Islamic inheritance criteria: Investigating Qur’anic inheritance laws

Last updated on: July 8, 2011 at 10:27 pm by Guest Contributor

Islamic inheritance criteria: Investigating Qur’anic inheritance laws 2011-07-08T22:27:26-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One of the common perceptions about Islam is that it dictates a traditional system of Islamic Law (“sharia”) which discriminates against women by allowing them to inherit only half as much as men. In fact, the Qur’anic position on these traditional laws is quite debatable; examination of the Qur’anic verses in question will allow us to decide whether or not the inferior position of women’s inheritance in traditional Islamic law is justified.

The traditional view of inheritance in Islamic law comes from the following verses:

Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male’s share shall equal that of two females (Qur’an 4:11); If there are many brothers and sisters, the share of each male should be that of two females. (Qur’an 4:176)

While the above seem clear enough, and were taken as the basis for the inheritance laws laid down by the traditional schools of Islamic law, there is on the other hand the fact that the Qur’an also tells all Muslims to make a will specifying inheritance of their assets.

Prescribed for you, when any of you is visited by death, and he leaves behind some goods, is to make testament in favour of his parents and kinsmen honourably — an obligation on the God-fearing. Then if any man changes it after hearing it, the sin shall rest upon those who change it; surely God is all-hearing, all-knowing.

But if any man fears injustice or sin from one making testament, and so makes things right between them, then sin shall not rest upon him; surely God is all-forgiving, all-compassionate. (Qur’an 2:180-182)

The first verse makes it obligatory for all Muslims to make a will determining the distribution of their assets after their death. The second verse emphasises the importance of this will by saying that no one has a right to falsify it. The third verse again emphasises the importance of the will by saying that any claimant who feels they have been unjustly dealt with should resolve the injustice by discussion with the maker of the will before their death. Altogether, the three verses make it clear that wills are integral to the Qur’anic view of inheritance; this acknowledges the general principle that every person is best suited to determine their obligations to their heirs and the fate of their assets.

The importance of making a will is also underlined by the Qur’anic specification that the will must be made in the presence of two witnesses:

O believers, the testimony between you when any of you is visited by death, at the bequeathing, shall be two men of equity among you; or two others of another folk, if you are journeying in the land and the affliction of death befalls you. Them you shall detain after the prayer, and they shall swear by God, if you are doubtful: “We will not sell it for a price, even though it were a near kinsman, nor will we hide the testimony of God, for then we would surely be among the sinful.” (Qur’an 5:105)

The question now arises, what is the Qur’anic position on inheritance? Is inheritance to happen according to the specified formulae, in which case women will inherit half as much, or according to an individually decided will, in which case no formulae apply? There is an obvious contradiction between these two alternatives.

To resolve these differences it is important to look at the context in which the various Qur’anic inheritance verses were revealed. The verses supporting individual disposal of assets through a will were likely revealed in the early Medinan period, in which the Prophet was called upon to establish basic rules according to which the early Muslim community in Medina would run. However, the more involved inheritance formulae were revealed after the battle of Uhud, in which many Muslims were killed; quite likely many of them had made no will, thus resulting in a chaotic situation regarding the disposal of their assets among many claimants. The traditional schools of law generally held that the earlier Qur’anic requirement of making a will had been overruled by the later inheritance formulae (the term used by legal scholars to describe this was “naskh” or abrogation).

But the question arises as to why we today should continue to adhere to a set of inheritance formulae (coincidentally favouring males) which seemingly were revealed as an emergency measure following a major disaster (the unexpected death of many Muslims at Uhud). Common sense should make us realise that Qur’anic rulings based on general, universally applicable principles are likely to be the ones which are still applicable in modern times; as opposed to the verses which were obviously revealed in very specific situations of the early Muslim community, and likely were never intended to be applied beyond those situations.

In the case of inheritance, there are two visibly different guidelines given in the Qur’an. The first supports the general principle, which should be applicable at all times, of each individual’s right and duty to determine the fate of their own assets after death. The other simply provides a quick formula to distribute assets after a disaster such as Uhud where many may have been killed without leaving wills. Perhaps the latter inheritance formulae could still be applicable today in situations such as war or natural disasters which kill many people unexpectedly before they have made a formal will, but there is no reason to support these formulae as a general case. Traditional Muslim scholars always made the assumption that inheritance formulae overrule the rights of individual wills; but this was a simplistic judgement on their part, because the inheritance formulae could simply be meant for the special case where there are no wills.

If the inheritance formulae are indeed meant to be a special legal provision reserved for war and natural disasters, then the general Islamic ruling on inheritance which remains is the Qur’anic insistence that everyone make wills and dispose of their assets fairly and as they see fit. If such an interpretation of the Qur’anic verses were accepted today, then there would be no further general use of the gender-biased interitance laws which are now practiced in some Muslim countries.

Zeeshan Hasan holds a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and is author of the www.liberalislam.net website. This article originally appeared in the Daily Star (Bangladesh).

Commentary

Previous Post

July 6, 2011

Civil liberties: Muslim states must support LGBT rights

Next Post

July 10, 2011 Compassion towards another: One man fights for his shooter’s life

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Bethany" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

House of mercy House of stone House of affliction House of bread