Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The inheritance mistake in detail - Part 3

The next mistake and more

Second math mistake

How would you split the inheritance if a woman dies, leaving behind a husband and a brother but no children or parents?
Husband: x%
Brother: y%

Let's go to the verses for an answer:
4:12 "
In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child"
Husband: 1/2

4:12 "
If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; "
Brother: 1/6

4:176 "Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance"
Brother: 1/1 (100%)

So the final numbers are:
Husband: 1/2 or 50%
Brother: 7/6 or 117%, already over 100 because 176 and 12 contradict each other

One silly discussion I had with a Muslim ended up with him asserting that a wife was different than a woman. So his excuse for the Quran was that verse 12 refers to a wife and verse 176 refers to a woman. Hmmm, so a wife is not a woman in Islam? Seriously, if this were true, then why would it say "
If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child"? There should be no reason to say "who left no child."

And there's more issue with these set of verses. Verse 176 directly contradicts 12 in that it provides a different inheritance for the brother when the woman has no parents or one case it's 1/6 and in the other it's 6/6 or 100%. This second issue has been formally recognized by Muslims, and has been a source of significant debate(
Commentators are of opinion that by a brother or a sister here is meant a brother or a sister on the mother’s side and that the case of real brothers and sisters, or brothers and sisters on the father’s side, is dealt with in v. 176 of this chapter. The reason for this is that here as well as in v. 176, the property to be inherited is that of a kalalah, and it is generally supposed that a kalalah is one who has neither parents nor children. But as a matter of fact kalalah bears two meanings. It means the person who has no children whether he has parents or not, and it also means the person who has neither children nor parents. It is derived from kalla which means he became tired or f a t i g u e d, and therefore its primary significance would be the person who has no c h i l d r e n. I‘Ab is reported to have explained this word as meaning one who does not leave offspring whether he leaves parents or not. ‘Umar also is reported to have said that kalalah is one who has no children, that is all; see Ghara’ib al-Qur’an. Hence it is more reasonable to take the kalalah spoken of here as being different from the kalalah spoken of in v. 176. The kalalahin the present case is one who has no children but has parents, and therefore the brothers and sisters are not the only heirs and their share is only one-sixth, while the kalalahspoken of in v. 176 is one who leaves neither children norparents, and therefore the brothers and the sisters take the whole of the inheritance.
Now if you had the patience to follow the apologetics, you will see that this author has decided that the same word, kalalah, has two different meanings for 12 and for 176. In 12, he decides (against all three translations that USC uses) that the prescriptions are for one that has parents and 176 refers only to one that has parents and children. While this has no basis in the translations, it still does not solve the problem that started this blog post.

You may have also noticed another solution proposed in that long bit of apologetics: "
Commentators are of opinion that by a brother or a sister here is meant a brother or a sister on the mother’s side and that the case of real brothers and sisters, or brothers and sisters on the father’s side, is dealt with in v. 176 of this chapter. "

However, this solution still does not solve the problem starting the post, and actually causes more problems. Without going through the math, imagine dividing the inheritance among a many sisters from the mother's side and many "real" sisters from the father's side plus spouse and/or parent. You're over 100% pretty quickly.

All of this is quite funny when considering that 176 also states "Allah makes clear to you." Apparently silly Allah has quite a sense of humor.

More debunking of Muslim apologetics on the inheritance mistakes to come in the next post
because I ran out of time and space here.


Khalid said...

It is not Allah who is silly but our understanding of His wisdom. Try BODMAS principle and reach straight path.

For thos who winced at BODMAS (Bracket open, divide, multiply, add and then subtract).

Silly Allah said...

Let me guess - you found this off of Naik's fallacy-filled website, but, like everybody else, could not see any logic in it. So you thought you could counter the logic presented here by just repeating an acronym.

To be direct. We all understand how to do arithmetic (that is, except Allah) - BODMAS or not. The BODMAS excuse by Naik is really the same as the Residues and Remainders excuse that you can see by following the link. Unfortunately for that excuse, there is no basis for it in the Quran and it contradicts other Muslim doctrines such as Al-Awl. It came about because Muslims themselves realized that there were errors, and needed a better system than Allah's for Sharia to work.

To prove my point Khalid - please, for all our readers to see, solve the inheritance distribution for either the first or second mistake.

Khalid said...

Please do not mention how you discussed the inheritance issue with a muslim and he claimed bla bla..
This does not add credence to your allegation and misunderstanding of Islamic issues. Not every muslim is a scholar of all Quranic subjects. I appreciate the amount of time you spend in finding faults with Quran but regret wondering why you do it? What is it that bothers you about or against Islam?

Digressing from above, if BODMAS didn't impress you, try this the following link

I seldom enter into debates with anyone. While debating, participants tend to let their ego do the talking. For this very reason I disagree with Debaters including Zakir Naik!

It is unjust on your part to publish fallacies without first researching the topic. It is unfair to collect articles as facts from known anti Islamic websites. They will reinforce your faulty view points and lead you astray. Please do not take my use of 'you' as an offence. It happens with all of us, no matter how unbiased we prove ourselves to be. For instance, if I want to reply to your criticism, I would visit some authentic website and collect the readymade reply on the said issue. But it is not the right approach. When I face an issue, upto my best extent, I try to visit atleast couple of anti Islamic websites and then Islamic ones to find the answer.

I have no intention to debate with you. Quran is an open book, whoever wants guidance from it, go for it. One who wants to cross roads, its his choice!


just one request, keep your website decent, keep criticising the Prophet, the Quran or Islam but don't call names. It does no good to you but unnecessarily hurts us.

Bi Bi

Silly Allah said...

You left a number of questions and comments in your last post, and I'll try to go through them.

First, you seem to make the assumption that all of what I've written here is from looking at anti-Islam sites. That's false. I've actually spent more time at pro-Islam sites, which is why I knew about the poor BODMAS excuse on Zakir Naik's site. I've also done my own primary research to demonstrate the fallacies at pro-Islam sites (for a good example, go to this blog post on Allah's Ezra (Uzair) mistake in the Quran).

Second, your technique of cutting/pasting or linking to other people's work demonstrates that you don't follow your own criticism. Both of the sites you've pointed to have fallacies in them. If you had taken the time to read them, you would've realized that and opened your eyes.

For example, you would have realized that your last link had no answer for the 2nd math mistake I posted in the very post you're commenting on. You would have also realized that the author in the link misleads his audience to solve the 1st math mistake. It claims the Arabic use of the word "walad" instead of "awalad" means that the [1/6 + 1/6] distribution to parents should only happen if there is "only one child." This is clearly false because, if you check the Arabic, the word "only" is not there, it is only (!) in the author's head. The grammar is "has a child" and the corresponding negative...and, as in English, this could easily be interchanged with "has children" and the corresponding negative as Yusuf Ali did in his translation. As further proof, the author's understanding contradicts the Sunni and Shia solutions to the problem, which are Al-Awl and ordering of reminders as discussed in my original post on the Islamic inheritance mistake. Somehow, though, the author has a new solution which he mysteriously refers to with the following, "The details of this case is left to the comprehensive nature of the Islamic Shariah which does not depend on the Quran alone. " My guess is that the author knows he is being misleading, and thus refuses to solve the actual math in his article :). If you don't believe me, check every other pro-Islam site for the solution to the problem. Simply put, the Quran makes an error.

You claim that you have "no intention to debate," but leaving behind links or cut/pastes is no different. Why don't you follow your own criticism and do the primary research on the inheritance mistake and the Ezra mistake instead of being a blind believer?

For the readers, I've cut and pasted from Khalid's link to demonstrate more fallacies employed within that article. Here you can see a perfect example of the tu quoque fallacy where the author points to the Bible as being worse rather than answer a serious question about unjustified distributions by Katz of (I go through the same inheritance issue here). There are of course many ad-hominem attacks on Katz as well.

Katz complains that the Quran often does not provide for the estate to be exhaustively distributed. When the allotted shares are added they amount to less than 100%. His persistent question, therefore, is "Who gets the rest?" Since the Quran claims to be a complete guidance, it should provide instructions on such details.

The Bible is a much larger book than the Quran. Yet it contains less on inheritance than the Quran. And it too claims to be a complete guidance. How does Katz regard this?

The Quran is said to be about 4/5 the length of the New Testament. The Old Testament is much longer than the New Testament. And the Bible is made up of both testaments. Why is it that a book of such size include so little on a subject that Katz considers so important? continues...

Then he[Katz] concludes that if he dies leaving a daughter as his only child his daughter would get half the estate and such a remote male relative would get the other half. Then comes his expression of incredulity:

". . . this remote male relative would get half the inheritance? As much as my daughter? That is what the hadith would suggest."

Aside from his misunderstanding of the said hadith and of Islamic inheritance law, Katz should be advised that if he follows the Bible on this matter his daughter may get nothing


Katz's point is valid because the closest male is supposed to get the remainder according to the Hadith since the Quran is not prescriptive enough. The website asserts that Katz is wrong without facts, and switches topics to the Bible instead. For us atheists, this fallacy has no affect on the point's logic. The Quran/Hadith is unjust, plain and simple.

imapest said...

Dear Brother,

I think u love hypocrite allah who can be called as copy cat,SORRY but thats a fact,the so called ISLAM is the latest religion in mankind,

And is u r an asian they u r not even a MUSLIM coz more then 87% muslims are converted mainly by Mughals,if u read Quran is inspired main from Bible,Hinduism,Jewish,budhism etc

Islamic TERRORIST have killed more then 15000 innocent lives,wish there was no islam at all so 15000 lives must have been saved

Oh yes,Your Allah shud thanks the Hindus scientist Aryabhatt who invented number without him u ppl will not be able to write Quran at all

Go to GOOGLE & type FAULTS IN QURAN u will find more then 150 websites some are funny too & i am still laughing


Go here too

u will find interesting facts abt ur so called religion,

& yes in the world there were only two religion HINDU & CHINESE does that mean all muslims first were HINDU or CHINESE which were forcely or delebrately converted

There are thousands of ponint & lots of faults in QURAN the problem in ur religion is HINDUS CHRISTAIN can mold their mentality with time but u ppl still want to follow the same rules which were written 1400yrs back,TIME IS CHANGING,better u pppl change a u know most of the terrorist countried are islamic

Short of time


Omar said...

the problem is easy if you actually understood inheritance. The Husband takes his share, 1/2, and the brother takes the remainder, in this case, 1/2.

You claim this contradicts awl because you incorrectly identified this case as an issue of awl in the first place. You also failed to identify if this was a full brother or a half-brother, from a father or a mother, where the shariah applies different rulings for each... you really just don't know what you're doing with these verses and you should really stop putting your foot in your mouth.

The issue of handling remainders is taught to us by the Prophet Mohammad. The verses of inheritance of highly technical, I'm not surprised that you can't solve the cases correctly from your readings of the translations on some website. If you tried to do the equivalent of this here in America, we would laugh at you and call you an armchair-lawyer. If you tried to do it professionally, they would throw you in jail for unauthorized practice of law. What makes you think you can just read the verses and make the rulings when nothing else in life works like that? Even if you read them in arabic without then studying them, you would certainly make many mistakes. Solving cases of inheritance, like all laws and lawyering, take serious study by serious minds. You might be able to give them a quick read and confuse a Muslim that doesn't understand their own ignorance, but you won't get very far with someone who has studied them.

Silly Allah said...

Omar - you sent a bunch of comments, but this one is my favorite.

First, you say "the problem is easy if you actually understood inheritance. "

But I thought the Quran was perfect and that silly Allah specifically said that "Allah makes clear to you" the inheritance laws (4:176). The words are very straightforward on their own - it's just that they lead to math errors each and every time.

Look, I've read more than you can believe on this issue. What frustrates you is that I won't buy into fixes for Allah's simple math mistakes. These fixes are not based on anything in the Quran, but instead on human beings attempting to fix something that a supposedly supernatural being said. If you were self-critical, you'd realize that this clearly invalidates the idea that a supernatural being created the Quran. There are just too many mistakes, some that are even simple math.

Now, let's continue. You next wrote:
"The Husband takes his share, 1/2, and the brother takes the remainder, in this case, 1/2. "

Why do you say the brother takes 1/2.
Please justify using only the Quran.

Let's just do that - this should be interesting.

Omar said...

The brother's share is the remainder - we have it from the Prophet Mohammad, who understood the Quran and taught us how to implement it. I see you already know the answer to this question as you referred to it in an earlier comment. Honestly, you can't be the kind of extremist who says "I want 600 pages of Quran to answer every question about Islamic law." So-called progressive Muslims today apply the same fallacious logic again and again, mostly because they are ignorant of the sources of Islamic law.

If you were at all self-critical or at the very least checked your own math, you would see that the brother's share cannot be 1/1 in every case. That would mean every single other share mentioned by these verses is always invalidated by the existence of a brother, which is never ever the case.

I do believe you have read quite a bit on "Islam," I just think you have read them with an agenda, looking for bits to question and misrepresent rather than trying to glean a comprehensive and objective understanding of Islam. I know many people who have spent a lot of time reading incredible amounts of drivel on Islam, the result being they cannot distinguish between a verse of Quran and a hadith, or can't seem to comprehend, as you are now having trouble comprehending, that the reliance on any source of authority that is not Quran does not mean the Quran is not a "complete guidance"...

Silly Allah said...

I said this:
"Why do you say the brother takes 1/2.
Please justify using only the Quran."

And you could not do it. Why?

Omar said...

Please justify using only the Quran."

And you could not do it. Why?

because there are many wonderful sources of Islamic law besides the Quran, and the answer to your question, as you already know, is in the hadith literature, not in the Quran.

If you say that this somehow brings fault to Quran, then I would suggest a less selective reading of the Quran. At least a dozen verses of the Quran instruct us to seek guidance and understanding in the practice of the Prophet Mohammad.

I'll give you the example of ritualistic purification (ablution). The Quran gives us oh.. 4-5 steps, the rest come from hadith literature including clarifications on how to implement the steps the Quran does mention. Does this mean the Quran is incomplete? No. It just means the Quran is general guidance, more an appeal to follow the law rather than a compilation of what the law is. I said this elsewhere on your blog, I think in your Ezra posting (but I'm not sure you approved my comment yet), that you can't read the Quran as a comprehensive book with all the rules of Islam. Allah chose what to reveal as Quran and what to instruct the Prophet with through the angel Gabriel. The Prophet Mohammad did not consider this a fault, and neither did the companions around him, and neither do Muslims today. You should try a different plan of attack; this one is really getting nowhere with me.

Silly Allah said...

"because there are many wonderful sources of Islamic law besides the Quran, and the answer to your question, as you already know, is in the hadith literature, not in the Quran."

So you admit, then, that the Quran is imperfect on it's own? That it creates mathematical errors that it cannot solve by itself?

Anonymous said...

u r nothing but a real fool who pretend be all knowing but know a little,do u know islamic law is consist of 4 things-not only quran,but hadith,ijma and qias. muslim maintain all, in quran many r in short form but the interprtation is in remaining 3 sources..

Silly Allah said...

ahh queenbadonti, you start out with the usual ad hominem "fool" yet you failed even to understand the point of these conversations.

You see of all of the sources of Islamic law, only the Quran claims to be divine. Only the Quran claims to be the word of Allah. If it is the word of Allah and if it is thus divine, it cannot have any errors. Yet it does have errors. The Quran has many errors in fact.