Message #17437

[N. Truth Seeker]

Salam Sister Heba, Sister Zeynab.

My parents, sister and me have been working on this since yesterday, and your additional input was truly helpful.   Even if you read the entire Verse 4:12 from the start, the portion of the Verse we're discussing doesn't give reasons to be seen as reference to half siblings.

Let me quote the entire Verse 4:12:
"And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they [may have] made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you [may have] made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt, as long as there is no detriment [caused]. [This is] an ordinance from Allah , and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing."   4:12  (sahih international translation).

Okay .... as we can understand easily, a widower (male) gets half of his wife's inheritance if there is no child.  If there is a child, then the widowed husband gets one-fourth.    A widow (female) gets one-fourth of her husband's inheritance if there is no child.  If there is a child, then she gets one-eighth.   And then the Verse mentions of the situation we're discussing, the contents of which seem quite independent.  Right?

I also must say that several translators have stirred quite a confusion with their incorrect translations to keep it in conformity with the traditional opinion of half siblings.  Let me quote some as follows:

"And if the man or woman has no heir in the direct line, but has a brother or sister,"   (traslation Islamic Studies UK).

"If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister,"   (traslation Yusuf Ali).

Muhsin Ali has translated much the same as Yusuf Ali.

"If a man or a woman have no heir direct, but have a brother or a sister,"  (translation Arberry)

Pickthall mentions "distant heir" and that too not in brackets when the original does not say "distant." 

Word by word English translation of the Quran says "And if a man is to be inherited" (meaning whose wealth is to be inherited) ...... the original Quranic word for "inherited" is 'yurasu.'   So I don't know why those translators are putting up clearly wrong translations like "inheritance in question" and "heir direct"  and "distant heir."    Well, that's our great advantage of having the original Quran preserved with us, Alhumdulilah, so we can monitor the changes the translators make.    However, on this issue my goal is only to find the likely reason for the differing inheritances in both verses for siblings .. and as you correctly said, there sure got to be a reason.  In case it does refer to half siblings, I want to know which circle of traditional studies it's coming from and the analysis of this opinion.  InshAllah, I shall continue my endeavors in this regard.

Thank you very much Sister Heba for your additional, logically evaluated opinion.  It was helpful as always.
 
My mom is of the opinion that your reading of Verse 4:12 referring to the deceased having only spouse and siblings  and Verse 4:176 as deceased having only siblings makes a lot of sense.  But my dad agrees with the other opinion more, that it refers to half siblings because he thinks that if the difference in inheritance amounts in both Verses is because of the possible presence of spouse in Verse 4:12, then Allah Almighty would have mentioned it.  Furthermore, my dad also thinks that since it's stated in both Verses that the deceased is childless, thus that probably denotes an unmarried person as a standard description, that is, the deceased is unmarried ....  though marriages can certainly also be childless which is also referred in the first portion of Verse 4:12 quoted above.

At the end of the day, you're right, it doesn't make much difference to that lady's will.  Maybe she can make a few adjustments.  If I was in her shoes, I would try to adjust my will in accordance with Verse 4:176 as apparently her situation fits better in this Verse.  I mean, she can keep a reasonable bequest for the niece and divide the rest between the bad brothers .. though jerks .. after all they happen to be her full biological brothers and for the benefit of her own soul in the Hereafter, she cannot ignore them as much as she may understandably want to.

Any ideas on circumstantial adjustments while following Verse 4:176 with a bequest so that testate can keep it closest to the instructions of this Verse?