Title:
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 two-thirds 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:
-
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
is a preamble for the following statement 
The word
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
-
If the deceased has one son and one daughter, the son shall
receive double the share of the daughter;
-
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
-
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
is a parenthetical clause stating an exception to the rule
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 
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 
not connected to either 
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 the deceased. All these
statements, in other words, were the details of
and it is quite obvious that the statement beginning with
is not a part of 
as 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:
-
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:
-
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 one-third 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.