Law of Inheritance in Islam

Al-Nisaa (4)
Services Post Question Post Reader Article Discussion Forum Membership Interesting Links eBooks Publications Free Email Support Us
Search : Overview of Islam The Qur'an Morality & Goodness Worship Political Issues Propagation Jihaad - Jihad Halaal & Haraam Muslim Communities Other Religions
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Login Password Login
Sources of Islam Islamic Beliefs Cleansing, Purification Social Issues Economic Issues Customs & Symbols The Penal Law History Muslim Sects Miscellaneous Issues
Home > The Qur'an > Al-Nisaa (4) > Clarification of Specific Verses of Al-Nisaa
Clarification of Specific Verses of Al-Nisaa

Articles I Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an (31-Dec-1997) Hits: 13,632
- Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an - Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance Posted on his Website - More on the Law of Inheritance
I
Understanding Islam Introduction Brief History The Team Contributing Writers Top Muslim Sites Comments/Feedback Report Errors Sponsorship Sought
Is Evil from Satan, Ourselves or Allah? (5-Feb-1999) Hits: 12,730 The Implication of the Word 'Kalaalah' (15-Jun-1999) Hits: 3,147 Nominating a Person as an Heir (15-Jun-1999) Hits: 2,349 Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance (15-Jun-1999) Hits: 2,814 The Implication of Narratives Ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) Regarding Bequest... (15-Jun-1999) Hits: 3,241 Does Allah Forgive Shirk - Part - I (2-Oct-1999) Hits: 6,922
- Did Abraham Commit Shirk?
Does Allah Forgive Shirk - Part - II (8-Oct-1999) Hits: 5,116 What is the Punishment for Adultery? (23-Dec-2000) Hits: 13,844 The Position of Jesus (pbuh) in the Hereafter (1-Feb-2001) Hits: 4,200 Did Jesus (pbuh) Die? (11-Apr-2001) Hits: 8,225
Questions
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/questionsarticles.asp?sscatid=124 (1 of 2)6/27/2006 10:52:56 AM
Al-Nisaa (4)
Islamic Stance on Marriage with Minors (4-Jan-1999) Hits: 2,021)

- A Further Exchange on Islam's Stance on Marriage with Minors...
Some Questions Regarding the Shares of Inheritance... (21-Mar-1999) Hits: 2,123) The Meaning of 'Ool al-amr' - Al-Nisaa 4: 59 (1-May-1999) Hits: 1,613) Comments & Questions on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance... (15-Jun-1999) Hits: 3,872) Forgiveness of Shirk - A Clarification of Al-Nisaa 4: 48, 116 and Al-Furqaan 25: 68 - 70 (16-Feb-2000) Hits: 1,965)
- A Further Clarification...
The Qur'an Regarding the Death of Jesus (22-Feb-2000) Hits: 7,211)

- Further Clarification Regarding 'Qur'an on the Death & Return of Jesus (pbuh)'... - A Further Comment on 'Qur'an Regarding the Death & Return of Jesus'...
Questions/Comments on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance (29-May-2000) Hits: 2,019)

- Further Questions/Comments on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance - A Final Comment
What Does Lack of "Ikhtilaafan Katheeran" in the Qur'an (Al-Nisaa 4: 82) Imply? (6-Sep-2000) Hits: 2,070) Eligibility of Share in Inheritance for non-Muslims... (7-Nov-2000) Hits: 1,365)
- Please Provide the Bases of Your Opinion...
The Prohibition of Inheriting Women & the Position of Slaves - Al-Nisaa 4: 19 (30-Mar-2001) Hits: 1,783) Man has no Excuse for Rejection (3-Sep-2001) Hits: 2,429)
- A Further Clarification on 4:165 and 7:172 - Kufr and rejection ?
Relations between Muslims & Non-Muslims Explanation of Al-Nisaa 4: 144 (22-Sep-2001) Hits: 1,346) The Meaning of Al-Nisaa 4: 56 (30-Sep-2001) Hits: 1,528) Making Friends with the Rejecters against the Believers Aal Imraan 3: 28 & Al-Nisaa 4: 144 (6-Oct-2001) Hits: 4,033) Distinction between God & His Messengers Explanation of Al-Nisaa 4: 150 (30-Apr-2002) Hits: 2,880) Male Superiority and the Qur'an? (29-Jul-2002) Hits: 2,249) Can the Sunnah Abrogate the Qur'an? - the Issue of Shortening Prayers during Travel (30-Jul-2002) Hits: 1,881) Regarding Eternal Punishment in Hell for Crimes Other Than Shirk (10-Nov-2004) Hits: 2,773) Salat and the Qur'an (12-Feb-2005) Hits: 949)
Netmagazines.com - Save $5 instantly on any purchase at NetMagazines.com. Use coupon code FIVEOFF after adding all items to shopping cart
Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Understanding Islam, All rights reserved.
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/questionsarticles.asp?sscatid=124 (2 of 2)6/27/2006 10:52:56 AM
Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Prepare for Printing
Email this link
Related Information
Discussion Initiated by Anonymous from Pakistan on 19-Mar-1998. Title: Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an Question/Comments: I bought a couple of books on Muslim fiqh and have looked in more detail into them and into your response to my inheritance share contradiction article. I am amazed to find that you do propose a lot of "methods" which have no resemblence of what any of the Sunni or the Shia legists do. You make up your own idiosyncratic methods. Sometimes you quote a hadith, where it fits your approach, but you forget all the other traditions that have lead the Muslim scholars to divide the inheritance very different from your own methods. Do you feel comfortable to present people with your own opinion which is not followed by any Muslim scholar and applied nowhere in the Muslim world? I have found in those book some more examples where shares add up to more than one. They are quite frequent. And many of your rules (given out these shares first, and then applying the other shares only to the BALANCE that remains...) is something which cannot be found in the Qur'an itself. If we allow an arbitrary number of outside rules, then everything can be solved. But when we take only what the Qur'an actually says, then you have not solved the contradiction. The Qur'an never says "first the spouse" and distribute the balance ... or "first the parents" and then the balance will be given to the children according to the following shares.... One could get the impression you are playing fast and loose with the text. But in particular, I do wonder, why none of the legists has ever done it like you. I would be interested in your response to this observation.
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=22&sscatid=124 (1 of 4)6/27/2006 10:53:15 AM
I will maybe write a direct answer to you some time soon, asking those questions in public, if you do not either answer me or add some explanation to your web page that makes clear that your exposition is very unorthodox and your personal opinion only with no backing of traditional Muslim scholarship. The books I consulted are: "Al-Muwatta" of Imam Malik Ibn Anas "The Reliance of the Traveller" by Nuh Ha Mim Keller [Shafi'i Jurisprudence] "Islamic Inheritance Law" by Dr. Yusuf Ziya Kavakci and the Shia Law web site that is linked from my page. A slightly updated page (though maybe not yet final form) is posted to http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html By the way, the rebuttal to the grammar errors by Newton and Rafiqul Haqq is on its way and should be up within September. Warm regards,
Answer: My dear Mr. Katz, You state: I am amazed to find that you do propose a lot of "methods" which have no resemblence of what any of the Sunni or the Shia legists do. You make up your own idiosyncratic methods. I request you to please have a look at my article again. I have not proposed any methods in my article. I have only elaborated my understanding of the text of the Quran. In this elaboration, I have also tried to explain the linguistic and logical basis for my interpretation. I never claimed in my article that my point of view is held by any Shia or Sunni scholar. I have given my understanding of the concerned verses and I have also given reasons for my interpretation. I really think it would have been more befitting for you to point out what was wrong with my interpretation, rather than see if such an interpretation is held by any one else. In your article on the Law of Inheritance, you criticised the Quran. I, therefore, looked at the concerned verses of the Quran and presented my analysis of these verses. I very honestly felt that my interpretation of these verses would remove all your objections against these verses. But now it seems that your objection is not really against the Quran, but against the generally held Shia and/or Sunni interpretation of these verses. I must admit that I am not interested in defending either of these views. My article is to present a rebuttal to a criticism against the Quran, not to defend the interpretation of the Muslim Scholars. You call my methods "idiosyncratic". I do acknowledge that to some extent, my interpretation is different from others, but please do let me know which of my methods is "idiosyncratic". You further state: Sometimes you quote a hadith, where it fits your approach, but you forget all the other traditions that have lead the Muslim scholars to divide the inheritance very different from your own methods. Please let me know which of the traditions have I forgotten, overlooked or ignored in my interpretation of the concerned verses. You ask: Do you feel comfortable to present people with your own opinion which is not followed by any Muslim scholar and applied nowhere in the Muslim world?
As all true Muslims, I only feel comfortable in adhering to the Quran and the Sunnah and presenting people with the call of the Quran and the Sunnah. I have the greatest of regards for all the Muslim scholars, but for me none of them holds a position superior to the Quran and the Sunnah. I do acknowledge that my interpretation of the Quran may be wrong and that of the other Muslim scholars may be correct. But I think, unless you or someone else (a Muslim scholar??) presents a rebuttal of the basis of my interpretation, I shall have no other option but to very comfortably present people with my own opinion even if it is not followed by any Muslim scholar or applied anywhere in the Muslim world. Please do let me know if there is anything wrong with my approach and my point of view in this respect. You further state: And many of your rules (given out these shares first, and then applying the other shares only to the BALANCE that remains...) is something which cannot be found in the Qur'an itself. If we allow an arbitrary number of outside rules, then everything can be solved. But when we take only what the Qur'an actually says, then you have not solved the contradiction. The Qur'an never says "first the spouse" and distribute the balance ... or "first the parents" and then the balance will be given to the children according to the following shares.... I suggest that you should really read my article again. I have presented detailed linguistic and logical reasoning for all that I have stated. In case you think any of my interpretations is without basis, please point it out to me. I shall be obliged to give my reasons or otherwise reconsider my opinion. You say: One could get the impression you are playing fast and loose with the text. I can't help if "one" makes wrong impressions. It would definitely be much more beneficial if rather than making impressions, "one" would take some time and help me in understanding the mistake, if there is any, in my interpretation of the concerned verses. You state: But in particular, I do wonder, why none of the legists has ever done it like you. I do too. You say: I will maybe write a direct answer to you some time soon, asking those questions in public, if you do not either answer me or add some explanation to your web page that makes clear that your exposition is very unorthodox and your personal opinion only with no backing of traditional Muslim scholarship. All those who have any knowledge of the Law of Inheritance, as interpreted by the Muslim scholars, know quite well that my interpretation is different from their's. It surprises me greatly that you did not. In any case, I shall await your response, in whatever shape and style it may come, with an open heart and mind. I assure you, for me it is not a matter of winning any debates... it is purely a matter of finding out the truth. Therefore, whatever the outcome of this debate, I shall come up a winner, and I hope so shall you. You write: By the way, the rebuttal to the grammar errors by Newton and Rafiqul Haqq is on its way and should be up within September. That is a very heartening news. I await eagerly.
Regards
Article
I
Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an (12/31/1997) Hits: 13,632
Related Discussion(s)
I I I
More on the Law of Inheritance Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance Posted on his Website Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an
Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance Posted on his Website
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Discussion Initiated by Anonymous from Pakistan on 14-Jan-2000. Title: Mr. Jochen Katz' Comment on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance Posted on his Website Question/Comments: Mr Jochen Katz has given links to Muslim responses to his criticism on the law of inheritance of the Qur'an, on the same page on which his criticism can be seen. Below these links, Mr. Katz has given a general comment for all these Muslim responses, which, incidentally, include my response to his criticism as well. As a response to these responses, he writes: My response: All those above Muslim reactions either follow some school of Muslim jurisprudence and explain what should done in the problem cases, or they propose own methods which have nothing to do with Islamic reality. But they only explain what is to be done when the Qur'an does not distribute all the estate or more than is available. But in doing so they import data from the outside (hadith, personal opinions, ...) and the issue of our discussion is whether the Qur'an is sufficient and consistent in itself. The conclusion is that the Qur'an is not logically consistent. In particular, the rule that one party (usually the spouse) is given their share first and then the remainder is distributed according to the given shares, is not found in the Qur'an but imported from the outside. And it is NOT the way the four schools of fiqh are doing it. Furthermore, [it] does not solve all the problems either. It is not possible to obey the laws as given. None of of the responders solves the problem that shares adding up to more than the available estate is a logical internal contradiction in the Qur'an. None of the proposed solution methods of real life can be derived from the text of the Qur'an. The Qur'an contradiction remains. Human rules are necessary to overrule the word that is claimed and believed to be divine. As is clear from one of his previous writings to me, Mr. Katz's statement: "All those above Muslim reactions either follow some school of Muslim jurisprudence and explain what should [be] done in the problem cases" do not apply to my response. In his earlier comment to me, Mr. Katz wrote: I am amazed to find that you do propose a lot of "methods" which have no resemblance of what any of the Sunni or the Shia legists do. You make up your own idiosyncratic methods.
It seems, therefore, that apparently his comment on my article is: "or they propose own methods which have nothing to do with Islamic reality". I really do not know what Mr. Katz implies by "Islamic Reality" -- probably as long as the interpretation is incorrect, it would be acceptable to Mr. Katz and would be coherent with what he terms as "Islamic Reality". However, to be honest, I did not expect such a lay-man's response from Mr. Katz on my article. Even in his previous letter to me, he had mentioned my proposing 'a lot of methods', to which I had replied: I request you to please have a look at my article again. I have not proposed any methods in my article. I have only elaborated my understanding of the text of the Qur'an. In this elaboration, I have also tried to explain the linguistic and logical basis for my interpretation. I never claimed in my article that my point of view is held by any Shia or Sunni scholar. I have given my understanding of the concerned verses and I have also given reasons for my interpretation. I really think it would have been more befitting for you to point out what was [and is] wrong with my interpretation, rather than see if such an interpretation is held by any one else. In your article on the Law of Inheritance, you criticized the Qur'an. I, therefore, looked at the concerned verses of the Qur'an and presented my analysis of these verses. I very honestly felt that my interpretation of these verses would remove all your objections against these verses. But now it seems that your objection is not really against the Qur'an, but against the generally held Shia and/or Sunni interpretation of these verses. I must admit that I am not interested in defending either of these views. My article is to present a rebuttal to a criticism against the Qur'an, not to defend the interpretation of the Muslim Scholars. You call my methods "idiosyncratic". I do acknowledge that to some extent, my interpretation is different from others, but please do let me know which of my methods is "idiosyncratic". Unfortunately, Mr. Katz never responded to my request of "pointing-out what was wrong with my interpretation". Instead, holding firm to the "Truth" -- that shall set him free (?) -- he has continually refrained from taking my explanation with any seriousness and yet has persisted with passing such remarks as: "they propose own methods which have nothing to do with Islamic reality". I would, therefore, once again like to request Mr. Katz to give close consideration to my explanation. The Qur'an is in the Arabic language. Its acceptable interpretation is only the one which is linguistically acceptable. No interpretation which is not in accordance with the Arabic language and the universal principles of understanding language can be accepted. In my article, I had extensively explained the linguistic basis of my explanation (in a number of footnotes). If my explanation is not linguistically correct, then Mr. Katz should at least guide me to the mistakes in it. I shall be deeply gratified to Mr. Katz for helping me out of my mistakes. However, his avoidance in pointing out the mistakes in my response and yet his persistence in making such lay-man remarks on my interpretation can only be perceived as an indication that either he has not understood my response or that he cannot point out any linguistic mistakes in the interpretation and still is averse in accepting it. Mr. Katz writes: "In particular, the rule that one party (usually the spouse) is given their share first and then the remainder is distributed according to the given shares, is not found in the Qur'an but imported from the outside. And it is NOT the way the four schools of fiqh are doing it". Though this may not be a comment on my response, yet I have given an interpretation (please note that my explanation is not a SOLUTION to the problem but an INTERPRETATION of the words of the Qur'an) of the verses that results in a somewhat similar distribution. If my interpretation is correct, then such (first and second) distribution IS mentioned in the Qur'an. If Mr. Katz still thinks that it is not mentioned in the Qur'an, he should point-out the mistake in my interpretation of the Qur'anic verses. As far as the fact that "It is NOT the way the four schools of fiqh are doing it" is concerned, the matter has already been discussed with Mr. Katz in our exchange of comments. If the four schools of fiqh are not doing it, Mr. Katz should then criticize these four schools of fiqh and not the Qur'an. The case, then is one of human error of understanding. Not of a mistake in the Qur'an. Mr. Katz writes: "None of of the responders solves the problem that shares adding up to more than the available estate is a logical internal contradiction in the Qur'an". This, unfortunately, is NOT the "Truth". I have shown in my response that if correctly interpreted, the shares stipulated in the Qur'an, can, in no case, exceed 'one' (the whole) or the 'available estate'.
Mr. Katz writes: "But they [the responses] only explain what is to be done when the Qur'an does not distribute all the estate or more than is available". As stated earlier, I have shown in my response that the stipulated shares in the Qur'an can, in no case exceed 'one' or the 'more than is available'. Therefore, Mr. Katz's words "... or more than is available" do not apply to my response. As far as the fact that in certain cases, the Qur'an does not distribute the whole property of the deceased, I do not think this could be termed as a contradiction or a "logical inconsistency". If the legislature of a country passes a law that "after the death of a person, half of his/ her property must be given to his/her wife/husband", what would be "logically inconsistent" about this law? Any reasonable person would easily understand that in the case of the remaining half, the law gives the person a right to bequest in favor of anyone. Where does the "logical inconsistency" come in from? Especially, if the law also stipulates that a person can be made an inheritor by the deceased (as is the case of the law of inheritance of the Qur'an). Mr. Katz writes: "But in doing so they import data from the outside (hadith, personal opinions, ...)". In the example in the preceding paragraph [of the state legislation regarding only half of the deceased's property] I have shown that no data needs to be "imported" from the "outside" to understand the legislation. However, that is the case only if the interpreters have any common sense. Nevertheless, in the case of the state legislation, if a person does not leave a bequest for the remaining half of his property, and a competent court of law awards it to one of the relatives of the deceased, even then no one can say that there is a 'logical inconsistency' in the state legislation. Mr. Katz writes: "the issue of our discussion is whether the Qur'an is sufficient and consistent in itself". I have shown in my response that in case of the law of inheritance, the Qur'an is both sufficient as well as consistent in itself. Mr. Katz should take a look at my response once again. At the end of his comment Mr. Katz writes: "The Qur'an contradiction remains". In the life of this world, man has been given a chance to ignore the "Truth". Turn away from it. Even laugh at it. The day is not very far off, when this chance shall be taken away from man. He shall then have no option but to accept the "Truth". However, acceptance on that day shall not benefit any one. The "Truth" shall set us free, only if we accept it now, when we also have a chance of turning away from it. I request Mr. Katz to point-out the mistakes, if there are any, in my interpretation of the related Qur'anic verses. I would be greatly indebted to him if he can do that. For that would open the door of the "Truth" for me and shall set me free. Till then, according to my interpretation and understanding, there is absolutely no contradiction in the law of inheritance of the Qur'an. Copyright January 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author
Answer: .
Article
I
I I I
More on the Law of Inheritance
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Discussion Initiated by Amir from United States of America on 22-Jul-2005. Title: More on the Law of Inheritance Question/Comments: Please clarify and explain the following questions. 1) How did you derive from 4:11, 4:12 & 4:112 that there are two categories of inheritors and that the first right of the property lies with the first category and then the remaining wealth/property is distributed to the second category. 2) Surah 2:180 states that "And [for protecting against feuds over wealth] it is obligatory upon you that - when death approaches one of you, if he is leaving behind some wealth - you make a will in favor of parents and the near ones[6], according to the recognized custom [of the society]." Please define the term "will" used in this Surah. Is the verse implying "shares" or one is obligated to write a will for the parent? I thought based on Surah 4:11 & 4:12; a person had an option to select the beneficiary of his will. And then after the will is executed and if there is any property left, that this left property must be distributed based on the shares prescribed by God in the Qur'an. 3) Why is the share of the parents (1/6) larger than the share of the wife (1/8). A wife may leave children behind and may need the highest share among any relative including parents. Thank you.
Answer: Answers to your questions follow:
1. It is clear that one may describe shares in two different ways. Firstly, one may prescribe the
relative shares of the sharers and secondly, one may prescribe absolute shares for the sharers. Thus, one may say: 'The wealth is to be distributed among the children equally'. In this case,
More on the Law of Inheritance
even though the share of each individual child is not defined, yet the relative share of each child with that of the other child has been given (i.e., equally). The Qur'anic statement 'each male's share shall be that of two females' is a similar statement, where only the relative shares - not the absolute shares - of the children have been given. Contrary to the relative shares, one may define the absolute shares. Thus, in the statement, 'A sixth of the wealth should be given to the father', the absolute share of the father has been given. It is a mathematical rule that whenever a statement entails both relative as well as absolute shares, then the only possible way of distributing the shares will be to allocate the absolute shares first and then divide the balance among those whose relative shares has been given. Consider the following example: Distribute these sweets equally among all the participants of the class. If the teacher is present, then the teacher should be given one-tenths of the sweets. The only possible way of carrying out the above directive is to first give the teacher's share and then to divide the remaining sweets among the participants of the class equally. If, however, one were to try to first distribute all the sweets equally among the participants and then to take out the teacher's share, one would be faced with a mathematical impossibility. Keeping the foregoing explanation in perspective, it is clear from the Qur'anic directives relating to inheritance that the Qur'an has prescribed the shares in such a way that some of the relatives are given an absolute share, while others are given a relative share in the wealth. Thus, applying the mathematical rule explained above, it is obvious that first the absolute shares will have to be taken out and then the relative shares will be applied on the balance of the wealth.
2. The word 'will' implies bequest. It is clear that after the prescription of the Qur'anic shares, one
may not make a will that alters the shares prescribed by the Qur'an, except for extremely justifiable reasons. Your stated understanding of the Qur'anic directive is correct. However, due to the fact that the Qur'an has prescribed shares for a person's relatives, it would only be prudent that, under normal circumstances, one should not alter the shares prescribed by the Qur'an, through one's will.
3. I really could not understand your question. Firstly, we know that the Qur'an has separately
prescribed shares for the children. The shares of the children are not included in the share of the wife. There is no apparent reason to compare the share of the wife with that of the parents. Secondly, besides the prescribed share of inheritance for the wife, the Qur'an has also directed the man to make a bequest making adequate provisions for the maintenance and residence of the wife for at least one year, after the person's death. Finally, there is no restriction on a person to make any and every provision for one's wife and other dependents during one's life. The law of inheritance does not affect or restrict such provisions.
I hope this helps. Moiz Amjad July 23, 2005
Article
I
I I I
The Implication of the Word 'Kalaalah'
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Counter Question Comment
Article written by: Country: Date:

Title:
Moiz Amjad Pakistan 15-Jun-1999
The Implication of the Word 'Kalaalah' Article: Note: This article was basically written in reply to some comments/criticisms that I received from a brother, on my article: "Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an"**. It may kindly be noted that in contrast to the general writings on this web site, this article is of a comparatively technical nature and knowledge of the Arabic language may be necessary to fully comprehend it.
Mr. Salim Morgan, in his letter to Mr. Sultan writes: "Kalaala has the two meanings as you have said. However, the meaning in the verse is the first one (no parents OR offspring) because that is the only way it makes sense in that context. In the area of inheritance law, I don't believe this is an area of any difference of opinion among the scholars." Mr. Morgan, when he says that "the meaning in the verse is the first one (no parents OR offspring)" actually means that the word "Kalaalah" has been used in the Qur'an for such a person who leaves behind EITHER no parents OR no offspring. I must confess here that almost all Arabic dictionaries give one of the meanings of the word "Kalaalah", as "a person who leaves behind NEITHER parents NOR offspring", but unfortunately I could not come across even a single authentic Arabic dictionary which gives the meaning of the word "Kalaalah" as is stated by Mr. Morgan. I would therefor be quite interested in finding out what exactly is the source of Mr. Morgan's opinion. Now, let us try to analyse the meaning of the word "kalaalah" as used in the Qur'an. The related part of the verse under consideration (Al-Nisaa 4: 12) should be translated as:
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (1 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM
And if a man or a woman is made an heir on account of being a Kalaalah [relative] and he [or she] has one brother or sister, the brother and sister shall each receive a sixth and if they be more than two, they shall then share in one-third, after carrying out any will that had been made or payment of any debt owed -- without harming anyone. This is a command from Allah and Allah is all-knowing, most forbearing." Rather than give my comments on Mr. Morgan's observation, I present the meaning of the word "Kalaalah", as it has been used in the Qur'an, basing my opinion on some of the most authentice and recognized sources of the Arabic language. The word "Kalaalah" is used in three (not two) meanings. Zamukhsharee in his commentary on the Qur'an, "Al-Kashaaf", while explaining Al-Nisaa 4: 12 writes:
... Kalaalah is used in three meanings: It is used as an adjective for such a person who leaves behind [as inheritors] neither parents nor offspring; it is also used for those who are left behind [as inheritors] and who are neither parents nor offspring of the deceased; and it is also used for any relationship besides that of parent or offspring. Arabs say: "Maa waris al-majd àn kalalatin" [i.e. 'he did not inherit nobility from a far off relation']. This is the same as you would say: "Maa samata àn àyyin" [i.e. 'it was not due to incapacity that he remained silent in the discussion'] or: "Maa kaffa àn Jubnin" [i.e. 'it was not cowardice that stopped him']. "Kalaalah" is actually a verbal noun in the meaning of "Kalaal", and "Kalaal" means: 'loss of power due to incapacity'. A line of one of Aa`shaa's verses reads as: "fa aalaito la arthee lahaa min kalaalatin" [i.e. 'then I swore that I shall not be kind to him due to his weaknesses']. Then, in figurative speech the word was used for relations other than those of parent and child. The reason was that such relationship was weak as compared to the relations of parent and child. And when the word is used as an adjective for the person whose wealth is being inherited or for the inheritors, it is then used in the meaning of "Zu Kalaalah". As you would say: "Fulaanun min qaraabatee" implying "fulaanun min zawee qaraabatee". This word, like the words "Hajaajah" and "Faqaaqah" used in the meaning of 'idiot', can also be used as an adjective..." It is worth mentioning here that the first meaning mentioned by Zamukhsharee [i.e. a person who leaves behind [as inheritors] neither parents nor offspring], although is not against the principles of Arabic language [i.e. the meaning of a verbal noun may be used for both the active and the passive participles] , but it could not be found in any original source of the classical Arabic literature. As far as the second meaning mentioned by Zamukhsharee [i.e. those who are left behind [as inheritors] and who are neither parents nor offspring of the deceased] is concerned, the word is abundantly used in this meaning in the classical Arabic literature. For instance, Yazeed ibn al-Hakam alThaqafiyy, advising his son, says:
A person is miserly in fulfilling his [financial] obligations [toward his bretheren] and [after his death] his herds that graze in the forests are taken away by his Kalaalah relatives. Azharee has quoted a poet as saying:
[When a person is wronged,] then his father is the first one to defend him, his Kalaalah relatives [in such cases] are not [as] furious [as his father] A Bedouin has been quoted in "Lisaan al-Arab" as saying:
I possess a great amount of wealth, but my inheritors are only Kalaalah relatives. According to a narrative reported by Muslim, Jaabir (ra) is reported to have said to the Prophet:
O Messenger of Allah, my inheritors are only Kalaalah relatives. In a number of narratives used by the commentators of the Qur'an, the word "Kalaalah" has been used in this meaning. For instance, Abu Bakr Jassaas in "Ahkaam al-Qur'an" writes:
In this connexion, one of the two opinions ascribed to Abu Bakr, Àli and Ibn Abbaas is that "all relatives of a person except parents and offspring are Kalaalah relatives". Mohammad ibn Saalim reports from Sha`bee and Sha`bee from Ibn Masood that Ibn Masood said that "Besides parents and offspring, all relatives are Kalaalah". The same meaning is also narrated from Zayd ibn Thaabit. As far as the third meaning mentioned by Zamukhsharee [i.e. any relationship besides that of parent or offspring] is concerned, the usage of the word in this meaning in the classical Arabic literature is also quite common. For instance, Tarmaah says:
He swings his arms, which he has not inherited on the basis of a distant relation. With it he ruptures the hidden parts of her thighs A line of one of Àamir ibn Tufail's verse reads as:
And the tribe of Àamir did not make me their leader on the basis of my distant relation The most elaborate Arabic dictionary, "Lisaan al-Arab", while explaining the meaning of the word, writes:
Arabs say: "lum yarith ho Kalaalatan" to imply that he did not inherit [something] on the basis of a distant relation, rather he has received the inherotance on the basis of a close relation [with the deceased] and a rightful claim. Thus, relying on the sources quoted above, it is quite obvious that the word "Kalaalah", in the classical Arabic language was used in three (not two) different meanings. These meanings are:
1. A person, who leaves behind neither parents nor offspring; 2. Those relatives of a person who are neither his parents nor offspring; and 3. Any relationship of a person besides parents and offspring.
Now, let us try to ascertain in which of the three stated meanings is the word "Kalaalah" used in the Qur'anic verse under consideration (Al-Nisaa 4: 12). For this purpose, we shall once again have to take a close look at the verse. The verse reads as:
Although the Muslim jurists are more or less unanimous in their opinion that the word "Kalaalah" has been used in the first meaning stated above [i.e. , A person, who leaves behind neither parents nor offspring], but there is a clear evidence in the verse itself that proves that such is not the case. In fact, if all the words of the verse are fully considered, it becomes impossible to say that the word "Kalaalah" is used in the first meaning stated above. A close look at the verses [Al-Nisaa 4: 11, 12] in which the inheritance law has been laid down, shows that after the shares of the deceased's offspring and parents has been given [end of verse Al-Nisaa 4: 11], the Qur'an has stressed carrying out the will of the deceased in the words:
after carrying out any will [of the deceased]... And then again, after the shares of the husband has been laid down [Al-Nisaa 4: 12], the Qur'an has stressed that the will of the deceased wife should be carried out, using the words:
after carrying out any will that they [i.e. the wives'] have made... And then after the share of the wives has been laid down [Al-Nisaa 4: 12], the Qur'an has stressed that the will of the deceased husband should be carried out, using the words:
after carrying out any will you have made... , and ]. In all these three cases, the Qur'an has used these verbs in active form [ The antecedent of each of these three verbs is clearly stated in the respective sentences. On the other hand, in the verse that lays out the directive regarding "Kalaalah" the same verb has been used in the
passive form [
]. In this case, the Qur'an says:
after carrying out any will that has been made this change is a clear evidence that in the sentence the subject of
-- the deceased person, whose property is being distributed -- is not stated. Thus, in the verb this verse, "Kalaalah" can in no way be interpreted as an adjective for the deceased. This change from active to passive verbs in the Qur'an leaves no ground to take the word "Kalaalah" in its first stated meaning [i.e. A person, who leaves behind neither parents nor offspring]. As far as the preference between the second and the third stated meanings of the word "Kalaalah" is concerned, because of the fact that the implication of the verse remains the same in either case, this preference shall be made on the basis of a judgment regarding which of the two stated meanings helps in giving the sentences a better literary sense. Thus, the verb , according to this interpretation shall be a passive verb from the category of . The word is its predicate. The words
. The word "kalaalah" is used in the verse as the causative object of the verb is used in the sentence in its deficient form (naaqisah) and and are the nouns for interpretation, shall either be:
. The translation of the related part of the verse, according to this
And if a man or a woman is made an heir on account of being a Kalaalah [relative]... or: And if a man or a woman is made an heir on account of his/her Kalaalah relationship [with the deceased]... This is the basis of the interpretation of the verse under consideration, mentioned in my original article. I do acknowledge the fact that the meaning of the word "Kalaalah" according to this interpretation is not the one that has generally been taken by the Muslim jurists. But the fact remains that the ultimate criteria for us -- Muslims -- is not the opinion of any one or more jurists but the Qur'an. I have stated above that the words and the construction of the related sentences of the Qur'an do not allow us to accept the the meaning that has generally been ascribed to this word. I do submit that the opinion expressed in this article can be incorrect, and the one expressed by the jurists can be correct. But any meaningful comment or criticism on my article or in defense of the opinion expressed by the jurists should primarily concentrate on the liguistic errors in my interpretation of the meaning of the word "Kalaalah"; or any other linguistic error in my interpretation and ascription of the meaning of the word "Kalaalah", as it has been used in the Qur'an. Copyright June, 1999. All Rights Reserved with the Author
**- The original article, as well as the reply to this criticism and comment is primarily based on the research work of my teacher, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. ***- The verse reads as:
Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Article written by: Country: Date:

Title:
Moiz Amjad Pakistan 15-Jun-1999
Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance Article: Note: This article was basically written in reply to some comments/criticisms that I received from a brother, on my article: "Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an". It may kindly be noted that in contrast to the general writings on this web site, this article is of a comparatively technical nature and knowledge of the Arabic language may be necessary to fully comprehend it.
Regarding the share of the daughter(s), I had explained my understanding of the verses of the Qur'an in my original article. Mr. Sultan has stressed that my interpretation is not according to the words of the Qur'an. According to Mr. Sultan, the words of the Qur'an require us to give the daughters twothirds of the total property left by the deceased, not that of the balance left after giving away other shares. He writes: I reached the case when the sum is greater than 1. He solves it by giving the parents their share then the daughters 2/3 of what is left. This way he will never have greater than one. That is completely wrong and against the clear verse. Read the three translations we have for the verse 4.11 and compare it to his way of solving the problem. The verse clearly says "2/3 of what he (died person) left" NOT "what is left". As far as the Mr. Sultan's statement: "This way he will never have greater than one" is concerned, I fail to understand its implication. Does Mr. Sultan imply that there HAS to be a situation in which the sum of the shares specified by the Qur'an exceeds one? If that is the case, then I would surely be interested in finding out what, according to Mr. Sultan shall qualify for an arithmetical error? If I say that the total property of a person should be divided among his four sons in such a way that each of them gets thirty
percent of the property, that would surely qualify for an arithmetical error, even in Mr. Sultan's opinion. But if the Muslim Jurists have interpreted the law of inheritance in such a way that the sum of the specified shares exceeds one or one hundred percent, then it is not an arithmetical error! Do we apply the same standards for judging everyone? I would like to clarify here that under the situation that prevails regarding the understanding of the law of inheritance of the Qur'an, there is either a mistake in the Qur'an or a mistake in the interpretation of this law of the Qur'an. If the Muslim jurists have accurately interpreted the verses of the Qur'an, then we have no option but to submit that either there is an arithmetical error in the Qur'an or that statements like:
G
give each of the three sisters fifty percent of the total property divide these ten sweets among the four brothers in such a way that each of them gets four sweets divide the total profits among the friends in such a way that 'A' gets one-third of the profits, 'B' gets one-half of the profits and 'C' gets two-thirds of the profits
are also clear of any arithmetical error. Actually, looking again at Mr. Sultan's statement: "This way he will never have greater than one", gives me a great amount of confidence in the interpretation of my teacher Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, which was the basis of my original article. For this statement clearly shows that this is the only interpretation on the basis of which no arithmetical errors can be ascribed to the related verses of the Qur'an. The basic objection raised by Mr. Sultan on my explanation is that I have 'solved' the case where the sum of the shares should be greater than one by giving away the parents' share and then giving away two-thirds of what is left to the daughters. According to Mr. Sultan: "That is completely wrong and against the clear verse.... The verse clearly says "2/3 of what he (died person) left" NOT "what is left." I must clarify at the outset that I have not solved any 'case'. I have only presented the explanation of the inheritance law, which in my opinion is correct. Moreover, in doing so, I have also explained the linguistic basis of this explanation. I would suggest that Mr. Sultan should have a look at these linguistic basis again and point out the mistakes in them. I assure you that as soon as any linguistic error in this explanation is established, I shall, inshallah, have no problems in accepting it and revising the explanation accordingly. As a further effort to clarify the linguistic basis of that interpretation of the related verses, which is correct in my opinion, I shall briefly restate my point of view here. The related verse of the Qur'an reads as:
"Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male's share shall equal that of two females -- in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds of what he [i.e. the deceased] has left. And if there be only one daughter, she shall get half [of the wealth] -- and if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each of what he [i.e. the deceased] has left, and if he has no children and 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. [These shares shall be distributed]
after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed [by him]." The sentence word is a preamble for the following statement . The
includes both male and female children. Thus, the whole statement shall mean: "Allah
enjoins you about your children, the share of each male child from among them shall be equal to that of two females". If the directive of the Qur'an had ended at :
1. If the deceased has one son and one daughter, the son shall receive double the share of the
daughter;
2. If the deceased has sons and daughters, the wealth shall be distributed among them in such a
way that each son receives double the share of each daughter; and
3. If the deceased has only sons or only daughters, all of the deceased's wealth shall be inherited
by whoever is present. But, as we can see, the directive of the Qur'an has not ended here. On the contrary, immediately after the sentence "a male's share shall equal that of two females", the Qur'an, through an excepting clause has clarified that this shall not be the case. The statement rule is a parenthetical clause stating an exception to the . This exception has changed the implication stated in number 3 above. Now it
means that if there be only daughters, whether two or more, they shall not share the whole of the deceased's wealth but shall share two-thirds of the wealth left by the deceased. The statement is joined to the preceding statement. That is, if there be only one daughter [and no sons], she shall get half of the total wealth left by the deceased. The statement is not connected to either or
as both these sentences are two parts of a parenthetical clause stating exceptions to the basic directive regarding the shares of a person's offspring. Moreover, if the statement beginning with is taken to be connected to its immediately preceding clause, then it would be necessary to derive that the parents shall get their share only in case the deceased has only daughters. But obviously this is not the case, because the statement that prescribes shares to parents includes the phrase: This is another clear evidence that the statement beginning with
cannot be taken as connected to its immediately preceding clause. And finally, all the statement preceding the statement beginning with are a part of God's directives regarding the children of and it is , as
the deceased. All these statements, in other words, were the details of quite obvious that the statement beginning with is not a part of
parents, in no case, can be included among children of the deceased. Thus, the statement is not connected to either of the two preceding clauses, because:
G
Both these immediately preceding clauses are actually two parts of a parenthetical clause stating an exception to the basic directive regarding the share of the offspring; in that case, it would be necessary to derive that the parents shall get their share only in case the deceased has only daughters. But this is obviously not the case; and
in that case, parents would be included in a person's offspring, which is obviously incorrect.
On the contrary, the statement regarding the share of parents is connected to the basic directive regarding the shares of a person's offspring, given in the words: .
Thus the construction of these sentences is such that the shares of a person's offspring is given as a rule [a male's share shall equal that of two females then an exception to the rule is given in a parenthetical clause] and then the share of parents [in different situations] is given. Thus, if you remove the parenthetical clause, the simple construction of these sentences shall be: "Allah enjoins you about your children: A male's share shall equal that of two females... and if he has children, his parents shall inherit a sixth each of what he has left..." It is quite obvious that in this situation the co-ordination between the two clauses: "A male's share shall equal that of two females" and "his parents shall inherit a sixth each", is a qualifying co-ordination rather than a copulative one. There are two obvious reasons for this: Firstly, as stated earlier, a copulative co-ordination would imply that the Qur'an has included parents among children, which is obviously not correct. Secondly, a copulative co-ordination between the two clauses shall render both the clauses meaningless. The two clauses, it is quite obvious, are logically not copulative in nature. If we look closely, we shall see that the first clause has not specified any shares for brothers and sisters. On the contrary, it has only given a rule for this distribution. While the second clause has specified a share for the parents. In this case, the two clauses can only be joined together in a qualifying co-ordination and not a copulative one. If I say: "All the money is to be equally distributed among your brothers and a quarter of the total money should be given to your father", then it would obviously imply that the two clauses of this sentence are not additive or copulative, rather there is a qualifying co-ordination between them. Thus, the implication of this sentence would obviously be that a quarter of the total money shall first be given to the father and the remaining amount shall subsequently be distributed among the brothers. Moreover, if we add an exception to the first clause and then state the second clause, it would have no effect on the implication of the two clauses. For example, if I say: "All the money should be distributed among Tom, Dick and Harry equally; and if there be only Tom and Harry then Tom shall get two-thirds of the total amount and Harry shall get one-third of the total amount; and give ten dollars to their sister". As the readers can see, the clause: "and if there be only Tom and Harry then Tom shall get two-thirds of the total amount and Harry shall get one-third of the total amount" is not a permanent clause, but only an exception to the first clause. The implication of these clauses are:
G
If all three are present then after giving ten dollars to their sister, the balance shall be distributed equally among the three; and if only Tom and Harry are present then after giving ten dollars to their sister, two-thirds of the balance shall be given to Tom and on-third of the balance to Harry.
Look at these sentences again. Although it is said that "All the money should be distributed among Tom, Dick and Harry..." and "Tom shall get two-thirds of the total amount..." and "Harry shall get onethird of the total amount...", yet the qualifying clause [and give ten dollars to their sister] at the end necessitates that first of all ten dollars should be given to the sisters and then the balance should be distributed among those who are present in the specified proportion. The part of the verse under consideration is of exactly the same construction and style. Thus, while reading these verses, if we keep in mind the particular style explained in the preceding paragraphs, we can easily appreciate that the shares of parents and spouses mentioned in the subsequent verses and connected to the basic directive regarding the shares of a person's offspring with , after the clause shall first be distributed and after this distribution, whatever remains [as balance] shall be distributed among the children. If there be only sons, they shall get an equal share in this balance; if there be sons as well as daughters, they shall then share the balance according to the specified rule [i.e. "A male's share shall equal that of two females"]; and if there be only daughters they shall also get their specified shares in the balance of the wealth. They shall, in no case, get these shares from the total wealth left by the deceased.
Copyright June, 1999. All Rights Reserved with the Author
**- The original article, as well as the reply to this criticism and comment is primarily based on the research work of my teacher, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.
Some Questions Regarding the Shares of Inheritance...
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Question asked by Rehan Ahmad from Saudi Arabia on 21-Mar-1999. Title: Some Questions Regarding the Shares of Inheritance... Question: ... after studying the Quranic law of inheritance as explained by you, I found that following two points require further clarification.
G
If a deceased person had more than one wives, which one of the following cases will apply. a.. 1/8 shares of the total amount will be equally distributed among widows. b.. Every one of the widows will be given 1/8 shares each. I need to know which case you choose and on what grounds, since it will change the amount given to others i.e. in second case the 2nd category of inheritors will get less money. While in the first case they get more.
You consider brother and sisters of a childless deceased as the substitution of children on the basis of a comparison of verse 11 & 176. You write (Explanatory note # 8). "These three common features point to the fact that in case a person dies childless, his brothers and sisters substitute his children, with regards to their prescribed shares in their inheritance." A logical consequence of the above derivative should be that the share of childless deceased's spouse must be returned to the original when he/she has a brother/sister. But we see in verse 12 that Qur'an neither mentioned it nor gave any hint about it (as it did in verse 11) and you also applied this while answering the question no 10 of Mr. Katz where you gave of the total assets to the wife.
I hope this will not take much of your time.
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=99&sscatid=124 (1 of 3)6/27/2006 10:54:38 AM
Allah Hafiz
Answer: As far as your first question, regarding the share of the widow/widows is concerned, in my opinion the deceased's wife shall get one-fourth or one-eighth (as the case may be) of the total property. If the deceased had more than one wife, all wives shall have an equal share of one-fourth or one-eighth (as the case may be) of the deceased's property. The basis of my opinion is that in the Qur'an, it is, generally, the share of a relation that has been mentioned, rather than an individual. For instance, when the Qur'an says that if a person has only daughters and if they are two or more in number, they shall get two-thirds of the balance of the deceased's property, it is obvious that it is the share of all the daughters mentioned here, not the share of each individual daughter. In the same way, the share of a deceased person's wife is also actually the share of the relationship, not that of each individual wife. Moreover the words used in the Qur'an (i.e. Your wives shall get one quarter of your estate, if you die childless. While if you leave children, they shall get one-eighth) also seem to imply that the shares mentioned in the verse are for the particular relationship not for each individual wife. My opinion is further supported by the fact that if the shares mentioned in the Qur'an for wives is taken to mean the share of each individual wife it would create some inconsistencies in the law. For instance, suppose a person with four wives dies childless. In such a case, according to the Qur'an, either his brothers and sisters shall be his inheritors or, in their absence, his parents. But giving each wife onefourth of the total property of the deceased shall leave nothing for either the parents or the brothers and/or sisters. Moreover, in such a case, if a person who has brothers and sisters dies childless, the distribution of his property shall be as follows: Father (1/6th) + Mother (1/6th) + Wife # 1 (1/4th) + Wife # 2 (1/4th) + Wife # 3 (1/4th) + Wife # 4 (1/4th) which shall amount to more than one. And is therefore, quite obviously wrong. With reference to your second question, I would like to explain that my statement: "in case a person dies childless, his brothers and sisters substitute his children" applies only to the position of the brothers and sisters of a childless deceased. It does not apply to a change of position of the wife of the deceased. The similarities, in the law of inheritance, on the basis of which I termed brothers and sisters to be substitutes of a person's children if he dies childless are:
G
If there are males as well as females, a male's share shall equal that of two females; the share of one sister, if she is alone, is the same as that of one daughter, if she is alone; and the share of the parents of the deceased is the same (one-sixth), i.e., in case a person who has some children dies, and his parents are alive, the share of his parents shall be one-sixth. Again, his parents would get the same share if the person dies childless but has some brothers and sisters. Whereas, if neither of the two (i.e., brothers/sisters or sons/daughters) exist then the share of the parents shall be different.
I did not mention in these similarities that the share of the wife shall also return to her share that she would have received if the deceased had any children. The basic implication of my statement is that like the children of a deceased, his brothers and sisters, if he dies childless, shall replace the category of children as the "inheroitors of the second category". In this meaning, it would be as correct to say that: "if a person has neither children nor brothers and sisters his parents shall substitute his children as the inheritors of the second category". I hope this helps. In case any aspect of my answer remains unclear, please feel free to write back to me at your convenience. Regards
Comments & Questions on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance...
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Question asked by Irfan Iqbal from United States of America on 15-Jun-1999. Title: Comments & Questions on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance... Question: Dear brother what do you say about the following criticism by Salim Morgan. I would appreciate if you could reply to me with your answer. At the same time I would like to mention that there are a few typos in the article (on inheritance law) on your web page. Please correct them whenever you get time. I have included all previous communication for your reference. (Letters Have been arranged in the chronological order) The First Letter On Wed, 19 May 1999, Ahmad Qamar wrote: Assalaam-u-alikum OK guys, no responsibilities here. I didn't read the article. Besides I don't know much about the inheritance stuff except for Salim's lecture that he delivered some time in Spring or Summer 1997. That's why I am not sending it on the list. http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/articles.jsp?point=1&id=14 You can also follow the link 'Articles' from the main page and then 'Quran' to reach the index page for articles related to Quran including this one. You can contact the authors thru email, too. You may want to check their sites for other stuff, too: http://www.renaissance.com.pk http://www.understanding-islam.com
Jazakumullahukhairan Assalaam-u-alikum Muaz The Second Letter On Thu, 20 May 1999, Irfan Iqbal wrote: Assalaam-u-alikum, Did anyone get a chance to visit the site Muaz mentioned? Please let me know what you think about the article. I am not sending this to MSA List because, like Muaz, I don't want to create any confusion or win points against anyone. My only desire is to acquire better understanding of Qur'an. jak The Third letter Assalamo Alaikom, I have read what Al-Tabari said about kalaalah. I have read what Al-Bukhari said about Kalaalah (his saying not hadith). I have read what a dictionary named "The end of the strange words of hadith and athar" about Kalaalah. The explanation of the word uses other hadiths that use the same root... I have come to disagreement where the vast mejority consider Kalaalah to be a human who dies without parents and children. The other opinions that disagree are mentioned in Al-Tabari only and they are: A man died without children or a man died without parents (not necessarily both). Another point: The nomination of a person, relative or not, to get the rest of the inheretence does not seem right. What is his source to support this point? Did the Quran mention it?! No book nor dictionary refared to nomination!!! Another IMPORTANT point: I reached the case when the sum is greater than 1. He solves it by giving the parents their share then the daughters 2/3 of what is left. This way he will never have greater than one. That is completely wrong and against the clear verse. Read the three translations we have for the verse 4.11 and compare it to his way of solving the problem. The verse clearly says "2/3 of what he (died person) left" NOT "what is left". Sultan The Fourth Letter As-salaamu alaikum: I have some "recollections" (please NOTE DISCLAIMER) from when I studied this subject in college.
1) Kalaala has the two meanings as you have said. However, the meaning in the verse is the first one (no parents OR offspring) because that is the only way it makes sense in that context. In the area of inheritance law, I don't believe this is an area of any difference of opinion among the scholars. 2) The application of the hadith "Laa wasiyyata liy waarithin" (You cannot will anything to any heir) is that you cannot make a wasiya to ANY of the "potential" heirs even if they are not inheriting anything in the current situation due to the presence of those who supercede them. This would include those mentioned in the verse of kalaala. This is the only way which makes sense, actually, since you must make wasiya while still alive and you do not have knowledge of who your heirs will be at death. Can you check on this question? I remember for certain that you can make wasiya to persons who would never inherit from you regardless of the configuration of survivors such as an unrelated friend or a charitable organization. Also, I was taught that you can make wasiya to a non-Muslim relative (even parent or child) since they too would also never inherit from you. I'm not sure if there is a difference of opinion in that one. What you definitely cannot do is make a wasiya to someone who will inherit from you in order to distort the portions which Allah has assigned. I believe this includes a portion of "zero", i.e., that you cannot make wasiya to an uncle for example who is not inheriting anything because of the presence of other heirs. Just in case anyone is not aware, let me just include here that the will of a Muslim can only involve AT MOST one third of his/her property. The rest MUST be distributed according to the portions assigned by Allah. I hope someone can check on this last point (number 2 above) before I can as I am very busy and my house is still torn up after a plumbing leak under the floor. -- Salim Morgan Jazak Allah Khair
Answer: It is primarily the third and the fourth letter which criticises the point of view that I have expressed in my original article. I shall first of all try to summarise the points of criticism in these letters and after that give my comments on these points. 1) The first point that is mentioned in the third letter is related to Mr. Sultan's opinion of the word Kalaalah. Unfortunately, I am completely unable to understand his point of view regarding the implication of this word as used in the Qur'an. He writes: "I have come to disagreement where the vast mejority consider Kalaalah to be a human who dies without parents and children. The other openions that disagree are mentioned in Al-Tabari only and they are: A man died without children or a man died without parents ( not necessarily both)." I am unable to understand his opinion about the implication of the word Kalaalah, and therefore would refrain from commenting on it. 2) The second point that is mentioned in the third letter is related to the issue of nominating any person (whether related or unrelated) in case any balance of the deceased's property is left undistributed. Mr. Sultan writes that such a nomination, in his opinion is not allowed. He has asked me to provide the source to support my point of view. 3) The third point that is mentioned in the third letter is related to the method of distributing the shares. I had expressed my opinion that the share of the daughter(s) shall be given after the shares of the inheritors of the first category are distributed. Mr. Sultan has stressed that my interpretation is not according to the words of the Qur'an. According to Mr. Sultan, the words of the Qur'an require us to give the daughters two-thrids of the total property left by the deceased, not that of the balance left after giving away other shares. 4) The fourth point that is mentioned in the fourth letter relates to the meaning of word Kalaalah in the Qur'an. According to Mr. Salim Morgan, the word "Kalaalah" is used in two meanings. In the verse under consideration, the word is used to imply "a person who has no parents or no offspring.
5) The fifth point that is mentioned in the fourth letter relates to the implication of a saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) regarding the right to will. Mr. Salim Morgan writes that the implication of a narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is that no person can bequeath in favor of any other such person who is a potential inheritor of the first person. 6) Finally, the sixth point that is mentioned in the fourth letter relates to the ratio of property regarding which a person is allowed to bequeath. According to Mr. Salim Morgan, this ratio cannot exceed onethird of the total property of the bequeathing person. Now, besides the first point mentioned above, I shall give my point of view regarding these points. Because of the length and nature of my responses, I have posted these in separate files. The following links shall take you to these responses (the last two comments have been covered together in the last link): Nominating a Person as an Heir The Daughters' Share The Meaning of the Word "Kalaalah" The Implication of Narratives Ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) In Relation to Bequest I hope this helps. In case any aspect of my answers remain unclear, please feel free to write back to me at your convenience. Regards
Questions/Comments on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Question asked by Abid Hussain from Saudi Arabia on 29-May-2000. Title: Questions/Comments on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance Question: My name is Abid Hussain. I am a medical doctor by profession. I was born in Faisalabad but currently I am working abroad. I have been reading your replies to many Islamic questions and issues on the Internet, which you have answered under your pseudonym "The Learner." Your answers are very detailed and informative. Your powers of persuasion and articulation are indeed impressive. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has obviously endowed you with a great deal of knowledge with which you have successfully beaten down the critics of Islam. I found your articles on the Islamic law of inheritance particularly interesting. This is a very difficult field and even the very knowledgeable admit to this fact. You and your teacher Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's interpretation of the Qur'anic verses on inheritance (namely 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176) raised a number of questions and issues in my mind which I would like to put to you and hopefully you will be able to answer to my satisfaction. My knowledge of Islam is in no way comparable to yours so please correct me if need be, however I am familiar with the Islamic laws of inheritance. I would like you to comment on the following issues: 1- If the only heirs are a wife, two daughters and a paternal uncle how should one distribute the inheritance? According to your proposed system the wife in the presence of children belongs to the "first category" of heirs. The distribution according to your method would be thus:
G
Wife inherits 1/8
Two daughters inherit 2/3 of 7/8 equally Paternal uncle inherits the balance, which is 1/3 of 7/8 = 7/24
Now let us look at a hadith narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah (RA) and reported in Sunan Abu Dawud (also reported by Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi and others): We went out with the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and came to a woman of the Ansar in alAswaf. 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 Surah an-Nisaa 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." The distribution of the inheritance as adjudicated by the Prophet (SAWS) in light of the revealed Qur'anic verses was as follows:
G
Wife inherits 1/8 Two daughters inherit 2/3 Paternal uncle inherits the balance, which is 5/24
So you see your method is at variance with the method used by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). 2- If the only heirs are a wife, both parents and two daughters then according to your proposed system of inheritance the distribution is thus:
G
Wife inherits 1/8 Father inherits 1/6 Mother inherits 1/6 2 daughters inherit 2/3 of 13/14 equally The balance (7/72) shall be given to the person bequeathed by the deceased; in the absence of such a person, it shall be given to the closest male relative of the deceased; in the absence of such a relative, the balance shall be distributed as per regulations of the state of residence of the deceased.
This was the answer provided by you in response to a question posed by Mr. Jochen Katz, although Mr. Katz mentioned three daughters instead of two, this does not affect the general principle involved. Hadhrat Ali (RA) while he was on the pulpit (Minbar) delivering the khutbah for the Friday Jumma prayer was interrupted by a man who stood up and asked how the estate should be divided when a man died leaving his wife, father, mother and two daughters. Hadhrat Ali (RA) replied, "The wife's oneeight becomes one-ninth." (Ibn Shubah, vol. 3, pt. i, p. 19, no. 34). This case is famously known as alMinbariyyah. The distribution of inheritance is thus:
G
Wife inherits 1/9 Father inherits 4/27

G
Mother inherits 4/27 2 daughters inherit 16/27 equally
This is the method of distribution according to the Hanafi, Malaki, Shafii and Hanbali fiqh. The doctrine applied is that of al-awl which involves proportional reduction of all the shares. Hadhrat Umar (RA) during his caliphate applied the doctrine of al-awl. Some say it was Hadhrat Zaid ibn Thabit (RA), who actually proposed the system of al-awl. The Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) himself attested to the fact that Zaid ibn Thabit (RA) was knowledgeable about the laws of inheritance. The doctrine of al-awl is based on the ijma` of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Your proposed system is at variance with the decisions of some of the most learned companions of the Prophet Muhammad (RA)? 3- You have stated: "According to verse 176, in case the deceased is childless, and has any brothers and/or sisters, the share of brothers and sisters of the deceased shall be exactly the same as that of his sons and/or daughters respectively, if he had any." In the light of your statement consider a case where the only heirs are the father, a son and a daughter. The distribution of the inheritance would be:
G
Father inherits 1/6 Son inherits 5/9 Daughter inherits 5/18
Your proposed system gives the same answer in such a case. Now consider a case where the only heirs are the father, a germane brother and a germane sister. (Note that instead of the son and daughter we now have a brother and a sister.) The distribution according to all the Islamic schools of jurisprudence is that the father excludes both the brother and the sister and as sole heir the father inherits the entire estate. Will the brother and sister inherit exactly like the son and daughter in this case in your proposed system of inheritance? Brother, Moiz Amjad, you are far more knowledgeable than I am and people listen to you and respect your views. I would like you to tell me how one can reconcile your interpretation of the Qur'anic ayahs on inheritance with that of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and his companions (RA). Please reply. I am keen to learn more about this subject. Your brother in Islam,
Answer: Clarification Please clarify: what 'germane' brothers and sisters mean. Regards, Response
G
Germane brother is a full brother i.e. the same mother and father.

G
Uterine brother is a brother with the same mother but different fathers. Consanguine brother is a brother with the same father but different mothers. Agnatic brother includes both germane and consanguine brother.
Similarly with sisters. Wassalaam, Your brother in Islam, Abid Hussain Reply Before I answer your questions, I would like to reiterate one of the points that you have yourself stressed in your letter. You write: This is a very difficult field and even the very knowledgeable admit to this fact. I do agree with you that because of the arithmetical ingredients of the problem, it has become a somewhat complicated issue. Nevertheless, I also fully adhere to the fact that if the verses of the Qur'an are seen purely from a literal perspective, they present a solution, which is absolutely clear from any complication. However, the fact is that because the solution of the problem actually entails arithmetic calculations of shares - some calculated prior to the others - there is a potential that if the person has not fully understood the directives of the Qur'an, he may commit some errors in the ultimate allocation of the shares of the various parties. Furthermore, the mere fact that the issue has a potential of confusing a mind also points to the fact that there is a likelihood that if a narrator (of the solution) has not completely understood the solution, he may commit mistakes in narrating the solution given. This is an important fact to consider while analyzing the whole situation. Moreover, it should remain clear that in all your three referred cases, it would not be very accurate to say that the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) or the opinion of Hadhrat Ali (ra) or that of Hadhrat Omar (ra) was such and such. The most that can be said is that the three narratives contain the directive ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) or an opinion ascribed to Hadhrat Ali (ra) or Hadhrat Omar (ra), respectively. The chance that the words ascribed to these authorities may not have been accurately narrated can, obviously, not be ruled out. After all, how can we overlook the chance that any one or more of the narrators may have been mistaken in reporting or ascribing these sayings to the respective authorities. Taking the narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) as a case in point, it has been reported by all the three books Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal on the authority of Abd Allah Ibn Mohammed Ibn Aqeel. Regarding Abd Allah ibn Mohammed ibn Aqeel, Ya`qoob is quoted to have said: "His narratives are extremely weak" (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ibn òyainah has said: "There are four people from the Qureish, whose narratives are not accepted" then he named him among them (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). He is also reported to have said: "There was something wrong with his memory, I did not like meeting him" (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ibn Muèen is reported to have said: "He reports weak narratives" (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). A number of other negative remarks have been quoted about this narrator. It is obvious that in view of all these negative remarks, it would not be prudent to consider his reporting to be accurate narratives of the words of the Prophet (pbuh). As far as the Aa'thaar (narratives ascribed to the companions of the Prophet) ascribed to Hadhrat Ali (ra) and Hadhrat Omar (ra) are concerned, their chains are not known to me and therefore I am not in a position to comment on them. Nevertheless, as both these narratives relate to the doctrine of Awl, I would like to present my brief comments on this doctrine: The doctrine of Awl, if you would look closely at it is, in effect, a recognition and acceptance of the idea that there is an error in the stipulation of shares in the Qur'an. In view of this fact, we can either say that:
G
There is a mistake in the ascription of the referred narratives to the companions of the Prophet
(pbuh); or
G
The companions may not have accurately interpreted the verses; or There is a mistake in the Qur'an.
What would be your option? I am willing to submit that the first and even the second option can hold true. But I am not willing to submit that the third option could be true as well. I, therefore, do not accept these narratives ascribe to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) to be based on an accurate interpretation of the Qur'an, as this would imply a mistake in the Qur'an. In my opinion, these narratives do not entail an accurate reporting of the respective events. You write: This is the method of distribution according to the Hanafi, Malaki, Shafii and Hanbali fiqh. The doctrine applied is that of al-awl which involves proportional reduction of all the shares. Even if the above method were ascribed to by the whole of mankind, I would still have the above reservations in accepting it to be correct, as doing so necessitates accepting a mistake in the Qur'an. You further write: Your proposed system is at variance with the decisions of some of the most learned companions of the Prophet Muhammad (RA)? Firstly, I would like to clarify that in my explanation of the law of inheritance of the Qur'an, I have not proposed any 'system'. I have only presented my understanding of the related verses of the Qur'an, clearly stipulating the linguistic bases of my understanding. I do submit that there can be a mistake in my understanding of these verses. Nevertheless, I would only be able to understand this mistake if an error is pointed out in the bases of my interpretation that I have provided in detail in my article. Secondly, it would not even be very accurate to say that my interpretation is "at variance with the decisions of the most learned companions of the Prophet Mohammed". It would seem more prudent to say that my interpretation is 'at variance with the decisions ascribed to the most learned companions of the Prophet'. Obviously, there is a chance that such decisions may not have been accurately ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Especially, when accepting these decisions to be accurate implies accepting an error in the Qur'anic stipulation of the shares of inheritance. I would like to add here that I would, insha'Allah, have absolutely no problem in accepting that my interpretation is faulty, if someone points out an error in the bases of my interpretation. Nevertheless, even if that happens, I would still not be willing to accept the interpretation based on Awl to be accurate, due to the mere fact that it implies accepting an error in the Qur'anic stipulation of the shares of inheritance. Would you not do the same? As far as your third question is concerned, you have accurately deduced the shares that I would give in the stated case. You ask: Will the brother and sister inherit exactly like the son and daughter in this case in your proposed system of inheritance? The answer to this question is: Yes. The basis, as you have yourself pointed out is Al-Nisaa 4: 176. However, you have expressed your concern that: The distribution according to all the Islamic schools of jurisprudence is that the father excludes both the brother and the sister and as sole heir the father inherits the entire
estate. I agree. However, in my opinion, this distribution seems to be in clear contradiction to the directive of Al-Nisaa 4: 176. Therefore, in view of Al-Nisaa 4: 176, I think the stated opinion of the respected jurists is not very accurate. 30th May 2000
Discussion(s) regarding this Question

1 Further Questions/Comments on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance 2 A Final Comment
Male Superiority and the Qur'an?
Questions
Advance Search
Members
Email this link
Related Information
Question asked by Ahmad from Malaysia on 29-Jul-2002. Title: Male Superiority and the Qur'an? Question: I was recently reading a book on history (by a non Muslim writer) and I read that the Koran says that man has been created superior to women. I was even more shocked when the writer quoted these words which he says are from the Koran "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other". Is this indeed what the Koran says? Ahmad Malaysia
Answer: The author has indeed referred to a verse of the Qur'an. The translation of the verse follows: Men [as husbands] are responsible for their women because God has made the one superior to the other [in different spheres] and because they spend of their wealth... The Arabic phrase
imply absolute superiority of one party as compared to another. On the contrary, this phrase is used to imply the superiority of one over the other from different perspectives, as if to say that one is superior over the other from one perspective, while the other is superior over the first from another perspective. Keeping the stated implication of the phrase in mind, it should be clear that the referred verse of the Qur'an actually states that men have been made in charge of their wives, because God has made them more suitable for the purpose, just as God has made women more suitable for various other purposes. I hope this explanation would resolve the issue that has arisen in your mind.
" " (i.e., "made the one superior to the other") is not used to
Male Superiority and the Qur'an?
Regards, Moiz Amjad July 29, 2002

Law of Inheritance in Islam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of Inheritance in Islam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

<i>Al-Nisaa</I> (4)

Clarification of Specific Verses of Al-Nisaa

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/questionsarticles.asp?sscatid=124 (1 of 2)6/27/2006 10:52:56 AM

Islamic Stance on Marriage with Minors (4-Jan-1999) Hits: 2,021)

The Qur'an Regarding the Death of Jesus (22-Feb-2000) Hits: 7,211)

Questions/Comments on the Explanation of the Law of Inheritance (29-May-2000) Hits: 2,019)

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/questionsarticles.asp?sscatid=124 (2 of 2)6/27/2006 10:52:56 AM

Prepare for Printing

Email this link

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=22&sscatid=124 (1 of 4)6/27/2006 10:53:15 AM

Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an (12/31/1997) Hits: 13,632

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=22&sscatid=124 (4 of 4)6/27/2006 10:53:16 AM

Prepare for Printing

Email this link

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=24&sscatid=124 (1 of 4)6/27/2006 10:53:27 AM

Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an (12/31/1997) Hits: 13,632

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=24&sscatid=124 (3 of 4)6/27/2006 10:53:27 AM

Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Understanding Islam, All rights reserved.

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=24&sscatid=124 (4 of 4)6/27/2006 10:53:27 AM

More on the Law of Inheritance

Prepare for Printing

Email this link

Answer: Answers to your questions follow:

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=587&sscatid=124 (1 of 2)6/27/2006 10:53:38 AM

More on the Law of Inheritance

I hope this helps. Moiz Amjad July 23, 2005

Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'an (12/31/1997) Hits: 13,632

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=587&sscatid=124 (2 of 2)6/27/2006 10:53:38 AM

The Implication of the Word <i>'Kalaalah'</i>

Prepare for Printing

Email this link

Counter Question Comment

Article written by: Country: Date:

Moiz Amjad Pakistan 15-Jun-1999

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (1 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM

The Implication of the Word <i>'Kalaalah'</i>

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (2 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM

The Implication of the Word <i>'Kalaalah'</i>

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (3 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM

The Implication of the Word <i>'Kalaalah'</i>

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (4 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM

The Implication of the Word <i>'Kalaalah'</i>

]. In this case, the Qur'an says:

. The translation of the related part of the verse, according to this

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (5 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM

The Implication of the Word <i>'Kalaalah'</i>

Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Understanding Islam, All rights reserved.

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=19&sscatid=124 (6 of 6)6/27/2006 10:53:58 AM

Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance

Prepare for Printing

Email this link

Counter Question Comment

Article written by: Country: Date:

Moiz Amjad Pakistan 15-Jun-1999

Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=21&sscatid=124 (2 of 5)6/27/2006 10:54:14 AM

Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=21&sscatid=124 (3 of 5)6/27/2006 10:54:14 AM

Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=21&sscatid=124 (4 of 5)6/27/2006 10:54:14 AM

Discussion on the Daughter's Share in Inheritance

Copyright June, 1999. All Rights Reserved with the Author

Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Understanding Islam, All rights reserved.

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=21&sscatid=124 (5 of 5)6/27/2006 10:54:14 AM