and so on.

I hope this helps. Please let me know what you think.

I don't agree with all his views either but the controversy is real. His claim is that the word in the Quran was originally kalla- meaning wife and daughter-in-law in Semitic languages- and then changed to kalala, a previously unknown word, in order to disinherit Zaynab, the prophet's former daughter-in-law and later wife. 4176 was inserted to the Quran to do this, he argues. He claims to present evidence from an early copy of the Quran.
The word and its peculiar usage in 412 and 4176, especially the accusative use in 412, are particularly noteworthy. The word kalla, in his opinion, fits the accusative use better.
To meet his challange, the best strategy is to consult the etymology of the word- k-l-l- and the usage of the same root in 1676. It is, in my view, a multi-meaning word(in accordance with 37) which opens interesting possibilities. It is, I believe, associated with dependency( as in 1676) To me, the connection between the concepts of dependence and inheritance is obvious.
As a general principle, I'd caution you against hasty and passionate judgments in scholarly research- you seem to dismiss as nonsense whatever you don't immediately like.

http//books.google.com/books?id=OUxWN1VBnBEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=david+powers+consonantal+skeleton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uqSKUfOkEZHNqAGenIHIBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=david%20powers%20consonantal%20skeleton&f=false

Please study this book to get a sense of the big controversy around this word. The issue is not as easy as you think. Page 163-164 explains the difficulties around grammar.

Mazhar,
both male and female are included in the kalala.
the word is used adverbially in 412 and as a noun in 4176
In my view, adverbial usage denotes a relationship, a way of inheriting specifically, a relationship of (collateral) dependence.
as a noun, it signifies collaterals and dependent heirs.
In my view, bringing in the criteria of dependency and thus going beyond familial ties in the issue of inheritance is a very reasonable/progressive move on the part of the Quran. It is unfortunate that Muslim lawyers have not appreciated this and denied collaterals/dependents their fair share. The latter were given a share only in the absence of ascendants and descendants. The bias then is especially in favor of descendants(children). This bias leads to accumulation of wealth in a particular lineage(vertical) as opposed to the sharing of a wealth across a generation. Hopefully, a progressive Islamic commonwealth can remedy this in the future.

I have slightly revised my article to highlight the social/political importance of the issue. I also corrected the source of the etymological evidence I present. Here it is

I want to offer a new interpretation of the Quran?s inheritance system with regard to collateral relatives. The issue is the word ?kalala,? a word that occurs in 412b and 4176. Commentators have been baffled by this word. Just have a brief look at the competing definitions outlined by Agostino Cilardo http//www.ecampus.com/quranic-term-kalala-studies-arabic/bk/9780748619160

The topic is important because inheritance is the mechanism by which wealth concentrates in the hands of the few; C.Wright Mills has found that 93 percent of the richest Americans have inherited their wealth, not earned it, see his The Power Elite. I would also recommend Jackie Stevens' States without Nations for a discussion of an utopian world without inheritance laws which privilege immediate family, especially the children of the deceased. Stevens' discussion of inheritance follows from a critique of Karl Marx. Contra Marx, it is not a person's relation to means of production but a person's relation to his ascendants that determines his wealth and power. Given these points, we can conclude that allowing wealth to pass to collaterals as opposed to (only) descendants leads to a more just arrangement of economic life.

I ask here if these considerations can motivate a re-interpretation of the Quran's inheritance law. I see value in applying insights from social and political research to interpretation of a foundational and sacred text. Perhaps Muslim societies can increase their intellectual and moral aptitude as a result of such application.

I proceed from etymology of the word "kalala". I offer this as an attempt at legal reform. This is a reformist interpretation to ponder, especially with the goal of more egalitarian distribution of wealth in mind.

After long research, I have found the following definition from Muhammad Husayn Tabatabei's commentary Al-Mizan- I think it is the best linguistic analysis of the word "kalala".
al-Kalalah' (&#1577 is in fact a masdar which means to encompass; from it is derived al-iklil ( = crown) because it encircles the head; also al-kull ( = whole, all, total) comes from it because it encompasses its parts; another derivative is al-kall ( = to be tired, dull); it implies a sort of wearisome encompassing against the one on whom he depends.

This definition is insightful because it accords with the Quran?s use of the same root- k,l,l- in the verse 1676. In that verse, the meaning is someone who is dependent or a burden.

If one searches history of Quranic exegesis, one finds that there was a considerable debate about the question whether the word kalala refers to the deceased or his heirs.

I think it refers to the heirs of the deceased, not to the deceased himself. I think the word denotes two qualities of the heirs 1) they are collateral inheritors(siblings, cousins, uncles and so on) AND/OR 2) they are dependents of the deceased, poor people who look to him or her for sustenance. In addition, I think the word?s meaning as dependent can be extended by means of practical reasoning (ijtihad) to disadvantaged people who have some connection to the deceased( gender and disability might factor in here).

On this basis, I offer the following translation of the kalala verses

If a man or woman is inherited by collateral relations and/or dependents and he has siblings, then ?.
On this interpretation, I make the following points.

1. Siblings are just a sub-category of kalala 2) Siblings are responsible to share their portion with the rest of kalala(cousins, uncles, aunts, servants, people who were dependent on the deceased) in a fair manner
2. If the deceased has no siblings but has other collaterals, these can claim the shares the verses allocate to the siblings
3. As a general rule, the Quran?s system of wealth distribution should be rendered as egalitarian and fragmented as possible. The Quran favors the increase of the shares of collaterals.( Consider that 4176 discusses a condition(absence of a child) under which the shares of collateral relations increases) Collaterals can inherit even in the presence of direct ascendants or descendants. The conventional Islamic law of inheritance has to be reformed accordingly.

Hello,
In my view, what you present is not a definition of kalala There would be no need to use such an unfamiliar and thought-provoking word to describe a simple concept as childless man.
The part you point out simply lays out the condition under which the shares of collateral relations/dependents increase from 412 to 4176. When the deceased is childless, the share of collaterals increases. In fact, the reason the Quran returns to the issue of collaterals again in 4176 is to endorse a tendency to increase the share of collaterals and fragment the wealth across a broad range of people. In my view, The Quran discusses siblings' shares as a sub-category of kalala/collaterals and dependents and leaves it to the community to expand on this notion. The community might choose to select a particular group of dependents(kalala) and allocate some of the share of siblings to those. If there are no siblings, the shares of these dependents might be increased. Legal reasoning should be flexible. That is my general point.

I am familiar with the definition you propose and many other alternative definitions. I'd appreciate if this thread remains focused on my particular intervention based on etymology and independent practical reasoning(ijtihad)

I grant that fairness is not totally objective. But it is not a wholly arbitrary judgment either and should be a factor to keep in mind in distributive justice. At the very least, we should give plausible reasons for our distributions even if we do not necessarily require that everyone should strictly agree to them.
You have a good point with the example you gave. It actually supports my position and shows that it is better to stick with the 1 male= 2 female formula(each son getting only twice as much as each daughter) for all mixed cases as stated in the beginning of the verse, treating the following sentences as cases involving daughters only(either 1 or "two or above" as based on the peculiar nature of the Arabic phrase "above two" ). It seems absurd to me to specify only daughters' shares for mixed cases.(that's your understanding)
I know that 1 male=2 female might not seem fair to everyone. But at least we can think of a reason for it whether it is true or not for everyone. We can say that Quran takes into account the burden generally assigned to sons in most cultures through history to take care of the families. Some people might disagree with this but it is not wholly an implausible/random/crazy idea.
Can you give any reasons for your random distributions among sons and daughters- say in the examples we gave like 6 daughters and 1 son, 3 daughters and 6 sons and so on? Please reflect on this important issue.

Hi Nun,
When sisters are over two, do you take the share 2/3 in comparison to 1 share of a son or do you take it as a fraction of the whole?
If the latter, then it does not seem fair to me. In that case,
In a case of 3 daughters and 2 sons, each daughter would get 2/9 and sons would get 1/6
In a case of 3 daughters and 6 sons, each daughter would still get 2/9 and sons would get 1/18
Only sons would be being disadvantaged by the increasing number of siblings. That wouldn't be fair.

Hi Nun,
You wrote "As already stated, for a sole inheritor there is no need for inheritance ruling"
That is exactly my point. You have to ask why. Because inheritance ratios make sense only comparatively. When there is one inheritor, the ratios don't mean anything. Ratios get their full meaning only in comparison to each other. This common-sense insight would allow us to compare ratios to each other under a common denominator. What I mean the algebraic method is nothing more than that. We don't really need the term algebra. In fact, traditional Muslims used that method by giving a different name to it.
Onur

I tried to modify my earlier post but time limit has not allowed that. Below I explained my point a little better

Peace Nun,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth was an example to demonstrate the implicit logic of distribution in those cases, along with others, we are implicitly using the idea of a variable because we are acknowledging that the phrase 1/a of what is left or 1/a from what is left is not necessarily the (totalmoney.1/a) as it would be in a literal reading of the phrase. It is rather a variable which takes different meanings from case to case, depending on the number and identity of inheritors, say, whether there is one inheritor or more. In a literal reading of the phrase "1/a of what is left" or "1/a from what is left", the entire wealth would not be distributed in all cases, such as a case with one inheritor with an assigned ratio. If the wealth left behind was 40 dollars and only a husband was inheritor, a literal reading would give him 1/2, that is 20 dolars and leave the rest to the community. But this literal reading is wrong. As you know and we agree, he gets all of 40 dollars because the meaning of the phrase 1/2 from what is left varies from case to case and in a case where the husband is the sole inheritor means the whole 40 dolars. In other words, the idea of a variable which is the basis of algebra is implicit in the logic of the verses. It is also supported by common-sense if there is only one inheritor, he should get all wealth, right. Why not then make this common-sense method explicit by finding X such that the sum of fractions(1/a, 1/b) equals 1?
On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Onur

Peace Nun,
My point regarding the cases with sole inheritors who are assigned ratios but still end up getting the whole wealth is the following in those cases, we are implicitly using algebra because we are acknowledging that the phrase "what he left" is not necessarily the entire wealth as it would be in a literal reading but is rather a variable(X) In a literal reading of the phrase, the entire wealth would not be distributed .
Please go back to my earlier example with this point in mind. Why not explicitly use a method that is already being implicitly used?
On another note, I have read in some Quran commentaries that the phrase "above two" can be understood in Arabic as "equal or above two."
Also note that the while listing the shares of daughters and sons, 411 brings cases with comparative evaluation of mixed sons and daughters(1 male=2 female) only after the cases with only daughters are explained. There is no indication that the shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are in comparison to sons.
Onur

I don't see how the shares of 1 daughter as 1/2 and 2+daughters as 2/3 can be read in relation to sons, especially when the next sentence in the verse clearly gives the general comparative formula 1 male=2 female for all cases involving sons and daughters at the same time. The earlier shares of 1/2 and 2/3 are applicable when there are no sons.
Plus, using algebra is not a trick in a pejorative sense.
For example, if there is only one inheritor assigned the share of 1/4 from 40 dollars, we would still give her 40 dollars, right. When we divide 40 by 4 and give her 10 dollars, the remaining 30 dollars is still to be regarded as "what is left," (well, because it is something left) which further needs to be divided by 4 and so on. This is another way of applying the formula x/4=1, x=4, her share is 1, that is 40 dollars.
I think the gist of the complexity behind the inheritance verses is that Quran wants to convey the idea of a "variable" which must be solved with a view regarding to the entire structure.
All the best,
Onur

Salam Bro Onur,
I have an interesting and complicated inheritance issue I need advice on from your insight and understanding using Quran only.
Please kindly help me, I will post the details soon, it is regarding a (biological) sister of mine.

Peace

Idriss

Sure Idriss, I will be happy to help once you explain the situation.
Peace,
Onur

But, in the case with 1 daughter and 1 husband, if you give the husband 1/4 and the remaining 3/4 to the daughter, you are basically ignoring the share 1/2 assigned to the daughter in the beginning of 411 when doing the calculations.
I understand the beginning of 411 to mean 1 daughter 1/2, 2+ daughter 2/3 and if sons and daughters are present together, then a comparative formula of 1 male=2 female. ( Do you understand all of the shares of children in comparison to each other? I remember you once believing that and then leaving that position)
Earlier you were symphatetic to seeing "what he left" as a variable and changing the shares. In fact, that was your initial position. Why did you change it?
Peace,
Onur

For the 1 husband, 1 daughter case, the equation would be
1-x/4=x/2
Thinking about it, it seems like when we use algebra like that, we might not really need the mimma and ma distinction
If all shares are given in the form of mimma we can set the right side of the equation equal to 0, 1-X/A-X/B= O
If some shares are given in the form of mimma and some in the form of ma, then we can set the right side of the equation equal to the share in the form of ma as in the husband, daughter case above 1-x/a=x/b, which actually means the same thing.
The trick seems to be to regard the phrase what he left as a variable, as X in fact, as we have been discussing, this is the only way to distribute without excess or remainder.
I guess traditional Muslims recognized this point and devised an appropriate method but did not express it in formal mathematical terms.
As for the kalala issue, I think two of us might really be the only ones who know the word's real intended meaning )

Hi Nun,
Especially considering the cases when the daughters' shares are specified as mimma taraka, especially the case with 3 daughters, I am increasingly becoming convinced that we need to regard "what he left" as a variable(X) which might change from case to case. After we establish that, we can create the equations using subtraction when "from" and "multiplication" when "of". Algebra is handy and formal while doing that. But, it is not totally necessary since making denominators equal and re-calculating shares according to new nominators might do the trick as well. Still, I feel excited that God's book might point to such an important subject as algebra, even if indirectly.
As for the kalala issue, it seems like things work if kalala just means spouseless, but I still think it is "spouseless+fatherless" due to two reasons;

1. Because there should be a simpler and widely-known word for spouseless in Arabic
2. 411 reduces the mother's share due to the presence of siblings whereas does not make a similar reduction with regard to the father's share. It might imply that siblings and father do not inherit at the same time. And siblings just inherit when the deceased is kalala
   It might be the case that brothers become responsible for the family only if fathers and spouses are missing.
   Onur

Hi Nun,
I hope you had a restful vacation. If we go with your understaning of the distinction between ma taraka and mimma taraka, then in solving the case with a wife, parents and 3 daughters we use

ELSE IF was for you a child, so for them the eight from what you left/Mimm Taraktum from after a bequest/will
? 1 ? 1/8 wife - 1/3 parents = 13/24 children
13/24*2/3=13/36 for the 3 daughters
13/72 remains undistributed
But if we take the phrase "what he left" as a variable(X) and solve for X and then change the shares accordingly we can distribute everything as we had been doing before.
3/27 for the wife, 8/27 for parents and 16/27 for the 3 daughters
It seems like the algebraic method or at least the technique of denominator equalization&nominator comparison seems indispensable.

As for your suggestion that kalala might mean either just spouseless, it looks logical but wouldn't Arabic have a less mysterious word for a man/woman without a spouse? )

Onur

Hi Nun,
I have just recalled from our earlier discussion that for you "what is left" is not the entire inheritance but a variable that changes from case to case. Therefore, using X for it might make sense. And then while finding the equation necessary to solve for X, you use subtraction when the word "from" and multiplication when the word used is "of". Is that correct? I think I am more clear now.
Onur

Hi Nun,
I think I am not clear what the implication of the distinction of=multiplication and from=subtraction is? Does this distinction determine when to change the fractions Quran gives and when not? (For example, in the scenario we began with, 3 girls-1 mother-1 father-wife, we end up changing the fractions by using an equation with an unknown we call X; but, what does this "unknown" mean in real terms? If it is "what he left," then it is not really an unknown because it is simply the amount of wealth left behind)
As for the kalala, I think the kalala can have a mother because in 411 mother's share reduces to 1/6 from 1/3 due to the presence of a sibling. So, the logic is that the sibling is reducing the mother's share. And siblings inherit only if the deceased is kalala.
As for 3+ sister in 4176 scenario, it would be illogical if the brother got more in comparison to his siblings if he has 3 sisters than he would get if he has just 2 sisters. I have to think on that.
By the way, I just came across a book which argues that 4176 and the word kalala have been later insertions in the Quran by humans. http//books.google.com/books?id=KH2FUBSOQ8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mohammad+is+not+the+father+of+any+of+your+men&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This is a very prominent scholar and he claims to present material evidence. The word kalala has been such a mystery. Two of us can be the only people who know its real meaning D

Arnold,
Is there any way we can read Allama Mashriqi's writings on the Quran in English? The link in the website does not seem to work. I could not find it in Amazon either.
Thanks,
Onur