Free Minds

QuoteBook 011, Number 3937: , Abu Talha reported: 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be please..
Abu Talha reported: 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on Friday and made a mention of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he also made a mention of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and then said: I do not leave behind me any problem more difficult than that of Kalala. I did not refer to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more repeatedly than in case of the problem of Kalala, and he (the Holy Prophet) never showed more annoyance to me than in regard to this problem, so much so that he struck my chest with his fingers and said: 'Umar, does the verse revealed in summer season, at the end of Sura al-Nisa' not suffice you? Hadrat 'Umar (then) said: If I live I would give such verdict about (Kalala) that everyone would be able to decide whether he reads the Qur'an or he does not.

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 05, 2012, 05:47:05 AM
Salam
check out this link:
http://quransmessage.com/articles/inheritance%20FM3.htm (http://quransmessage.com/articles/inheritance%20FM3.htm)

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 05, 2012, 11:39:19 AM
Peace mirjamnur,

Have you tested a few examples using the above site?
e.g.: woman leaves $1,000: husband and 3 daughters

http://quransmessage.com/articles/inheritance%20FM3.htm

Is the deceased a male = No
Is there a spouse, parents or any descents = Yes
Are parents still alive = No
Is there a husband = Yes
Are there any children = Yes (husband receives 1/4)

Are there only daughters = Yes
Is there only one daughter = No (daughters share from 2/3)

1/4 + 2/3 = 11/12, who gets remaining 1/12 or $1000 x 1/12 = $83.33?


Let's also try woman leaves $1,000: husband, 3 daughters, mother, father

1/4 husband   $250
2/3 daughters $1000 x 2/3 = $666.67
1/6 mother    $1000 x 1/6 = $166.67
1/6 father    $1000 x 1/6 = $166.67

= 1 + 1/4 or $1,250 too much or short $250!

Do you now see the problem with all these sites and translations?

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 05, 2012, 05:47:05 AM
Salam
check out this link:
http://quransmessage.com/articles/inheritance%20FM3.htm (http://quransmessage.com/articles/inheritance%20FM3.htm)
peace :)

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 06, 2012, 05:58:42 AM
e.g.: woman leaves $1,000: husband and 3 daughters

husband 1/4= 3/12
parents 1/6=2./12
daughters =7/12= 21/36 everyone 7/36

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 06, 2012, 05:58:42 AM
when she leaves husband and 2 daughters and 1 son
husband 1/4
parents 1/6
daughters and son 7/12 =28/48
daugther 1= 7/48
daughter 2=7/48
son 14/48

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 06, 2012, 05:58:42 AM
when she leaves husband and 3 daughters and one son
husband 1/4=3/12 (250$)
parents 1/6= 2/12 (166.66$) the rest will be 7/12
three daughters and the son together 7/12= 21/36 
daughters 2/3= 14/36
son= 1/3= 7/36

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 06, 2012, 05:58:42 AM
Salam what you think about?

Quote from: Pleiades on July 06, 2012, 09:48:41 AM
Inheritance is a really important and really involved topic. I reckon it always has been. I look forward to it being discussed here and agree with Noon waalqalami that it should be considered as a sticky! I'd like to work out my own inheritance properly according to the Quran! Peace

QuoteYou gave the 3 daughters 7/12 and did not follow the instructions in Qur'an?

4:11 فإن so if كن be نساء females فوق above اثنتين two (feminine) فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds

Quote4:11 to parents 1/6 if walad/son = false

Quote1/4  if walad/son = false

Quote
Follow exactly as stated in Qur'an and you'll be fine; perhaps be a bit more neat/orderly as well. 

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 07, 2012, 12:58:09 PM
why you say ? walad here means not children? why you translate it one time with son and other time with children?

Quote from: mirjamnur on July 08, 2012, 09:48:07 AM
directs you The God in your CHILDREN (waladakum) to the male (al thakkar) like share the two feminine(al unthaiyn)...


God is clear in his testimony. He uses in 4.11 walad for children and clearly differentiated by Thakkar and Unthain the sexes.
It can be assumed that walad in this matter, the word refers to the children and not sons.
Then everything is much easier

now the example husband three daughters

4.12 husband become 1/4 because there are childrens
the daughters become all the rest, because there is no boy. i understand the 2/3 for the girls, when there are males also
because why 2/3 for whom the rest??? this would be illogical what you have proved...

wait, because to much Math in the morning ;) Allah may give me knowledge
peace

Quote from: Wakas on July 13, 2012, 02:53:44 AM

Please provide the author of this thread with your "simple example".

Quote from: Wakas on July 11, 2012, 03:05:51 PM
salaam Nun,

Have you posted this on anti-Islam websites and asked them to refute? If so, please provide the links. Thanks.

If you have, and all attempts to refute have failed, then I am willing to offer help to develop a dedicated site for this, i.e. an online calculator. I have experience in such projects, e.g. AreYouMuslim.com, Learn-About-Islam.com, QuranConnection.com etc.

Quote from: StopS on July 12, 2012, 07:29:51 PM
It is quite funny to see my video used here as a challenge to the Koranic inheritance guidelines :)

The problem is simple: there are numerous calculators on the net concerning Islamic inheritance rules and laws. None of them really follow the rulings in the Koran and they differ between each other.

The reason is that a simple example will show that the mathematics used is insufficient to create a realistic solution, which leaves only one possibility: the sentences in question are merely allegorical and are there to serve not as accurate calculations but concepts.

Quote from: StopS on July 13, 2012, 02:25:23 PM
Sure, I was under the impression everybody knew it.

Calculate the inheritance for a wife, 3 daughters and 2 parents of a man who died.

1/8 wife/wives    3/24          have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth
2/3 daughters    16/24     women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves
2/6 parents    8/24            parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves

= 3 + 16 + 8 = 27/24

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 04, 2012, 02:45:51 PM
Here are the verses which if followed literally will give precise amounts without excess/shortfall.

4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine) فإن so if كن be نساء females فوق above اثنتين two (feminine) فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds ما what ترك left وإن and if كانت she was واحدة one فلها so for her النصف the half ولأبويه and for their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left إن if كان is له to person ولد walad/son فإن so if لم not يكن is له to person ولد waladun child/born وورثه and heirs أبواه person?s parents (if only parents) فلأمه so to his mother الثلث the third فإن so if كان is له to person إخوة ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) فلأمه so to his mother السدس the sixth من from بعد after وصية a will يوصي have made بها in it أو or دين judgment آباؤكم your parents وأبناؤكم and your children لا not تدرون you know أيهم which of them أقرب closer لكم to you نفعا benefit فريضة obligation من from الله The God إن indeed الله The God كان is عليما Knowing حكيما Wise

4:12 ولكم and for you نصف half ما what ترك left أزواجكم your spouse?s إن if لم not يكن is لهن for them ولد waladun child/born فإن so if كان is لهن for them ولد walad/son فلكم so for you الربع the fourth مما from what تركن they left من from بعد after وصية a will يوصين they made بها in it أو or دين judgment ولهن and for them الربع the fourth مما from what تركتم you left إن if لم not يكن is لكم to you ولد waladun child/born فإن so if كان is لكم to you ولد walad/son فلهن so for them الثمن the eight مما from what تركتم you left من from بعد after وصية a will توصون you made بها in it أو or دين judgment وإن and if كان is رجل a man يورث inherited كلالة kalālatan (fatherless spouseless) أو or امرأة woman وله and has أخ a brother أو or أخت sister فلكل so for each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth فإن so if كانوا they were أكثر more من from ذلك that فه so they مشركاء partners في in الثلث the third من from بعد after وصية a will يوصى is recommended بها in it أو or دين judgment غير not مضار harmful وصية a will من from الله The God والله and The God عليم Knowing حليم Forbearing

4:176 يستفتونك they seek your ruling قل say الله The God يفتيكم gives you a ruling في in الكلالة al-kalālati (the fatherless spouseless) إن if امرؤ a person هلك died ليس is not له to that person ولد waladun child/born وله and has أخت sister فلها so for her نصف half ما what ترك left وهو and he يرثها inherits it إن if لم not يكن is لها to her ولد waladun child/born فإن so if كانتا were اثنتين two (feminine) فلهما so to them الثلثان the two thirds مما from what ترك left وإن and if كانوا they were إخوة ikh'watun brothers/siblings رجالا men/males ونساء and females فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine) يبين clarifies الله The God لكم to you أن lest تضلوا you stray والله and The God بكل in every شيء a thing عليم Knowing

mother, father, husband/wife, 3 daughters: 1/9 1/9 1/9 2/3

QuoteCalculate the inheritance for a wife, 3 daughters and 2 parents of a man who died.

Quote4:11 فإن so if كن be نساء females فوق above اثنتين two (feminine) فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds
3 daughters = 2/3

4:11 ولأبويه and for their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left إن if كان is له to person ولد walad/son

IF son THEN each parent share = 1/6 ELSE parents share = variable/unstated
It's same as in case mother and son (1 - 1/6 mother = 5/6 son variable/unstated )

4:12... ولهن and for them الربع the fourth مما from what تركتم you left إن if لم not يكن is لكم to you ولد waladun child/born فإن so if كان is لكم to you ولد walad/son فلهن so for them الثمن the eight مما from what تركتم you left

IF no child/born THEN wife share = 1/4 (statement = false, there are daughters i.e. children)
ELSE if son THEN wife share = 1/8 (statement = false, no son)
ELSE wife share = variable/unstated

Therefore: 1 - 2/3 (3 daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 (1/9 mother, 1/9 father, 1/9 wife)

Quote
"And for his parents for each of them there is one-sixth of the inheritance if he has a child, but if he does not have a child and the parents are the heirs then for the mother one-third." [Quran 4:11]

The Arabic word "walad" has been variously translated as child, son, children and offspring by translators. However, there is universal agreement amongst the Sunni Muslim jurists that "walad" here refers to any child or agnatic grandchild (grandchild through son).

If there is a child or agnatic grandchild amongst the heirs then each of the parents inherits one-sixth. In the absence of a child or agnatic grandchild the mother inherits one-third, the share of the father is not mentioned under these circumstances. The father in fact inherits as a residuary (a residuary heir gets whatever remains of the inheritance after the Quranic sharers have been allocated their shares, residuary heirs are generally male agnates) under these circumstances.

http://www.kalamullah.com/fatwa13.html

Quotethe Court stated simply that "so long as the deceased is survived by children, either male or female, the rights of inheritance of the deceased's blood relations, except for parents and spouse, are foreclosed". The only reasoning or authority cited in support of this interpretation was a brief reference to the views of Ibnu Abbas, one of the companions of the Prophet, who construed the word walad in Koran 4: 176 as embracing both male and female children.

QuoteThe word 'walad' in in kana lahu walad (if he has children) and fa in lam ya kun lahu walad (if he does not have children) is used both for male and female children. In the Arabic language, this connotation is conventional and customary. Besides being used here, it has also been used subsequently where the shares of the spouses are stated. In this writer's opinion, in all these instances it has the same meaning. There is no contextual indication, intrinsic or extrinsic, to believe that the word has specifically been used for male children. Linguists maintain that it is used in the singular as well as the plural sense and, also, both for the masculine and the feminine gender. In all the cases mentioned, whether boys and girls in the indicated numbers are present or absent, these connotations of the word shall be considered understood.

Quote from: StopS on July 13, 2012, 04:56:44 PM
Could you drop the emotional garbage, please? Thanks. I would prefer a civilised discussion.

You are playing games. Please don't.

Quote from: StopS on July 13, 2012, 04:56:44 PM
This fatwa also interprets and deviates from the decree in the Koran by insinuating that the father receives what is left, which not in the Koranic text.

Another opinion says:

Another one says:

This means that your view of walad being a single boy is not universally accepted.

Please show me where in the Koran it says that the inheritance is divided into shares which can be re-allocated?
Where in my example is there a son?
Please show me where in the Koran the 1/9 comes up.
Where is the adherence of the text which says very explicitly: "parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children" or "parents, a sixth share to each"???
What happened to the decree for the wives: "if you have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth"? Can 1/8 decided in the Koran, be changed to 1/9 by a human?

Quote from: StopS on July 13, 2012, 04:56:44 PM
What you also leave out is the "bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence" stated in 2:240, which is also not considered.

Quote from: StopS on July 13, 2012, 04:56:44 PM
Sorry, but your argument is based on the obfuscation of a word, which you are re-assigning a new meaning to and then following it up with re-interpretation.

Quote from: StopS on July 13, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
And?

What have you added or improved? Nothing.

QuoteI ask you some questions to try and narrow it down, but you can't answer them and choose to simply ignore them.

QuoteCome on, stop being so dogmatic and boring and bring some real arguments.

QuoteYou come up with this faulty "IF THEN ELSE logic" and abort it in the very next line. Why do you insist on introducing a son? Only because it serves your purpose?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 13, 2012, 03:35:27 PM
I have little interest in evangelizing or proving anything to anyone especially annoying missionaries, followers of hearsay, math deficiate numerologists or the godless aroused at miss-leading others into the abysss chanting...

Quote from: Wakas on July 14, 2012, 05:47:24 AM
Perhaps Nun could have clarified he is alluding to different recitation/reading of Quran script, without vocalisation marks. I believe this is what he is saying. Nun, please correct me if I am wrong.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 13, 2012, 07:27:35 PM

The verses distribute perfectly for every possible case...

All your questions were answered -- do you want to try another example?

Most the reciters have correct sequence for verse 4:11 walad/son followed by waladun child/born/begot.

That was to show slight difference in reading and we are to use the best (39:18) non-contradicting meaning.
The case was: 3 daughters, parents, and wife.

Simply read exactly as stated and apply basic IF THEN ELSE logic what differentiates the human from cattle...

Quote

or: 1 - 2/3 = 1/3 = 9/27

He specifies this as 3 daughters, 2/9 each, where the 2/9 each is not mentioned anywhere, least of all the Koran. He just makes it up.

Noon is now left with 1/3, which he splits evenly between parents and wife, where the Koran says:

each one of the two the sixth and for them of what you leave an eighth

Why does Noon think the Koran requires his personal adjustment? Because apologists over the years have noticed the same problems and have tried to find ways around this by re-re-interpreting the words.

So Noon changes the word walad from children into son and the inheritance laws are suddenly different. But do they make any sense?

In 4:11 we have a reference to sons: Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.
A male child is commonly known as a son. Is the word walad used here? No. Why not?
If walad really would mean son, then why is the portion of the parents reduced to 1/9 and not 1/12 or 1/123? Where in the Koran does it aspecify 1/9 if the condition is not met?

In 4:12 we have the word 4 times. Are all 4 times considered to mean "son"? Are all these instances excluding female children completely? Why does this version discriminate against females? Young females!

In 4:176 we have "If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child", which would need to be changed to "If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no son". Also, "he would have inherited from her had she died childless" would be changed to "he would have inherited from her had she died sonless". What a mess!

So up until now all I see is someone arbitrarily changing what has been universally accepted for hundreds of years and now apparently requires an adjustment.

Let me look at what others say about this. I have no idea what level of knowledge Noon has and whether he has studied ancient or classical Arabic and is qualified to make changes to the interpretation of the Koran, so let me look at what people say who DO have these qualifications.

QuoteWorld of Islam says:

This is because, in a strictly patriarchal family as envisaged by Islam, men shoulder most of the financial burdens of their dependants, who often include parents of both spouses, their siblings in need, their own children, orphans within the inner family, consanguines from the wider family, their education, their marriages, their medical bills etc.

ii) If the deceased has no sons but is survived by daughters only, two or more, they inherit two thirds of the estate after deducting all valid bequests and outstanding debts and the rest is divided between other relatives;

iii) If the deceased has one daughter, she inherits half the estate after deductions as above and the rest is divided between other relatives;

iv) If the deceased has children as well as both the parents, the parents inherit one sixth of the estate each

Quote
Ibn Kathir:
Then Allah cancelled whatever He willed from that custom and ordained that the male get twice the amount inherited by the female, and for each parent a sixth (of the whole legacy), for the wife an eighth or a fourth, and for the husband a half or a fourth.

(For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each) There are several forms of the share that the parents get in the inheritance. 1. If the deceased left behind children, the parents get a sixth each.

Hilali-Khan:
For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each if the deceased left children;

Dr. Susmit Kumar:
A male shall inherit twice as much as a female. If there be more than two girls, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance, but if there be one only, she shall inherit the half. Parents shall inherit a sixth each, if the deceased have a child; but if he leave no child and his parents be his heirs, his mother shall have a third.

Nope, they don't agree.

If I look at other instances of the word, I come across only the description of a god with children, where it is used as son because the Christians say Jesus was a son of a god.

In conclusion I see that someone uses parlour tricks to obfuscate the shortfalls of a literal usage of the Koran. Not convincing and a common apologetic trick I see from Christians all the time.
The inheritance calculation does not take into account contextual sentences which also claim a portion of the estate, which I pointed out but Noon chose to ignore. The entire construct does not use the Koran as was decreed many centuries ago, but hinges solely around the re-translation of a word, which has been is use in a sense different than what Noon is trying to use it as.

QuoteYes, the first ولد in verse 4:11 means son

Quote from: Wakas on July 14, 2012, 05:47:24 AM
peace StopS,

I am disappointed in your replies to Nun.

Quote
For example, you seem to imply that he did not answer any of your questions when he did, or at the very least, answered some/most. The right response from you should have been to explain why his answers did not satisfy.

Here are some clear examples:

StopS said:
Where is the adherence of the text which says very explicitly: "parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children"
Why do you insist on introducing a son?

Nun clearly explained why in reply 19, and then later.

Quote
So the disagreement between you two is the meaning of "walad/waladun".

Quote
You previously said "This means that your view of walad being a single boy is not universally accepted.". This implicitly admits that there are different views on this. Nun is one of those with a differing view.

So you admit, indirectly, that theoretically "wld" could be taken as "son" or "children". So Nun's view is theoretically possible, according to you.

Quote
The point you should be arguing is that whether this is a valid reading/recitation of Quran. Since Quran had no tashkeel/vocalisation initially, then it would seem so. If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forth.

Quote
Perhaps Nun could have clarified he is alluding to different recitation/reading of Quran script, without vocalisation marks. I believe this is what he is saying. Nun, please correct me if I am wrong.

Quote
And lastly, another example, you did not even refer to his answering of your statement on 2:240 "What you also leave out is the "bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence" stated in 2:240, which is also not considered."
Nun said: "Inheritance verses are applied separate (IF no will) and after all bequests are paid."

If you disagree, even though this seems fairly straightforward, please state why.

Quote
In summary, if I have understood correctly, Nun's view is certainly unorthodox (nothing wrong with that however) but not impossible. If you can prove it is impossible, I am all ears.

Quote from: StopS on July 14, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
You are kidding yourself. No, the calculation is almost always faulty and requires human intervention.

No, you did not answer my questions.

Why are you doing this? Do you really believe you have solved something?

Quote from: StopS on July 14, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
Let me explain it again as there seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere:
I asked for the calculation of an inheritance according to the Koran, where the estate needs to be divided amongst just a few people:
a wife, 3 daughters, and 2 parents.

In the Koran, in 4:11 it states regarding inheritance of daughters:
if they be women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves

I understand this to mean: if there are more than 2 daughters, i.e. 3 daughters, they inherit 2/3rds of the estate. This is an interpretation as it does not explicitly or literally say daughter and only mentions "more than 2" and what "he" leaves.

Quote from: StopS on July 14, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
Next in 4:11 it says regarding the inheritance of the parents:
and to his parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children

I understand this to mean: if there are children, then the parents each receive 1/6th of the estate. Why do I think this? Well, because it then says but if he has no children, which makes sense logically, because you have a case for the presence of children, which is different than the case for no children.

Quote from: StopS on July 14, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
Finally, for this simple example, the Koran specifies in 4:11:
but if you have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth

This is again an interpretation, as the Koran does not specify whom this is addressing, but the context shows us this is directed at the wives. Again we have the same split of a couple having children or no children, which changes the portion of the estate, in this case, because there are children, the Koran specifies an eighth for the wife.

So if I take above fractions and use the closest common denominator, we get 3 + 16 + 8 = 27/24   which is a bit too much.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 04, 2012, 02:45:51 PM
son/s, daughter/s: distribute 2:1 ratio male to female

mother/father, son/s: 1/6 5/6
mother/father, 1 daughter : 1/2 1/2 no son, mother/father variable
mother/father, 2 daughters: 1/3 2/3 (2 daughters variable) all share equally
mother/father, 3 daughters: 1/3 2/3

mother, father : 1/3 2/3
mother, brother/s: 1/6 5/6

mother/father, husband: 1/2 1/2
mother/father, wife  : 3/4 1/4

husband/wife, 1 daughter : 1/2 1/2 not childless; no son; husband/wife variable
husband/wife, 2 daughters: 1/3 2/3
husband/wife, 3 daughters: 1/3 2/3

continue every case...

Quote from: StopS on July 14, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
If I look at other instances of the word, I come across only the description of a god with children, where it is used as son because the Christians say Jesus was a son of a god.

In conclusion I see that someone uses parlour tricks to obfuscate the shortfalls of a literal usage of the Koran. Not convincing and a common apologetic trick I see from Christians all the time.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 14, 2012, 02:50:28 PM

"son" may be substitued since it denotes only male. The word is however اسم جنس. It includes a daughter. This is the subject noun of deficient verb. "Lahu" is relating to its predicate. "provided a child exists as heir of him". The response clause for the condition is not needed since its effect is narrated prior to it.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 14, 2012, 05:04:34 PM
Peace and welcome back StopS,

No, the calculations are correct.
Yes, answered your questions.
To accurately distribute shares.

Quote from: StopS on July 15, 2012, 07:36:56 AM
Ok, I have shown you why I think the methodology is wrong. If you insist on your interpretation it is your choice.

Thanks

QuotePlease explain if these are grammatically correct?

4:11 ... فإن so if كن be نساء females فوق above اثنتين two (feminine) فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds ما what ترك left
4:11 ولأبويه and for their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left إن if كان is له lahu/to person ولد walad/son

Quote from: Mazhar on July 15, 2012, 11:56:25 AM


I hope no one disputes that the pattern of understanding English and Arabic are quite different. The above style of translating Arabic text into English is reflective as if both the languages are considered of similar origins and nature. It has all the possibilities of leading to a perception that might not be present in the original Arabic text.

وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ

This is inverted nominal sentence where the Subject-Topic of sentence is red word.

إِن كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ

This is a conditional clause. The Subject of the Deficient Past Verb in Jussive state is the red word which is delayed and لَهُ relates to the fronted Predicate which is not visible there but is understood because of the verb and its subject, denoting presence-existence of the Subject. The apodosis of this conditional clause is elided since it is described in the preceding sentence. The masculine Pronoun third person refers back to the subject of  verb تَرَكَ-meaning the deceased man.
This clause stands amended in case the situation on ground is this:

فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier وَلَد to son only.  أَبَوَاهُ is the subject of Verb وَرِثَهُ showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2:233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

QuoteYes it can also mean both i.e. child/born although in that part of verse 4:11 it does not.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 15, 2012, 03:09:55 PM
The point-evidence in post 33 first needs to be rebutted. Thereafter one could proclaim

Quoteفَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier وَلَد to son only.  أَبَوَاهُ is the subject of Verb وَرِثَهُ showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2:233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

Quote from: Mazhar on July 15, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Dear, I am not in mathematics or algebra. My point is simply this:

Quote
فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ

This clause perhaps leaves no room to restrict the earlier وَلَد to son only.  أَبَوَاهُ is the subject of Verb وَرِثَهُ showing that the deceased had neither a son nor a daughter as inheritor.

A reference to 2:233 might clarify that this word includes son and daughter. Thanks

Quote from: Mazhar on July 15, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
For my convenience to understand the Ayah through your mathematics please be simple for me showing only the amount by the percentage of share allowed for them.

Quote1 ? 2/3 three daughters 2/9 each = 1/3 divided equally; all are variable/unstated (1/9 father + 1/9 mother + 1/9 wife)

2/3*1000 = 666.667 three daughters 2/9*1000 = 222.222 each
1/9*1000 = 111.111 father
1/9*1000 = 111.111 mother
1/9*1000 = 111.111 wife

Quote from: Mazhar on July 16, 2012, 05:20:46 AM

So you are proposing that after meeting the injunction about daughters the left over should be equally distrubted amonst the other three father, mother and wife.

Quote from: Wakas on July 16, 2012, 08:14:16 AM
My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Quote from: Wakas on July 16, 2012, 08:14:16 AM
peace StopS,

What I find odd about your questions is that you mix seemingly poor questions with seemingly good ones, e.g.

You said:
"WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?"

This is well understood by the verses 4:11, 4:12 e.g.

Various translations:
...All after a will is carried through or a debt....
after [the deduction of] any bequest he may have made, or any debt [he may have incurred].

*the word debt can also mean obligation.


Granted, I have not studied the inheritance issue, but I think the above is fairly obvious. What say you?

My only original concern with Nun about his theory was that this would make "nisa" mean "females" whilst everywhere else, afaik, it means "women". I did not research this avenue however.
I dont really have a problem with a different reading based on an originally unvocalised text.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 16, 2012, 01:08:09 PM
Nisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.

Quote from: StopS on July 16, 2012, 03:15:31 PM
If I look at the Koran and look at what has been said about the sentences for 1000 years and now see that a person says it actually does not mean "A", but it means "C" and then I check this with a Koran teacher who says it means "B" and a Koran scholar says it means "D" and the Islamic calculators disagree with all of them, I ask myself: what am I supposed to believe?

Quote from: Wakas on July 16, 2012, 04:10:10 PM
peace StopS,

My point was your questioning (and apparently video - I have not watched it) indicated you have somewhat studied this topic, thus when you come out with something obviously not an issue (as if you haven't read it), it makes me wonder about credibility/sincerity/etc.

Quote
If you feel you are looking at this objectively, sincerely etc, fair enough.

Firstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

If a person finds a problem with Quran's content based only upon what they can prove from Quran, then fair enough. From my experience, I know that Traditional understandings are often filled with errors. For a brilliant example of this, see: www.Quran434.com

QuoteFirstly, almost all of the Quran tafsir/interpretation out there is based heavily on tradition, which most of us here reject the necessity of. Thus, if you are asking Traditionalists questions seeking answers, or looking at Quran through their eyes, then of course you will find multiple views and problems etc. Does this disprove Quran? No.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 16, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Quote from: Wakas on July 16, 2012, 05:30:59 PM
Many examples. One: www.Quran434.com

Quote from: Mazhar on July 16, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
StopS

But let me clarify that use of "traditionalists" will seem nothing but a joke or trick since all translations of so called modernists are also nothing but copy of the "traditional translations". Dozens of translations are available on this site and let anyone know me where they have any difference worth mentioning.

Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.

Quote from: StopS on July 16, 2012, 06:06:50 PM
I can continue for some time and anyone will see that the classical understanding has always been: children.

Can this be wrong? Yes.
Would it make sense to substitute children with son?
Now it gets technical. I need to now construct different models to test this. And this is what apologists like Noon rely on: the laziness of people like me. I am sure I can construct examples which will render this model useless, but I don't really need to, because it serves only one single purpose: to make more rulings exempt so that the portions or beneficiaries can be freely distributed. That's the magic trick.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 16, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
Noon is inserting Arabic words from left to right, exposing many many translators what they understood of Arabic and how they read the Arabic of Qur'aan.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/11/default.htm (http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/11/default.htm)

Quote from: Wakas on July 16, 2012, 04:00:15 PM
peace,

AFAIK "untha" is for females, hence my comment. Girls could be covered under waladun/children. I have not studied it, so cant say.

IF you have studied it AND shown it does not work, can you provide one clear example? This would then take this theory off the table.

Background:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11583.0

QuoteNisa are females any age (use context to figure out age) otherwise all girls would be excluded from inheritance who have not reached adulthood which in case of orphans their shares are kept from them until they reach adulthood/sound mind anyways which one can say would be the same for non orphans as well although up to their father.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 16, 2012, 07:04:16 PM

It would also exclude all young siblings from inheriting and verse 4:176 ties the two together...

4:176... فإن so if كانتا kānatā/they are (feminine dual) اثنتين two فلهما so to them الثلثان the two thirds مما from what ترك left وإن and if كانوا they were إخوة ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) رجالا men/males ونساء wanisā and females فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine) يبين clarifies الله The God لكم to you أن lest تضلوا you stray والله and The God بكل in every شيء a thing عليم Knowing 

QuoteI don?t understand why ثُلُثَا is translated everywhere as 2/3.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 17, 2012, 06:36:01 PM
It is a dual noun with Noon dropped for reason of being first-annexed noun of Possessive Phrase, Ma-Relative Pronoun is the Annexer.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 17, 2012, 04:10:46 AM
Nothing gets excluded from inheritance. The word used is "Women". It has no singular, just plural with diminuiive "few women". It is nowhere used for female of any age since age starts from birth to death. It solely denotes women. A person leaving behind property could be one when his daughters are already women.  Moreover, as you pointed out, they are handed over inheritance only when they become women-a female having become mature to enter marriage bond. The opposite gender of her is Man not boy or child.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 18, 2012, 06:08:01 AM
ثُلُثَا مَا   This is Possessive Phrase, therefore following the rule the Noon-نِ of dual noun is dropped as is dropped the Noon of plural in such construction. This is same word الثُّلُثَانِ-two third. It is Nominative indicated by alif. When it is genitive you see it ثُلُثَيِ اللَّيْلِ since it is preceded by Preposition. يِ is the sign of genitive. Here too Noon of dual is dropped because of Possessive construct.

ثُلُثَهُ is singular in Possessive Phrase.

I hope it clarifies.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 18, 2012, 06:08:01 AM
ثُلُثَا مَا   This is Possessive Phrase, therefore following the rule the Noon-نِ of dual noun is dropped as is dropped the Noon of plural in such construction. This is same word الثُّلُثَانِ-two third. It is Nominative indicated by alif. When it is genitive you see it ثُلُثَيِ اللَّيْلِ since it is preceded by Preposition. يِ is the sign of genitive. Here too Noon of dual is dropped because of Possessive construct.

ثُلُثَهُ is singular in Possessive Phrase.

I hope it clarifies.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 18, 2012, 10:57:15 AM

Peace Bender and thank you for the question and Mazhar for the clarification which to put in simple speech/practice ...

4:11 فإن so if كن are نساء nisā فوق above اثنتين two فلهن so for them ثلثا 2/3

4:176 فإن so if كانتا kānatā/they were (feminine dual) اثنتين two فلهما so to them الثلثان the third each (1/3 + 1/3)

73:20 ثلثي third twice (1/3 x 2) الليل the night ونصفه and half of it (1/2 x 1) وثلثه and third of it (1/3 x 1)

Quote from: Bender on July 18, 2012, 11:21:42 AM
Salaam,

:nope:

If I would give this sentence (wich is not Quran) to an arab scholar would he then know that I am talking here about 2/6 instead of 1/6?
"... فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ سُُدُسا مَا تَرَكَ ..."

Also do you have another ayaat for reference?

Salaam and thanks,
Bender

Quote from: Mazhar on July 18, 2012, 12:03:02 PM
It is okay to say it to me. Don't say it to a mathematician like Noon. Give it a second thought what you have said and laugh it out. Thanks.

Quote from: Bender on July 18, 2012, 11:49:06 AM
Salaam Noon,

Next thing what I found  :hmm
why only this part (thulathaa) is without AL in 4:11, thus undefined?
all the other parts have AL.

Quote from: Wakas on July 17, 2012, 10:11:58 AM
It could be that since they are incapable of managing they do not inherit. What I was after was an example, that would disprove the theory. One or two will suffice.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 18, 2012, 04:24:03 PM
Salaam Bender,

الثمن the eight
السدس the sixth
الربع the fourth
الثلث the third
النصف the half

No such word as the two third more like third parts; see history of fractions...

http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/lffract.pdf

Quote from: Bender on July 18, 2012, 05:32:08 PM
Salaam Noon,

The Quran has it's own rules.
"... وَهُوَ يَرِثُهَا إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهَا وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن كَانَتَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَكَ ..."

see also that 4:12 and 4:176 begin with NISF without AL, but the parts after that are with AL.

Salaam,
Bender

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 18, 2012, 10:57:15 AM

4:11 فإن so if كن are نساء nisā فوق above اثنتين two فلهن so for them ثلثا 2/3

4:176 فإن so if كانتا kānatā/they were (feminine dual) اثنتين two فلهما so to them الثلثان the third each (1/3 + 1/3)

73:20 ثلثي third twice (1/3 x 2) الليل the night ونصفه and half of it (1/2 x 1) وثلثه and third of it (1/3 x 1)

Quote from: Bender on July 18, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Salaam,

I know exactly what I said. And I believe you also know what my point is. We are not talking about the math.
So can you please tell me what you read there?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 19, 2012, 05:17:49 AM
How naive. You did not give a second thought to realize your simplicity in having asked such question. You say 1/6 + 1/6= 2/6. Thereby you coined a dual word سُُدُسا  for it.

Qur'aan also deals with people when they are so simple. Note carefully how Qur'aan is teaching you simple mathematics alongwith Arabic:

فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ  فَإِن كَانُواْ أَكْثَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ

Again see your proposition
1/6 + 1/6= 2/6-------it is
1/3 one third.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 18, 2012, 06:25:30 PM
Salaam Bender,

Yes we know there  is half or the half or third or the third or kalala or the kalala, etc.
What I'm relaying to you is that there is no such word as two third or the two third.

Have you read the article? http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/lffract.pdf

See prior examples; it's third two or the third each or third parts which add to 2/3 we translate as such.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 19, 2012, 05:17:49 AM
How naive. You did not give a second thought to realize your simplicity in having asked such question. You say 1/6 + 1/6= 2/6. Thereby you coined a dual word سُُدُسا  for it.

Qur'aan also deals with people when they are so simple. Note carefully how Qur'aan is teaching you simple mathematics alongwith Arabic:

فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ  فَإِن كَانُواْ أَكْثَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ

Again see your proposition
1/6 + 1/6= 2/6-------it is
1/3 one third.

Quote from: StopS on July 19, 2012, 11:31:04 AM
At the risk of being called naive and simple:

Is this what the Arabic in the Koran says:

فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ

= 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 = 1/3?

Google translate says: Every one of them gets one-sixth
:-[  :giveup:

Quote from: Mazhar on July 19, 2012, 12:07:46 PM
Yes 1/6 and 1/6 of a quanity becomes collectively 1/3. In case the brother and sister each of whom gets one sixth are more than two the share will remain the same measuring 1/3 for all of them.

Quote from: StopS on July 19, 2012, 01:45:14 PM
Am I that unclear? I am NOT talking about the veracity of mathematics. Every schoolboy knows that.

I asked:

"Is this what the Arabic in the Koran says"?

I asked this because you claimed that "Qur'aan is teaching you simple mathematics" and then said: "1/6 + 1/6= 2/6-------it is 1/3 one third" along with Arabic script.

Does the Koran really say: 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 = 1/3?
I can't find this in the Koran. When entering the sentence you quoted it does not mention that, so I was asking for clarification.

I do not understand how what you are saying and what I find in the Koran fit together.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 19, 2012, 04:23:23 PM
It might help if gone through entirely

Quote from: Mazhar on July 19, 2012, 05:42:46 PM
فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ فَإِن كَانُواْ أَكْثَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ

The One sixth is for each of those two, thereby if they are more than two, thereat they all are sharers in the one third.

Quote from: StopS on July 19, 2012, 05:50:59 PM
Thank you. You have clarified it for me. This is what I understood. All I need to do now is irrefutably clarify when and under what conditions this applies.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 19, 2012, 03:32:25 PM
I just repeated the quote of another member who said 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6

QuoteIt says if there are more then 2   then only 1/3 for all of them. Do you understand the difference.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 20, 2012, 11:10:12 AM
This is the part of statement which you have not quoted. First is two getting each 1/6th but if they are more that two they will share 1/3rd. Those two getting each 1/6th are sharing with all, 1/6+1/6=1/3. What could be more simplistic?

QuoteIf not take al look at 4:76
"...If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind. And he will inherit from her if she has no child. However, if he has two sisters, then they will receive two thirds of what he left behind;..."
is 1/2 + 1/2 = 2/3

Quote from: Mazhar on July 20, 2012, 11:24:56 AM


I do not see by what logic you are drawing this sort of inference. What is said therein is that in case there is one sister she will receive half, but if there are two sisters they both will obtain 2/3rd. Only Noon might make you understand about mathematics.

Quote from: Bender on July 20, 2012, 09:20:31 AM
If not take al look at 4:76
"...If a person passes away and has no children but has a sister, then she shall receive half of what he leaves behind. And he will inherit from her if she has no child. However, if he has two sisters, then they will receive two thirds of what he left behind;..."
is 1/2 + 1/2 = 2/3 :hmm

Quote4:176 ..فإن so/ELSE IF كانتا kānatā/they were (feminine dual) اثنتين two فلهما so to them الثلثان the third for each

Quote from: Mazhar on July 20, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
Sorry Noon, there is no such word in Ayah "for each". "thereby, two third is for them [them denoting two]"

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 20, 2012, 03:40:31 PM
Mazhar I was thinking to both i.e. dual or 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 20, 2012, 03:56:00 PM
Sorry Noon, I forgot to acknowledge your point regarding Waladun as singular son for reason of Kana. Yes, there it means only son because of masculine deficient verb and it being its Ism-Noun subject.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 20, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
Thank you Mazhar, that was what makes all the calculations work and rather amazing logic.

Peace

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 18, 2012, 04:24:03 PM

Peace Wakas,

92:3 وما and Who خلق created الذكر the male والأنثى wal-unthā and the female

Example: husband, two sons ages 10, 21 and three daughters ages 2, 14, 19
4:11 للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)
4:12 فإن so if كان kāna is لهن for them ولد walad/son فلكم so for you الربع the fourth

Obviously husband gets 1/4 and children remainder regardless of age 2, 10, 14 etc.
1 - 1/4 husband (fixed) = 3/4 children (variable) 2:1 ratio male to female

What if: husband and three daughters ages 2, 14, 19 ? why cannot all inherit as before?
4:11 فإن so if كن are نساء nisāan فوق above اثنتين two فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds
1 ? 2/3 (three daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 husband (variable) no son and there is child/born

What if husband and later the oldest son died: brother age 10 and three sisters ages 2, 14, 19
4:176 ... وإن and if كانوا they were إخوة ikh'watun رجالا rijalan ونساء wanisā فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)

2:1 ratio male to female same as when they were under the children category.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 20, 2012, 03:25:23 PM
Salaam Bender, it's not read like that i.e. two thirds (no such word) read as stated ...
4:12 فإن so/ELSE IF كانوا kānū they were أكثر greater من from ذلك that فه so they مشركاء partners في in الثلث the third
4:176 ..فإن so/ELSE IF كانتا kānatā/they were (feminine dual) اثنتين two فلهما so to them الثلثان the third for each

2 sisters mother
1 ? (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3) = 1/3 mother (variable, no son/brother)

Trying to figure out 4:11 and believe was read incorrectly and should be read like this?
4:11فإن so/ELSE IF كن kunna/are نساء nisa فوق above اثنتين two فلهن so to them ثلثا third for ما what ترك left

Quote from: Wakas on July 20, 2012, 06:10:44 PM
peace Nun,

Thanks for the example, but can you clarify what it proves? I'm not sure I follow.

Thanks.

Quote from: Bender on July 20, 2012, 06:40:52 PM
ps. notice that in some sentences it says "MAA Taraka" and some not and some have "MIMAA Taraka" have to figure this out. (to what is this ma-taraka and mimaa-tarakaa reffering to? To the whole what is left OR what is left after some get their share?)
pps. I now also believe that thulathaa is 2/3 or maybe (1/3 + 1/3). A brother showed me 20:47 where RASULAA is indeed used for 2 people.

QuoteQuote from: mirjamnur on July 06, 2012, 02:58:42 AM
when she leaves husband and 2 daughters and 1 son
husband 1/4
parents 1/6
daughters and son 7/12 =28/48
daugther 1= 7/48
daughter 2=7/48
son 14/48

Quote4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)
4:11 ولأبويه and for their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left إن if كان is له to person ولد walad/son
4:12 فإن so if كان is لهن for them ولد walad/son فلكم so for you الربع the fourth

1/4 or 3/12 husband
1/3 or 4/12 parents = 1/6 mother + 1/6 father
......... 5/12 children = 5/24 son + 5/24 daughters (5/48 x 2 daughters); if children mixed 2:1 ratio male to female

Quote from: Mazhar on July 22, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
Noon
Are the priorities or sequence not changed in this case?

It begins يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children.

The share allocated to أولاد [plural that includes dauthers and sons-even one daughter and one son who will equal to three daughters by gender equation settled] is not alterable.

Quote1 daughter, 1 son, father
1 ? 1/6 father (fixed) = 5/6 children 2:1 ratio (10/18 son + 5/18 daughter)

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 07:19:49 AM

Noon, please do consider this:

1 daughter, 1 son will get 2/3, their share cannot be reduced or left to be settled by remainder.

Quoteparents 1/3 fixed (1/6 each 4:11)
husband 1/4 fixed 4:12

Total = 7/12 (parents + husband) + remainder 5/12 = 1

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 12:05:59 PM
Yes this is the case when the deceased has only one son. Here the son is not prioritized but parents. Similarly in 4:12 the share for husband/wife is prioritized when there is only one son.

Man died: 1/6 + 1/6 +1/8=11/24-1=13/24 for son
Woman died: 1/6+1/6+1/4=7/12-1=5/12 for son.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 12:05:59 PM
whenever there is a daughter the distribution will be started with daughter not parents.

QuoteYes this is the case when the deceased has only one son. Here the son is not prioritized but parents. Similarly in 4:12 the share for husband/wife is prioritized when there is only one son.

Man died: 1/6 + 1/6 +1/8=11/24-1=13/24 for son
Woman died: 1/6+1/6+1/4=7/12-1=5/12 for son.

QuoteThis leaves nothing for daughters and we know they inherit?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 01:02:41 PM
Yes, because there is no daugter in this situation. The inheritance divisions is described by ground realities not hypothetical propositions.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 23, 2012, 01:16:43 PM
OK rewind, I want to understand; please distribute:

3 daughters, 1 son, parents, husband?
3 daughters, 2 sons, parents, husband?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
Perhaps now I have been able to convey what I think.

3 dauthers + 1 son=2/3 leaving behind 1/3 for other survivors father, mother, husband/wife as thecase maybe. Two third has five shares since one son will get like share of two daughters. Simplest form of distribution.

3 D + 2 sons =same 2/3 ....................of 2/3 are seven shares 3 + 2 + 2=7 shares.

The remaining is for living parents and husband/wife. It can be sub divided by restricting to percentages set in case of solitary son.  Pl use your mathematical knowledge to get those.

QuoteMazhar -- Qur'an specifically states 1/6 each parent (1/3) and 1/4 to husband?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 02:16:58 PM

Yes, but only in case the prescribed condition is met or exists. It becomes null and void if condition does not exist. It is simple law that any thing subject to a certain thing will take effect only when firstly condition is met.

In case-subject to the condition--if the deceased has solitary son in his progeny----

QuoteYes the condition is "IF son" which is true regardless 1 son or 10 sons! Not about solitary.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 04:25:30 PM
In Arabic no such thing exists that one son can be considered as ten sons also. Wherever there is more than one it is specified.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 04:25:30 PM
Once the equation is given two daughters or more, and two daughter share is to be given to a son, that takes care of entire progency and need not be repeated for two sone or more sons.

In case of one daughter the rule is specifically given, she gets half. Similarly rule in case of solitary son is given who  gets remainder which is also slightly above the half of inheritance. One can calculate the proportion of other relatives from 1/3 left by the progenies by applying the formula given for one son instead of making them equal. If 5/12 goes to solitary son the others get 7/12. In case of a single daughter getting 6/12 you can calculate what will be proportioned reduction in individual shares which was once 7/12 collectively, if it is not be equally distributed amongst them.

QuoteIt's basic logic in any language...
IF is male child, YES or NO?
IF is child/born, YES or NO?

QuoteIt is clearly stated parents get 1/3 (1/6 each), husband gets 1/4 -- where you get 1/3?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 06:23:23 PM
Yes only when the deceased had a son. Not otherwise. The situation is altogether different when he left dauther or daughters.

QuoteMazhar -- the cases were below; once again please distribute according to Qur'an?

3 daughters, 1 son, parents, husband
1 - 1/6 mother - 1/6 father - 1/4 husband = 5/12 children 2:1 ratio male to female

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 07:32:38 PM


Mother and father you have prioritized. It means that the inheritance instructions are with regard to parent.

But in Qur'aan the discourse starts:

يُوصِيكُمُ اللّهُ فِي أَوْلاَدِكُمْ

أَوْلاَدِ means all daugthers, means all sons, means combination of daugthers and sons. Subject of discourse is progenies not father and mother. They are residue beneficaries in case of progenies-dual or plural. But are prioritized in case of a son or in the absence of a son.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 23, 2012, 07:38:45 PM
Will you please distribute according to Qur'an and cite which part of which verse?

3 daughters, 1 son, parents, husband

3 daughters, 2 sons, parents, husband

3 daughters, 1 son

3 daughters, 2 sons

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 07:53:42 PM
3 daughters, 1 son-2/3 in 4:11 even if son was not there three daughters will get 2/3 and he gets share equal to two sisters. Parents, husband get the residue.

3 daughters, 2 son= 2/3 of inheritance. Residue for remaining living mentioned as who could be heirs.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 07:53:42 PM
Any number of daughters 2,3,4 and any no of son 1,2,3,4----=2/3 as per 4:11

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 23, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
Then go ahead and distribute the 1/3 residue to parents and husband?

The remaining 1/3 goes to whom exactly?

I also see you are translating 4:11 فوق above/over اثنتين two = 2 ?

Now use priority and distribute: 1 sister, mother?

Quote1 son, mother 1 - 1/6 mother (fixed/known) = 5/6 son (variable/unknown)
1 son, husband 1 - 1/4 husband (fixed/known) = 3/4 son (variable/unknown)
1 son, 1 daughter, mother, father, husband 1 - 1/6 m - 1/6 f - 1/4 h = 5/12 [where you find this word childre] children (variable/unknown) 2:1 ratio male to female [where is 1/2 for daughter when it is said that if the feminine were one she will get 1/2---it is also specified one]

1 daughter, mother 1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/known) = 1/2 mother (variable/unknown)
1 daughter, wife 1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/known) = 1/2 wife (variable/unknown)

Quote from: Mazhar on July 23, 2012, 08:33:01 PM
The only difference what I am saying is that the moment there is daughter in the progenies we will revert back to the first command. Share of progenies will always be 2/3rd notwithstanding how many or how few are the remaining living ones.

Quote

1 son, mother 1 - 1/6 mother (fixed/known) = 5/6 son (variable/unknown)
1 son, husband 1 - 1/4 husband (fixed/known) = 3/4 son (variable/unknown)
1 son, 1 daughter, mother, father, husband 1 - 1/6 m - 1/6 f - 1/4 h = 5/12 [where you find this word childre] children (variable/unknown) 2:1 ratio male to female [where is 1/2 for daughter when it is said that if the feminine were one she will get 1/2---it is also specified one]

1 daughter, mother 1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/known) = 1/2 mother (variable/unknown)
1 daughter, wife 1 - 1/2 daughter (fixed/known) = 1/2 wife (variable/unknown)

Quote from: Mazhar on July 24, 2012, 07:44:54 AM
Sorry Noon,

Your system is self contradictory. Once you say speicifically assigned and in other case you start where you like variable/unknown, and using at discretion son or child/children for the same word. Words of Qur'aan need not be manipulated at one's choice.

Pl first resolve this

Or resolve this where all are assigned specific share:

2 daughters, one father, one mother, one wife, one son.

The only problem in your system is that you are not accepting the Conditions placed by Allah the Exalted, but are reading the text word by word without assigning the role to them. Once a conditions is there, only in that case the apodosis clause is applicable otherwise it has no existence in the book of law and not to be considered.

Quote2 daughters, son, father, mother, wife -- simply follow the instructions...

Children any mixed combination it's always 2:1 male to female
4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)

Parents if is to person son (i.e. if son present) 1/6 each
4:11 ولأبويه and for their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left إن if كان kāna/is (masculine singular) له to person ولد walad/son

Wife if is to deceased son (i.e. if son present) 1/8
4:12... فإن so if كان kāna is لكم to you ولد walad/son فلهن so to them الثمن the eight

1 - 1/6 mother - 1/6 father - 1/8 wife = 13/24 children 2:1 ratio male to female (26/72 son, 13/72 to each of 2 daughters)

Quote from: Mazhar on July 24, 2012, 01:54:57 PM
But this is not what Qur'aan says.

One important and the foremost instruction for which all is being instructed, i.e. progenies, you skip it and thus make the progenies secondary in the scheme of things.

4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)-----agter this is the main and primary order:

You skip this which is the ground reality in this case:

فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ  

Particularly note the red, it does not suggest "out/remaining of" but straight 2/3 of that which he the deceased has left.

First meet this then proceed further for left over 1/3.

QuoteNow do you want to solve these simple distributions according to Qur'an or not?

2 sons, mother, father
2 sons, 1 daughter, mother, father
10 sons, 1 daughter 

There can only be one non-contradictory solution/reading -- that is Qur'an!

Quote from: Mazhar on July 24, 2012, 04:45:57 PM
Two third to progenies since they are more than two daughters in equation of Aulad which is a plural feminine noun to include combination of progenies and to show plurality. Other situations are with regard to duality and singularity. The left over goes to others. If the first pronouncement is not to be given any weight thereby one thinks it is redundant while nothing is redundant.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 24, 2012, 05:32:39 PM
What help I was seeking was regarding reproportioning the left over 6/12, when there is only daughter, amongst father, mother, and wife accordingly without disturbing what equation they have amongst them in casr of a single son.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 24, 2012, 08:06:09 PM
2/3, 1/3

Quote from: Mazhar on July 27, 2012, 05:05:27 PM
Brother Noon,

I have attempted a draft going by strictly the words and their grammatical structuring. Please see it and advise where you find mistakes and omissions.

Daughter not Son is the central theme of Inheritance. Dying wealthy person is given discretion to bequeath for parents and near blood relatives. (http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/000.%20Encyclopaedia%20of%20Arabic%20of%20Qur'aan/4.%20Articles%20Ontology/2.%20Inheritance/2.%20Inheritance.htm)

QuoteThis direction is to meet the situation if solitary son is in the state of being for him-the deceased

QuoteNot only applied to solitary son case; more accurately read IF kana/he is (male) to deceased  born...

90:3 ووالد and the begetter وما and what ولد born/begot
19:15 وسلام and peace عليه upon him يوم day ولد born/begot  [the verb is passive-the day he was born; begot denotes he bacame father of a child]
37:152 ولد born/begot الله The God وإنهم and indeed they لكاذبون surely liars

Quotechildren: 1 son 2 daughters
$12k son + $12k 2 daughters ($6k each)
4:11 للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)
siblings: 1 brother 2 sisters
$12k brother + $12k 2 sisters ($6k each)
4:176 فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 11:46:17 AM


Sorry Noon, serious mistake----here in all three examples the word is Verb not a noun. In inheritance it is Noun with tanween, signifying solitary son-a son.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 11:51:53 AM
Equation is given by the words that denote gender, not ecessarily dauther and son. It is the basic key in distribution.

QuoteIF kana/he is (male) to person walad/son (male child) = TRUE for cases > 1?

Does presence of a son trigger 1/6 to parent, 1/4 to husband, 1/8 to wife?

QuoteWe obviously cannot use son above; son is ...

9:30 وقالت and said اليهود the Jews عزير Uzair ابن son الله The God وقالت and said النصارى al-nasara المسيح the Messiah ابن son الله The God

QuoteWe have to choose the best meaning otherwise the calculations do not work.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 12:36:10 PM

Son is the Noun of Verb Kana and matches the number and gender of verb. And Lahu relates to the predicate of Kana. This is conditional clause, which is describing a ground situation. Its apodosis clause is previous sentence. Thereat 1/6--it is Subject of sentence--is for each of the Parents. Similar is the condition clause for determined shares of spouses, there 1/8 is the Subject of sentence.
The share of solitary son is not determined by Allah the Exalted. The left over in such case is left to the discretion and justice of dying man.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 12:55:49 PM
Your approach and perhaps all others who have been trying to make the total equal 1 forgets that the total facts are not in front of them.

The issue is not hypothetical but an happening in real life. Data indicated in the Bequest is not before you. The mandatory prioritized shares are only known to you. The rest of the  inheritance is in the Bequest. 

QuoteYour approach and perhaps all others who have been trying to make the total equal 1 forgets that the total facts are not in front of them.

The issue is not hypothetical but an happening in real life. Data indicated in the Bequest is not before you. The mandatory prioritized shares are only known to you. The rest of the  inheritance is in the Bequest.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 28, 2012, 01:04:44 PM
Yes; the question is if the statement is TRUE for 2 sons, 3 sons, 10 sons, etc.?

IF kana/(he is) shapes gender of walad IF male child/son then 1/6 to parent.

If we had the total facts, a will etc.,no need to consult inheritance verses to arbitrate.
They are to be applied when person died, no will, nothing! That is reality for majority.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: Mazhar on Today at 09:55:49 AM 


It is not you and me [yes only when death approaches us] to consult the Shares determined and allocated to certain ones by Allah the Exalted. It is the dying person to know the "out of bound" areas of his wealth and decide only about that wealth which is left to his discretion for distribution.

Those who do what you stated in red are the violators of the command of Allah the Exalted. They accept Qur'aan partially. We are not concerned with them. It is incumbent upon the Muttaqeen.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 28, 2012, 01:22:19 PM
OK what's the whole point of inheritance verses; what do we do with his $4 million property?

A man died, no will, and left three small children: 1 son, 2 daughters

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
Two thrid of $ 4 million property shall be reserved for orphans-2 daughters-1 son who will acquire it on reaching strengthen maturity. The near blood men of deceased enjoying repute will maintain the property of orphans, and decide about the remaining 1/3rd.

وَابْتَلُواْ الْيَتَامَى حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم مِّنْهُمْ رُشْدًا فَادْفَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ وَلاَ تَأْكُلُوهَا إِسْرَافًا وَبِدَارًا أَن يَكْبَرُواْ وَمَن كَانَ غَنِيًّا فَلْيَسْتَعْفِفْ وَمَن كَانَ فَقِيرًا فَلْيَأْكُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ  فَإِذَا دَفَعْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ فَأَشْهِدُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ حَسِيبًا

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 28, 2012, 01:38:52 PM
Contradiction; you are giving away $1.33 million of their money to others?
What if there are no near blood relatives? Even if there were that's stealing!

Now do the other example same amount: 1 brother, 2 sisters?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 01:46:25 PM
I have not given. Allah the Exalted is so allowing. Please see the red part of just quoted Ayah. As regards stealing, Allah the Exalted knows it---that is why He the Exalted has mentioned such people in other Ayah mentioned in the Article and the effect of all such foul plays with the property of orphans. No other blood relatives does not mean that the whole society does not exist for this dead man. That is why no specific person is nominated to maintain the property--just general advice what they can consume out of the inheritance.

QuoteYou suggesting take their $1.33 million away and give it to whom exactly strangers?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 02:34:35 PM

It is not me suggesting this. Allah the Exalted is asking the dying person to decide about it. If he could not decide it because of sudden death, others have to decide about it.
The discourse about the distribution of inheritance begins with the Bequest made mandatory for the dying person. What was the point in making it compulsory for Muttaqeen if Allah the Exalted had to decide about the hundred percent distribution of wealth?

QuoteIt is not me suggesting this. Allah the Exalted is asking the dying person to decide about it. If he could not decide it because of sudden death, others have to decide about it.
The discourse about the distribution of inheritance begins with the Bequest made mandatory for the dying person. What was the point in making it compulsory for Muttaqeen if Allah the Exalted had to decide about the hundred percent distribution of wealth?

QuoteMazhar -- that is the whole point, it does not say 2/3 for mixed children or siblings anywhere?

It's always 2:1 ratio for mixed siblings; how many times does one have to post the same verses?

4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)
4:176 وإن AND IF كانوا kānū/they were إخوة ikh'watun siblings رجالا rijal ونساء wanisa فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
أولادكم  It is plural and includes multiple progenies inclusive of feminines and males. Nowhere, we find subsequently that Allah the Exalted has appointed shares for أولادكم . But it is not like that. The shares of أولادكم  are determined by the mention of 3 daughters, two daughters, and one daugther sequence. And in case of combined progenies no share is described since the basic unit of inheritance are the feminines--- share of two feminine shall be given to a male.

There cannot be an equation of shares netween feminine and masculine when there is only a daughter or only a son. Such situations are seperately dealt.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 28, 2012, 04:01:00 PM
What you mean separately dealt with, how you going apply 4:176?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 28, 2012, 04:01:00 PM
What you mean separately dealt with, how you going apply 4:176?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 04:26:26 PM
It is at:

7. With regard to progeny, we are left with only a situation where the deceased is leaving behind the solitary Son. In this situation, Allah the Exalted has not made the Son as preferential. Instead, the parents and spouse of the dying person are declared preferential and their share is mandatory prioritized leaving the allocation for the living Son at the discretion of the dying person. Allah the Exalted has not prescribed the share for a solitary living son of the deceased.

8. In case of a solitary son as heir, the living father and mother each get straight away 1/6th out of that inheritance which the deceased has left behind. The mandatory prioritized share of Wife is 1/8th out of the inheritance. In such cases, the Inheritance is divided into twenty-four parts; eleven out of twenty-four parts straight going to father, mother and the Widow, if they all are surviving, otherwise their respective share will also obviously go to the discretion of the dying person to allocate it to the next relatively near blood relation. Near Blood relation is referred by the relationship of Wombs, it thus includes grandfather, grandmother and grand-progeny.

Quote from: mahmuud on July 29, 2012, 06:56:49 AM
Pleace look at this book about this matter:

http://www.quraniclesson.com/download.php?fid=1&ext=pdf&fn=Division%20of%20Inheritance%202nd%20Edition.pdf

Quote from: Mazhar on July 28, 2012, 05:15:18 PM
Have you noticed what was not mentioned or prescribed in 4:11 and 4:12 which could also be a ground reality, leaving a question for the listeners to enquire about it?

Quoteفي in الكلالة al-kalalah

Quote from: Mazhar on July 29, 2012, 01:53:18 PM


What does it mean?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 29, 2012, 02:09:11 PM
Deceased left no crown/head of house 4:176 الكلالة al-kalālah is father-less spouse-less.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 29, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
I infer from above---is it correct

You mean his father is not living at the time of his death-he is already dead. What about mother?

Quote from: Mazhar on July 29, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
And spouse-less, you mean his/her spouse is not surviving at the time of his/her death.

Quote from: Mazhar on July 29, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
What about a son? He be having a surviving son or might have died without a son.

QuoteI infer from above---is it correct

You mean his father is not living at the time of his death-he is already dead. What about mother?

QuoteCorrect, deceased did not have a father.
Mother may be alive since  4:11 IF إخوة ikh'wat mother =1/6

Quote from: Mazhar on July 29, 2012, 04:21:05 PM
So alternate state could be that Father survives while the Mother is dead.

QuoteAll inheritors can be present or not present; with presence of father/spouse siblings get nothing.

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed 4:11) = 2/3 father; siblings = 0

Quote from: Mazhar on July 30, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
Where is this red part written?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 30, 2012, 08:57:44 AM
4:11 ... فإن so if لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/child وورثه and heirs أبواه person?s parents فلأمه so to his mother الثلث the third

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/known) = 2/3 father (variable/unknown)

Logical deduction AND IF OR NOT ELSE (used to build supercomputers) differentiates the human from most creatures.

Peace!

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 30, 2012, 08:57:44 AM
4:11 ... فإن so if لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/child وورثه and heirs أبواه person?s parents فلأمه so to his mother الثلث the third

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/known) = 2/3 father (variable/unknown)

Logical deduction AND IF OR NOT ELSE (used to build supercomputers) differentiates the human from most creatures.

Peace!

Quote from: Mazhar on July 30, 2012, 12:39:26 PM
What will be the case if the diceased is a woma?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on July 30, 2012, 03:33:19 PM

The same; why ask ? are not women included in the human category or want discuss nuances of Arabic?

4:11 ... فلأمه  so to his mother الثلث the third

31:14 ووصينا and We enjoined الإنسان the human بوالديه to his parents حملته carried him أمه  his mother وهنا weakness على upon وهن infirmity وفصاله and his separation في in عامين two years أن that اشكر be thankful لي to Me ولوالديك and to your parents إلي to Me المصير the destiny

Quote from: Mazhar on July 30, 2012, 05:09:49 PM
I have attempted in two parts and posted it seperately since Arabic text is used in images. You are requested to critically examine it. Thanks

Quote from: StopS on July 19, 2012, 05:50:59 PM
Thank you. You have clarified it for me. This is what I understood. All I need to do now is irrefutably clarify when and under what conditions this applies.

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on July 30, 2012, 02:09:49 PM
I have attempted in two parts and posted it seperately since Arabic text is used in images. You are requested to critically examine it. Thanks
Peace Mazhar, your article starts off well then turns into an illogical hairball with multiple errors started by assigning 2/3 to mixed children/siblings ignors clear instructions 2/3 is to females only, lacks comprehension of basic فإن ELSE IF وإن AND IF switch to different case and gives only partial distributions with remainder unaccounted.

4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)
4:11 فإن ELSE IF كن are نساء nisa فوق above اثنتين two فلهن falahunna/so to them (feminine plural) ثلثا thulutha 2/3

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 08:11:09 AM
Sorry Noon,

What is stuck up in mind is to make the total equal to 1, that is, the whole inheritance.
Thereby, you are not listening and keep on ignoring the basic provisions of law for distribution of inheritance. What you are making hundered percent is just superfluous mathematics not the portions assigned by Allah the Exalted or the Dying Man.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 08:11:09 AM
The share is based on feminine gender, not daughter or sister and son or brother,. It is not equatining of persons belonging to different gender. First take the Subject of Sentence and then read its predicate. You read predicate first and the subject later on as was done by majority of translators showing as if they did not know even the basics of Arabic grammar and sentence structuring.

The base for distribution is feminine shares which will bring in the brother in total that can go to three feminine shares.
The other base for distribution is single son or absence of single son.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 08:11:09 AM
What is the share for unknown "someone" who is still in the womb of a wife?
What will be the fate of "someone" unknown in the womb of a wife who was alienated-pronounced suspension of Matrimonial Bond [divorce not effected yet] a day before his death?

QuoteNo, it is you who is not listening or reading correctly making up things that is nowhere stated in Qur'an.
By your logic if only heirs parents; you would give mother 1/3 tell father to take a hike 2/3 unaccounted.

4:11  فإن so if لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/child وورثه and heirs أبواه person?s parents فلأمه so to his mother الثلث the third

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed) = 2/3 father (variable)

QuoteAgain a mathematical illogical hairball; obey the explicit instructions pay attention to switch case ELSE IF AND IF!
In addition you always have to give 2/3 to 3+ daughters or 1/2 to 1 daughter; therefore if you insist on mixing...

1 - 1/2 one daughter     = 1/2 ten sons (1/20 each) is illogical
1 - 2/3 three daughters = 1/3 ten sons (1/30 each) is illogical

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 11:29:04 AM
You assign 2/3 to father of a deceased man who had no son to inherit him and instead his Father and Mother are called his Waris. This is because Allah the Exalted has assigned only for mother the 1/3 in this case.

Who has assigned 2/3 to father?
Where is it said that left over will be for such and such person?
Variable means liable to change especially suddenly and unpredictably. Who will decide the change this 2/3?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 11:42:46 AM
You straight go to mathematics for arriving at 1.
Do you accept this injunction as the Part of Inheritance distribution or otherwise like those who might call it Mansukh:

The Oral Bequest in favour of the Mother and Father and the relatively Near Blood relatives, in accordance with the well known norms, has been prescribed-decreed upon you at the point in time when the natural death has approached someone of you people, in case he is leaving behind worldly wealth.
This is mandatory-incumbent upon people who are cautious, heedful and mindful in reverence and fear of Allah the Exalted. [2:180]

QuotePeace Mazhar -- use the brain, this is basic common sense logic. IF only parents, no child.

You only need to know one to figure out the other. I don't have time to teach simple logic.

a + b = 1; 1 - a = b; 1 - b = a

1 - 1/3 mother (fixed) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on Today at 08:42:46 AM
You straight go to mathematics for arriving at 1.
Do you accept this injunction as the Part of Inheritance distribution or otherwise like those who might call it Mansukh:

The Oral Bequest in favour of the Mother and Father and the relatively Near Blood relatives, in accordance with the well known norms, has been prescribed-decreed upon you at the point in time when the natural death has approached someone of you people, in case he is leaving behind worldly wealth.
This is mandatory-incumbent upon people who are cautious, heedful and mindful in reverence and fear of Allah the Exalted. [2:180]

QuoteYes at time of death make out a will  and if he gets hit by a big rock (no will) distribute according to Qur'an.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
In Law there is no such simple logic. In executing provisions of law, such use of brain is not allowed. In law things are not left in vacuum at the mercy of general public to draw whatever their brains suggests them to infer.

Law is always definite and specific. The principle is laid down. Allah the Exalted is assigning shares by His Will and asking the Dying Person to give his Will for the rest.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 12:30:12 PM
So he made a will, where would go then your mathematics yielding result 1?

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on Today at 09:26:03 AM
In Law there is no such simple logic. In executing provisions of law, such use of brain is not allowed. In law things are not left in vacuum at the mercy of general public to draw whatever their brains suggests them to infer.

Law is always definite and specific. The principle is laid down. Allah the Exalted is assigning shares by His Will and asking the Dying Person to give his Will for the rest.

What is it that you do not understand inheritance verses are to be applied when there is no will?

IF left no will or killed in battle or die instantly or after distribution the wife has a heart attack, etc...

QuoteIt's not mine and whatever they decide the amount is always equal to 1 or the whole!

Example man writes a will $ 3.111 million total inheritance:

$ 1 million to his daughter
$ 1 million to his wife
$ 1 million to his mother
$ 0 to incompetent son
$ 100k to his neighbors
$ 10k throw in street to strangers
$ 1k convert to Russian Rubles then burn it

Quotehat is it that you do not understand inheritance verses are to be applied when there is no will?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 01:12:37 PM
But brother why you conveniently forget that in all the three Verses where Allah the Exalted assigns shares to particular persons in particular situations, the Bequest is the integral part at all places?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Thereby, acording to your variable formula, if there is a Will, the Verses are not to be applied. Are you suggesting this?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 05, 2012, 01:34:42 PM
Peace, I forget nothing! 4:11 ... من from (means to subtract) بعد after وصية a will يوصي have made بها in it أو or دين judgment

1 - 100% (if left will to distribute the whole) =   0% amount to be distributed
1 -    0% (if deceased has left no will at all) = 100% amount to be distributed

Quote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
What I had stated verbally what you think about distribution of inheritance, you have simply endorsed that in mathematical way.

"judgment" decreed by whom?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 05, 2012, 02:02:49 PM
Yes, if they see it good or fair to leave nothing to certain relatives or leave everything to one child -- up to them!

Without a will or partial will, inheritance verses kick in to arbitrate and avoid bickering among different inheritors.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 23, 2012, 04:13:42 PM
But from where you draw the authority in doint that?
For doing any thing one must quote the provision of law, otherwise the court declares it dismissed as nonsense gossip.

Quote?IF only parents give to the mother 1/3? then you asked from where the father gets 2/3?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 23, 2012, 05:45:22 PM
Law books do not leave its provisions at the mercy of logic of people like the sniff of dogs. Unless it is described in the book that in such case 2/3 goes to father, saying so is mere presumption void of legality.

QuoteMy dear Mazhar,

Qur'an is for people with logic who understand basic IF ELSE statements which half your posts are gossip fantasies and therefore, instead of spamming this thread I strongly suggest you go back to that other pre-marital nonsense thread and argue about how you possess your housemaids and desire to do them a favor and marry them or whatever.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 23, 2012, 05:45:22 PM
Law books do not leave its provisions at the mercy of logic of people like the sniff of dogs. Unless it is described in the book that in such case 2/3 goes to father, saying so is mere presumption void of legality.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 23, 2012, 06:35:16 PM
Reply 185

Peace Noon,

There is a law point. You have not replied it instead repeated the same thing. Try to find legality for your presumptive distribution on the basis of logic.

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on Today at 02:45:22 PM
Law books do not leave its provisions at the mercy of logic of people like the sniff of dogs. Unless it is described in the book that in such case 2/3 goes to father, saying so is mere presumption void of legality.

QuoteYes they do in fact; there is a question of how would a reasonable wo/man have acted/reacted for most legal issues, including crimnal cases assessed by a jury on presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to ordinay person's logic and common sense.
Salaam

Quote from: Mazhar on August 23, 2012, 07:11:49 PM
These two quotes are not relevant to each other. The second is about assessment of evidence produced, not about the provisions of law given in the law book.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 23, 2012, 06:15:11 PM
4:11 ولابويه and to their parents (start case distribution to parents and apply ان IF فان so IF logic)

لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left ان IF كان kana/is (masculine) له to person ولد walad/son (if male child)

فان so IF (we are still on parents) لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/child وورثه and heirs ابواه person?s parents (if only parents alive) فلامه so to his mother الثلث the third

basic logic if only parents: 1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/stated) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)

$3000

$1000 or 1/3 mother
$2000 or 2/3 father

likewise apply same logic: if mother & son; if father & son; etc...

1 - 1/6 mother (fixed/stated) = 5/6 son (variable/unstated)
1 - 1/6 father (fixed/stated) = 5/6 son (variable/unstated)

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 23, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
Peace Mazhar, replied to what exactly? You like posting and when ask to apply in a real case you have no answers.
Simple example -- person walking down the street has a heart-attack and dies leaves only heirs mother and father.

Please distribute according to Qur'an the deceased persons property worth $300,000? 
What you suggest; consult the dead; try revive back to live, ask what to do with 2/3?

4:11 ولابويه and to their parents (start case distribution to parents)

لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left ان IF كان kana/is (masculine) له to person ولد walad/son (if male child)

فان so IF (we are still on parents) لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/child وورثه and heirs ابواه person?s parents (if only parents alive) فلامه so to his mother الثلث the third

basic logic if only parents: 1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/stated) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)

Quote from: Mazhar on August 23, 2012, 07:36:15 PM
Peace.

Proposition in above quote: A person died all of a sudden, who did not have a son and has living father and mother.

Qur'aan says 1/3rd of the inheritance after discharging his outstanding liabilities is the inalienable right of his mother-not subject to alteration whatever might be the ground realities, reduced to 1/6th if he has sisterd and brothers.

Allah the Exalted has not touched the remaining amount. Sudden death of a man does not imply that now there is none including Courts to decide about the portion regarding which the dead man had the authority to disburse according to his judgment amongst his father and other nearones.
People of family of good repute have the right to modify the Will of the deceased. Why your logic does not accept that they have also the right to decide in case of sudden death without Will?

Who would adjudge to accept the claims of people about outstanding liabilities of the dead man and pay them off from the left property?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 23, 2012, 08:32:01 PM
Peace -- why are you mindlessly ranting and conjecturing?

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 10:12:37 AM
But brother why you conveniently forget that in all the three Verses where Allah the Exalted assigns shares to particular persons in particular situations, the Bequest is the integral part at all places?

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on August 05, 2012, 10:21:33 AM
Thereby, acording to your variable formula, if there is a Will, the Verses are not to be applied. Are you suggesting this?[/quote]

Quote of Noon

QuotePeace, I forget nothing! 4:11 ... من from (means to subtract) بعد after وصية a will يوصي have made بها in it أو or دين judgment

1 - 100% (if left will to distribute the whole) =   0% amount to be distributed
1 -    0% (if deceased has left no will at all) = 100% amount to be distributed

كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ إِن تَرَكَ خَيْرًا  الْوَصِيَّةُ لِلْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأقْرَبِينَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُتَّقِينَ  

The Oral Bequest in favour of the Mother and Father and the relatively Near Blood relatives, in accordance with the well known norms, has been prescribed-decreed upon you at the point in time when the natural death has approached someone of you people, in case he is leaving behind worldly wealth.
This is mandatory-incumbent upon people who are cautious, heedful and mindful in reverence and fear of Allah the Exalted. [2:180]

However, in case one apprehended inclination or evident injustice by a testator, thereby if he struck a correction amongst them-the beneficiaries and affected party, there shall at all be no blame upon him [since it is not substitution of the Will].
It is a fact that Allah the Exalted is oft the Forgiving-Overlooking, the fountain of Mercy. [2:182]

Man has left worldly wealth.

Left wealth - Outstanding liabilities of the deceased  = Divisible Inheritance

Divisible Inheritance  = 1

a) The shares cut and apportioned by Allah the Exalted from Divisible Inheritance = X
It is called by Allah فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ . Inalienable and unalterable part cut and apportioned by Allah the Exalted.

b) Divisible Inheritance - X = Y   الْوَصِيَّةُ

c) X + Y=1   فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ [/size]. + الْوَصِيَّةُ[/size
Allah the Exalted has covered all possible situations that could exist on ground relating to many many combinations of relatively nearer relatives. Relativity keep shifting to the remotest relationship step by step for which reason Comparitive Noun is used for الْوَصِيَّةُ.

The past conjecturists invented myth of Nasikh and Mansukh. You have gone one step further by declaring the Ayah giving Mandatory Shares apportioned by Allah the Exalted as redundant in case the man left a Will.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Conjecturing is this, to an extent of turning ears deaf to listen to the commands of Qur'aam.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 24, 2012, 09:19:58 AM
Mazhar, first we have to determine if you have a functioning brain.

This is very simple and can get no simpler -- distribute inheritance:

case a. mother and father
mother gets 1/3 and father gets what? hint hint there is exactly 2/3 left!

case b. mother and son
mother gets 1/6 and son gets what? hint hint there is exactly 5/6 left!

Until you answer the above simple brain test everything that you write is irrelevant.
Now there are two options for people to consider in your stubbornness, no answer:

1. you are very dumb and a complete ignorant; probably not case
2. you are too proud to admit an error and on a pompous ego trip

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Such stupid propositions can emerge only in a thoughtless brain.
You are presuming as if only three persons are living on Mars, and son died leaving behind a father and mother.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 23, 2012, 05:06:05 PM
Logic is not for you since you are wired different and only write needlessly long grammatical expositions of clear, short, precise verses, and instructions; evident when you could not comprehend a simple concept of an IF statement like...

?IF only parents give to the mother 1/3? then you asked from where the father gets 2/3?

Duh!

The difference between humans of intellect and the cattle can be described as such...

The dog pursues a scent and comes to a fork in the road.
The dog sniffs false the 1st path.
The dog will not reason IF NOT 1st THEN logically it's the 2nd!
The dog will need to sniff the 2nd as well to have it register!

QuoteI'm not presuming and that is exactly the case; person leaves only inheritors:

case a. father and son   1 - 1/6 father   (fixed) = 5/6 son (variable/unstated)
case b. mother and son 1 - 1/6 mother (fixed) = 5/6 son (variable/unstated)
case c. mother and father    1 - 1/3 mother (fixed) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)
case d. mother and brother  1 - 1/6 mother (fixed) = 5/6 brother (variable/unstated)

Therefore, since you cannot answer simple questions or refuse to answer; we are left to decide...

1. if you are a complete idiot?
2. if you are a stubborn idiot?
3. if you are a human being?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 12:28:59 PM
Reply 197



What about the Ayah quoted in Reply 196. Do you not accept it to be the Word of Allah?
For your information  الْأقْرَبِينَ and مَوَالِي both are Plural and in Arabic Waladain is dual not plural-two active participles who participated for the birth of their offspring.
Allah the Exalted says they are plural in number-three minimum and above who will benefit from inheritance of deceased but you are insisting they are only two in all your above imaginary cases a to d.

QuoteReply 197

What about the Ayah quoted in Reply 196. Do you not accept it to be the Word of Allah?
For your information  الْأقْرَبِينَ and مَوَالِي both are Plural and in Arabic Waladain is dual not plural-two active participles who participated for the birth of their offspring.
Allah the Exalted says they are plural in number-three minimum and above who will benefit from inheritance of deceased but you are insisting they are only two in all your above imaginary cases a to d.     Mazhar

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 24, 2012, 02:31:18 PM
What about it?

4:32 ولا and not تتمنوا covet ما what فضل favored الله The God به with it بعضكم some of you على over بعض some/others للرجال to the men نصيب a share مما from what اكتسبوا they earned وللنساء and to the women نصيب a share مما from what اكتسبن they earned واسالوا and ask الله The God من from فضله His bounty ان indeed الله The God كان is بكل in every شيء a thing عليما Knowing
4:33 ولكل and for all جعلنا We made موالي heirs مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت aqadat pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them نصيبهم their share ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

It shows that you cannot read or comprehend a simple thing!

IF ONLY two relatives left -- do you think that is not possible?

case: mother and father 1 - 1/3 mother (fixed/stated) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)

Who is the third -- you, perhaps your housemaid, or the dog?

QuoteI'm not presuming and that is exactly the case; person leaves only inheritors:

case a. father and son   1 - 1/6 father   (fixed) = 5/6 son (variable/unstated)
case b. mother and son 1 - 1/6 mother (fixed) = 5/6 son (variable/unstated)
case c. mother and father    1 - 1/3 mother (fixed) = 2/3 father (variable/unstated)
case d. mother and brother 1 - 1/6 mother (fixed) = 5/6 brother (variable/unstated)

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Mazhar on Today at 09:28:59 AM
There will never be two, always موالي Plural, three and more. Is it not a simple thing?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 24, 2012, 05:45:32 PM
You are clueless! Think before you post! According to you it's impossible for there to be only two heirs?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 06:05:46 PM
Quote authority--only of Qur'aan.

QuoteYou confusing verses addressing plural three or more, saying two is not applicable or possible is ridiculous!
We need only find case anywhere in the world two heirs to prove your nonsense incorrect reading of verse.

4:11 ... وورثه and heirs ابواه person?s parents (if only parents) فلامه so to his mother الثلث the third

You are done! Only two heirs mentioned!

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 08:12:55 PM
What an evidence!!! Only one third, who will get the remaining two third?

Quote from: Mazhar on August 24, 2012, 08:12:55 PM

Let me make a final attempt to try dissolving clot that got developed in your brain on this issue

وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مَوَالِيَ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ

وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ

Mind it this declaration is about the INHERITANCE left behind by the father and mother and near relatives.

Every person with no exception has مَوَالِي plural--three and above. And look at the beauty of narration in Qur'aan that it has not left mention of those who must be taken into consideration while distributing that part of wealth left to the discretionary Will of the dying wealthy person. The possibility of ignoring who are otherwise weakest within the ambit of مَوَالِي is mentioned seperately after it.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 25, 2012, 06:29:29 AM
Noon,  sincerely advise you to consult someone for psycho checkup before it is too late like 19 gimmicks of Rashad Khalifa that veiled his intellect.

QuoteMazhar, you are a moron! Your reading is wrong! We know these heirs exist!

Quote from: Mazhar on August 25, 2012, 08:52:48 AM
Who denies their existance?

QuoteYou are! Totally misreading the verse attributing your stupidity and ignorance to Qur'an!

Quote from: Mazhar on August 25, 2012, 06:11:26 PM
If I am misreading it, you please educate me how you correctly read it and share your knowledgable understanding of its perception.

وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مَوَالِيَ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ

وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ

I will be obliged.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 25, 2012, 11:32:36 PM
OK I'll be happy to...

4:33 ولكل and for all (i.e. each individual) جعلنا We made موالي heirs (i.e. eligible to inherit) مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them نصيبهم their share  ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

The above is simply stating that each individual is eligible to inherit from what left their parents, and their close relatives (i.e. their children, brothers, sisters); their spouse, etc. and does not say or suggest as you incorrectly inferred earlier that every deceased person will have minimum of three heirs.

It is a known fact that in reality there are numerous people who died or who are going to die will leave no heirs, only one heir, or only two heirs ? simply look at those around you Mazhar including most probably yourself. Therefore, your reading of the verse is incorrect, contradicts reality, and is easily proven false.

Also consider the request made and granted ...
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=19&verse=5


Peace!

Quote from: Mazhar on August 26, 2012, 06:38:38 AM
The translation and inference  do not correspond to each other. In translation you say, "for all individuals We made heirs". And heirs are those who are eligible to inherit.
In your translation, "each" individual and "heirs" are two different entities.

In the inference you say each individual is eligible to inherit.

Please reconcile.

QuoteQuote from: Mazhar on Today at 03:38:38 AM
The translation and inference do not correspond to each other. In translation you say, "for all individuals We made heirs". And heirs are those who are eligible to inherit.
In your translation, "each" individual and "heirs" are two different entities.

In the inference you say each individual is eligible to inherit.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 26, 2012, 11:21:55 AM
I see, fixated on grammar invented 100 years ago not reading context and avoiding contradictions?

6:132 ولكل and to each (individual; noun) درجات degrees مما from what عملوا they did (plural) وما and not ربك your Lord بغافل unaware عما of what يعملون they did (plural)

4:33 ولكل and to each (individual; noun) جعلنا We made/appointed موالي heirs (plural) مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them (plural) نصيبهم their share ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

Once again individuals are made/appointed/entitled as heirs from what left their parents, etc. and not as you infer/read that each individual is guaranteed three or more heirs which is easily proven a false reading and a contradiction simply by finding only one case since the beginning of humanity (~ 57 million people leave us each year or ~155,000 each day) where someone died and left less than three heirs or simply examine each kalalah case ...

4:176 يستفتونك they seek your ruling قل say الله The God يفتيكم gives you a ruling في in الكلاله al-kalalah

QuoteOK I'll be happy to...

4:33 ولكل and for all (i.e. each individual) جعلنا We made موالي heirs (i.e. eligible to inherit) مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them نصيبهم their share ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

The above is simply stating that each individual is eligible to inherit from what left their parents, and their close relatives (i.e. their children, brothers, sisters); their spouse, etc. and does not say or suggest as you incorrectly inferred earlier that every deceased person will have minimum of three heirs.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 26, 2012, 12:58:43 PM
Please reconcile.


Just yesterday you said this:
English preposition "for" which you used yesterday, correctly for Arabic preposition "Li", but today you have replaced it by "to". Are both prepositions "synonym"?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 24, 2012, 10:12:34 PM
Thread is distributing shares according to Qur'an; either provide alternative distributions or stop spamming!

Here are all combinations for reference; obviously sole inheritor gets the whole, no need for arbitration laws.

4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)...

son/s + daughter/s distribute at 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:11 ... فان so if كن kunna/are نساء nisa فوق above اثنتين two فلهن falahunna/so to them (feminine plural) ثلثا thulutha (2/3) ما what ترك left

وان and if كانت kanat/is (feminine) واحده one فلها so to her النصف the half

ولابويه and to their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left ان if كان kana/is (masculine) له to person ولد walad/son (if male child/born)

فان so if لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/offspring/child born وورثه and heirs ابواه person?s parents (if only parents) فلامه so to his mother الثلث the third

فان so if كان kana/is (masculine singular) له to person اخوه ikh'wat (if male sibling/brother) فلامه so to his mother السدس the sixth

من from بعد after وصيه a will يوصي have made بها in it او or دين judgmentاباؤكم your fathers وابناؤكم and your children لا not تدرون you know ايهم which of them اقرب closer لكم to you نفعا benefit فريضه obligation من from الله The God ان indeed الله The God كان is عليما Knowing حكيما Wise

1 father + 0 sibling/s = 1

1/3 mother + 2/3 father = 1
1/6 mother + 5/6 brother/s = 1

1/6 mother/father + 5/6 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 mother/father = 1
2 daughters + mother/father equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 mother/father = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
2 daughters + mother + father all equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father = 1

1/6 mother/father + 5/6 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:11 kalalah fatherless and spouseless no son (sibling/s variable/unstated)
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 (mother + sister/s) = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 brother/s = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

2 daughters + mother + sister/s (all share equally) = 1
2 daughters + brother/s 5/6 share equally + 1/6 mother = 1
2 daughters + brother/s + sister/s 5/6 share equally + 1/6 mother = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (mother + sister/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 sister/s = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 brother/s = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

2 daughters + sister/s = 1
2 daughters + brother/s = 1
2 daughters + sister/s + brother/s = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 sister/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

4:12 ولكم and to you نصف half ما what ترك left ازواجكم your spouse?s ان if لم not يكن was لهن to them ولد waladun/offspring/child

فان so if كان kana is (masculine) لهن to them ولد walad/son (if is male child/born) فلكم so to you الربع the fourth

مما from what تركن they left من from بعد after وصيه a will يوصين they made بها in it او or دين judgment

ولهن and to them الربع the fourth مما from what تركتم you left ان if لم not يكن was لكم to you ولد waladun/offspring/child

فان so if كان kana is (masculine) لكم to you ولد walad/son (i.e. if to person male child/born) فلهن falahunna/so to them الثمن the eight

مما from what تركتم you left من from بعد after وصيه a will توصون you made بها in it او or دين judgment...

1 spouse + 0 sibling/s = 1

1/4 husband + 3/4 son/s = 1
1/8 wife    + 7/8 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 spouse = 1
2 daughters + spouse equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 spouse = 1

1/2 husband + 1/2 mother/father = 1
1/4 wife    + 3/4 mother/father = 1

1/2 husband + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
1/4 wife    + 3/8 mother + 3/8 father = 1

1/6 mother/father + 1/4 husband + 7/12  son/s = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife    + 17/24 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/4 mother/father + 1/4 spouse = 1
2 daughters + mother/father + spouse all equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother/father + 1/6 spouse = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12  son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/8 wife    + 13/24 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/6 spouse = 1
2 daughters + mother + father + spouse (share equally) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/9 mother + 1/9 father + 1/9 spouse = 1

1/4 husband + 3/4 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother/father + 1/4 husband + 7/12 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife + 17/24 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 children mixed (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:12 kalalah fatherless and spouseless has son; sibling/s fixed at 1/6 or 1/3
4:12 .. وان and if كان is رجل a man يورث inherited كلاله kalalah (no crown/head of household; fatherless and spouseless) او or امراه woman

وله and has اخ brother او or اخت sister فلكل so to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth

فان so if كانوا they were اكثر greater من from ذلك that فه so they مشركاء partners في in الثلث the third

من from بعد after وصيه a will يوصى is recommended بها in it او or دين judgment غير not مضار harmful وصيه a will من from الله The God والله and The God عليم Knowing حليم Forbearing

1/6 sister/brother + 5/6 son/s = 1
1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 2/3 son/s = 1

1/6 sister/brother + 5/6 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 2/3 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 sister/brother + 2/3 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 1/2 son/s = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 sister/brother + 2/3 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 1/2 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:176 al-kalalah the fatherless and spouseless no offspring/child born
4:176 يستفتونك they seek your ruling قل say الله The God يفتيكم gives you a ruling في in الكلاله al-kalalah (the fatherless and spouseless; deceased left no crown/head of household)

ان if امرؤ person هلك died ليس is not له to person ولد waladun/offspring/child وله and has اخت sister فلها so to her نصف half ما what ترك left وهو and he يرثها inherits it ان if لم not يكن was لها to her ولد waladun/offspring/child

فان so if كانتا they were اثنتين two (feminine) فلهما so to them الثلثان the third twice (2/3) مما from what ترك left

وان and if كانوا they were اخوه ikh'watun/siblings رجالا rijal ونساء wanisa فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الانثيين the two (feminine)

يبين clarifies الله The God لكم to you ان lest تضلوا you stray والله and The God بكل in every شيء a thing عليم Knowing

1 sister  1/2 + 1/2 mother = 1
2 sisters 2/3 (1/3 each) + 1/3 mother = 1
3 sisters (1/4 each x 3) + 1/4 mother = 1

sister/s + brother/s distribute at 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 5/6 (sister/s + brother/s) distribute at 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

QuoteIt's a work in progress and today after having a look at all usages decided best/closest to render as such.

4:33 ولكل and to each جعلنا We made/appointed موالي heirs مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them نصيبهم their share ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

Use "for" if you like...

2:148 ولكل and to/for each
6:132 ولكل and to/for each
7:34 ولكل and to/for each امه tribe/nation اجل a term
10:47 ولكل and to/for each امه tribe/nation رسول a messenger
13:7  ولكل and to/for each قوم community هاد a guide
22:34 ولكل and to/for each امه tribe/nation جعلنا We made/appointed منسكا a rite
46:19 ولكل and to/for each درجات degrees مما from what عملوا they have done

Quote4:33 ولكل and to each (individual; noun) جعلنا We made/appointed موالي heirs  (plural) مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them (plural) نصيبهم their share ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

QuoteThe translation and inference do not correspond to each other. In translation you say, "for all individuals We made heirs". And heirs are those who are eligible to inherit.
In your translation, "each" individual and "heirs" are two different entities.

In the inference you say each individual is eligible to inherit.

Quoteand to each(individual; noun) We made/appointed heirs

Quote from: Mazhar on August 26, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Did you notice some difference between the two red. Do you know what is the difference between both?
And do you know the reason why at some places there is Tanween while at others there is only one vowel sign?

If you do not know such elementary things about Arabic your criticism of all the translators seems ridiculous boast.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 26, 2012, 03:35:47 PM
Mazhar -- you were clearly proven wrong on this topic and instead of correcting yourself and apologizing for wasting my time and spamming this thread you continue being a hard-head needing to have the last word and contributing absolutely nothing to this thread/topic and now you are grasping for anything to redeem yourself including debating if to use "to/for" which I've already told you use "for" if you like, it makes little difference.

Now go away! Play with housemaid or whatever.

QuoteDid you notice some difference between the two red. Do you know what is the difference between both?
And do you know the reason why at some places there is Tanween while at others there is only one vowel sign?

If you do not know such elementary things about Arabic your criticism of all the translators seems ridiculous boast.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 26, 2012, 04:59:43 PM
Take your time. Study further and come back if you have understood the difference. Believe me it will make you to think for some other alternative than switching "for" to "to" to make the verse serve your purpose because it exposed you instead of helping support your inference.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 26, 2012, 05:51:53 PM
OK this is a thread on inheritance and if you want to open a thread on  housemaids or to/for go right ahead.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 26, 2012, 06:12:21 PM
Yes this is about Inheritance. The points raised are in respect of your semblence verses about "to" and "for". But they were different. The question is relevant about that. Please come back with an answer.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 26, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Did you notice some difference between the two red. Do you know what is the difference between both?
And do you know the reason why at some places there is Tanween while at others there is only one vowel sign?

If you do not know such elementary things about Arabic your criticism of all the translators seems ridiculous boast.

Quote45:7 ويل woe لكل to each افاك liar اثيم flagrant
4:11 . ولابويه and to their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما of them السدس the sixth

4:33 ولكل and to each (individual; noun) جعلنا We made/appointed موالي heirs (plural) مما from what ترك left الوالدان the parents والاقربون and the close relatives والذين and the ones who عقدت pledged ايمانكم your right hands فآتوهم so give them نصيبهم their share ان indeed الله The God كان is على over كل each شيء a thing شهيدا Witness

Quoteand to each(individual; noun) We made/appointed heirs

QuoteIndividuals are made/appointed/entitled as heirs from what left their parents, etc. and not as you infer/read that each individual is guaranteed three or more heirs which is easily proven a false reading

Quote from: Mazhar on August 27, 2012, 06:11:29 AM
Get out of your madness to know what is there in the Verses about inheritance.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 27, 2012, 07:24:52 AM
Mazhar -- I asked you to stay on topic, do not spam this thread; instead you post useless information.

You said that Allah said that each person will have three or more heirs -- that is proven false and a lie!

Quote from: Mazhar on August 27, 2012, 08:13:22 AM
Your own translation says they are more than two. Reconcile your translation and respond to basic contradictions of yours.

QuoteNo it does not -- each individual is heir.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 28, 2012, 05:36:32 AM
Noon,

Do open it and read it carefully. Don't be childish, take some time reading it, and then come back if you find objection on any para. Just quote para No. and what you say about it.

QuoteNo one should waste time reading your stupid stuff. Stop spamming/polluting this thread.

QuoteYes this topic should be a sticky; it teaches logic, how to read Qur'an using cross-reference and context to extrapolate certain words and to take the best non-contradicting meaning.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 29, 2012, 06:20:17 AM
Allah the Exalted has covered all, even if there are hundreds of ground situations, in just five sub classifications.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 24, 2012, 10:12:34 PM
Thread is distributing shares according to Qur'an; either provide alternative distributions or stop spamming!

Here are all combinations for reference; obviously sole inheritor gets the whole, no need for arbitration laws.

4:11 يوصيكم directs you الله The God في in أولادكم your children للذكر to the male مثل like حظ share الأنثيين the two (feminine)...

son/s + daughter/s distribute at 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:11 ... فان so if كن kunna/are نساء nisa فوق above اثنتين two فلهن falahunna/so to them (feminine plural) ثلثا thulutha (2/3) ما what ترك left

وان and if كانت kanat/is (feminine) واحده one فلها so to her النصف the half

ولابويه and to their parents لكل to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth مما from what ترك left ان if كان kana/is (masculine) له to person ولد walad/son (if male child/born)

فان so if لم not يكن was له to person ولد waladun/offspring/child born وورثه and heirs ابواه person?s parents (if only parents) فلامه so to his mother الثلث the third

فان so if كان kana/is (masculine singular) له to person اخوه ikh'wat (if male sibling/brother) فلامه so to his mother السدس the sixth

من from بعد after وصيه a will يوصي have made بها in it او or دين judgmentاباؤكم your fathers وابناؤكم and your children لا not تدرون you know ايهم which of them اقرب closer لكم to you نفعا benefit فريضه obligation من from الله The God ان indeed الله The God كان is عليما Knowing حكيما Wise

1 father + 0 sibling/s = 1

1/3 mother + 2/3 father = 1
1/6 mother + 5/6 brother/s = 1

1/6 mother/father + 5/6 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 mother/father = 1
2 daughters + mother/father equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 mother/father = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
2 daughters + mother + father all equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father = 1

1/6 mother/father + 5/6 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:11 kalalah fatherless and spouseless no son (sibling/s variable/unstated)
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 (mother + sister/s) = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 brother/s = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

2 daughters + mother + sister/s (all share equally) = 1
2 daughters + brother/s 5/6 share equally + 1/6 mother = 1
2 daughters + brother/s + sister/s 5/6 share equally + 1/6 mother = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (mother + sister/s) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 sister/s = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 brother/s = 1
1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

2 daughters + sister/s = 1
2 daughters + brother/s = 1
2 daughters + sister/s + brother/s = 1

3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 sister/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 brother/s = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 (sister/s + brother/s) = 1

4:12 ولكم and to you نصف half ما what ترك left ازواجكم your spouse?s ان if لم not يكن was لهن to them ولد waladun/offspring/child

فان so if كان kana is (masculine) لهن to them ولد walad/son (if is male child/born) فلكم so to you الربع the fourth

مما from what تركن they left من from بعد after وصيه a will يوصين they made بها in it او or دين judgment

ولهن and to them الربع the fourth مما from what تركتم you left ان if لم not يكن was لكم to you ولد waladun/offspring/child

فان so if كان kana is (masculine) لكم to you ولد walad/son (i.e. if to person male child/born) فلهن falahunna/so to them الثمن the eight

مما from what تركتم you left من from بعد after وصيه a will توصون you made بها in it او or دين judgment...

1 spouse + 0 sibling/s = 1

1/4 husband + 3/4 son/s = 1
1/8 wife    + 7/8 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/2 spouse = 1
2 daughters + spouse equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 spouse = 1

1/2 husband + 1/2 mother/father = 1
1/4 wife    + 3/4 mother/father = 1

1/2 husband + 1/4 mother + 1/4 father = 1
1/4 wife    + 3/8 mother + 3/8 father = 1

1/6 mother/father + 1/4 husband + 7/12  son/s = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife    + 17/24 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/4 mother/father + 1/4 spouse = 1
2 daughters + mother/father + spouse all equally = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/6 mother/father + 1/6 spouse = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12  son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/8 wife    + 13/24 son/s = 1

1 daughter  1/2 + 1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/6 spouse = 1
2 daughters + mother + father + spouse (share equally) = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/9 mother + 1/9 father + 1/9 spouse = 1

1/4 husband + 3/4 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother/father + 1/4 husband + 7/12 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife + 17/24 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 1/4 husband + 5/12 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 1/6 father + 2/3 children mixed (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:12 kalalah fatherless and spouseless has son; sibling/s fixed at 1/6 or 1/3
4:12 .. وان and if كان is رجل a man يورث inherited كلاله kalalah (no crown/head of household; fatherless and spouseless) او or امراه woman

وله and has اخ brother او or اخت sister فلكل so to each واحد one منهما from them السدس the sixth

فان so if كانوا they were اكثر greater من from ذلك that فه so they مشركاء partners في in الثلث the third

من from بعد after وصيه a will يوصى is recommended بها in it او or دين judgment غير not مضار harmful وصيه a will من from الله The God والله and The God عليم Knowing حليم Forbearing

1/6 sister/brother + 5/6 son/s = 1
1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 2/3 son/s = 1

1/6 sister/brother + 5/6 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 2/3 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 sister/brother + 2/3 son/s = 1
1/6 mother + 1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 1/2 son/s = 1

1/6 mother + 1/6 sister/brother + 2/3 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 1/3 sisters/brothers/(sister/s + brother/s) + 1/2 (daughter/s + son/s) 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

4:176 al-kalalah the fatherless and spouseless no offspring/child born
4:176 يستفتونك they seek your ruling قل say الله The God يفتيكم gives you a ruling في in الكلاله al-kalalah (the fatherless and spouseless; deceased left no crown/head of household)

ان if امرؤ person هلك died ليس is not له to person ولد waladun/offspring/child وله and has اخت sister فلها so to her نصف half ما what ترك left وهو and he يرثها inherits it ان if لم not يكن was لها to her ولد waladun/offspring/child

فان so if كانتا they were اثنتين two (feminine) فلهما so to them الثلثان the third twice (2/3) مما from what ترك left

وان and if كانوا they were اخوه ikh'watun/siblings رجالا rijal ونساء wanisa فللذكر so to the male مثل like حظ share الانثيين the two (feminine)

يبين clarifies الله The God لكم to you ان lest تضلوا you stray والله and The God بكل in every شيء a thing عليم Knowing

1 sister  1/2 + 1/2 mother = 1
2 sisters 2/3 (1/3 each) + 1/3 mother = 1
3 sisters (1/4 each x 3) + 1/4 mother = 1

sister/s + brother/s distribute at 2:1 ratio male to female = 1
1/6 mother + 5/6 (sister/s + brother/s) distribute at 2:1 ratio male to female = 1

Quote from: Mazhar on August 29, 2012, 06:20:17 AM
Admin: attention please!

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 29, 2012, 09:19:06 AM

Admin: this clueless person is hijacking/spamming this thread to promote his stupid article -- can we do something?

QuoteYou are a dumb OX  devoid of simple logic and you wrote stupid article. Noon

QuotePeace brother Mazhar,

Well written with slight miss-reading of solitary son and applying "to the male like share the two females" and the females in 4:11 are alone, otherwise numerous cases math does not add.

QuotePost 86. Sorry Noon, I forgot to acknowledge your point regarding Waladun as singular son  for reason of Kana. Yes, there it means only son because of masculine deficient verb and it being its Ism-Noun subject.

QuoteThank you Mazhar, that was what makes all the calculations work and rather amazing logic.

Quote from: Mazhar on August 29, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Learned Noon writes in his Post 127

QuoteWell written with slight miss-reading of solitary son and applying "to the male like share the two females" and the females in 4:11 are alone, otherwise numerous cases math does not add.

Quote from: huruf on October 07, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
Lildhakar mithlu haz el unthayain, (to the male like the portion of the two females)

I do not understand that as meaning he gets double of each of them, but that he gets the same as each of them. His portion is like the portion of the two females, who have already been aportionned their portion so as to aportion after for the others. It is not stating that when you calculate the shares you automatically aportion double to males. In fact if it was so, the Qur'an could have said stright out for the males double than for the females. But it doesn't say so nor proceeds that way. So first a portion is assigned for the females when they are two. So two females one male they would there would be three equal portions. Then after considering the case when there are two females, comes the case when it is one female, and finally the case when it is more than two females. So the first thing is to set the share of the females when they are two to one, which would be the same share for all the offspring.

As has already been stated, inheritance es calculated or fixed taking it as a function of the number of female offspring.

If two, then the male takes the part like the two females

If there is only one daughter she takes half regardless of the number of males

If there are more than two they take two thirds, regardless equally of the number of males.

Quote from: huruf on October 07, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
On the other hand, there is a curious thing and I do not know whether anybody has commented on it:

There are two expressions which occur in succession in the three ayas 4.11 4.12 and 3.176

First we read in 4.11

thuluthaa ma taraka

later in the same aya speakign about the parents it says li kulli wahid minhuma as-sudus min ma taraka


The same phenomenon we observe in the ayas I have mentioned the use first of ma taraka and then the use of min ma taraka

So ?Any idea as to what is the difference between them "ma taraka" and "min ma taraka"?

I think it must necessarily mean something. Looks systematic.

Quote from: huruf on October 08, 2012, 03:47:30 AM
On the first part of your answer I do not agree. I have been a long time turning that in my mind, and logically it makes sense the way I said, to me at least, whereas textually the the male like twice the female is exotic o estraneous. I also had taken notice of 4.176, which is different, but in that particular expression may be the same.

Quote from: huruf on October 08, 2012, 03:47:30 AM
As to the unfairness, no. What is absolutely unfair is that women get punished with half

Quote from: huruf on October 08, 2012, 06:03:23 AM
I am not going to distribute anything. I leave that to specialists,

Quote from: huruf on October 07, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
If two, then the male takes the part like the two females

If there is only one daughter she takes half regardless of the number of males

If there are more than two they take two thirds, regardless equally of the number of males.

Quote from: huruf on October 07, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
You cannot mix justice and mathematics. You first find out what is just and then find the mathematics to apply it.

Quote from: huruf on October 07, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
To say that not always is less for the female really must be a joke, it is almost always. So the "almost" should compensate for the bulk of the injustice? Whom are we kidding?

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on August 22, 2012, 09:28:46 PM
Here are all combinations again for reference; obviously sole inheritor gets the whole, no need for arbitration laws.

Quote from: huruf on October 07, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
So no, fundamentally the male twice as the female is not fair and it is not what the Qur'an says.

Quote from: huruf on October 09, 2012, 04:12:06 AM
No, the Qur'an does not say to the male twice what the female, or double the female. That is a lie. If the Qur'an wanted to say that, it would have said it. As clear as when it says you require four witnesses for something.