Search the Community

This is a question by a member who wishes to remain anonymous. A man living in a western country passed away without making a will. His widow sold their small house in order to pay his funeral expenses and debts. The widow and adult children divided the remainder of the money and everyone was satisfied with this. However, three years later one of the children doubted the inheritance money was distributed correctly, because they did not give any shares from the sale of the house to the man's parents (who lived in a Muslim country). The widow said that her mother-in-law passed away many years ago, so she would not receive a share, but she wants to know if she must recalculate the shares and include the father-in-law and give the money to his heirs to split among themselves. The father-in-law never asked for a share at the time of his son's death and he was at the funeral so he could have asked for it without any problem. Do parents get a share of a man's inheritance? If there is difference of opinion among the scholars about the parents inheriting from the son, please refer to Ayatullah Khamenei HA.

I did some research on my own to see if the matter of inheriting things through prophets A.S is proved through the quran. This is what I found. For those who believe the Prophet's do not leave inheritance of things, have not clearly understood the quran. I will give an example [Quran 19:6] : يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا These verses prove that the prophets of Allah inherit and leave inheritance. To interpret "Warith" as reference to knowledge and wisdom only is a deviation from the real, direct and plain meaning of this word, without any external or internal evidence. If inheritance of personal belongings is excluded, the repetition of the verb becomes meaningless because Zakariyya himself was a descendant of ali Yaqub, who inherited the prophethood and wisdom of his ancestors, and his son would do the same if Allah so willed as He chooses whomsoever He wills as His messenger (An-am: 124), therefore Zakariyya said: "inherit me and inherit ali Yaqub". Zakariyya is referring to his belongings and the belongings of the posterity of Yaqub separately. The first verb refers to the inheritance of his property which Zakariyya thought would be appropriated by his relatives if he remained childless; and the second verb refers to the prophethood, he wanted for Yahya, for which there was no need to fear that it would be taken by any one. Verse 16 of An Nahl confirms that which has been explained here. No doubt the prophets of Allah did not give any importance to the material possessions and laid emphasis on the knowledge and wisdom, but it does not mean that they did not possess property or did not leave what they had as inheritance to their next to kin. The tradition quoted to deprive Bibi Fatimah of her lawful inheritance was tampered with by the narrator for political reasons. He omitted a clause indicating that they leave knowledge as inheritance, and added a clause, which is not correct from the grammatical point of view, unless it is an objective clause subordinate to the principal clause "We the group of prophets", and the word be read as "sadaqtan", the second object to the verb "taraknahu ", but he read the clause as co-ordinative and conjunctive, and read "sadaqtan" as the predicate to the word "ma", which according to the recitation means "whatever", whereas according to the correct recitation "ma " means "that which". To prove this further, go to this website in which breaks down each wording of the verse: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=19&verse=6 Then you will see two usages of the word "yarithunī" and "wayarithu". Again, why the two usages are repeated if it is only meant for inheriting knowledge and prophet hood? It cannot be, for there is no need to repeat it, IF it were not talking about inheritance of personal belongings. Besides, Zacharriya A.S was already a decedent of the family of Yaqub, so the inheritance of knowledge/prophet hood would be given through " the family of Yaqub", there was no need to use yarithunī. Therefore, it is proven it was used in relation to the inheritance of his belongings. To further prove this, by clicking on the first verb's usages throughout the quran, we can see it is used for inheritance of the belongings. This is just one example, to further prove my point, the verse implies inheritance of things, and not knowledge. We therefore know there is no way 4:12 refers to inheriting knowledge for it speaks about inheritance (of personal belongings) between family, men, women, and children. Chapter (4) sūrat l-nisāa (The Women) (4:12:53) yūrathu :(whose wealth) is to be inherited وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً أَوِ امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ Another Quranic [27:16] example of the usage of the same verb: وَوَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانُ دَاوُودَ ۖ وَقَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ عُلِّمْنَا مَنْطِقَ الطَّيْرِ وَأُوتِينَا مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ ۖ إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَهُوَ الْفَضْلُ الْمُبِينُ [shakir 27:16] And Sulaiman was Dawood's heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace. According to the Quranic dictionary, the term shayin is being used, which means thing. This term is separate from "language of birds". The previous verse also speaks of giving knowledge to them, which we know Allah has given the power to inherit knowledge to each prophet that comes along. Therefore, there is no need to repeat "inheriting" knowledge again. Which is why these two verses are separately talking about what was given to Sulaiman A.S. What is therefore established is that Sulaiman inherited knowledge from Dawood (27:15), the language of the birds, and all his things ( ie Kingdom). Therefore, it is proven Prophets do leave inheritance. Surely Fatima A.S was deprived of her right, that the messenger of Allah gave her. Abu Bakr was wrong to challenge the daughter of the prophet, who surely knew the interpretation of the Quran, for NONE OTHER than Muhammad A.S was her teacher, and she would truly know her own rights and belongings. There is no way, Muhammad A.S, would teach her to lie or take the rights of the poor. It is illogical. It was her and Ali A.S that gave everything they had to the needy! Just in case, Quranic evidence is not enough for you, and you believe Fatima A.S was lying and cheating out the needy of their right astagfirullah: Fadak was a piece of land that had come in possession of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) without waging a war. In the seventh century, the people of that place had handed it over to the Muslims fearing reprisal. As it was given voluntarily, this land automatically became the personal property of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), and had nothing to do with the government. The fact was accepted by many commentators and historians. For reference, we are quoting a few names: Bilazaris ‘Futuh al-Bildaan’; Shaykh Shahabudin Hamui in ‘Mojam al-Bildaan’ under the word ‘Fadak’; Mohammad Ibn Jurair Tabari in his ‘Tarikh al-Umam wal Molook’, vol.3, p. 14; Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Kaamil’, vol.3, p.221; Ibn Abil Hadeed in ‘Sharh-e-Nahjul Balagha’, vol. 16, p.210 All the Sunni commentators while explaining the 28th verse of Surah Bani Israel state that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had gifted Fadak to Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Thus, automatically it becomes the personal property of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Just to prove our point, the following books may be referred to: Suyooti’s ‘Durrul Mansoor’, vol. 5, p.273; Hakim-e-Haskani’s ‘Shawaahed ut-Tanzeel’, vol. 1, p.240. Both these authors have quoted from Abu Saeed Khudri and Ibn Abbas. Also, the following learned men have explained and confessed that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) has gifted Fadak to Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h): Qazi Abdul Jabbar Motazali, Yaqoote Hammui, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood-e-Misri, etc… 12 Questions Concerning Fadaq (wasalam)