Defense of Inheritance Laws from the Criticism of Feminists and Kuffaar

You write:

Interesting enough the Sunni jurists almost unanimously accept the doctrine of awl. The doctrine of awl is based on the ijma` of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

It may be added to your statement that the doctrine of 'awl' is based on an interpretation of the Qur'an, according to which, God has said something to the effect that "The five brothers should get one-fourth each of the total inheritance[1]". Saying that 'The five brothers should get one-fourth each of the total inheritance', in mathematical terms is like saying:

1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 1

or that:

1/4 x 5 = 1

This, obviously, is a mathematical error. If this is not a mathematical error, then please tell me, what, in your opinion, would amount to a mathematical error? I assure you that we are so certain about it being a mathematical error that if a statement like 'distribute $100 in five brothers, in such a way that each of them gets one-third', was given by my son's mathematics teacher, I certainly would have thought that the man was not qualified to teach mathematics.

Thus, in my opinion, your complete statement should read as: "Although based on an interpretation of the Qur'an, which accepts a mathematical error in the Qur'an, yet, interesting enough, the Sunni jurists, almost unanimously accept the doctrine of awl." [/quote]

The problem with this jaahil is that he doesn't recognize the simple fact that the Qur'an does not go into every single intricate detail dealing with inheritance. Even though the verses of inheritance are more detailed than any others in the Qur'an, they still only provide the general outline. The rest has to be derived through the ahadith, fiqh, qiyas, and ijma'. This is how the fuqaha determined the rules regarding grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, uncles, and nephews, although none of these relatives are mentioned in the verses of inheritance. The same applies to the law of 'awl.

'Awl is based upon the correct understanding of the sahaaba, and is now agreed upon by all four madhabs. His assertion that it implies there is a mistake in the Qur'an is ridiculous. The Qur'an does not expound upon every detail of any mas'alah. Take a look at the verses of Hajj. There are countless masaa'il of Hajj that are not mentioned in the Qur'an. Should we now assert that this implies the Qur'an has errors? No, we go to the ahadith and other sources of Islam to derive the rest of the masaa'il.

The example of "1/4 x 5 = 1" is misleading and only shows the "scholars" lack of knowledge. Here is the law of 'awl as explained by a sahaabi:



And here is how Ibn al-Qayyim explained the derivation, how it was deduced through qiyas:



Nope, we do accept that this adds up to more than one. But in this case we apply 'awl as taught by the sahaabah and the generations of Muslims afterwards.

[quote="The "scholar"][2] Consider the distribution of shares in case the inheritors are: 1) a wife, 2) father, 3) mother and 4) two daughters. The shares stipulated in the Qur'an in such a case are: one-eighth, one-sixth, one-sixth and two-thirds respectively. However, applying the doctrine of awl, the shares would amount to:

Wife inherits 1/9 (was supposed to get one-eighth)

Father inherits 4/27 (was supposed to get one-sixth)

Mother inherits 4/27 (was supposed to get one-sixth)

2 daughters inherit 16/27 equally (were supposed to get two-thirds)

Is this what the Qur'an had directed?

This objection on the doctrine of awl is precisely what Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه is reported to have said. Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas in his 'Ahkaam al-Qur'an' writes:

`Ataa ibn Abi Ribaah says: "I heard Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه mention the shares of inheritance and [the concept of] awl in these shares. He said: 'Do you think that the One [i.e. God], Who has an accurate record of even the particles of sand, would distribute the shares of inheritance as 'one-half and one-half and one-third'? This one-half and that one-half would account for the whole. Now where would you give the remaining one-third?'." `Ataa says: "I said: 'What good would this be for you or me? Were you or I to die, our inheritance would be distributed in the same manner, which people have adopted and which is against our opinion'. At this, Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه said: 'In that case, if they want, let us make ourselves present and they make themselves present and we call our families and they call their families and then pray that may God curse the liars. God has not distributed the shares of inheritance as 'one-half, one-half and one-third'."

This saying ascribed to Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه should also clarify the situation regarding the commonly held opinion of 'ijma`' (consensus) of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) on the doctrine of 'awl'. As should be obvious, the same sources that inform us of the consensus of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) on the concept of 'awl', also inform us that there was a certain group of people, who did not agree with the interpretation of the Qur'an, which necessitated the application of the doctrine of 'awl'.[/quote]

Take a look at this: In the first fatwa, when presented with several ahadith and aathaar (authenticated by numerous 'ulema and accepted by the madhabs) that go against his deviant opinions, he goes on to say that we cannot fully rely on them as they are only "ascribed" to the prophet and that there is a chance that a "mistake" could have been made when narrating them. Now he presents the only athar (not even a hadith) which happens to support his anti-'awl opinion and accepts it without hesitation. I guess when it suits him the narrations suddenly become fully reliable, and when it doesn't suit him, they may be "mistaken". This is called following your desires.

While it is true that ibn 'Abbas and a small number of his followers rejected 'awl, the majority of the companions did not. The opinion of ibn 'Abbas is now obsolete, and the ijma' rests in favor of 'awl.

See post #23:

[quote]However, Ibn 'Abbaas may Allaah be pleased with him held another opinion after the death of 'Umar, an opinion that has become nearly obsolete. Ibn Qudaamah said in Al-Mughni: "The opinion of applying 'Awl has been adopted by all Muslim scholars except Ibn 'Abbaas and a small group that held another opinion... We do not know at the present time anyone who adopts the opinion of Ibn 'Abbaas. We do not know of any disagreement among the jurists of the Islamic states regarding applying 'Awl. All perfect praise be to Allaah."

Thank you very much again brother Moiz for a very detailed response to my letter and a very quick response as well.

You have obviously considered all the facts. No doubt you are aware of this already but for the benefit of anyone who is not familiar with the view of Hadrat AbdAllah ibn Abbas (RA) on this matter, he did disagree with the view of Caliph Hadrat Umar (RA) regarding the doctrine of awl but he did not voice his opinion at the time when the decision was made. The interpretation of Hadrat AbdAllah ibn Abbas (RA) although logical is different from yours[1] and it has not been adopted by any of the four main Sunni schools of jurisprudence.

In conclusion, I have found your answers very informative and I hope other Muslims brothers will learn about this important aspect of Islamic law, which affects us all.

Wassalam, your brother in Islam,

Abid Hussain
__________________________________________________________________________

[1] Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to add here that Hadhrat Abd Allah ibn Abbas' opinion has not been cited to give the impression that his opinion is the same as the one presented at 'Understanding Islam'. Had that been the case, the opinion would have been cited in my original article. On the contrary, the opinion has been cited in an absolutely different context, as should be clear from the paragraphs preceding as well as that succeeding the cited opinion. (Moiz Amjad, 8th June 2000) [/quote]

(source)

As you can see, the questioner was duped by this "scholar" into believing his deviant and crooked opinions. May Allah protect us from deviance.

Regarding the comment on Ibn 'Abbas. It was interesting to learn that although ibn 'Abbas was also against 'awl, he still did not hold the opinion which this deviant Moiz Amjad holds.

See HERE

[quote]'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas رضي الله عنه was of the view that in situations where the sum of the shares of the Qur'anic heirs is greater than one, the Qur'anic heirs who are guaranteed a minimum share (spouse, parents and uterine siblings) should not be further reduced and the burden of necessary reduction should fall on those Qur'anic heirs who sometimes inherit as sharers and sometimes as residuaries (namely daughter, granddaughter, full sister and consanguine sister) as the share of this group of Qur'anic heris is not guaranteed in the same way. Although the argument is sound, this opinion of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas رضي الله عنه was preceded by the judicial authority of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab رضي الله عنه and has not been adopted in Sunni jurisprudence.

The translation that I prefer (by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a contemporary scholar), translates Kalalah, thus: "A close relative who is neither an ascendant nor a descendant" - i.e. a relation of the deceased is Kalalah, excluding children, parents or spouse of a deceased person, whom he nominated before death to receive some part of his inheritance, like a brother, an uncle or aunt, etc. If you go by the conventional translation of Kalalah, you are bound to get into the trouble that you have pointed out. If you go by Ghamidi's translation, there are no problems.[/quote]

Now lets look at the real definition of kalaalah:

The Inheritance of Kalalah

This later part of verse 12 describes the injunction relating to the inheritance of Kalalah. There have been many definitions of Kalalah. Al-Qurtubi reports these in his Tafsir. According to the most well-known definition, 'A person who dies leaving no ascendants and descendants is Kalalah.'

'Allamah al-Alusi, the author of Ruh al-Ma'ani says that Kalalah is really a verbal noun used in the sense of Kalal meaning 'to become exhausted' which denotes 'weakness'. The name Kalalah has been applied to every relationship other than that of father and son because that relationship is weak as compared to the relationship of father and son.

Moreover, the word, Kalalah has also been applied to the deceased who left no son or father to inherit, as well as to the inheritor who is neither the son nor the father of the deceased. The lexical derivation requires that the word dhu, should be deemed as understood though not expressed explicitly. Thus Kalalah will be taken in the sense of Dhu Kalalah, meaning 'one having weak relation'. Later on, the word also came to be applied to the property left as inheritance by a deceased having no son and father.

In gist, if a person, man or woman, dies and leaves behind neither father nor grandfather nor children, but does leave a brother or sister from the same mother and different father, the brother will get 1/6 and, if there is none, the sister will get 1/6. However, if they are more than one (for example, there may be one brother and one sister, or two brothers and two sisters) then, they all will share one-third of the entire property of the deceased. Here, the male will not get twice that of the female.

[Ma'ariful Qur'an]

Also see tafseer Anwaarul Bayan, English translation, volume 2, Page 513-514 for discussion on kalaalah. The same definition is given there.
______________________________

In other words, the accepted definition of kalaalah is a person who leaves neither male ascendents nor male descendents (i.e. father/grandfather or son/grandson). It was also mentioned previously that 4:12 is talking about uterine siblings specifically (and this is according to Sa'd ibn abi Waqqas رضي الله عنه's reading), while 4:176 is talking about consanguine and full siblings. So clearly there is no contradiction.

And logically this also makes sense because this is where we get the basic law of exclusion in inheritance that says that a father or son excludes ALL siblings (whether full, consanguine or uterine). In other words, in the presence of a father or son, all siblings are deprived. Only when father and son are both absent (i.e. deceased is kalaalah) will the siblings inherit.

In contradiction to all of this, the 'fatwa' says:



Actually, there are plenty of problems if you go by that definition (which he chose according to his contemporary 'teacher', rather than the classical 'ulamaa). Firstly, what does 'nominate' mean? If he means leave a bequest, then we run into the problem of a deceased leaving a bequest for a brother. According to the 'ulamaa, a bequest cannot be on behalf of someone who is already an eligible heir. So assuming the deceased leaves no father or son, but leaves brothers, Ghamidi and his cult imply that a bequest on behalf of the brother will be valid. This is entirely incorrect, as that would give the brother a greater share than he is apportioned by the Qur'an. The same would apply to a paternal uncle, since he is also an eligible heir (in the right scenario).

The shaytaan continues:

[quote]However, if the deceased has sons and daughters but wants to nominate a brother, a sister, an uncle, or an aunt as an heir (Kalalah) for a certain portion of his wealth, the rest of brothers/sisters, uncles/aunties would share in 1/6th or 1/3rd of what the Kalalah has been willed to be given. In that case, they will get their respective shares equally irrespective of gender.

As for the rest of the inheritance, it should be given out on the same basis that the law of inheritance in the Qur'an has been formulated, that is benefit of kinship, meaning who benefits the deceased more. This means the rest of the assets of the deceased should be given to the person (or distributed among the people) who benefit the deceased more. Since the Qur'an has not prescribed who they are this has been left to the judgement of those who are in charge of distributing the inheritance. If no particular relatives adequately fulfill the criteria of 'benefit of kinship' then the money can be given to charity.

I dont think thats necessarily true, and is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the family, the relationship between the siblings and of course whether they actually wish to make their brother or sister a "partner" in possession of the rest of the inheritance. Its too simplified an assumption to make.