Ask Ghamidi

A Community Driven Discussion Portal
To Ask, Answer, Share And Learn

Forums Forums Islamic Sharia The Economic Shariah (Qanoon-e-Maeeshat): (5) Distribution Of Inheritance

  • The Economic Shariah (Qanoon-e-Maeeshat): (5) Distribution Of Inheritance

    Posted by Umer on July 25, 2020 at 6:32 am

    Summary:

    The wealth of every Muslim must necessarily be distributed after his death among his heirs in the following manner:

    If the deceased has outstanding debts to his name, then first of all they should be paid off from the wealth he has left behind. After this, any will he may have bequeathed should be paid. The distribution of his inheritance should then follow.

    No will can be made in favour of an heir ordained by the Almighty except if his circumstances, or the services rendered by him or his needs in certain situations call for it. Similarly, a person who has severed the foundations of kinship with a person through his words and deeds cannot be his heir.

    After giving the parents and the spouses their shares, the children are the heirs of the remaining inheritance. If the deceased does not have any male offspring and there are only two or more girls among the children, then they shall receive two-thirds of the inheritance left over, and if there is only one girl, then her share is one-half. If the deceased has only male children, then all his wealth shall be distributed among them. If he leaves behind both boys and girls, then the share of each boy shall be equal to the share of two girls and, in this case also, all his wealth shall be distributed among them.

    In the absence of children, the deceased’s brothers and sisters shall take their place. After giving the parents and spouses their shares, the brothers and sisters shall be his heirs. The proportion of their shares and the mode of distribution shall be the same as that of the children stated above.

    If the deceased has children or if he does not have children and has brothers and sisters, then the parents shall receive a sixth each. If he does not even have brothers and sisters and the parents are the sole heirs, then one-third of his wealth shall be given to the mother and two-thirds to the father.

    If the deceased is a man and he has children, then his wife shall receive one-eighth of what he leaves, and if he does not have any children, then his wife’s share shall be one-fourth. If the deceased is a woman and does not have any children, then her husband shall receive one-half of what she leaves and if she has children, then the husband’s share is one-fourth.

    In the absence of these heirs, the deceased can make someone an heir. If the person who is made an heir is a relative and has one brother or one sister, then they shall be given a sixth of his share and he himself shall receive the remaining five-sixth. However, if he has more than one brother or sister, then they shall be given a third of his share and he himself shall receive the remaining two-thirds.

    (Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

    (Translated by Dr. Shehzad Saleem)

    Umer replied 3 years, 6 months ago 2 Members · 37 Replies
  • 37 Replies
  • The Economic Shariah (Qanoon-e-Maeeshat): (5) Distribution Of Inheritance

    Umer updated 3 years, 6 months ago 2 Members · 37 Replies
  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:00 am

    Detailed Law:

    I

    كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَكُمْ الْمَوْتُ إِنْ تَرَكَ خَيْرًا الْوَصِيَّةُ لِلْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُتَّقِينَ فَمَنْ بَدَّلَهُ بَعْدَمَا سَمِعَهُ فَإِنَّمَا إِثْمُهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَيُبَدِّلُونَهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ فَمَنْ خَافَ مِنْ مُوصٍ جَنَفًا أَوْ إِثْمًا فَأَصْلَحَ بَيْنَهُمْ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (2 :180-182)

    When death approaches any one of you and you are leaving behind some wealth, it is incumbent upon you to make a will in favour of your parents and relatives according to the conventions [of society]. This is an obligation imposed upon the God-fearing. Then if anyone changes the will after hearing it, then its sin shall rest on those who change it. Indeed, God hears and knows [all things]. But anyone who fears partiality or wrongdoing on the part of the person who has made the will, and he makes peace between them, then there is nothing sinful in this. For Allah is Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. (2:180-182)

    In these verses, Muslims are directed to make a will in favour of the parents and other relatives. This was a custom of the people of Arabia of the time of the Prophet (sws). Later, this directive was replaced by the law of inheritance stated in Surah Nisa (quoted below). In this law, the Almighty Himself has ascertained the shares of the parents and kinfolk, and has called it as His own will. The reason told is that man cannot know who among his relations is near to him in benefit. These shares are absolutely clear and fixed and there is no possibility of any change in them. Consequently, the Quran says:

    لِلرِّجَالِ نَصِيبٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ وَلِلنِّسَاءِ نَصِيبٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ مِمَّا قَلَّ مِنْهُ أَوْ كَثُرَ نَصِيبًا مَفْرُوضًا(7:4)

    From what is left by [your] parents and those nearest related, there is a share for men and from what is left by [your] parents and those nearest related there is a share for women whether small or large – a fixed share. (4:7)

    In view of this, it is absolutely clear that every Muslim is now bound by this law as per the distribution of his inheritance and after its revelation he is no longer required to make a will as per the customs of the society. However, the purpose of this abrogated directive in the words of Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi was:

    The directive of making a will in favour of one’s parents and relatives mentioned in this verse was contingent upon the conventions of the society, and was given in the interim period when the Islamic society had not become stable enough to be given the directives which were later revealed in Surah Nisa’. It was revealed as a temporary directive before circumstances became conducive for detailed directives in this regard. It had two basic objectives: first, to immediately safeguard the rights of those relatives which were being usurped by influential relatives, and second to revive once again the conventions of the society in this regard which had existed in the nobility of Arabia but were engulfed in the dust of the age of jahiliyyah; this revival would pave the way for the detailed law that was to be revealed later. [1]

    II (i)

    يُوصِيكُمْ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ (11:4)

    God enjoins you about your children that a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls’. And, if there are only girls among the children and they are more than two, then they shall receive two-thirds of the inheritance, and, if there is only one girl, then her share is half. (4:11)

    It is this directive of the surah which, in general circumstances, abrogates the verse of Surah Baqarah quoted before. It first of all mentions the share of the children:

    The sentence يُوصِيكُمْ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ (God enjoins you about your children) acts as a prelude to لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls). The word اولاد (awlad) denotes both the female and the male offspring. Hence, the correct sentence analysis in this writer’s opinion is: للذكر منهم مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ ([among the children] a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls).

    If this directive had ended on the words لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls), then it would have meant:

    (i) If the children of a deceased are only a boy and a girl, then the boy will receive twice as much as the girl.

    (ii) If the number of boys and girls exceed this, then the inheritance shall be divided among them in a manner that each boy receives twice the share of a girl.

    (iii) If there are only boys or only girls, then the whole inheritance shall be given to whoever among the two is present.

    The third case is also, quite evidently, an essential outcome of the style and pattern of the verse. If it is said that this money is to be distributed among beggars and a male beggar is to be given twice the amount of a female beggar, then this means nothing except that the money is actually meant for the beggars; hence if all beggars are men, all the money shall be distributed among them and if all the beggars are women, then also the same procedure shall be adopted. But the directive does not end here: an exception immediately follows, thereby amending it.

    The sentence فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَك (and if there are only girls among the children and they are more than two, then they shall receive two-thirds of the inheritance) is an exception to لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls). This means that if among the children of the deceased there are girls, then whether they are two or more, their share is two-thirds.

    The words وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْف (and if there is only one girl, then her share is half) are co-ordinated to this exception by the copulative particle (harf-i atf) وَ (and).

    This writer has interpreted the meaning of فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ as “two or more than two”. The reason behind this is that before it, the word اثْنَتَيْنِ (two) has been suppressed, which is owing to the style and pattern of the Arabic language. If, in the language of the Quran, the share of a girl and of two or more girls are to be stated separately owing to a difference in their proportions, then there can be two ways of doing so. If an ascending order arrangement is adopted, then the share of one girl shall be stated first followed by the share of two girls. If the share of more than two girls is to be the same as that of two girls, then there is no need to mention it in words. After specifying the share of two girls after that of one, owing to a difference in their amount, if a silence follows, then this is a clear indication that the share of more than two girls is equal to that of two girls’. If a descending order arrangement is employed, then again, the words فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ او اثنتين (more than two or two) are inappropriate as regards the linguistic style and pattern of Arabic; so after stating the shares of more than two girls, the share of one girl will be stated. In this style and arrangement, the commencement of a sentence by فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ bears evidence to a suppression of the word اثْنَتَيْنِ before it. A little deliberation shows that the verse readily suggests this fact. The order of the arrangement demands that اثْنَتَيْنِ should come after فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ, while linguistic considerations dictate that اثنتين should come before فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ. To fulfil both these requirements, the Quran has suppressed the word اثْنَتَيْنِ by employing an ellipsis in the descending order arrangement. In the last verse of Surah Nisa, these shares are stated in an ascending order. Accordingly, we observe there that فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ is suppressed after اثْنَتَيْنِ:

    إِنْ امْرُؤٌ هَلَكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَهُ أُخْتٌ فَلَهَا نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ وَهُوَ يَرِثُهَا إِنْ‘لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا وَلَدٌ فَإِنْ كَانَتَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَكَ(176:4)

    If a man dies childless and he has only one sister, she shall inherit half of what he leaves and if a sister dies childless, then her brother shall be her heir; and if there are two sisters, they shall inherit two-thirds of what he [or she] leaves. (4:176)

    II (ii)

    وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِنْ كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ (11:4)

    And if the deceased has children, then the parents shall inherit a sixth each, and if he has no children and only the parents are his heirs, then his mother shall receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters, then the mother’s share is the same one-sixth after the execution of any will he may have bequeathed and after discharging any debts he may have left behind. (4:11)

    After the children, the shares of the parents are now mentioned. The copulative particle وَ (and) in وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَك (and if the deceased has children, then the parents shall inherit a sixth each) does not co-ordinate this clause either to فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ (and if there are only girls among the children and they are more than two) or to وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْف (and if there is only one girl, then her share is half); in fact, it co-ordinates it to the whole directive above which relates to the shares of the children. Hence this co-ordination (atf) is not copulative (li al-jam), rather it is emendative (li al-istidrak) in nature. The reason is that though it is clear from the words لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (a boy’s share is twice a girl’s), their actual proportion has not been indicated. This linguistic style can be appreciated from an example: If it is said: “This money is for the children. Let each boy receive twice as much as a girl, and let the father receive half the amount,” any person who has even a little linguistic sense will clearly understand these sentences to mean that the money is actually meant for the children. If these sentences had ended without a mention of the father’s share, then all the money would have been distributed among the boys and girls in the proportion indicated. But since the father is also to be given half the amount, it is imperative that the father should first receive this amount and then what remains should be distributed among the children. The expression فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ (and if there are only girls among the children and they are more than two) is an exception to لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls) and explains one of its aspects. If this is correct, then it cannot be taken as an independent clause like …وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ (and for the parents …) and it cannot have a different implication than لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls). The total implied meaning can be appreciated by an example: “In this amount, Umar, Ali and Said have exactly equal shares, and if only Ali and Said are present, then let Ali receive two-thirds and Said one-third, and give ten rupees from this to their sister.” A little deliberation shows that though it has been said that in the absence of Umar, Ali and Said shall receive two-thirds and one-third respectively, an amendment at the end necessitates that ten rupees from the amount should first be given to the sister, and whatever remains should be distributed between Ali and Said according to their shares.

    The verse under discussion is also of the same style. Consequently, if this is kept in mind, then it is not at all difficult to comprehend that after the clause وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْف (and if there is only one girl, then her share is half), the shares of the parents and the spouses which are co-ordinated to the shares of the children by the copulative particle وَ (and) shall all necessarily be distributed first and whatever remains shall only be distributed among the children. Whether among the children, there are only boys or both boys and girls, the same principle shall apply. Similarly, if only female offspring are present, then they shall receive two-thirds or half (whatever the case may be) from the remaining inheritance and not in any case from the total inheritance.

    This is the correct meaning of the verse. Any person, who after comprehending the implications denoted by the particle وَ (and) in وَلِاَ بْوَيْهِ (and for the parents), and the particle ف (then) in فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً (then if there are only girls) reads the verse, shall spontaneously reach the same conclusion.

    Consider, next, the remaining part of the verse:

    The word وَلَدٌ (walad)in إِنْ كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ (if he has children) and in فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ وَلَدٌ (and if he does not have children) is used both for male and female children. In the Arabic language, this connotation is conventional and customary. This word is used here and also in the shares of the spouses. In my opinion, it has this same meaning in each of these places. 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 (هو يقع على الواحد و الجمع و الذكر و الأنثى). There is no contextual indication, intrinsic or extrinsic, to believe that the word has specifically been used for male children. 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.

    According to the linguistic principles of Arabic, after the words فَلِأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ (then the mother’s share is one-third) the words وَلِاَبيِْهِ الُّثلُثَان (and the father’s share is two-thirds) or words of similar meaning are suppressed, as is readily suggested by the words وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ (and his parents are his heirs). Hence, this mention is a clear proof of the suppression. When it is said: “If the heirs of this money are only Zahid and Ali, then Zahid’s share is one-third”, then after this there is no need to say that “the remaining two-thirds is for ‘Ali” – something which is understood by all requisites of common sense.

    Also, in this writer’s view, after فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُس (and if he has brothers and sisters, then the mother’s share is the same one-sixth) the words وَلِاَبِيْهِ السُّدُس (and the father’s share is [also] one-sixth) or words of similar meaning are suppressed. The contextual indication for this is also very evident. If brothers and sisters are present, then the mother’s share is the same one-sixth as in the case when a deceased has children. This also bears witness to the fact that the father’s share is also the same and that there is no need to express it in words. If a reader relishes the finer aspects of a language, he instinctively concludes that if the mother’s share has reverted to its original amount, so should the father’s share. Thus, the correct analysis of these verses is: “If there are children, then both the father and the mother shall receive one-sixth. If there are no children and only parents are the heirs, then the mother’s share is a third; but if there are brothers and sisters, then the mother’s share is the same one-sixth.” One can very well see how this style effectively induces the mind to spontaneously jump to the suppressed words: “and the father’s share is also the same one-sixth.”

    It is clear from these verses that in the absence of children, brothers and sisters take their place. This view is endorsed by the last verses of the surah also, but we shall delay an explanation until these verses are discussed later in this chapter.

    The word إِخْوَةً (ikhwatun), in this writer’s opinion, only signifies the existence of an entity. It merely specifies that in the presence of brothers and sisters regardless that they are one, two, or more in number, the parental shares revert to their original amount. Plurality here does not indicate a numerical amount, rather it only denotes the existence of an entity. To quote a Hamasi poet: [2]

    اياك والامر الذي ان توسعت

    موارده ضاقت عليك المصادر

    iyyaka wa al-amr alladhi in tawassa‘at

    mawariduhu dhaqat ‘alayka al-masadiru

    (Avoid entangling yourself in a matter in which if the paths that lead to it (mawarid) are wide, those that come out (masadir) are narrow.)

    The poet has used the wordsموارد (mawarid) and مصادر (masadir). It will be outright injustice to this literary composition if it is interpreted to mean that it urges the reader to refrain from getting involved in matters whose موارد (mawarid) and مصادر (masadir) are, after all, three or more. The poet only intends to establish the existence of a مورد (mawrid) and a مصدر (masdar) and obviously has no intention to convey their numerical amount. There may be only one way of getting involved and withdrawing from an affair and there may be several ways to do so. Similarly, a deceased may leave behind a brother and a sister and they can also be five or ten. The word إِخْوَةٌ(ikhwatun)encompasses all these different cases. To convey such meanings, a language employs this style of plurality. If it is said: “if you have children, then give these sweets to them,” no one will consider this to mean that if the addressed person has only one child, then he cannot be given the sweets, merely because the word children has been used by the speaker. Such a meaning can only be inferred by someone who, instead of appreciating a language in literary perspectives, starts analyzing it on the basis of logic and mathematical axioms.

    The words مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ (after the execution of any will he may have bequeathed, and after discharging any debts he may have left behind) at the end of the directive imply that if a deceased has outstanding debts to his name, then first of all they must be paid from the wealth he has left behind. After this, any will which he might have bequeathed shall be executed, and whatever remains shall be distributed among the heirs. Though the directive of discharging of debts has been stated at the end of the verse, it shall be given priority over all payments. The reason is that a person from whom money is borrowed has a rightful share in the wealth of a deceased borrower before his death, while an heir becomes a rightful shareholder in a person’s wealth only after his death. As far as the precedence of the execution of any bequeathed will in the actual statement of the verse is concerned, it owes much to a touch of elegance in presentation – a distinctive feature of Quranic Arabic.

    II (iii)

    آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا فَرِيضَةً مِنْ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (11:4)

    You know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and All-Knowing. (4:11)

    The reason why this part of the verse is juxtaposed between the ones which state the shares of the heirs is that it should become clear to people that since the Almighty Himself has indicated who the heirs of a deceased should be a more just law in this regard could not have been enacted. Hence, after this Divine Directive, in general circumstances, no one has the right to bequeath his wealth in favour of the heirs designated by the Almighty Himself. This distribution is based on the immense knowledge and wisdom of Allah, which encompass all His directives. Man, in spite of his formidable talents, can neither acquire the vastness of His knowledge nor comprehend the profundity of His wisdom. If he is a true believer, he must submit to the Word of God.

    However, this does not mean that a bequest or will cannot be made in favour of an heir because of some need he have or because he has been of some service to the deceased or because of any similar reason. The “benefit” which the verse mentions as being variable is the benefit which a person has in his capacity of being a relative to the deceased. It does not relate to the needs and benefits which are known to us or can be determined by us. Thus such a bequest can be made; however, a Muslim must not dare make a bequest in favour of an heir on the basis of the latter’s familial association with him because this bequest will alter the shares prescribed by God for the heirs. The words مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ (after execution of any will) which repeatedly occur in these verses imply the will which is made in favour of non-heirs or in the favour of the heirs themselves if they are in some need or have done some service to the deceased.

    This is the real meaning of the verse. However, a little deliberation shows that the right to obtain an inheritance is based on the underlying cause of اَقْرَبُ نَفْعا (the closest in benefit), and the reason for the difference in the share of the heirs is also because their benefit for the deceased varies. Everyone knows that a large part of the benefit of a girl after her marriage is transferred to her husband, similarly, a wife gives companionship to her husband whereas the husband not only gives companionship to her, he is also responsible to provide for her, hence the share of a boy is twice of a girl and the share of a husband is twice that of a wife. This benefit is by nature present in parents, children, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives and other close relations. Hence, in normal circumstances, they will be considered the heirs to the legacy of a deceased. However, if any of these relations instead of being of benefit to the deceased become an embodiment of harm for him, then, on the basis of the underlying reason of “closest in benefit” stated by the Almighty in these verses, such a relative shall be not be regarded eligible to become an heir to the legacy. In view of this, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said about the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia:

    لَا يَرِثُ الْمُسْلِمُ الْكَافِرَ وَلَا الْكَافِرُ الْمُسْلِمَ

    A Muslim cannot be an heir of akafir nor can a kafir be a Muslim’s.[3]

    In other words, after these disbelievers were left with no excuse to deny the truth which had been unveiled to them in its ultimate form, their enmity and hostility became very clear. Consequently, the benefit of kinship between them and the Muslims stood completely severed. Hence, they could not inherit from one another.

    A secondary guidance which is also obtained from this verse is that if in certain cases legacies are left over after distribution and the deceased has not made anyone an heir in them, then they too should be distributed to the اَقْرَبُ نَفْعا (the closest in benefit). This is precisely what the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:

    أَلْحِقُوا الْفَرَائِضَ بِأَهْلِهَا فَمَا تَرَكَتِ الفَرَائِض فَلِأَوْلَى رَجُلٍ ذَكَرٍ

    Give the heirs their share and if something remains, it is for the closest male [relative].[4]

    II (iv)

    وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمْ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِينَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ تُوصُونَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ (12:4)

    And to you belongs a half of what your wives leave, if they die childless. And if they have children, a quarter of what they leave shall be yours after execution of any will they may have bequeathed and after discharging any [outstanding] debts. And your wives shall inherit a quarter of what you leave, if you die childless. And if you have children, then they shall inherit one-eighth, after execution of any will you may have bequeathed, and after discharging any of your [outstanding] debts. (4:12)

    These are the shares of the spouses. They are very clearly stated and need no explanation. After the payment of debts and execution of any bequeathed will, like those of the parents these shares shall also be given from the total remaining inheritance of a deceased.

    II (v)

    وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً أَوْ امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ فَإِنْ كَانُوا أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصَى بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ غَيْرَ مُضَارٍّ وَصِيَّةً مِنْ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَلِيمٌ (12:4)

    And if a man or a woman is made an heir on account of his [or her] kalalah relationship [with the deceased] and he [or she] has one brother or sister, then the brother or sister shall receive a sixth, and if they be more than this, then they shall be sharers in one-third, after the execution of any will bequeathed and any [outstanding] debts – without harming anyone. This is a command from God, and God is Gracious and All-Knowing. (4:12)

    After stating the shares of the children, the parents and the spouses, the shares of other relatives are stated. The most important word in this verse is َكَلَالَة (kalalah). Originally, it is a مصدر (verbal noun) in the meaning of كلال (kalal) i.e. “feebleness and frailty”. To quote a line from Asha’s poetry: [5]

    فآليت لا أرثى لها من كلالة

    fa alaytu la arthi laha min kalalatin

    (Then I swore that I shall not show any mercy on her because of her feebleness and frailty.)

    Mutammim ibn Nuwayrahsays: [6]

    فكأنها بعد الكلالة والسرى

    علج تغاليه قذور ملمع

    faka’annaha ba‘da al-kalalati wa al-sura

    ‘iljun tughalihi qadhurun mulmi‘u

    (That [she] camel after the night’s tiring journey is indeed like a wild ass whom even a pregnant donkey tries to overtake.)

    Figuratively, linguists attribute the following three meanings to this word:

    i) A person who leaves behind neither parents nor children.

    ii) Any relationship which is not through the parents or children.

    iii) All of one’s relatives except the parents and children.

    Al-Zamakhshariwrites in his al-Kashshaf:

    يطلق على ثلاثة على من لم يخلف ولداً ولا والداً، وعلى من ليس بولد ولا والد من المخلفين، وعلى القرابة من غير جهة الولد والوالد. ومنه قولهم: ما ورث المجد عن كلالة، كما تقول: ما صمت عن عيّ، وما كف عن جبن. والكلالة في الأصل: مصدر بمعنى الكلال، وهو ذهاب القوّة من الإعياء. قال الأعشى: فآليت لا ارثى لها من كلالة ‘فاستعيرت للقرابة من غير جهة الولد والوالد، لأنها بالإضافة إلى قرابتهما كالة ضعيفة، وإذا جعل صفة للموروث أو الوارث فبمعنى ذي كلالة. كما تقول: فلان من قرابتي، تريد من ذوي قرابتي. ويجوز أن تكون صفة كالـهجاجة والفقاقة للأحمق.

    كلاله (kalalah)has three meanings: It is an adjective used for a person who leaves behind neither parents nor children; it also means all the relatives of a deceased except his parents and children, and it also denotes the relationships which are not through [the deceased’s] parents or children. The Arabs say: ما ورث المجد عن كلالة (ma warith al-majda ‘an kalalatin: he did not become an heir to nobility because of a distant relationship). Likewise, you say: ماصمت عن عى (ma samata ‘an ‘ayyin: he did not become quiet because he was unable to speak and ماكف عن جبن (ma kaffa ‘an jubnin: he did not stop because of cowardice). And كلالة (kalalah) is a masdar (verbal noun) meaning كلال (kalal). كلال (kalal) means loss of strength because of weakness.A‘shasays: فآليت لاارثى لها من كلالة (fa alaytu la arthi laha min kalalatin: then I swore that I shall not show any mercy on her because of her feebleness and frailty). Later, it was figuratively used for the relationship which is not through the parents and children. The reason for this being that such a relationship is not as strong as the one through the parents and children. And when it is used as an adjective of a legatee or a legator it means ذو كلالة (dhu kalalah). Similarly, you say فلان من قرابتى (fulanun min qarabati) ie. فلان من ذوى قرابتى (fulanun min dhawi qarabati), and it can also be an adjective like هجاجة (hajajah) and فقاقة (faqaqah) meaning “foolish”. [7]

    This writer could not find the word used in the first meaning, ie “a person who does not leave behind either parents or children” in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry though this usage is grammatically correct.

    It is used at many instances in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry in the second meaning, ie. the relationship not through the parents or the children.

    To quote Tirmah: [8]

    يهز سلاحالم يرثه كلالة

    يشك به منها غموض المغابن

    yahuzzu silahan lam yarith hu kalalatan

    yashukku bihi minha ghumuda al-maghabini

    (He waves his weapon which he did not inherit because of a distant relationship. Through it, he pierces the part concealed in her thighs.)

    Amir ibn Tufaylsays: [9]

    وما سودتنى عامر عن كلالة

    wa ma sawwadatni ‘amirun ‘an kalalatin

    (And the tribe of ‘Amirdid not make me the chief because of a distant relationship.)

    According to Lisan al-arab:

    والعرب تقول: لم يرثه كلالة اي لم يرثه عن عرض بل عن قرب واستحقاق

    The Arabs say: لم يرثه كلالة (lam yarith hu kalalatan), ie. he did not become an heir owing to a distant relation, rather he inherited the legacy because of nearness and entitlement to it. [10]

    The third meaning attributed to it, i.e all relatives of a person except his parents and children is also verified by many examples in pre-Islamic Arabic literature.

    A Hamasi poet, Yazid ibn al-Hakam, while admonishing his son says: [11]

    والمرء يبخل بالحقو

    ق وللكلالة مايسيم

    wa al-mar’u yabkhalu bi al-huqu

    qi wa li al-kalalati ma yusim

    (Man shows miserliness in fulfilling the rights imposed on him and after his death, his distant relatives take away his cattle which graze in the forests.)

    Azhari has quoted a poet’s couplet: [12]

    فان ابا المرء أحمى له

    ومولى الكلالة لا يغضب

    fa inna aba al-mar’i ahma lahu

    wa mawla al-kalalati la yaghdabu

    (If a person is oppressed and persecuted, it is his father who, in his support, is infuriated the most. Kalalah relatives are not infuriated to this extent in such a matter.)

    To quote a Bedouin:

    مالى كثير و يرثنى كلالة متراخ نسبهم

    I have a lot of wealth and my heirs are distant relatives.[13]

    Imam Muslim has quoted the following words in a Hadith narrated by Jabir (rta):

    يا رسول الله ،إنما يرثنى كلالة

    O Prophet of Allah ! Only kalalah are my heirs. [14]

    Many narratives quoted in tafsir works endorse this meaning. Abu Bakr al-Jassas writes in his Ahkam al-Quran:

    وروى عن ابى بكر الصديق وعلى وابن عباس في احدي الروايتين ان الكلالة ماعدا الوالد والولد ‘وروى محمد بن سالم عن الشعبى عن ابن مسعود انه قال : الكلالة ماخلا الوالد والولد ‘وعن زيد بن ثابت مثله

    It is narrated from Abu Bakr and ‘Ali that all except the father and the children are كلاله (kalalah). There are two narrations fromIbn ‘Abbas in this regard: one of them says that all except the father and the children are كلاله (kalalah) and Muhammad ibn Salim reports from al-Shabi, who reports from Ibn Mas‘ud that all except the father and the children are كلاله (kalalah) and Zayd ibn Thabit has also reported this meaning. [15]

    Now, let us consider the verse under discussion. Though our jurists have unanimously preferred the first meaning here, yet the verse itself testifies against this meaning. If we carefully analyze verses 11 and 12 of Surah Nisa from يُوصِيكُمْ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ (God enjoins you about your children), it is observed that after a mention of the shares of the children and the parents, the Almighty has directed us to carry out the distribution of legacy by the words مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ (after the execution of any will he may have bequeathed and after discharging any debts he may have left behind). The directive is repeated in the shares of the spouses: مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِينَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ and مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ تُوصُونَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ. A little contemplation shows that in all these instances the verb is used in the active voice (maruf) and the antecedents of يُوصِي (yusi), يُوصِينَ (yusina) and تُوصُونَ (tusuna) are clearly stated in each of these sentences. But in the verse of كلاله (kalalah), the verb is used in the passive voice (majhul). This departure tells us that the subject (fail) of the verb يُوصَى (yusa) i.e. the legator in this verse is not stated. Therefore, in this verse, the word كلاله (kalalah) cannot be regarded as an adjective for the deceased. The change conclusively testifies that the Quran has not used the word in its first meaning, ie a person who does not leave behind either parents or children.

    As far as the second and third meanings are concerned, any of the two can be preferred on the basis of a more delicate grammatical construction, because in both cases the implied meaning remains the same. Hence in this verse the verb يُورَثُ (yurathu), in the opinion of this writer, is from the ifal category used in its passive form and كلاله (kalalah) is مفعول له (maful lahu: an accusative on account of which something is done). كان (kana) here is ناقصه (naqisah: modal auxiliary) and يُورَثُ (yurathu) is its خبر (khabar: enunciative). رجل او امرأة (rajulunaw imraatun)are the اسماء (asma: nouns) of كان (kana). Keeping in mind this analysis of the verse, it can be translated thus: “and if a man or a woman is made an heir because of his (or her) kalalah relationship…”

    Naturally, only the deceased person will have the right to make someone his heir. The meaning of the passive verb يُورَثُ (yurathu) in this context can only be that an heir is made in the absence of the heirs whose shares are mentioned above.

    Consider now the next part of the verse: وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ فَإِنْ كَانُوا أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصَى بِهَا أَوْ دَيْن (if a man or a woman from the associations of a single relationship is made an heir and has one brother or one sister, then he (or she) will be given one-sixth of what the heir himself receives and if the heir has more than one brother or sister, then they shall share equally in a third of what the heir himself receives, after all outstanding debts are paid off and the will he may have made is executed). After this, there remains no need to say that the remaining five-sixths or two-thirds (whatever might be the case) shall be given to the person whom the deceased had made his heir. If it is said: “Ahmad has made your son the heir of his wealth, but if he has a brother then the brother shall be entitled to a third of his share,” it clearly means that after the brother receives his share, the remaining money should be given to the son who has actually been made the heir.

    This directive of the Quran has a very sound reason behind it. Naturally, a deceased can choose to make any brother, sister, aunt or uncle (the kalalah relatives) his heir. But there can be other brothers or uncles besides the one who has been made an heir by a deceased. The case is no different for sisters or aunts also. A person can prefer any uncle or aunt. But the Almighty does not approve of totally depriving all other associations of the same relationship of any share. Therefore, if a person, for example, has made one of his paternal uncles, Zahid, the heir to his remaining estate in the presence of two other paternal uncles, then the two shall share equally in a third of what Zahid receives, and Zahid himself shall receive the remaining two-thirds.

    Consider now the remaining part of the verse. The words of the Quran are: غَيْرَ مُضَارٍّ وَصِيَّةً مِنْ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَلِيمٌ. These words at the end of the verse serve as a warning that making someone an heir should not be a source of harm for any of the rightful heirs. To dispel any element of foul play, the Almighty Himself has fixed the shares of the real heirs. Since, according to the verse, a person can make any of his كلاله (kalalah) relatives his heir, it is emphatically stated that, while exercising this prerogative, the rights of a rightful heir should not be usurped – this is not a piece of advice from an earthling. It is what the Creator of the heavens and the earth has directed us about. If any of His creation deliberately deprives a rightful claimant from his share, then he should be aware that God has knowledge of all his deeds, and, if he errs unintentionally, the Almighty is Gracious and Merciful. He does not burden a person with a responsibility he cannot fulfil. All His directives bring ease and facility for His creation and are not meant to put them through hardship and difficulty.

    II (vi)

    يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُلْ اللَّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِي الْكَلَالَةِ إِنْ امْرُؤٌ هَلَكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَهُ أُخْتٌ فَلَهَا نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ وَهُوَ يَرِثُهَا إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا وَلَدٌ فَإِنْ كَانَتَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَكَ وَإِنْكَانُوا إِخْوَةً رِجَالًا وَنِسَاءً فَلِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَضِلُّوا وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (176:4)

    People ask your pronouncement. Say: “God enjoins you about your kalalah heirs that if a man dies childless and he has only a sister, then she shall inherit half of what he leaves and if a sister dies childless, then her brother shall be her heir; and if there are two sisters, then they shall inherit two- thirds of what he [or she] leaves. If there are many brothers and sisters, then the share of each male shall be that of two females.” God expounds unto you that you err not and God has knowledge of all things. (4:176)

    Since, according to the interpretation given above, all brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts are كلاله (kalalah) relatives and a person can make anyone of them his heir, it is possible that he might prefer an aunt or an uncle over his brothers and sisters. This would not be appropriate because after one’s children, one’s brothers and sisters are nearest to him. Sense and reason demand that in such a case they should receive a large portion of the legacy. Verses 11-12 of Surah Nisa clearly state that if a deceased has brothers and sisters, then the parents shall receive a sixth each. Since this share is the same as what they receive in the presence of children, the question arises whether it has still been left to a person to make the brothers and sisters his heirs, or can he deprive them of a share in his wealth. While explaining verses 11-12 of Surah Nisa, it was written that the style of the verses is such that in the absence of children, the brothers and sisters of a deceased should be his heirs. But obviously, the meaning unfolded by a particular style cannot be as certain and definite as the one which is directly stated in words. In the absence of children, the question about the shares of brothers and sisters can even arise today. It had arisen in the time of the Prophet (sws) as well. Jabir (rta) reports:

    يقول جاء رسول اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَعُودُنِي وأنا مَرِيضٌ لَا أَعْقِلُ فَتَوَضَّأَ وَصَبَّ عَلَيَّ من وَضُوئِهِ فَعَقَلْتُ فقلت يا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لِمَنْ الْمِيرَاثُ إنما يَرِثُنِي كَلَالَةٌ فَنَزَلَتْ آيَةُ الْفَرَائِضِ.

    He said: “I was sick and in a state of unconsciousness when the Prophet of Allah arrived at my place to see me. He did the ablution and sprinkled some water over me from which he was doing his ablution. When I came to my senses, I said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! Who will receive my legacy; all my heirs are kalalah.’ At this, this verse [17] of inheritance was revealed.’”[18]

    From the words: “O Prophet of Allah all my heirs are kalalah.At this, this verse of inheritance was revealed,” of the above Hadith, it is evident that among the كلاله(kalalah) relatives the question particularly concerned his brothers and sisters and the last verses of Surah Nisa were revealed as a result of this inquiry.

    A special style of the Quranic verses is that in them certain questions are stated in a very concise and compact form. The actual nature of the question and its background is revealed by the answer which the verses subsequently give. By not taking into consideration this style, our commentators have come across many difficulties in understanding قُلْ اللَّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِي الْكَلَالَةِ (God enjoins you about your kalalah relatives). Here also, if only the answer is analyzed, the meanings the verse conveys are very evident. The verse is of the same style and pattern as يُوصِيكُمْ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ (God enjoins you about your children). In the latter case, the directive is about the children as the heirs of a deceased while in the former case, the pronouncement is about كلاله (kalalah) relatives as the heirs of a deceased. The article ال (alif lam) defines the word كلاله (kalalah) in this verse, which testifies to the fact that the question concerns some specific relations among the كلاله (kalalah) relatives and the answer shows that these specific relations are the deceased’s brothers and sisters. Verse 12 of Surah Nisa’ has already empowered a person to bequeath a part of his legacy in favour of كلاله (kalalah) relatives like uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters. Here, a particular case is mentioned after the general directive. Considering this, the correct meaning of the verse is: “Say, Allah gives you a pronouncement about brothers and sisters among the kalalah relatives.” An example of this Quranic style and construction can be seen in verse 189 of Surah Baqarah.

    It should be clear that the words إِنْ امْرُؤٌ هَلَكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ (if a man dies childless…) do not state the meaning of كلاله (kalalah); they merely impose a condition which must be fulfilled if the brothers and sisters are to receive a share in a legacy. Just as in the verse فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ (and if he does not have children, and his parents are his heirs), a condition is imposed that if the deceased is childless and only his parents are his heirs, then they shall receive such and such shares. Similarly, in the given verse, a condition is stated that if a person dies childless, and he has brothers and sisters, then their share is such and such. Also evident from the condition in the verse is that brothers and sisters are heirs of a deceased, only in case he dies childless. If he leaves children, then they do not have any share in his wealth except if a deceased makes a bequest in their favour according to the general directive mentioned in verse 12 of Surah Nisa.

    The shares of brothers and sisters stated here are the same as those of the children stated earlier. Also, the style in كَانُوا إِخْوَةً رِجَالًا وَنِسَاءً فَلِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّوَإِنْ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (and if there are many brothers and sisters, then the share of each male shall be equal to that of two females’) bears witness to the fact that these shares also shall be given after the parents and the spouses are handed over their shares. The relevant arguments are presented in the section which deals with the shares of the children. Hence, if the deceased only has sisters, then two-thirds or one half (whatever the case may be) of the share meant for the brothers and sisters shall be given to the sister or sisters.

    We have indicated earlier that it is evident from verses 11 and 12 of Surah Nisa that in the absence of children, the brothers and sisters of a deceased take their place. This particular verse of Surah Nisa conclusively proves the premise. It was possible to misinterpret it from the style of verses 11-12, but here all doubts have been removed as to what the words imply. The Qur’an, therefore, says: يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَضِلُّوا وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (176:4) (God explains to you that you err not and God has knowledge of all things, (4:176)).

    (Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

    (Translated by Dr. Shehzad Saleem)

    ____________________________________________

    FootNote:

    [1]. Ibid., vol. 1, 439-440.

    [2]. AbuTammam Habib ibn Aws al-Ta’i, Diwan al-hamasah, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-qalam, n.d.), 20.

    [3]. Al-Bukhari,Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 1167, (no. 6764).

    [4]. Ibid., 1164, (no. 6746).

    [5]. Abu Zayd al-Qurashi, Jamhurah ash‘ar al-‘arab, 55.

    [6]. Al-Zubaydi, Taj al-‘arus, vol. 22, 70.

    [7]. Al-Zamakhshari,Al-Kashshaf, vol. 1, 485.

    [8]. Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhashari, Asas al-balaghah (Beirut: Dar al-fikr, 1979), 550.

    [9]. Al-Zubaydi, Taj al-‘arus, vol. 30, 244.

    [10]. Ibn Manzur,Lisan al-‘arab, vol. 11, 592.

    [11]. AbuTammam, Diwan al-hamasah, vol. 2, 48.

    [12]. Al-Zubaydi, Taj al-‘arus, vol. 30, 343.

    [13]. Ibn Manzur,Lisan al-‘arab, vol. 11, 592.

    [14]. Muslim,Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 706, (no. 4148).

    [15]. Al-Jassas,Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, 87.

    [16]. It has been explained in a Hadith (Muslim,Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 706, (no. 4148)) that by “this verse of inheritance” is meant the last verse of Surah Nisa’ in which the shares of the brothers and sisters are stated. Likewise, another Hadith (Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 1164, (no.6743)) clearly mentions that Jabir (rta) had only sisters among his heirs.

    [17]. Al-Bukhari,Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 38, (no. 194).

    [18]. See: Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i Qur’an, vol. 1, 471.

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:12 am

    Summarized Clip (Rationale behind Islamic Law of Inheritance):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuPV5IbhfHs

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:14 am

    Detailed Lectures on Islamic Law of Inheritance:

    (Part-1)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQ-kXF8MCo

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:15 am
  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:16 am

    (Part-3)

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:17 am

    (Part-4)

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:18 am

    (Part-5)

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:19 am

    (Part-6)

  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:20 am
  • Umer

    Moderator July 25, 2020 at 7:21 am
  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor July 29, 2020 at 9:14 am

    “After giving the parents and the husband or wife their shares, the children are the heirs of the remaining inheritance”

    Can you please provide the reference from Qur’an verses for the above principle ? It will help understand the flow of inheritance distribution.

    • Umer

      Moderator July 29, 2020 at 9:55 am

      Please read the section in the above article under heading Parents. Your question has been answered there.

  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor July 29, 2020 at 10:18 am

    A very basic question : Why is share of a boy twice more than that of a girl ? I understand boy will grow up to be responsible for his family, but why this generic ruling without any other consideration of their future is made?

    • Umer

      Moderator July 29, 2020 at 10:22 am

      For consideration of future of children, parents can always take measures within their lives and if not, the room for will has been left open in case any daughter, son or any other person requires any additional help.

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor July 29, 2020 at 10:27 am

      If there is one boy and 2 daughters, with no other relative, what will be the share of each daughter?

    • Umer

      Moderator July 29, 2020 at 11:44 am

      Divide it into five equal shares: one will go to each daughter and the rest will go to the son.

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor July 29, 2020 at 12:14 pm

      So, it means each daughter will get 20% and the son will get 60% ?

    • Umer

      Moderator August 9, 2020 at 11:49 am

      My apologies Sameer Sahab ( @Zaxon ), I made a mistake here. Total inheritance will be divided into four shares. For example, if there are four rupees, 2 rupees will go to the son and one rupee will go to each daughter.

      Thanks to Mashood Irfan Sahab (@GhamidiFan-Mashhood ) for pointing it out to me and to Faisal Sahab (@faisalharoon ) for getting it verified.

  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor July 31, 2020 at 5:54 am

    “If the deceased is a man and he has children, his wife shall receive one eighth of what he leaves and if he does not have any children his wife’s share shall be one fourth. If the deceased is a woman and does not have any children then her husband shall receive one half of what she leaves and if she has children, the husband’s share is one fourth.”

    If a man has 4 wives, and a distant male relative, and no children, and leaves behind 100 Rs.

    Will each wife get 25 Rs. or the 4 wives together receive 25 Rs (each of them receives around 6 Rs) ?

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor July 31, 2020 at 1:08 pm

      If the man has a daughter in the above case, wives will get 1/8th = 12.5 rs.

      So, if it is total share of all wives together, then each wife will get only around 3 Rs. How much will the daughter and his second male cousin get ?

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor July 31, 2020 at 11:26 pm

      @AhmadShoaib @sheharbano for your reference.. is it a fair distribution for the wives and second male cousin ?

  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor July 31, 2020 at 6:11 am

    There is a sahih hadith regarding it :

    Narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas

    The Prophet said, “Give the Fara’id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.”

  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor July 31, 2020 at 3:03 pm

    These verses 4:11/4:12 etc. are examples of God’s confusing messages. I can see that Ghamidi saab has clarified the rule in a much better way than what the writers of Qur’an did ..

    Writers of Qur’an wrote confusing verses which led to totally different interpretation than what was intended.. while Ghamidi saab’s clear and detailed explanation of the complex rule is easily understood and less confusing..

    Now one can always say that Qur’an was clear.. and scholars made mistakes in reading it.. but we can compare the two versions and clearly confirm that Ghamidi saab’s explanation is more detailed and less confusing than Allah’s rule book.

    Anyone reading 4:11/4:12 will find that the message could have been conveyed in better manner.. and Ghamidi saab actually did.. now I know that my Muslim friends will never agree to it, but they also can see which explanation is better ..

  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor August 2, 2020 at 3:56 am

    If a man dies leaving behind 4 wives, and a second male cousin, with a property of 100 Rs. , I think his wives will get 1/4th of it (25 Rs. and each wife will get 6.25 Rs.) while, remaining 75 Rs will be given to his second male cousin..

    Is my above understanding correct ? If yes, how is it a fair distribution ?

    If my understanding is wrong, please let me know how .

  • Sameer Bhagwat

    Contributor August 2, 2020 at 4:33 am

    Let us see how Prophet delivered the inheritance, he gave 2/3rd to the daughters and 1/8th to the mother .. he didn’t FIRST give it to the mother and then from remaining portion, gave it to the daughters. Also, where does 1/8th come into the picture as his mother’s share ?

    Abu Dawood hadith.

    Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

    We went out with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and came to a woman of the Ansar in al-Aswaf. The woman brought her two daughters, and said: Apostle of Allah, these are the daughters of Thabit ibn Qays who was killed as a martyr when he was with you at the battle of Uhud, their paternal uncle has taken all their property and inheritance, and he has not left anything for them. What do you think, Apostle of Allah? They cannot be married unless they have some property. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will decide regarding the matter. Then the verse of Surat an-Nisa was revealed: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance).” Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Call to me the woman and her husband’s brother. He then said to their paternal uncle: Give them two-thirds and their mother an eighth, and what remains is yours.

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor August 2, 2020 at 5:57 am

      I made a mistake here in my question.. the mother of the daughters is correctly receiving 1/8th.. but the daughters didn’t receive it AFTER their mother’s share was closed, whereas opening post mentions :

      2.) After giving the parents and the husband or wife their shares, the children are the heirs of the remaining inheritance.

    • Umer

      Moderator August 5, 2020 at 11:30 am

      “After giving the parents and the husband or wife their shares, the children are the heirs of the remaining inheritance. If the deceased does not have any male offspring and there are only two or more girls among the children, they shall receive two thirds of the inheritance left over, and if there is only a single girl, her share is one half. If the deceased has only male children all his wealth will be distributed among them. If he leaves behind both boys and girls then the share of each boy shall be equal to the share of two girls and, in this case also, all his wealth shall be distributed among them.”

      Now how is this distribution against the Quran?

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor August 5, 2020 at 11:47 am

      Here, Prophet gave 2/3rd of the total inheritance to the daughters and 1/8 of the total inheritance to the wife.. and remaining to the relative.

    • Umer

      Moderator August 5, 2020 at 11:51 am

      “Prophet gave 2/3rd of the total inheritance to the daughters and 1/8 of the total inheritance to the wife.. and remaining to the relative”.

      Where is the word total inheritance mentioned in the above posted narration?

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor August 5, 2020 at 11:54 am

      It is obvious from the wordings of the Prophet.. he mentioned daughters share first and then mother’s share and the only place he used “remaining” word is when talking about his relative’s share..

      Prophet did not say “Give 1/8th to the mother and then from remaining give 2/3rd to the daughters and then whatever remains is yours”.

      Anyone reading this quote will understand it the same way, and it is quite clear that the majority of the scholars (except Ghamidi saab) also interpret it the same way.

    • Umer

      Moderator August 5, 2020 at 12:07 pm

      Actually its the other way round, it is obvious that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) distributed inheritance in accordance with clear directives of the Holy Quran. First of all, the narration doesn’t mention the words “total inheritance” in it. Secondly, the way of inheritance distribution was so clear that narrator didn’t feel any need to further elaborate it because it was so clearly mentioned in directives of the Holy Quran.

      And if you want to critique Ghamidi Sahab’s understanding of Inheritance, please critique it from an academic standpoint by identifying any loopholes in his principles of understanding Quran or by identifying any inconsistency in Ghamidi Sahab’s application of those principles of understanding Quran (throughout the Quran, whether it be inheritance or any other subject for that matter). Just saying that so many other scholars understood it the other way doesn’t really stand as an academic critique and we don’t get bothered by this kind of critique as well.

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor August 5, 2020 at 12:12 pm

      Again if you want to force the meaning of Prophet’s quote to fit one interpretation you can .. but there is no mention of giving mother’s share first in Prophet’s quote in the way you said.

      You are entitled to your opinion, but it is quite obvious from the quote of the Prophet what he meant..

      Prophet did not say “Give 1/8th to the mother and then from remaining give 2/3rd to the daughters and then whatever remains is yours”.

      He said ” Give them two-thirds and their mother an eighth, and what remains is yours.”

      If it was obvious, then Prophet quote was very misleading… you can show this quote to other people and let them compare the two quotes I mentioned. Unless of course you mean to say, that Prophet was not a good communicator of the ruling .

    • Sameer Bhagwat

      Contributor August 5, 2020 at 12:19 pm

      Also, how can the verse be very clear to ALL when it was just recently revealed as the hadith said ? This case was its very first application…

      What do you think, Apostle of Allah? They cannot be married unless they have some property. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will decide regarding the matter. Then the verse of Surat an-Nisa was revealed: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance).” Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Call to me the woman and her husband’s brother.

    • Umer

      Moderator August 5, 2020 at 2:27 pm

      We understand Hadith from ‘Quran & Sunnah” and not ‘Quran & Sunnah’ from Hadith because:

      1) Quran & Sunnah are in ‘as is’ format as given by Prophet (sws) himself as a source of religion.

      2) Quran & Sunnah are transmitted through the most reliable means of ijma (consensus) and tawatur (quoli/amali) of Sahaba (rta) and passed on from one generation to another.

      3) Hadith is not in ‘as is’ format, rather, it is in ‘as understood by narrator’ format without any context or pretext of the discussion.

      4) It is transmitted through Akhbar-i-Ahad (narrations of one, two people).

      Therefore, Hadith is bound to be understood in the light of Quran & Sunnah. And when we try to understand the above Hadith (words as understood by narrator) in the light of Quran (exact words of Prophet), we reach at the conclusion which I mentioned above. This Hadith is exactly in accordance with Quran actually.

  • Umer

    Moderator August 5, 2020 at 2:27 pm

    Inheritance of an Orphaned Grandchild

    The Quran has not explicitly mentioned the share of a grandfather in the legacy of his grandchild nor that of a grandchild in the legacy of his grandfather. However, since the words أولاد (awlad) and آبا (aba) can refer both on the basis of meaning and usage to grandparents and grandchildren there has remained a consensus among Muslim jurists that if none of the direct parents or direct children are present, then the shares which have been fixed for them will be given to indirect parents and indirect children respectively.[1] However, one situation which can arise is that one or more children die in the lifetime of a parent and one or more children is alive after his death. The ijtihad of the jurists in this case is that the offspring of the deceased children will not be given any inheritance from the grandfather and in the presence of their paternal uncles they will be deprived of it except if the grandfather has made a will in their favour. In current times, some scholars are of the opinion that this ijtihad of the jurists seems incorrect. A grandson is like a son and hence in the event of a son’s death, he should get the share that his father would have got had he been alive. In my opinion, this opinion is correct. Consequently, in the following paragraphs I will try to answer the objections raised on this view by Mawlana Sayyid Abu al-Ala Mawdudi a revered and respected scholar of Islam. Following are these objections:[2]

    1. As per the Quran, whoever gets a share in the inheritance of a deceased is entitled to it because he is near in kin (aqrab) to him and not because he is a substitute of some other kin. Thus the suggestion of granting a share to the grandchild from the inheritance of his grandfather introduces the very wrong notion of substitution in the Islamic law of inheritance of which there is no evidence found in the Quran. Moreover, after accepting the principle of substitution this inheritance is confined to the children of the children and no sound reasoning can be presented in favour of this either.

    2. As per the Quran, only those who are alive have a share in the legacy of a person at the time of his death. Contrary to this, this view also grants a share to people who have died in the lifetime of that person.

    3. The Quran has explicitly allocated the shares of some relatives and no addition or reduction can be made to them. However, if this view is adopted, then an addition is made in some shares fixed by the Quran and a reduction is made in some others.

    The answer to the first question is that the grandson is not being given a share as a substitute for his father in the capacity of an heir; it is being given to him because after the death of his father he has become aqrab to his grandfather the way his father was. Thus he is a substitute for his father in this regard. When his father was alive, his father was aqrab of his own father with regard to being his offspring. After his death, his son has become aqrab to his father and on this basis has become entitled to inheritance. During the lifetime of the father, a person is like a son to his grandfather and after his father’s death also he is like a son to his grandfather. The only difference which death has caused is that in becoming the aqrab of his grandfather he has become a substitute for his father. This substitution does not refer to the one understood by Sayyid Mawdudi; it is a substitution in being aqrab to the deceased which according to his own opinion is the basis of the Islamic law of inheritance. If a deceased does not have children all the way down, then it is in this very capacity that brothers and sisters become substitutes of children, and as per the Quran in the same manner receive their share in exactly the same proportion as prescribed for the children. For this substitution, the last verse of Surah Nisa is an explicit source. The reason to limit it to the children of children is that after the death of the wife or the husband no heir can become a wife or husband to any extent so that he or she be regarded as the substitute of the deceased with regard to being their aqrab.

    The answer to the second objection is that the share being given to the grandson is not the share of the father given to the son as his heir; the share is being given to him because it is, in fact, his own share because after the death of the father he is his substitute to his grandfather and an aqrab to the grandfather in the same capacity. This does not at all in any way affect the Quranic principle that inheritance only belongs to the heirs who are alive at the time of the death of the person whose inheritance is to be distributed. The suggestion of giving a share to an orphaned grandchild is to make someone an heir who is alive at the time of death of the person whose inheritance is to be distributed.

    The third objection has arisen because of the misunderstanding that this methodology of distribution of inheritance among the grandsons shall also be employed when no one from the children is present. The Mawlana has explained this objection with an example. He writes:

    … Suppose that a person had only two sons and both died during his lifetime; one of them had four sons and the other only one. As per the Qur’ān, all these grandchildren are equal with regard to being sons to their grandfather and hence each of them should receive an equal share from the inheritance of their grandfather. However, on the basis of this principle of substitution half of his inheritance will be received by one grandson and the remaining half shall be divided equally between the other four grandsons.[3]

    The answer to this objection is that this may not be the case. In this scenario, the same method of distribution can be adopted: each grandson be given equal share. The Quran itself guides us to this. It has adopted one method in distributing the share to an heir in the presence of other heirs and another in their absence. Thus in the presence of children, the parents shall receive one sixth each; if the deceased does not have children but has brothers and sisters, then the shares of the brothers and sisters shall remain the same; however, if the parents are the only heirs of the deceased, then the mother’s share shall be one-third and the father’s share shall be two-thirds. Same is the case with kalalah relatives. If someone among them is made an heir and he or she has one brother or one sister, then they shall be given a sixth of his or her share; however, if he or she has more than one brother or sister, then they shall be given a third of his or her share. Thus it is not necessary that in case of grandsons, one of the two options be insisted upon. This is purely an issue in which ijtihad can be exercised. In this regard, whatever the method adopted, it should be in accordance with the principles prescribed by the Quran, and in all cases be based on justice.

    (Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

    (Translated by Dr. Shehzad Saleem)

    __________________________

    [1]. The word “direct parents” and “direct children” refers to the parents and children while the word “indirect parents” and “indirect children” refers to grandparents and grandchildren. (Translator)

    [2]. Sayyid Abū al-A‘lā Mawdūdī, Tafhīmāt, 9th ed., vol 3 (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1983), 173-190.

    [3]. Mawdūdī, Tafhīmāt,vol 3, 182.

  • Umer

    Moderator September 27, 2020 at 2:22 pm

    Parent Thread:

    Discussion 31640

The discussion "The Economic Shariah (Qanoon-e-Maeeshat): (5) Distribution Of Inheritance" is closed to new replies.

Start of Discussion
0 of 0 replies June 2018
Now