Inheritance according to Qur?an

[Noon waalqalami]

Could you drop the emotional garbage, please? Thanks. I would prefer a civilised discussion.

You are playing games. Please don't.

Peace be upon you! I know that it bothers you that all calculations work perfectly!

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?

I do not care about the univeral opions or fatwa's of the ignorant and explained earlier that one of the issues has to do with ولد walad/son; it can also mean ولد waladun child/born/begot or offspring.

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Waw-Lam-Dal = to beget, give birth.

Walada (prf. 3rd. p. m. sing.): he has begotten.
Waladna (prf. 3rd. p. f. plu.): They (f.) gave birth.
Wulida (pp. 3rd. p. m. sing.): He was born.
Wulidtu (pp. 1st. p. sing.): I was born.
Yalid (imp. 3rd. p. sing. juss.): He begets.
Yaliduu (imp. 3rd. p. m. plu. acc.): They will beget.
Alidu (imp. 1st. sing.): I will give birth, will bear a child.
Yuulad (pip. 3rd. p. m. sing. juss.): He is begotten.
Waladun (n.): Child; Offspring.
Aulaad (plu.): Children.
Waalidun (act. pic. m. sing.): Begotten, Real father.
Waalidatun (act. pic. f. sing.): Mother.
Waalidaan/Waalidain (act. pic. dual): Parents.
Waalidai (act. pic. duel. f. d.): Parents.
Wildaan (n. plu.): Youths; Children.
Waliidun (act. 2nd. pic. m. sing.): Child.
Mauluudun (pis. pic. m. sing. ): Begotten one; One who is born.

walada vb. (1)
perf. act. 37:152, 58:2, 90:3
impf. act. 11:72, 71:27, 112:3
perf. pass. 19:15, 19:33
impf. pass. 112:3
pcple. act. (f. walidah, du. walidan) 2:83, 2:180, 2:215, 2:233, 2:233, 4:7, 4:7, 4:33, 4:36, 4:135, 5:110, 6:151, 14:41, 17:23, 19:14, 19:32, 27:19, 29:8, 31:14, 31:14, 31:33, 31:33, 46:15, 46:15, 46:17, 71:28, 90:3
pcple. pass. 2:233, 2:233, 31:33

walad n.m. (pl. awlad) 2:116, 2:233, 2:233, 2:233, 2:233, 3:10, 3:47, 3:116, 4:11, 4:11, 4:11, 4:12, 4:12, 4:12, 4:12, 4:171, 4:176, 4:176, 6:101, 6:137, 6:140, 6:151, 8:28, 9:55, 9:69, 9:85, 10:68, 12:21, 17:31, 17:64, 17:111, 18:4, 18:39, 19:35, 19:77, 19:88, 19:91, 19:92, 21:26, 23:91, 25:2, 28:9, 31:33, 34:35, 34:37, 39:4, 43:81, 57:20, 58:17, 60:3, 60:12, 63:9, 64:14, 64:15, 71:21, 72:3

walid n.m. (pl. wildan) 4:75, 4:98, 4:127, 26:18, 56:17, 73:17, 76:19

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages: 220, 221, 222

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.

2:240 والذين and the ones يتوفون who die منكم from you ويذرون and leave أزواجا spouse?s وصية a will لأزواجهم for their spouse?s متاعا matāʿan provision إلى to الحول al-ḥawli the cycle غير not إخراج driving out فإن so if خرجن they leave فلا so not جناح blame عليكم on you في in ما what فعلن they do في in أنفسهن themselves من from معروف honorably والله and The God عزيز Mighty حكيم Wise

Inheritance verses are applied separate (IF no will) and after all bequests are paid.

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.

See above http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm Waw-Lam-Dal = to beget, give birth

37:152 ولد child/born/begot الله The God وإنهم and indeed they لكاذبون surely liars
3:47 قالت said رب Lord أنى how يكون will be لي to me ولد walad/son
4:11  إن if كان is له to person ولد walad/son فإن so if لم not يكن is له to person ولد child/born/begot

Plenty of examples: 4:11 and 54:17 للذكر to the male/remembrance (use context best non-contradicting meaning).

Now carefully read and re-test your basic IF THEN ELSE logic... 3 daughters, parents, wife

4:11 فإن so if كن be نساء females فوق above اثنتين two (feminine) فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds
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... 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/begot فإن so if كان is لكم to you ولد walad/son فلهن so for them الثمن the eight

IF no child/born THEN wife share = 1/4 (false, there are daughters i.e. children)
ELSE IF son THEN wife share = 1/8 (false, no son)
Thus wife share and parents for this case = variable

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

Peace!

[StopS]

And?

What have you added or improved? Nothing. You just repeat your position and think it suddenly works by magic.
On the one hand you show the multitude of meanings and then you assert that, when it suits you, it MUST only this.

You 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?

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

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

[Noon waalqalami]

And?

What have you added or improved? Nothing.

The verses distribute perfectly for every possible case...

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

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

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

You 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?

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

Surah 04 An-Nisaa Complete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4tyaki83aY
Scroll to verse 4:11 at 04:29 minute, walad/son 05:03 minute then waladun child/born/begot 05:07 minute.

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...

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

[Wakas]

peace StopS,

I am disappointed in your replies to Nun.

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.


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

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

[Wakas]

peace Nun,

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...

I agree that most of the time, telling such people can be a waste of time, however, sometimes, it can help refine/prove/disproe one's understanding. It is sometimes handy channelling their seemingly anti-islam fervour for one's own use, e.g. checking a theory one has.

For example, in the past, I posted Quran434.com's understanding on faithfreedom and offered a $ incentive if they were able to disprove it. No-one challenged. I did this to check my understanding, but also to expose the type of people you described. Some are heedless, and parrot what they've been told, but I like to think it may have made some think differently. God knows best.


My offer still stands.

[Noon waalqalami]

Peace Wakas,

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.

12:21 وقال and said الذي the one who اشتراه bought him من from مصر Egypt لامرأته to his woman/wife أكرمي make comfortable مثواه his stay عسى perhaps أن that ينفعنا he will benefit us أو or نتخذه we take him ولدا for a son (trailing alif denotes for)
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

Yes, the first ولد in verse 4:11 means son therefore parents get 1/6 fixed share only IF there is a son present else their shares are variable.

1 - 1/6 mother - 1/6 father = 2/3 son/s (variable)
1 - 1/6 mother/father = 5/6 (son/s + daughter/s) 2:1 ratio male to female

1 - 1/2 one daughter = 1/2 mother/father (variable)
1 - 2/3 three daughters (2/9 each) = 1/3 mother/father

Likewise the word can also mean child/born e.g. 4:12 husband only gets the fixed 1/4 if son is present, 1/2 if no child/born else if only daughters husband shares are variable/unstated.

19:15 وسلام and peace عليه upon him يوم day ولد wulida/born ويوم and day يموت he dies ويوم and day يبعث he is raised حيا alive
4:12 ولكم and for you نصف half ما what ترك left أزواجكم your spouse?s إن if لم not يكن was 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

1 - 1/4 husband (fixed, son=true) = 3/4 son/s (variable)
1 - 1/4 husband (fixed, son=true) = 3/4 (son/s + daughter/s) 2:1 ratio male to female

1 - 2/3 three daughters (2/9 each) = 1/3 husband (variable; son=false; no child/born=false)

1 - 1/2 husband (fixed, no child/born=true) = 1/2 mother/father (variable; son=false)

[StopS]

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

What Noon does is perform some magic and comes up with

[/quote]
1 - 2/3 (3 daughters, 2/9 each) = 1/3 (1/9 mother, 1/9 father, 1/9 wife)

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.

World 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

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.

[Mazhar]

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

"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.

[StopS]

peace StopS,

I am disappointed in your replies to Nun.

I am sorry to hear that. I will try to improve.

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.

This is what I asked:
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?
Why do you insist on introducing a son? Only because it serves your purpose?

Nothing was clearly explained. He just repeated a claim, without explanation. His main effort was a simple copy/paste exercise and repeating the inheritance paragraphs. I can do that myself, which is why I asked: Why? Where? Show me, what happened etc etc.

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

Not really. I disagree with the re-interpretation of a word, rendering the rest of the sentences largely useless, which has already been demonstrated above.

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.

Yes. Absolutely. Not only indirectly.

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.

And that has been my point all along.

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.

Ah, that could be an explanation, but does not answer the why.

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.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not identify this as the answer to my question.   My mistake, sorry.

And you are right, I disagree. WHY are other decrees considered after everything else is paid?
Here, we have an over-subscription - which, by the way, online inheritance calculators acknowledge -  and there should still be  "a year's maintenance and residence" paid from this? How?

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.

I agree and that's why it requires a clear explanation.

[Noon waalqalami]

Peace and welcome back StopS,

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?

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

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.

It explicitly starts and specifically addresses "your children" therefore about daughters...

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) ... IF MIXED 2:1 ratio male to female
فإن so if كن be نساء females فوق above اثنتين two (feminine) فلهن so for them ثلثا two thirds  ... ELSE IF females/daughters > 2  = 2/3
وإن and if كانت she was واحدة one فلها so for her النصف the half ... AND IF one/daughter = 1/2

Note: case of exactly two daughters "alone" is unstated and therefore variable.

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.

No. It says they get 1/6 fixed IF male/child/son present and continues ELSE IF no child/born (it's like a computer program) ...

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

Logically it all makes perfect sense since all the combinations/calculations distribute perfectly!

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.

No. You are not following the instructions in Qur'an which leads to errors and bad math.

Let me ask this -- why are all my calculations correct for all combinations and yours not?

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...

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.

Have a closer look it can mean son or child/born (use context apply best non-contradicting meaning).

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wld#(4:11:33)