-
Hassan Ilyas' Law Of Inheritance Videos
یہ سوال حسن الیاس صاحب کےلئے ہے۔ آپ نے اِن وڈیوز میں آیت ۱۷۶ کو تو تفصیل سے واضح کر دیا لیکن آیت ۱۲ پر مفصل بحث نہیں کی۔ اگر میں آپ کی ساری بات صحیح سمجھا ہوں تو اِس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ آیت ۱۲ میں میت کے بھائی بہن کے علاوہ جو دوسرے کلالہ رشتہ دار ہیں اُن کا ذکر ہے کیونکہ بھائی بہن کا ذکر توآیت ۱۱ کے اُس مقام پر خود بخود موجود ہے جہاں بھائی بہن کی موجودگی میں والدین کا مجوعی حصہ واپس ایک تہائی کر دیا جاتا ہے۔ تو چونکہ بھائی بہن بھی کلالہ ہیں تو یہ سوال پیدا ہوا ہو گا کہ کیا اُن کا حصہ آیت ۱۱ کی روشنی میں اولاد کی طرح سمجھا جائے یا پھر آیت ۱۲ میں کلالہ کی طرح تو پھر اِس سوال کے جواب میں اللہ نے آیت ۱۷۶ میں اِسے واضح کر دیا کہ بھائی بہن کے معاملے میں اولاد کی عدم موجودگی میں اوالاد والے حصوں کا اطلاق ہو گا یعنی آیت ۱۷۶ اصل میں یہ بتا رہی ہے کہ آیت ۱۱ اپنے آپ میں مکمل ہے اور وہ والدین، زوجین اور اولاد / بہن بھائی(کلالہ) کا احاطہ کر رہی ہے۔ جبکہ آیت ۱۲ اُن کلالہ رشتہ داروں کے بارے میں ہے جو بھائی بہن کے علاوہ ہیں۔ مہربانی فرما کر بتائیے کہ کیا میں غامدی صاحب کا نقظہ نظر صحیح سمجھا ہوں؟ اور اگر صحیح سمجھا ہوں تو پھر کچھ سوال پیدا ہوتے ہیں ۔ پہلا سوال یہ کہ آیت ۱۲ والے کلالہ کی طرف وراثت کب جائے گی؟ یعنی کیا میت کے اگر کوئی والدین ، اولاد ، زوجین یا بہن بھائی نہیں ہوں گے کیا تب آیت ۱۲ والے کلالہ کی طرف وراثت جائے گی؟ یعنی کیا میت خود بھی “پہلے مفہوم والا کلالہ “ہو گا تو پھر اُس کی وراثت کلالہ رشتہ داروں کی طرف جائے گی؟ اور دوسرا سوال یہ کہ اِس کا تعین کون کرے گا ؟ اگر مرنے والا تعین نہیں کرتا تو پھر کیا ریاست/معاشرہ تعین کریں گے؟ آپ حضورﷺ کے جس اطلاق کا حوالہ دے رہے تھے وہ کون کرے گا؟ سب سے قریبی مرد کا تعین کون کرے گا؟
میرا خیال ہے کہ غامدی صاحب کا فہم کلالہ کے بارے میں درست ہے لیکن آیت ۱۲ والے کلالہ کی طرف وراثت جانے کا معاملہ کافی مبہم ہے۔ اِس سلسلے میں اگر ربطِ کلام کو ملحوظِ خاطر رکھا جائے تو میرا خیال ہے کہ یہ اُس بقیہ حصے کے متعلق ہے جو آیت ۱۱ کی تقسیم کے بعد بھی اگر کچھ بچ جاتا ہے۔ یعنی آپ پہلے آیت ۱۱ کے تحت والدین، زوجین، اولاد/ بہن بھائی میں تقسیم کر دیں اور پھر جو بچ جائے وہ کلالہ رشتہ داروں میں تقسیم کیا جائے اور اُس کے لئے اگر میت نے تعین نہیں کیا تو معروف طریقے پر اقربا ء کی رائے سے معاشرہ /ریاست فیصلہ کر لے۔اِس کے لئے آیت ۸ سے بھی مدد لی جا سکتی ہے کہ یہ اُن کلالہ اقرباء میں تقسیم ہو جو یتیم یا مسکین ہیں۔ اِس پر اپنی اور غامدی صاحب کی رائے دیجئے ۔
-
19 Replies
-
Hassan Ilyas' Law Of Inheritance Videos
updated 3 years, 6 months ago
3 Members
·
19
Replies
-
The Islamic law of Inheritance has been discussed at length by Ghamidi Sahab. You can refer to the written article or videos made available in the following thread (You can study the concept and application of Kalalah in depth here):
Regarding Kalala, following summarized comments might help from the above article:
…”Together with these rightful heirs, apart from them or in their absence a deceased can make a near or a distant relative (Kalalah) except his parents, and children his heir. If the relative who is made an heir has one brother or one sister then he or she 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 and sister then they shall be given a third of his share and he himself shall receive the remaining two thirds“…
-
Thanks @UmerQureshi . This article is helpful but I have one specific questions in my note which I have detailed for Hassan Ilyas sb. In short what I am asking is that according to Ghamidi sb., inheritance goes to Kalala if there are no rightful heirs. I think what is left, after distributing to rightful heirs, goes to Kalala. I need Ghamidi sb.’s opinion on that.
-
This has been answered by Ghamidi Sahab in the article I just shared, and the excerpt that I shared with you specifically addresses this point. In summary:
– Will in favour of Kalalah can be made even in presence of rightful heirs where will is to be adjusted first against the total inheritance. or;
– Will in favour of Kalalah can be made only for the remaining amount of inheritance that is left after distribution of inheritance to the rightful heirs. or;
– Will in favour of Kalalah can be made in the absence of rightful heirs.
(In all the scenarios, the distribution directive of 4:12 will be applied)
Regarding Brothers and Sisters specifically, they are Kalalah relatives by default, but only be considered rightful heirs of the deceased in case He/She dies childless, in that case they take place of children and become rightful heirs and the same distribution as applicable to children applies to them (as elaborated in 4:176). In the presence of children, brothers and sisters are also Kalalah relatives just like other Kalalah relatives and in that case, they will be dealt with in accordance with verse 4:12.
In case a person dies without making any will, the principle of أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا in today’s time can be applied by the state after taking into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the deceased.
-
I have read the article you referred and also Inheritence section from Meezan. I have understood Ghamidi sahib’s point of view clearly. But now there are two more confusions. Let me ask the first one first. According to Hassan’s videos and Meezan, both the share of spouse and the share of parents are taken out of the original total independently and the rest is distributed among children and/or Kalala. But point 4 of the article you referred says that parent’s share is calculated from what stands remaining after spouse share is taken out. Can you please explain that?
-
Assalamualikum Ahraz Ahmad Sahab!
Please see if this response answers your query. If not, do let me know:
-
Coincidently my question was exactly the same that Saqib asked in that post you referred. I had exact same scenario in mind. But the answer you and Irfan Shahzad provided contradicts with Meezan and Hassan’s videos. They say that parent’s share is taken out of total (not from what is remaining after giving to husband). They clearly say that in presence of children, parents get 1/6 each of the total (not what remains after giving to husband). So same should apply when there are no children. I understand that im the absense of children, if we take parent’s share out of the total, then father’s share becomes half to that of mother because husband is alive and that is okay. It is logical because the profitability (منفعت) of dead woman has been shifted from father to husband after marriage so in presence of husband, father’s share is reduced but mother’s share remain constant. That also probably explains why mother’s shared is explicitly mentioned on Ayat 11 in the absense of children but not that of father. God’s intention probably was to calculate father’s share what is left after giving both husband and mother from the actual total. Please review this and advise.
-
Actually I have tried to answer this very question in my reply that I shared with you in a brief way.
To elaborate further, please read this to better understand Ghamidi Sahab’s view regarding parent’s shares both in the presence and absence of children and Siblings:
…”According to the linguistic principles of Arabic, after the words fali ummihi thuluth (the mother’s share is one third) the words wa li abīhi thuluthān (and the father’s share is two thirds) or words of similar meaning have been suppressed, as is being readily suggested by the words wa warithahu abwāhu (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 Zaid and Ali, Zaid’s shares is one thirds’ 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 our estimation, after fa in kāna lahu ikhwatun fa li ummihis sudus (and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother’s share is the same one sixth) the words wa li abīhis sudusu aidhan (and the father’s share is also one sixth) or words having a similar meaning have been suppressed. The contextual indication for this is also very evident. If the 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 in our opinion the correct analysis of these verses is: ‘If there are children, both the father and the mother shall receive one-sixth. If there are no children and only parents are the heirs, the mother’s share is a third, but if there are brothers and sisters, 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 fathers 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. Our view is endorsed by the last verses of the surah, but we will delay an explanation until the end, when these verses shall be discussed.
The word ikhwatun, in our consideration, only signifies the existence of a being. 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“…
(Excerpt from Law of Inheritance: Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)
I hope this will help.
-
This one I already understand and completely agree. I think I confused my question with a comment about mentioning of father’s share. Absense of mentioning of father’s share at those two points in Quran is not an issue. My question was:
According to Meezan and Hassan’s videos, both parents and spouse get share from total. But you and Irfan Shahzad said that they will get share from what is left after giving to spouse.
Lets assume there are no children.
According to Hassan, if there is husband, then husband gets 50%, mother gets 33.33% and father gets the rest which is 16.66%.
You said that husband will get 50%, father will 33.33% and mother will get 16.66%.
What you say makes sense but there is no indication in Ayat 11 and 12, not even from the language style to take husband’s share first.
What Hassan said also makes sense and we don’t have to take meaning out from Quran forcefully. Its okay if father’s share is reduced as compared to that of mother. We can say that profitability of dead woman was shifted from father to husband after she got married.
I need Ghamidi sb’s point of view on this specific use case.
If my question is still not clear, is there a way I could call and discuss?
Its important, thanks!
-
Ahraz, so Hassan did not say that if there is a husband, then the husband gets 50%, the mother gets 33.33% and the father gets the rest which is 16.66%. He was mentioning the case where the parents are NOT the ultimate beneficiaries. So to rephrase: where parents are NOT the ultimate beneficiaries, one pays out their 1/6 shares, before diverting the taraka to the ultimate beneficiaries. In the case where parents ARE the ultimate beneficiaries (no kids, and no siblings case), then one pust pay out the spousal share before directing diverting the taraka to the ultimate beneficiaries i.e. the parents. Of this diverted fund, the mother is entitled to 1/3, and the father to 2/3.
-
Btw. based upon the current discussion I tried to parse the ayaat here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1czLuackxjXi7oUPVNm64AApUt_JgAzlInS8NgV0MpX8/edit?usp=sharing
Umer and Ahraz, please feel free to comment.
-
@Ahraz Sahab! Please read this response written by Saqib Sahab! and pin point your critique for me, thank you.
-
Saqib – So if parents are not ultimate beneficeries, they get 1/3 of the total. But if they are ultimate beneficeries, they get 2/3 and 1/3 of remaining after giving to husband.
Its still a contradiction.
See, being “ultimate beneficeries” is with respect to children/siblings and shares of parents are also changed with respect to children/siblings. Husband is not in refernece here.
So i mean to say whether we give them 1/3rd (non ultimate beneficeries) OR 2/3+1/3 (ultimate beneficeries), in both cases either we should do from the total OR we should do from remaining after giving to husband.
I dont think we can justify having two differnet rules. The ayat simply says… 1/3 for parents if there are children/siblings… and then 1/3+rest if there are no children/siblings and parents are the only heirs.
If for the second case we want to calculate 2/3+1/3 from remaining after giving to husband, then we should do the same for first case.. meaning.. 1/3 from the remaining after giving to husband.
What do you think?
-
Btw I haven’t yet seen your google sheet but have posted my comments above. Will review the sheet later on.
-
Ahraz, so figuring out if there is a contradiction will be way above my pay grade 🙂
My response was what I have understood to be ustaad’s explanation of the faraaidh (thanks to Umer/Hassan). I just want to figure out what the viewpoints are.
To the best of my knowledge, ustaad claims that the An-Nisaa ayaat say this:
There are 3 cascading levels of ‘ultimate’ beneficiaries. There are the following in-order:
Case 1: Children
Case 2: Siblings
Case 3: Parents
So children are the original ultimate beneficiaries. If they are not there, then siblings are the ultimate beneficiaries. If neither are there then the ultimate beneficiaries are the parents.
Whatsoever might be the case, for each, there are a set of ‘prior’ shares that need to be disbursed.
For Case 1, spousal (1/4 or 1/8) and parental (1/6 each) shares (if any) need to be disbursed.
For Case 2, spousal (1/2 or 1/4) and parental (1/6 each) shares (if any) need to be disbursed.
For Case 3, spousal (1/2 or 1/4) shares (if any) need to be disbursed.
So, the point of confusion, is that parental shares are mentioned BOTH as ‘ultimate’ (Case 3), and ‘prior’ (Case 1 & 2).
So to answer your question, yes the fact that parents are treated two different ways depending upon the case is interesting. I do not think it is anomalous though, and it does seem to jibe with the text of the ayaat (take my gulabi arabi with huge does of salt).
P.S.: It’s interesting that the ultimate beneficiaries consistently have a 2:1 male to female ratio in play.
-
Now this is interesting. The way you have just explained has given me point to think. The concept of ultimate beneficeries. I need sometime to further think and digest it. I will come back in a day or two after reading the ayats with this perspective. One thing im thinking right now is that the simple meanings and arrangment of sentences in ayats give different impression. Secondly, I will read Meezan again to see if Ghamidi sb says the same about 2/3+1/3. Give me sometime to comeback.
-
-
ایک تصیح کرنا چاہتا ہوں۔ سوال میں جہاں میں نے آیت ١٢ لکھا ہے وہاں میری مراد آیت ١٢ کے کلالہ والا حصہ ہے۔ اور میں نے غلطی سے زوجین کے حصے کو آیت 11 میں شامل سمجھ لیا تھا۔ مہربانی فرما کر جواب دیتے وقت اس بات کو نظر انداز کر دیجئے۔ میرا خیال ہے آپ میرا اصل سوال پھر بھی سمجھ گئے ہونگے
-
Aoa. According the ustaad’s explanation, how will the following shares be divided: Woman dies, leaving behind a husband and parents, but no kids?
-
Assalamualikum Saqib Sahab!
Kindly post your question as a separate topic so that it can be answered appropriately. Thank you.
-
-
Okay, I’ll do that. Thanks for letting me know Umer. I was asking this in the context of Hassan’s videos, and might have other questions. So I thought, this might be an over-arching thread for discussing Hassan’s videos.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
