In both these stories, we find the father resorting to the extreme measure of transferring his property to his second wife and her children. In the first case, the father denies his son by his first marriage the right to inherit him. In the second, the father tries to give his actions a legal aspect by saying that he is invoking certain provision in the Islamic law of inheritance. In the first one, he is making a will depriving his son of inheriting from him. Neither action can be sanctioned by Islam.

It is quite possible that the father in such a case becomes very unhappy with his son who may resort to measures which are unacceptable and in conflict with his duty to be kind and respectful toward his father. Such actions by the son may appear to his father worse than they really are, especially if the son is consistently accused of disrespect and furthering his own interests without giving due regards to his father. However, the father must never forget his responsibilities and must be careful to give every one of his family what is due to them of care, love and fair treatment. I cannot help the feeling that the father in the first case has been heavily leaning toward one side in the dispute in his family. I imagine that the son would not have dared complain about his father to the village committee without having very good grounds for making such a complaint. In a village community, a son, especially an adult, is expected to be dutiful to his father and not to oppose him in any fashion. It seems, however, that the dispute was a fierce one, and probably continued for a very long time. The son has been able to persuade a committee to pronounce a verdict against his father, although the members of the committee must have been keenly aware of the difficulty of their task and that they must never violate the village rules of propriety and morality. My reader describes their verdict as one sided. It may have been so, but was the father's attitude throughout the dispute a fair one, or did he lean to one side more than the other?

In both cases, the father must have never allowed the situation to worsen so badly. He should have stopped the fire before it burnt the peace in his family. Be that as it may, the fire could not be put off with the sort of measure to which both fathers had recourse, namely, denying the son his right of inheritance. I am amazed at the suggestion that this can be sanctioned by Islam under certain provisions. This is certainly not the case.

The Islamic law of inheritance is very detailed and its details have been given to us by Allah Himself. It is not possible, therefore, to add to it or delete from it any provisions. What Allah has ordered must be obeyed, if it sometimes appears to us that a certain clause which has not been included in this law may be appropriate. One of the balanced rules of this law of inheritance is that no one can give any of his heirs an extra portion of his estate by will. It is, therefore, not open to any father to give any of his children a little extra on top of his or her apportioned share. On the other hand, no father may disinherit any of his children. Their shares have been determined by Allah and they are entitled to them, disregarding the parents' wishes and desires.

It appears, however, that in both cases, the fathers have resorted to other measures, assigned their properties to those of their heirs whom they favored, having little to be divided according to the law of inheritance. Such a transfer of property during the lifetime of its owner and when he is in possession of his senses is accepted as legal. However, that legality is merely formal. Allah will undoubtedly hold the father to account for his action. The father will have to justify it and such a justification may be beyond him. How can he answer Allah when he asks him : How can you prevent your son from receiving what I have assigned to him by way of inheritance?

What I am trying to say here is that although a court of law may approve the measures taken by the father as legal, he still has to justify them to Allah who knows true intentions and motives as well as circumstances. If the other heirs of the father want to be kind to him, they will hold a meeting of reconciliation and divide the property left by the father according to the rules of the Islamic way of inheritance.

In the first case, the reader asks how the property should be divided. In all, the father has left behind one wife, three sons and four daughters. His wife inherits one eighth of all the properties and the remainder is divided into ten equal shares. Each of the four daughters receives one share while every one of the three sons receives two shares. In other words, if the second wife of the man and her children want to lighten the burden of the father, they should give the son by his first marriage a share which amounts to less than one fifth of his father's property. By doing so, they would do the father a great act of kindness and they help bring about a reconciliation within the family. Who knows, but the sons and daughters of the second marriage may find themselves in need of their elder brother who will be ready to help, if he feels that they have nothing against him. They can demonstrate that by giving him that to which he is entitled by his father's property.

When her husband died, his heirs were his widow, i.e. the second wife and his son. His wife inherits one eighth of his property, and his son takes the rest. The man’s brothers and sisters do not inherit anything except by will, if one was made. When his son offered a share of one quarter to his stepmother, it was a generous offer. She could have taken it and considered half of that amount as high right and the other half as gift from the son. The woman’s father is the one responsible for her again after the death of her husband. There is no responsibility on her stepson, considering that she has her father and her brothers to look after her. However, if they are in difficult circumstances and the stepson is well off, he would be doing a great act of dutifulness to his father by looking after his widow, although that is only a stepmother.

2. At the death of that man, his wife takes one eighth of his property. The remainder is divided between his son and three daughters on the basis of one share for each daughter and two shares for the son. In other words, what is left after the wife takes her share of one eighth, is divided into five shares, one share for each daughter and two shares for the one son.

3. The woman’s husband has a share of one quarter, while each of her parents inherits one sixth of her property. Her three daughters share a portion equaling two thirds of her property. Nothing is due to her brothers, sisters, uncles or aunts. These shares add up to more than the whole property. Therefore, we reduce them proportionately so as to maintain the differences.

Suppose the estate is divided out of 12 shares, the woman’s husband should take 3 shares, while each of her parents should take 2 shares. Her daughters divide 8 shares equally between them. When we make the appropriate reduction, we give the husband 3 out of 15, and each of the two parent’s 2 shares out of 15. The three daughters take 8 shares out of 15 and divide equally between them.

4. It is not true that your wife’s brothers and sisters will inherit her, if her children survive her. You have not told me whether either of her parents is alive or not. Assuming that neither is alive at the time of her death, and that she is survived by you and her children, all her property will be divided in this way: One quarter of all her estate will be yours as your apportioned share.

The remainder, or three quarters of her estate, will go to her children, with her son taking twice as much as each of her two daughters. In other words, her son will inherit half of three-quarter of her estate. The other half [of three-quarters] will be shared equally between her two daughters.

5. What your grandmother said is verbal will. A will is valid when it is only verbal, provided that it is appropriately witnessed. However, in Islam a will may not exceed one third of the property of the person concerned. So, a will in the form of "all my property should go to this or that purpose" is not valid.

If this will is to be validated and carried out, it must be approved by all the heirs of your grandmother after her death. If the approval is given during the lifetime of the person who is making such a will, exceeding the amount to which he is entitled, which is one third, then that approval is invalid. It is an approval given by someone whose entitlement to what he is approving is not real yet. Hence, it is of no value.

The heirs of your grandmother are her two daughters and her brother. Her two daughters inherit two thirds of all her property and they share it equally between them. The remainder, which is one third, goes to her brother on the basis that he is the nearest relative to her after her daughters have taken their shares. This division applies to all your grandmother’s property, including her house, any cash she might have had, and any other form of property. If your grandmother’s daughters decided that in the circumstances they would rather leave the house to her brother, they may do so. They would be giving him a gift. But no pressure should be brought to bear on them to do so.

6. You have not specified the means by which this man has earned his money. If it is through means that the law in the land where he lived allows, but they are not allowed in Islam, such as lottery, running a night club, and similar methods, then the money he leaves behind is his own. When he dies, his family inherits it in the normal way, as the money itself is not contaminated by the way it is earned. On the other hand if the money is obtained by theft or armed robbery and the owners are known, it should be returned to those owners as soon as possible.

In this latter case, if the heirs of the dying man return it to its rightful owners, their action may lessen the burden of their deceased relative. If its owners are unknown and there is no way of knowing them, then his family should do something on behalf of the deceased.

7. Many people think that they can dispense with their money as they wish during their lifetime. Hence they may take some action which favors one or more of their children over the others. Or they may deprive all their children of their rightful shares. This is an act of grave injustice, which is not acceptable in Islam.

May I mention here the incidence, which I have related many times in the past, concerning the man who gave one of his children a slave as a gift and wanted the Prophet, peace be upon him, to be a witness to that. The Prophet, peace be upon him, asked him whether he had given every one of his children a similar gift. When the man answered in the negative, the Prophet, peace be upon him, told him to seek some other witness because he would not witness an act of injustice. He then added a word of advice to all believers, saying: "Fear God and maintain justice between your children." Hadith practically condemns the idea of giving one child without giving all other children similar gifts, and it calls it an act of injustice. That is a clear evidence that we do not have absolute freedom to dispense with our money at will, even when we are in the prime of life, thinking that death is still too far away.

What we have to remember is that Islam has a totally different view to that of other societies, which give total freedom to the individuals to disperse with his money in his lifetime and after his death as he or she pleases. Thus we hear sometimes that a rich person has left a large amount of money to his dog or cat, or he has deprived one or more of his children of their rights of inheritance in order to give others all his wealth. In Islam, all money and property belong to God, who has put us in charge of what we have for as long as we live. Therefore, we are answerable to God about the way in which we spend our money. Moreover, our authority over what we have ends at the moment of our death. We have no say on the way our money is divided after we die. However, He has given us the privilege of making bequests to those who are not our heirs, amounting to no more than the third of our property.

The Prophet, peace be upon him, describes this as a charity given by God to us, so that we may dispense with it in a way which benefits some deserving people and earn us reward from God. This means that the will we may have must not exceed one-third of our property, and should go to poor people and our relatives who are not our heirs [or for continuing acts of charity].

In the case we are considering, the mother commits a grave error if she feels that she can do what she likes with her money. That is contrary to Islamic teachings. Moreover, she is wrong to deprive her children of their inheritance, even though she feels that her granddaughter will look after her better. What she can do is to leave something by will to her granddaughter, as the latter is not her heir. The maximum of what she can leave her is one-third of all her property.

8. There are certain principles that must apply in this case. The first is that the father has complete authority over his money and may be able to spend it, or dispose of it as he pleases during his lifetime. However, this right is qualified by certain values and considerations, which must be observed. One of these is that he must maintain justice among his children. This applies to gifts as well as other matters. The second principle is that when a person dies, then he has no longer any jurisdiction over his money or property. The rights of inheritance come into effect, and his property must be divided among his heirs according to the elaborate Islamic system of inheritance.

Another principle, which is highly relevant here, is that no person may increase or reduce the share of any of his heirs which is apportioned by God Himself. Hence, the Prophet, peace be upon him, lays down the rule that "No will may be made in favor of an heir." Any Muslim may leave by will an amount not exceeding one-third of all his property to any person who is not one of his heirs. This privilege is given in order to provide a way for a person to look after some relatives who do not get a share of his inheritance, or to leave something to charity. Hence, heirs are not allowed to benefit by this provision. This is to prevent any injustice. At the same time, it is not permissible to disinherit any of one’s heirs. That is not possible.

In the light of these principles, the father in this case cannot utilize his will to recover the loan his own owes him. At the same time, it is not right for the son to take a loan from his father and decide not to pay it back. That is paying kindness with injustice. That is unacceptable. The father may remedy the situation and ensure justice among his children in one of two ways.

This first is to give each one of his other children an amount equal to the loan he had given his son. He would then till his children that he has given them the money as a gift to make sure that they are treated equally. The father may decided to do this if he is rich enough to make such gift without putting himself into any difficulty. The other method id to make a declaration that his son owes him the amount of the loan, and that he has never agreed to give this loan to him as a gift. He then gets this declaration signed and witnessed, preferably in the presence of his children, including the one who had taken the loan. It is then for the man’s heirs to claim the loan from the debtor’s son when the man dies.

They should be able to get the loan back when they divide the inheritance among them. The father may be able to make this a firmer commitment by getting his son to sign a document specifying the amount of the loan he had given him. That would be an acknowledgement of the loan, which may be paid back at the time of dividing the father’s inheritance.

9. The answer to the first point is in the negative. What I have written in my original reply is correct. The deceased has to be survived by at least one son, or by his father for his brothers and sisters not to be included among his heirs.

When this man's debts are paid and his will is executed, the remainder is divided among his heirs as follows: one eighth to his wife and two thirds to be divided equally among his five daughters. The remainder goes to his brother. In this particular case it comes to just over one fifth.