Question

Thank you very much indeed, brother Moiz, for a detailed response to my questions. I hope other Muslim brothers will benefit from our exchange. I would like to make a few comments to your response if I may.

My first comment is on the doctrine of awl.

As Muslims, we all believe that the Qur’an is the word of Allah and obviously error free. You have stated:

The doctrine of awl, if you look closely at it, is a recognition and acceptance of the idea that there is an error in the stipulation of shares in the Qur’an.

All the evidences that you have mentioned in rejection of the doctrine of awl must have been known to the Muslim jurists of the past. Interesting enough the Sunni jurists almost unanimously accept the doctrine of awl. The doctrine of awl is based on the ijmaa` of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). It would appear that the doctrine of awl rests on the concept that the Qur’anic shares (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 and 1/6) are entitlements which are not necessarily fixed in absolute amount, but which are fixed only in terms of ratio of one share to another. This concept would appear to accommodate the doctrine of awl as well as the Qur’anic injunctions.

My second comment is on the inheritance of the father and siblings.

As you have stated in your response, your interpretation of the Qur’anic inheritance verses allows the siblings (brothers and sisters) to inherit alongside the father. No other Muslim jurist since the revelation of these Qur’anic verses over 1400 years ago has come to the same interpretation as you. All the Muslim jurists unequivocally state that the father totally excludes all siblings. The evidence for this is to be found in the hadith narrated by AbdAllah Ibn Abbas (RA): The Prophet (SAWS) said, “Give the faraid (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.” (Agreed upon in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Also reported by others.)

I have read your response very carefully and it would appear to me that you are convinced that your interpretation is more accurate concerning the inheritance amongst the siblings and father. You have stated regarding the decision of all the other Muslim jurists who are all agreed on this point:

However, in my opinion, this distribution seems to be in clear contradiction of the directive of Al-Nisaa 4:176. Therefore, in view of Al-Nisaa 4:176, I think the stated opinion of the respected jurists is not very accurate.

There are, of course, some other aspects of this subject where your view is at variance with all the other recognized Muslim jurists but I want to keep my comments short.

My third comment is on the importance and practical aspect of Islamic inheritance law.

The importance of this aspect of Islamic law is embodied in the Qur’anic verses 13 and 14 of Surah Al-Nisaa, i.e. the verses immediately following the inheritance verses 4:11-12.

These are limits (set by) Allah (or ordainments as regards laws of inheritance), and whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), to abide therein, and that will be the great success. And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment.(Qur’an 4:13-14)

These verses point out the practical importance of our discussion. The matter is very serious. If one has to divide the inheritance amongst say, a widow, two daughters, mother and father, is it not wiser to follow the views ascribed to Hadhrat Ali (RA) and Hadhrat Umar (RA) who applied the doctrine of awl? After all this practice has been followed by the very knowledgeable Muslim jurists for 1400 years.

Similarly, in a situation where there is competition for inheritance between siblings and father would it not be better to follow the unanimous decision of all the Muslim jurists of the past 1400 years in which the father totally excludes the siblings rather than your interpretation, which is clearly different from their?

Although, I acknowledge your depth of knowledge about Islam it is difficult for someone like me to apply your interpretation of the Qur’anic inheritance verses in a practical situation when your interpretation is radically different from every other Muslim jurist since the advent of Islam itself.

As you know it took many brilliant Muslim scholars including many companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS), who were amongst the best exegetes of the Qur’an to understand and expound the Islamic inheritance law. They had all the evidence available to them to formulate the Islamic inheritance law. The Islamic law of inheritance is a very finely balanced and intricately related system. If one disturbs even one component in such a system then one is likely to disrupt the whole system and face new problems, which one never envisaged.

I hope some Muslim scholars out there who are experts in this field of Islamic law will read our exchange and offer their expert opinion on this matter.

JazakAllah khair for your time and effort in answering my questions and all the other questions you answer on various other topics on your web site.

Wassalam, your brother in Islam,

Answer

May Allah guide me and all others to the path of His liking.

You write:

All the evidences that you have mentioned in rejection of the doctrine of awl must have been known to the Muslim jurists of the past.

Please excuse my saying so, but “must have been known” is pure conjecture.  Either these objections ‘were’ known to the Muslim jurists of the past or they ‘were not’. If the Muslim jurists knew these objections, they must have given an explanation to remove these objections. Then, we should concentrate on finding out what that explanation is. However, if they did not know them, no blame can be placed upon them, for after all, they were human beings.

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 inheritance¹“. Saying that ‘The five brothers should get one-fourth each of the total inheritance’, in mathematical terms is like saying:

¼ + ¼ + ¼ + ¼ + ¼ = 1

or that:

¼ 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.”

This objection on the doctrine of awl is precisely what Ibn Abbas (ra) is reported to have said. Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas in his ‘Ahkaam al-Qur’an‘ writes:

عن عطاء بْن أبي رباح قَالَ : سمعت ابن عباس ذكر الفرائض وعولها فقال : أترون الذي أحصى رمل عالج عددا جعل في مال قسمه نصفا ونصفا وثلثا ؟ فهذا النصف وهذا النصف فأين موضع الثلث ؟ قَالَ عطاء : فقلت لابن عباس : يا ابن عباس إن هذا لا يغني عنك ولا عني شيئا , لو مت أو مت قسم ميراثنا على ما عليه القوم من خلاف رأيك ورأيي.
قَالَ : فإن شاءوا فلندع أبناءنا وأبناءهم ونساءنا ونساءهم وأنفسنا وأنفسهم ثم نبتهل فنجعل لعنة الله على الكاذبين , ما جعل الله في مال نصفا ونصفا وثلثا. _{(ج ٢، ص ٩١)}

`Ataa ibn Abi Ribaah says: “I heard Ibn Abbas (ra) 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 (ra) 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 (ra) 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‘.

You write:

It would appear that the doctrine of awl rests on the concept that the Qur’anic shares (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 and 1/6) are entitlements which are not necessarily fixed in absolute amount, but which are fixed only in terms of ratio of one share to another. This concept would appear to accommodate the doctrine of awl as well as the Qur’anic injunctions.

Please note the words of the Qur’an. While prescribing shares to the various relations the Qur’an in Al-Nisaa 4: 11 – 12 says:

يُوصِيكُمُ اللَّـهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ ۖ لِلذَّكَرِ‌ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ ۚ فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَ‌كَ ۖ وَإِن كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ ۚ وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَ‌كَ إِن كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِ‌ثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ ۚ مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۗ آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُ‌ونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَ‌بُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا ۚ فَرِ‌يضَةً مِّنَ اللَّـهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا _﴿١١﴾ وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَ‌كَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُنَّ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمُ الرُّ‌بُعُ مِمَّا تَرَ‌كْنَ ۚ مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِينَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۚ وَلَهُنَّ الرُّ‌بُعُ مِمَّا تَرَ‌كْتُمْ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّكُمْ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَ‌كْتُم ۚ مِّن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ تُوصُونَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۗ

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 has been left behind. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall be half – and if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each, 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 deceased). You know not who among your children and your parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed God is wise, all knowing.

“You shall get half of what your wives leave, if they die childless. But if they do have children, your share shall then be a quarter of what they leave after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed by her. And they (your wives) shall have a quarter of what you leave, if you die childless. But in case you have children, they shall then get one-eighth of what you leave, after carrying out any will made by you or payment of any debt owed by you (the deceased).”

In these verses, if you look closely, you shall see that the shares have been mentioned in two separate styles. The shares of the children, if there are both sons and daughters, have been given as:

A male’s share shall equal that of two females.

While the shares of the parents and spouse have been specified in ratios as: Consider the following style:

• The parents shall inherit a sixth each;

• If the deceased has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother shall receive a third;

• If the deceased has brothers and sisters then the mother’s share is one-sixth;

• You shall get half of what your wives leave, if they die childless;

• If they have children, your share shall then be a quarter;

• Your wives shall have a quarter of what you leave, if you die childless; and

• In case you have children, your wives shall then get one-eighth.

It is quite clear that where the Qur’an wanted to stipulate the shares in relation to other shares, the first style was adopted, while where it desired to stipulate the shares as a fixed percentage of the total amount, the second style was adopted. Now, just like the fact that the statement ‘each brother should get one-fourth’ is not announcing that the relative shares of the brothers should be equal, but is actually stipulating the percentage of each share, the shares of other relations stipulated by the Qur’an are also assigning a fixed percentage for each relationship. The shares stipulated by the Qur’an can, in no way, be construed as “entitlements which are not necessarily fixed in absolute amount, but which are fixed only in terms of ratio of one share to another“. This could only be said about the shares of the brothers and the sisters or sons and daughters, as is clear from the literary style in which the shares have been stipulated in these cases. There is, obviously, a tremendous difference in the statements:

• Give all five brothers an equal share in the prize; and

• Give all five brothers one-fourth of the prize.

The first statement is absolutely correct, while the second is absolutely incorrect. The first statement mentions each share relative to the other share, while the second statement mentions each share relative to the total prize. The two styles are, in no case interchangeable.

Now suppose, one were to construe that the second statement is only mentioning each brother’s share relative to that of the other brothers, and thus were to distribute the prize equally among the brothers, would this be according to the directive in the statement? The statement says that each brother should get one-fourth, but what we would have for each brother is one-fifth each. No one can term this distribution to be in accordance with the directive in the second statement. The application of the doctrine of ‘awl‘ faces exactly the same dilemma².

Regarding your second comment, I would only request you to explain the directive entailed in Al-Nisaa 4: 176, let me know what is its implication.

In your third comment, you write:

These verses point out the practical importance of our discussion. The matter is very serious. If one has to divide the inheritance amongst say, a widow, two daughters, mother and father, is it not wiser to follow the views ascribed to Hadhrat Ali (RA) and Hadhrat Umar (RA) who applied the doctrine of awl? After all this practice has been followed by the very knowledgeable Muslim jurists for 1400 years.

I fully agree with you. I have absolutely no reservations in submitting to the fact that the matter under consideration is, indeed, very serious. Nevertheless, I would request you to take a look at your cited verse once again. You have translated it as:

These are limits (set by) Allah (or ordainments as regards laws of inheritance), and whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), to abide therein, and that will be the great success. And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment.(Qur’an 4:13-14)

Please see the italicized and the underlined phrases. It should be quite obvious that in the cited verse God wants us to adhere to the directives of the Qur’an (Obedience to Allah and His messenger). I would like to remind you that the whole point of our discussion is ‘what are the share stipulations of the Qur’an?’. Please note that I have tried to confine myself to the verses of the Qur’an, while you are consistently asking me to review my opinion in the light of the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and to Muslim jurists. I ask you and all my Muslim brethren, what, in your opinion, is the criteria of determining God’s directives? Is it the words of the Qur’an or the interpretation of these words ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslim jurists? If the former is the case, then all interpretations, irrespective of who is presenting them, should be judged on this criterion. While, if the latter is the case, then my whole discussion is out of place. Not only that, then our claim of adherence to the Qur’an is also out of place, and then the fact that God has, Himself, secured the Qur’an from any and all adulterations is also of no use, for rather than the Qur’an, God should then have guaranteed keeping the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), clear of all adulterations and mistakes.

My dear brother, I have presented the explanation of the law of inheritance of the Qur’an, which I hold to be correct, not on the basis of the person(s) who ascribe to this explanation, but on the basis of the words of the Qur’an. I would sincerely appreciate, if someone would take a look at my explanation, on merit, and let me know what is wrong with this explanation. I assure you, and God be witness on this, that if I someone can adequately explain the mistake in my explanation, I would not hesitate for even a minute in accepting and amending it. However, extremely sad as it is, all the criticism that I have yet received on my explanation is only to the effect that it is different from the generally held view. My answer to this is just that if what I have understood is truly what the Qur’an says, then the overwhelming numbers on the other side hold no importance in my eyes, whatsoever. And, on the other hand, if that is not what the Qur’an says, then may Allah give someone, from these overwhelming numbers, the knowledge and the ability to help me correct my understanding.

My dear brother, assuming that my explanation is incorrect, when I meet God, on the Day of Judgment, and He asks me why I differed from the ‘generally held’ interpretation, I would present the excuse that I only presented that, which I had honestly understood from the Qur’an. There was no one who took the pains of communicating my mistakes to me, no one who told me, where I had gone wrong. Every one just kept telling me that my explanation was ‘different’ from the ‘generally held’ view. I adhered to my understanding of Your book and ignored the ‘generally held’ view in relation to Your book. This is precisely what You had directed me to do. Therefore, please forgive me for my ignorance and for my inability to find coherence in the directives of Your book and the ‘generally held’ opinion.

Now, however unlikely it may sound, for a moment, let us assume that my explanation is correct. What excuse would you have before God, when He asks you why you did not consider my explanation on pure merit? I must remind you, my brother, that what I am presenting is not merely an opinion, it is my understanding of the words of the Qur’an. Please give it the attention that it deserves. Reject it, if you feel that it is incorrect, but at least reject it on merit, not merely on the grounds that it is against the ‘generally held’ view.

7^th June 2000

1. According to the interpretation of the Muslim jurists, the Qur’an says: give the two daughters of the deceased one-third each of the total, the parents of the deceased one-sixth each of the total and the wife of the deceased one-eighth of the total inheritance. Stated in arithmetic terms, this interpretation implies that the Qur’an has said: 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/8 is less than or equal to ‘one’. [↩]
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? [↩]

   Moiz Amjad

UIUK