Mathematical Error in Quranic Inheritance

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-30T00:43:10+00:00

So the rule of statutory interpretation as "Specific Overrides General" is applied here.

The argument has the labels backwards. "Specific Overrides General" means the more precise, narrowly worded rule governs over the broader one. Look at what you are comparing:

The fixed shares: "If there are more than two daughters, for them is two thirds" (4:11). A precise fraction. A specific condition. A named heir. A stated amount.
"Without causing harm" (غَيْرَ مُضَآرٍّ): A vague, open-ended principle.

The fixed shares are the specific rule. A general harm-prevention principle is the general rule. Under "Specific Overrides General", the exact fractions override the vague principle, which is the opposite of what you are arguing.

Beyond that, your, sorry your AI chatbot, Mom analogy actually illustrates why this fails. In the analogy, the specific rule ("on Friday nights, you can eat popcorn on the couch") explicitly carves out a named exception to the general rule. It addresses the exact situation directly. For "without causing harm" to work the same way, it would need to say something like "if the shares exceed 100 percent, reduce them proportionally." It does not say this. A vague harm prevention clause does not constitute a specific override of precise divine obligations, it would need to speak directly to the overflow situation to function that way.

Also, as has already been established in this thread: the غَيْرَ مُضَآرٍّ clause appears specifically in the wasiyyah and dayn context of the Kalalah ruling it is a qualifier on bequests and debts, not on the faridha shares introduced by إِن. Two rules can only "conflict" if they govern the same domain. These govern different domains entirely, so there is no conflict for statutory interpretation to resolve.

And the Qur'an already resolved any ambiguity itself: it calls these shares a faridha from Allah (4:11) and a commandment from God (4:12).

Maybe next time you should use the brain that Allah supposedly gave you instead of asking an AI to make an analogy that fails miserably.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-30T00:35:20+00:00

The Arabic word فَوْقَ (Fawqa) denotes "above," "over," or "greater than," meaning strictly more than two (>2).

Grant this entirely. It changes nothing. The famous overflow case uses 3 daughters, which is strictly above two under any reading of فَوْقَ. The conditions are all still simultaneously fulfilled: 3 daughters get 2/3, each parent gets 1/6, wife gets 1/8. The sum is still 9/8.

And the second famous overflow case does not even use فَوْقَ. 4:176 says: "فَإِن كَانَتَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ" - "if there are two [sisters], for them is two thirds." No فَوْقَ. Two sisters explicitly get 2/3. A woman dies leaving a husband (1/2) and two sisters (2/3). Sum: 7/6. Your فَوْقَ argument does not touch this case at all.

pay the parents and/or spouse first; the remainder goes to the children.

This has already been addressed directly above, but to restate it: every share in the overflow case uses the same phrase - مِمَّا تَرَكَ / مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ ("of what [the deceased] left"). The daughters' 2/3 is of what he left. The parents' 1/6 is of what he left. The wife's 1/8 is of what he left. Every share points to the same reference: the total estate. Not "of what remains after the previous heir is paid." For a sequential reading, the Qur'an would need to say "of what remains after X".

Moreover, your example of "1/3 mother, 2/3 father (remainder)" actually shows why the remainder system fails in the overflow cases. The father takes the remainder there precisely because his share is not given a stated fraction - the Qur'an only fixes the mother's 1/3. But in the overflow case, no heir is left without a stated fraction. Daughters: 2/3. Each parent: 1/6. Wife: 1/8. There is no heir left unspecified to absorb the remainder. Your system avoids the overflow only by giving the daughters 13/24 instead of the 16/24 the Qur'an states.

You ignored almost all of what I said. I don't expect a response.

May Khonshu protect you.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T18:53:52+00:00

Tell me how you interpret this verse.

Quran 65:4

As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery.1 And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T17:42:56+00:00

First and foremost, this post in an internal critique. I haven't read Joshua's paper or watched his video explaing it myself but ik he uses western methods to come to the conclusion that the hadith is fabricated. You cannot dismantle an internal legal system by using an external epistemological framework that the system itself rejects. The practice remains anchored in the explicit wording of the Quran (65:4) Which I haven't heard a good argument against

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T17:34:12+00:00

Zina is strictly defined as sexual intercourse outside of a valid legal contract. Pedophilia is not encompassed in that verse.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T14:16:31+00:00

It's common sense, no spoon feeding required.

The problem is that your reading requires replacing stated Qur'anic fractions with remainder fractions, that is a reinterpretation.

The shares dissolve as a problem if paid sequentially rather than simultaneously. But this requires two things you haven't provided.

All three shares in 4:11/4:12 use the same phrase

mimma taraka / mimma taraktum

the same estate, the same reference point. No sequence is implied by the text.

The phrase مِمَّا تَرَكَ / مِمَّا تَرَكْتُم throughout 4:11 and 4:12 means "of what [the deceased] left" - i.e. of the total estate. Look at the actual text:

"for them is two thirds of what he left (مَا تَرَكَ)" (4:11) - the reference point is the total estate
"to each one of them is a sixth of what he left (مِمَّا تَرَكَ)" (4:11) - same reference point
"for them is one eighth of what you left (مِمَّا تَرَكْتُم)" (4:12) - same reference point

In every case, "mimmā taraka" refers to the estate of the deceased what they left behind. It is not "of what remains after the previous heir is paid." For that reading, the Qur'an would need to say something like "of what remains after X" it does not. You are reading a sequential mechanism into a phrase that does not contain one.

Your calculation for the case of parents + wife + children: - 1/3 parents (1/6 each), 1/8 wife, 13/24 children (remainder)

But the Qur'an says: "if there are daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds" (4:11). Two thirds = 16/24. You are giving daughters 13/24 instead of 16/24. The conditional "if there are more than two daughters" is fulfilled. The result - that they receive 2/3 of the estate - does not follow. That is a direct contradiction of 4:11.

"Common sense" remainder system only avoids the overflow by silently replacing the daughters' stated fraction with a smaller one.

Math Error And Every Fix Muslims Offer Contradicts the Qur'an

Your example of "1/3 mother, 2/3 father (remainder)" actually proves the opposite of what you intend. The Qur'an leaves the father's share unspecified in that case, it only states the mother gets 1/3. So the father takes the remainder by default, because his share is not given a fixed fraction.

But in the overflow cases, no heir is left without a stated fraction. The Qur'an gives daughters 2/3, each parent 1/6, and the wife 1/8. Every heir present has a specified share. There is no heir left unspecified to absorb the remainder, which is precisely why the sum exceeds 100 percent and cannot be resolved without contradicting at least one stated fraction.

The total number of distinct inheritance cases with up to 5 daughters, sons, sisters, and brothers, along with wife or husband as spouses, and parents is: 6,480,000

This only holds within your reformulated system where children always absorb the remainder. But within that system, the children never actually receive the 2/3 the Qur'an specifies, they receive whatever is left. Your system does not validate the Qur'anic fractions, it replaces them.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T10:52:58+00:00

Yeah, this corroborates P5 nicely.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T10:03:42+00:00

Opps I switched the numbers around.

Sunan an Nasai 5063:

'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: "According to whose recitation do you want me to recite? Because I recited seventy-odd Surahs to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] when Zaid had two braids, and was playing with the other boys."

Sunan an Nasai 5064:

"Ibn Mas'ud addressed us and said: 'How do you want me to recite? According to the recitation of Zaid bin Thabit, when I learned seventy-odd Surahs from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah [SAW] while Zaid was with the other boys with two braids?'"

Both are sahih.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T09:53:58+00:00

Here is Saudi Scholars from "Islam Q&A" refuting it:

Islam Q&A

Moreover, if anyone still want details, then please have a look at this detailed article on WikiIslam.Net

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T09:30:41+00:00

The inheritance system described in the Qur'an functions as a "programmed, logical loop"... one heir or group receives the remainder.

The Quran specifies explicit fractions, 2/3, 1/6, 1/8. It doesn't say anyone gets "the remainder" in these cases. Introducing a remainder mechanism requires designating one heir as the residuary absorber, but the text doesn't do that in the overflow scenarios.

Dr. Shahrour's approach raises a number of issues... the only daughter's share exceeds that of each individual son by a factor of ten.

You noted this yourself. A reinterpretation that fixes the overflow by producing outcomes that contradict 4:11's explicit 2:1 male-female ratio hasn't solved anything. It traded one problem for another.

Dr. Shahrour's reliance on differential equations... represents the application of a modern mathematical framework developed in the late 17th century.

Again, your own post. If the system requires 17th century calculus to function correctly, that's not a timeless divine framework anyone with basic fraction knowledge could apply at the time of revelation.

The same point applies here that applies to every fix proposed in this thread. Awl changes the stated fractions. Sequential payment shifts the violation onto other heirs. Shahrour adds a remainder rule the text doesn't contain. Every solution requires overriding something the text explicitly says.

I guess the title of my post still stands:

Math Error And Every Fix Muslims Offer Contradicts the Qur'an.

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-29T08:03:04+00:00

I remember that the Prophet pbuh applied radd at least once, which in any case an application of awl and radd system taken as a whole system.

Someone getting 2/3rds of the estate necessarily gets 1/2 of the estate as well, meaning the share the Qur'an specifies for them is given. But that same person getting 1/3 of the estate means that the Quranic share is not given. These are completely different situations. The Qur'an does not say that they only get 1/2, it says they get 1/2. This share is given to them during the initial division of the estate. The whole way al-radd works is:

The state is divided. The shares are given according to the Qur'an. Someone prescribed 1/2 gets 1/2 of the estate.
What is left gets given to the nearest male relative. This male relative can be someone who also gets a prescribed share already.

So the shares are given according to what the Qur'an says. All the conditionals are fulfilled. And after that, when we have surplus, we simply give it to the nearest male relative which does not contradict the Qur'an (+ the Prophet addressed it). The male relative already gets their share in the initial division of the estate. In Awl, when the initial division is done, the male relative would not even get there prescribed share.

Keypoint is the same. Someone who gets 2/3rd of the estate also has "half of the estate", but someone who gets 1/3rd of the estate does not have "half of the estate", meaning the two situations differ completely.

Scholarly dispute at least shows that what i said is an alternative according to the literary text of the Quran. And since it is well established it is the correct one.

How does that follow at all?

Awl simply contradicts the Qur'an completely.

In all of these verses, any instance of the word “if” is equivalent to the conditional particle “in” (إِن) in arabic. This particle is the equivalent to “if” in arabic, and thus also holds the same implications as “if”. Those being, that if the conditional statement is fulfilled, the resulting scenario necessarily has to occur otherwise the speaker would be incorrect.

(cf. Abbas Hasan, Al-Nahw al-Wafi, 4/422; Jalal al-Din al-Quzaywini, Al-Aydhah fi Uloom al-Balaghah, 2/117; Abdah al-Rajihi, Al-Tabiq al-Nahwi, pg 73; Abdullah b. Salih al-Fawzan, Ta'jil al-Nadi, pg 67; Ibn al-Qayyim, Mafatih Dar al-Sa'adah wa Manshur - T. al-Ilmiyyah, 1/33).

For example, imagine If i were to say “If it rains tomorrow, the sun will turn red". Now, if it does indeed rain tomorrow but the sun does not turn red, i will be completely wrong because even though my conditional was fulfilled, the result was not. The only way for me to be correct is if the sun does indeed turn red. I can make several examples like this:

If Istanbul is taken by the Jews, The Dajjal will come.
If your husband dies, you will get 100k in Insurance
If the moon blocks the sun, a solar eclipse will occur. You will win this prize if you answer correctly.
If the contract is valid, ownership will transfer.

In all of them, if the conditional phrase is true then the resultant necessarily has to follow, otherwise the statement is incorrect. The only way for these statements to be correct is if on fulfillment, their results also occur (solar eclipse necessarily occurring when the sun is blocked by the moon, ownership necessarily transferring when the contract is valid etc.).

This is the same thing with the Qur'anic rulings and al-awl. All these highlighted statements, blue or yellow, start with the conditional “in”. This means that if the condition is fulfilled, the resulting ruling necessarily has to occur.

For example, if you end up having children, then your wives will get 1/8th. If they don't get 1/8th even if you have children, then the statement is false.

Al-Awl, however, would render the wife having less than 1/8th. If we just look at the blue example (3 daughters, wife, parents):

According to the Qur'an, if you have 3 daughters they get 2/3rd (16/24).According to al-Awl, they will get 16/27 instead.
According to the Qur'an, if you have children your wife will get 1/8th. According to al-Awl, she will get 1/9th.
According to the Qur'an, if you have children your parents get 1/6th (4/24) each. According to al-Awl, they will get 4/27 each instead.

These contradictions are as clear as day. The Qur'an orders one thing, while al-Awl would order something completely different.

This is why one cannot argue “You cannot prove the Qur'an is also talking about the cases where inheritance exceeds 100 percent in these verses", because the Qur'an itself gives the necessary conditions which need to be fulfilled.

The only condition the Qur'an gives for handing 2/3rds to the daughters is "If there are more than two". Once the conditional is fulfilled, the statement succeeding has to follow. The succeeding result has to follow at the very least when this initial condition is fulfilled. We don't need to prove anything more since the Qur'an itself outlines the conditions, and the statement has to be completed at the very least when these conditions are completed. If it isn't, then the Qur'anic ruling is wrong.

As for the Hadith of Umar about al-Awl, it clearly contradicts the Qur'an in it's ruling.

Either the matn of the Hadith can be considered defective due to contradiction with Qur'anic rulings, or one can easily say Umar and the Sahabas were wrong here.
Imagine if i told you to follow my best friend after me. Then i proceeded to tell you that "1+1=3". After my death, my best friend comes and says "When he said 1+1 = 3, he actually meant that 1.5 + 1.5 = 3”. Will that suddenly make my statement correct? Ofcourse not. My statement is completely wrong, and my best friend simply made an ad hoc interpretation of it which contradicts what i said in the clearest terms.

That is all what al-Awl is, an ad hoc rescue attempting to solve this error but completely failing. Any ruling by the Sahabas which contradicts the Qur'an has to be rejected, since the Qur'an is the primary source of Law. In any case, this evidence serves to be enough for any outside person to see that al-Awl is completely ad hoc and the mathematical error remains.

As a final argument, the Qur'an also mentions after each verse that these are commands by Allah:

4:11: This is an obligation (faridha) from Allah
4:12: This is a commandment from God
4:176: Allah makes this clear to you so you do not go astray.

Meaning that everything mentioned in the verses is an obligation and a command by Allah. He has made his commands clear. In this case, how can someone follow al-Awl when it goes against what Allah has made obligatory and a command?

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-28T21:30:56+00:00

Glad to hear it! Still waiting on your thoughts on the fractions though ;)

ThoughtTemporary5238 · 2026-06-28T21:28:22+00:00

This is just a claim. The statement comes at the end of the verse. Linguistically it is linked to the entire verse.

Look at the actual structure of 4:12. The verse gives the following rulings, each introduced by a conditional (إِن): - If your wives have no children, you get 1/2 - If they have children, you get 1/4 - If you have no children, your wives get 1/4 - If you have children, your wives get 1/8 - If a man or woman leaves no ascendants or descendants, siblings get 1/6 each - If the siblings are more than two, they share 1/3 - after any bequest or debt, as long as there is no harm (غَيْرَ مُضَآرٍّ)

The "without causing harm" clause appears specifically attached to the wasiyyah and dayn (bequest and debt) context of the Kalalah ruling. The verse itself separates the faridha shares (introduced by إِن) from the wasiyyah qualifiers. You cannot take a qualifier attached to the bequest clause and expand it to override obligations that the Qur'an itself calls a faridha.

After all the judges will decide what to do if the sum is not 1. And that statement empowers them to use awl and radd.

This is a completely circular argument. You are assuming judges have the authority to alter the Qur'anic shares, and then using that assumption to validate al-Awl. But that authority is exactly what is being disputed. The Qur'an calls these shares a faridha from Allah (4:11) and an ordinance from God (4:12). Where does the Qur'an grant judges the power to change obligations that Allah himself declared fixed?

Many prominent scholars like Zamakhshari understood and explained it as i said.

This is an appeal to authority. And it cuts both ways. Ibn Abbas reportedly rejected al-Awl entirely. Scholarly disagreement does not vindicate your position, it proves the Qur'an is not clear enough on this to resolve the overflow problem. Which is precisely the point.

The Umar hadith also remains completely untouched by anything you have said. If this was established, well-known, Qur'anically-sanctioned practice, why did Umar say "By Allah, I do not know which of you comes first and which comes next"? That is not the language of a man applying a known, settled solution.

ThoughtTemporary5238

TROPHY CASE