“You shall receive half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, you shall receive one-quarter of what they leave, after any bequest they may have made or debt. They shall receive one-quarter of what you leave if you have no child. But if you have a child, they shall receive one-eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you may have made or debt. If a man or woman leaves an estate with neither a male ascendant nor a descendant, but has a brother or sister, each shall receive one-sixth. If they are more than that, they shall share one-third, after any bequest or debt, without causing harm. This is an injunction from Allah. Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.”
The Most High then said, “You”—O husbands—“shall receive half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, you shall receive one-quarter of what they leave, after any bequest they may have made or debt. They shall receive one-quarter of what you leave if you have no child. But if you have a child, they shall receive one-eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you may have made or debt.”
The term “child,” whose presence or absence determines these shares, includes a direct child or a descendant through a son, male or female, one or several, whether born to the spouse in question or to another spouse. By scholarly consensus, it does not include descendants through daughters.
The Most High then said, “If a man or woman leaves an estate with neither a male ascendant nor a descendant, but has a brother or sister,” meaning a maternal brother or sister, as explicitly stated in some variant readings. The scholars unanimously agree that maternal siblings are intended here. Thus, if someone leaves an estate in this condition, it means that the deceased has neither father nor child—that is, no father, grandfather, son, son’s son, daughter, or son’s daughter, however far removed. This is the meaning of this condition, as explained by Abu Bakr al-Siddīq, may Allah be pleased with him, and there is agreement upon it, praise be to Allah.
“Each shall receive one-sixth”—that is, the brother and the sister. “If they are more than that”—meaning more than one—“they shall share one-third”; that is, their share does not exceed one-third, even if they number more than two. The words “they shall share one-third” indicate that males and females receive equally, because the expression “sharing jointly” (1) entails equality.
The condition of leaving neither a male ascendant nor a descendant indicates that descendants, however remote, and male ascendants, however remote, exclude maternal siblings. Allah granted them inheritance only under this condition; therefore, if the deceased did not leave an estate in this condition, they would inherit nothing from him, by scholarly consensus.
The words “they shall share one-third” also indicate that full siblings receive nothing in the case known as the Donkey Case. Its heirs are a husband, a mother, maternal siblings, and full siblings. The husband receives one-half, the mother one-sixth, and the maternal siblings one-third, while the full siblings receive nothing. This is because Allah assigned the one-third to the maternal siblings; allowing the full siblings to share it with them would combine categories whose rulings Allah distinguished. Moreover, maternal siblings are fixed-share heirs, whereas full siblings are residuary heirs. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Give the prescribed shares to those entitled to them, and whatever remains goes to the nearest male relative.” Fixed-share heirs are those whose shares Allah has specified. In this case, nothing remains after they receive their shares, so the full siblings receive nothing. This is the correct view concerning the matter.
The inheritance of full or paternal brothers and sisters is mentioned in the verse beginning, “They ask you for a ruling. Say: Allah gives you a ruling concerning one who leaves neither ascendants nor descendants.”
One full or paternal sister receives one-half, while two sisters receive two-thirds. When one full sister inherits alongside one or more paternal sisters, the full sister receives one-half, and the remainder of the two-thirds goes to the paternal sister or sisters (2)—namely, one-sixth, which completes the two-thirds. If the full sisters exhaust the two-thirds, the paternal sisters receive nothing, just as was previously explained concerning direct daughters and daughters through sons. If the siblings include both males and females, a male receives the share of two females.
It may be asked: Can the Quran also provide the rulings concerning the inheritance of a killer, an enslaved person, one whose religion differs from that of the deceased, a person who is partly free and partly enslaved, an intersex person, a grandfather inheriting alongside full or paternal siblings, proportional reduction when the prescribed shares exceed the estate, redistribution of a surplus, distant kindred, the remaining residuary heirs, and full or paternal sisters inheriting alongside direct daughters or daughters through sons?
The answer is yes. The Quran contains subtle indications and allusions—difficult for anyone who does not reflect carefully to understand—that establish all the rulings mentioned.
As for the killer and the person of a different religion, it is known that they do not inherit from the explanation of the divine wisdom in distributing wealth among heirs according to their closeness and the religious and worldly benefit they provide.
The Most High alluded to this wisdom in His words, “You do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit.” It is known that a killer has inflicted the gravest harm upon the person from whom he would inherit (3). The factor that would otherwise entitle him to inherit cannot outweigh the harm of killing, which is the very opposite of the benefit upon which ⦗169⦘ inheritance is based. It is therefore known that killing is the greatest impediment to inheritance and severs the tie of kinship concerning which Allah said, “Blood relatives are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah.” Moreover, the established legal maxim states, “Whoever hastens something before its proper time is punished by being deprived of it.”
From this and similar considerations, it is also known that a person whose religion differs from that of the deceased does not inherit. In this case, the factor entitling one to inherit—namely, the bond of lineage—conflicts with the impediment of religious difference, which entails complete separation. The impediment therefore prevails and prevents lineage from producing its legal effect. The entitlement does not operate because the impediment is present.
This is clarified by the fact that Allah Most High has given the rights of Muslims precedence over the worldly rights of disbelieving relatives. When a Muslim dies, his wealth passes to those who have the stronger and more rightful claim to it. Thus, the words of the Most High, “Blood relatives are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah,” apply when they share the same religion. When their religions differ, religious brotherhood takes precedence over a bond of lineage alone.
Ibn al-Qayyim said in Jalā al-Afhām: “Reflect upon this meaning in the verse of inheritance and upon Allah’s making inheritance therein depend on the term ‘spouse,’ rather than ‘woman,’ as in His words, ‘You shall receive half of what your wives leave.’ This indicates that such inheritance arises only through marriage, which entails compatibility and correspondence. There is neither compatibility nor correspondence between a believer and a disbeliever, so they do not inherit from one another. The mysteries contained in the Quran’s individual words and their combinations are beyond the minds of all created beings” (4). [End of quotation.]
As for an enslaved person, he neither inherits nor leaves an inheritable estate. That he leaves no estate is clear, because he owns no property to be inherited from him; rather, everything in his possession belongs to his master. He does not inherit because he is incapable of ownership: were anything to come into his ownership, it would belong to his master, who is unrelated to the deceased. Thus, such statements as “A male shall receive the share of two females,” “You shall receive half of what your wives leave,” and “Each shall receive one-sixth,” and similar texts, apply to those capable of ownership. An enslaved person is incapable of this, so it is known that he has no inheritance.
As for someone who is partly free and partly enslaved, the rulings concerning him are likewise apportioned. By virtue of his free portion, he is entitled to the inheritance ordained by Allah, because that portion is capable of ownership. His enslaved portion, however, is incapable of ownership. A partially emancipated person therefore inherits, leaves an inheritable estate, and excludes other heirs in proportion to his freedom. Just as a person may be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished, to the extent that the relevant causes are present in him, the same applies here.
As for an intersex person, the person’s sex is either clearly male or female, or it is indeterminate. If it is clear, the ruling is likewise clear.
If male, the person is subject to the rulings governing males and is included in the texts concerning them.
If female, the person is subject to the rulings governing females and is included in the texts concerning them.
If the person’s sex is indeterminate, then where a male’s and female’s inheritance would not differ—as with maternal siblings—the ruling is clear. But where the inheritance would differ depending on whether the person was deemed male or female, and there is no means of determining the matter, we do not award the greater of the two shares, lest we wrong the other heirs; nor do we award the lesser, lest we wrong that person. We must therefore adopt a middle course and follow the more equitable of the two paths. The Most High says, “Be just; that is nearer to piety.” In a case such as this, there is no way of achieving justice more equitable than the method described. “Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity,” and, “Fear Allah as much as you are able.”
As for a grandfather inheriting alongside full or paternal siblings, and whether they inherit in his presence, the Book of Allah supports the view of Abu Bakr al-Siddīq, may Allah be pleased with him: the grandfather excludes full, paternal, and maternal siblings, just as the father excludes them.
This is because a grandfather is called a father in several places in the Quran, as in the words of the Most High: “When death approached Jacob and he said to his sons, ‘What will you worship after me?’ They replied, ‘We shall worship your God and the God of your fathers—Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac.’” Joseph, peace be upon him, also said, “I follow the faith of my fathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
Allah thus called a grandfather and a great-grandfather a father. This indicates that the grandfather occupies the father’s position: he inherits what the father would inherit and excludes those whom the father would exclude.
The scholars unanimously agree that, in the father’s absence, the grandfather is treated like the father when inheriting alongside descendants and others, including brothers’ sons, paternal uncles and their sons, and in all the other rules (5) of inheritance. He should likewise be treated like the father in excluding full and paternal siblings.
If a son’s son occupies the position of a direct son, why should a grandfather not occupy the position of a father? The scholars also agree that a great-grandfather excludes a brother’s son; why, then, should the deceased’s grandfather not exclude the deceased’s brother? Those who allow siblings to inherit alongside the grandfather have neither an explicit text, an allusion, an indication, nor a sound analogy to support them.
As for cases involving proportional reduction, their ruling can be derived from the Quran. Allah Most High has prescribed and specified shares for the heirs, ⦗170⦘ and they are in one of two situations:
Either some heirs exclude others, or they do not. If some exclude others, the excluded heir receives nothing, does not compete with the others, and has no entitlement. If none excludes another, there are three possibilities: the prescribed shares do not exhaust the estate; they exhaust it without exceeding or falling short of it; or they exceed the estate. In the first two cases, every heir receives the prescribed share in full. In the last case, where the prescribed shares exceed the estate, there are only two possibilities.
Either we reduce the share Allah prescribed for some heirs while giving the others their shares in full—but that would favor some without justification, since there is no greater reason to reduce one heir’s share than another’s—or we adopt the second and necessary course: give each heir as much of the prescribed share as possible and divide the estate among them proportionately, just as creditors divide a debtor’s assets when their claims exceed his property. The only way to accomplish this is through proportional reduction. It is therefore known that Allah has explained this rule of inheritance in His Book.
The ruling of redistributing a surplus is known by precisely the reverse method. If the prescribed shares do not exhaust the estate and a surplus remains, with no near or remote residuary heir entitled to it, returning it to only one fixed-share heir would favor that heir without justification. Giving it to unrelated people would be unjust and partial, and would contradict the words, “Blood relatives are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah.” It must therefore be returned to the fixed-share heirs in proportion to their shares.
Because spouses are not blood relatives, they are not entitled to anything beyond their prescribed shares. [This is according to those who do not include spouses in the redistribution of a surplus; they constitute the majority of those who accept redistribution. On this view, the basis for receiving a redistributed surplus is that one is both a fixed-share heir and a blood relative. According to the other view, spouses are like all other fixed-share heirs and also receive a redistributed surplus: just as their shares are proportionately reduced along with those of the other heirs, they are increased by redistribution along with them. On this view, the basis is simply that one is an heir with a prescribed share. This is what appears to be indicated by the Book, the sunnah, and sound analogy. Allah knows best.] (6)
This also establishes the inheritance of distant kindred. If the deceased leaves neither a fixed-share heir nor a residuary heir, the choice lies between placing the estate in the public treasury for the benefit of unrelated people and returning it to relatives whose connection to the deceased is through heirs whose status is unanimously recognized. The latter is supported by the words of the Most High, “Blood relatives are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah.” Giving the estate to others would mean passing over those with the stronger claim. Distant kindred must therefore inherit.
Once their right to inherit is established, it is known that the Book of Allah assigns them no individually specified shares. Their relationship to the deceased is through intermediate relatives who make them part of his kindred. They therefore assume the position of those intermediate relatives through whom they are connected to him. Allah knows best.
As for the inheritance of the remaining residuary heirs—such as descendants through sons, brothers and their sons, paternal uncles and their sons, and so forth—the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Give the prescribed shares to those entitled to them, and whatever remains goes to the nearest male relative.” The Most High also said, “For each We have appointed heirs to what parents and close relatives leave.” If the prescribed shares are given to those entitled to them and nothing remains, a residuary heir receives nothing. If anything remains, it is taken by the nearest residuary heirs according to their lines and degrees of kinship.
There are five lines of residuary succession: descendants through sons; male ascendants; brothers and their sons; paternal uncles and their sons; and the bond of manumission. Priority is given to the closest line. If several heirs belong to the same line, the closest in degree takes priority. If they are equal in degree, the stronger relationship takes priority—namely, the full blood relationship. If they are equal in every respect, they share the inheritance. Allah knows best.
As for full or paternal sisters becoming residuary heirs alongside direct daughters or daughters through sons and taking what remains after the latter receive their prescribed shares, this is because nothing in the Quran indicates that sisters are excluded by daughters.
Since this is so, if anything remains after the daughters receive their prescribed shares, it is awarded to the sisters rather than bypassing them in favor of more distant residuary heirs, such as a brother’s son, a paternal uncle, or anyone more remote. Allah knows best.