Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/301)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The second view is that there is no mutual inheritance between them: neither inherits from the other; rather, the other heirs inherit from each of them. This is because one condition of inheritance is that the heir must be alive after the death of the deceased, as Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“And for you is half of what your wives leave behind.” [al-Nisa 4:12]

“And for each of his parents is a sixth of what he leaves, if he has a child.” [al-Nisa 4:11]

Thus, it must be known that the heir remained alive after the death of the deceased. Here, however, this condition is not established; therefore, there can be no mutual inheritance. Although this view is sounder and more consistent with the legal proofs, it is also easier to apply and more effective in putting an end to disputes. According to the first view, a dispute would arise if one of those who drowned owned millions, while the other owned only the clothes he was wearing. We would make this one inherit from that one, and that one from this one. But does the wealthy man inherit from the poor man? No, for the poor man has nothing. Yet the poor man inherits from the wealthy man—so by what right would the wealthy man’s property pass to the poor man’s heirs?! The preponderant view, without doubt, is that there is no mutual inheritance between them.

According to the established position of the school, however, if the heirs dispute in the example we mentioned—two brothers, one of whom owns millions while the other owns nothing, and each has a wife and a mother—the heirs of the wealthy one say, “Your deceased relative died before ours,” while the others say the opposite. In that case, their respective claims cancel one another out. This has some merit, and the estate of each deceased person goes to his own heirs.

But if they do not disagree and say, “We do not know; we do not claim that our deceased relative was the first or the second to die,” then each inherits from the other only from his original property—that is, his property held previously—not from what he inherited from the other. For if we were to say that he inherits from what the other inherited from him, it would result in circularity: this one would inherit from what the other inherited from him, then that one would inherit from what he inherited from him, and so on.

القول الثاني: أنه لا توارث بينهم، كل واحد منهم لا يرث الآخر، وإنما يرثه الورثة الآخرون؛ لأن من شرط الإرث أن يوجد الوارث بعد موت المورث لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ١٢]، ﴿وَلأَِبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ﴾ [النساء: ١١]، فلا بد أن نعلم أن الوارث وجد بعد موت المورث، وهنا الشرط غير موجود، إذاً لا توارث، وهذا القول مع كونه أصح وأوفق للأدلة الشرعية هو ـ أيضاً ـ أهون وأقطع للنزاع، على القول الأول سيكون نزاعٌ إذا كان أحد الذين غرقوا يملك الملايين، والثاني يملك ثوبه الذي عليه فقط، فنورث هذا من هذا وهذا من هذا، فالغني هل يرث من الفقير؟ لا؛ لأنه لا شيء له، والفقير يرث من الغني، فيعود مال هذا الغني لورثة الفقير بأي حق؟! فالقول الراجح بلا شك أنه لا توارث بينهم. وعلى المذهب إن تنازع الورثة في المثال الذي ذكرنا، أخوان أحدهما يملك الملايين والثاني ما عنده شيء، كل واحد منهم له زوجة وأم، ثم تنازعوا فورثة الغني يقولون: إن مورثكم مات قبل مورثنا، وأولئك يقولون بالعكس، فهنا يتساقطون، وهذا فيه شيء من الصحة، ويكون ميراث كل ميت لورثته، وأما إذا لم يختلفوا قالوا: ما نعلم، فنحن لا ندعي أن مورثنا هو الأول أو الثاني، فحينئذٍ يرث كل واحد منهما من الآخر من تلاد ماله ـ أي: من قديمه ـ لا مما ورثه منه؛ لأننا لو قلنا: مما ورثه منه، صار دوراً، فيرث هذا مما ورثه منه، ثم ذاك يرث مما ورث منه، وهكذا.