Inheritance: Young childrens claim
If in a Muslim family, a man died at a young age, leaving behind minor children and his father has survived him - the question is whether the minor children will have any claim over the property of their grand father ( the father of the minor children's father ).
The inheritance of the assets of the deceased father are very clear. For instance the deceased left behind two minor children. The division of the property of the children's father is effected as follows : One sixth to his father (i.e. the grand father) and a similar portion (i.e. one sixth) to his mother if she has also survived him. His wife inherits one eighth. The remainder goes to the children. If both are boys, then the total amount is divided between them equally. If they are a boy and a girl, then the boy receives twice as much as the girl who inherits one third while her brother takes two third.
The position is different in the case of grand children's claim to a share of their grand father's inheritance in place of their own father. According to the family law of a number of Muslim countries, they inherit on the basis of a rule known as "the compulsory will". These laws of Muslim countries have adopted the views of Imam Ibn Hazm which are not only humanitarian but also have a sound basis. He advocates that in this particular case where a man is survived by his father and children of his own, the grand father is deemed to have made a will in favor of those grand-children of his in the amount which his son i.e. their father, would have inherited from him had he been alive, or one third of the grand-father's property, whichever is the lesser amount. This applies whether the grand-father has actually made such a will or not.
That is the reason for calling this will a compulsory one. Even if no will is written or signed by the grand-father, it is deemed to be there, and the beneficiaries are only his grand-children.
In-laws: Dress code for women
Could you please explain the importance of purdah in Islam. What is the ruling concerning the purdah in the case of aunts, cousin-sisters and sisters-in-law? Does their married status make any difference as to how they should appear? People seem to have different view, but what is the correct one?
The purdah is the name of a type of dress which is used by the Muslim women in the Indian Subcontinent. Therefore, we cannot say that Islam gives a particular ruling with regard to the purdah. Whether they use the purdah or some other type of dress is immaterial, as long as the requirements themselves are met.
A Muslim woman is required to wear a wide dress when she is in the company or presence of any man who is lawful to be married to her, and her dress must cover all her body. However, she is not required to have her face or the lower part of her arms, i.e. from the wrist downward, covered when she goes out. Moreover, she must not choose transparent or eye-catching material or colors for outer garments. Her dress must not imitate the dress of non-believers either. These rulings apply to all Muslim women, whether married or not.
You ask about the status of certain relatives. The rule which requires the Islamic dress to be worn is that of the degree of relationship. If a relative is lawful for a woman to marry, then she should appear before him in full Islamic dress. If she cannot marry him, as in the case of nephews, paternal or maternal uncles, then an aunt appears before her nephews as she would in front of her father or brother. If the blockage of the marriage between them is the result of a marital relationship, then that blockage is disregarded.
Thus a woman should maintain her full Islamic dress in front of her brother-in-law. I do not understand what is meant by the term "a cousin-sister". If it refers to cousins of the first degree, then the same rule applies.
In-laws: Duties of a woman toward parents-in-law
Could you please explain what are the duties of a woman toward her parents-in-law. Can she ask her husband not to require her to serve his parents, or, alternatively, that they should live separately so that he may serve them as he wishes. If she makes such a request, does she contravene any Islamic principles? In other words, is she required by Islam to serve her parents-in-law? Suppose that due to her attitude, her husband is pressurized by his parents to divorce her, what should his attitude be?
A woman is expected to show all the respect and kindness toward her husband's parents which may be expected from a dutiful daughter. Her husband must treat his parents kindly at all times and in all situations. He is required to show them respect and kindness and to behave toward them with compassion. If we say that a woman is supposed to act in unison with her husband, then the least she may do is to treat them with the respect a parent rightfully expects. Having said that, I should add that what we are talking about here is a genuine attitude which is manifested through behavior. The behavior, however, is different from service.
According to Islam, a woman is not required to serve her husband's parents. He himself is required to look after his parents and try as hard as possible to ensure their comfort according to his means. This means that if a woman decides to serve her husband's parents, in deference to them, or out of love for her husband, she does so voluntarily. Her attitude should be met with gratitude by her husband and his parents. Her kindness should be reciprocated. If she decides not to serve them, she violates no Islamic law or principle. Her husband may not force or pressure her into serving them, whether they share the same house or live separately.
When we understand these limitations, the relationship between parents and daughter-in-law acquires a different look. When someone does you a favor voluntarily, and you do not show your appreciation of that favor, he is bound to feel hurt. The least to be expected is that he does not readily continue to do you favors. When the kindness is returned, or at least appreciated with thanks, he finds all encouragement he needs to continue this fine attitude. If, on the other hand, a person is made to feel that his favor, which he does voluntarily, is expected as a duty, when no religious or moral authority has imposed such a duty, then an attitude of rebellion begins to make itself felt. This may be the key to the whole problem about which you have asked.
What I can detect from your letter is that your wife has been made to serve your parents, with whom you live, and she was made to understand that it was her duty. I am not sure what her initial reaction was, but she might have accepted it, perhaps reluctantly, at first. She might have felt later that what was required of her was actually too much, or constituted a burden on her. You have not given me any idea of your family situation, but one can imagine a variety of situations when serving parents-in-law can be a real burden.
Suppose a woman has young children of her own and she has to look after them. Nowadays, young children are too demanding. The burden they present is quite a heavy one. Our modern times are different from those of the extended family, where a woman receives help with bringing up her young children from other women in the family. In addition to that, if she has to serve her parents-in-law, she may find that she is required to work long hours, without having enough rest. There is also the possibility that there is some sort of friction between your wife and your parents. This may come from her feeling that her service is not appreciated. As time passes, this tension leads to strained relations and, probably, an outburst of temper by one side or the other. When things reach such a stage, it becomes very difficult to remedy the situation.
In circumstances like these, a woman is within her right to ask her husband to move out of the family home. She wants to look after her immediate family, and not to have a relationship which creates friction every now and then. Obviously the advantage she foresees in living alone is great. There will be no pressure on her and she can organize her family to her satisfaction.
It is normal in certain societies, that when the relationship within the family reaches this stage, the husband's parents may ask or suggest to him that he should divorce his wife. What should be his attitude in this case? I am afraid that if he acts on his parent's suggestion, he may be doing his wife and himself a great wrong. He must not forget that he is duty bound to look after his wife and ensure a comfortable life for her according to his means. So, he has the dual responsibility of looking after his wife and his parents. If he cannot fulfill both responsibilities while sharing the same house with his parents, it may be highly advisable that he moves out with his wife. If that prompts his parents to ask him to divorce his wife, he must not do so, as long as his wife fulfills her only duties toward him, their children and his parents. Once again, she is only bound to treat them with respect and kindness. Maybe when they move out, she is better able to fulfill that duty and to make its fulfillment felt by them.
This is a typical Oriental family problem. Islam has provided an easy solution for it which requires everyone in the family to understand their duties and rights.
It may be felt by some readers that I am taking the side of the wife. I wish to make it clear that I am not. I realize that there are women who take a selfish attitude which creates problems within the family. Such women want to have their cake and eat it at the same time. A woman of this type should not be treated in the same way as a kind hearted, dutiful woman who knows her rights and duties.
To recap, a woman is within her right to ask her husband to provide her and their family with a separate home. She is also within her right if she decides not to serve her parents-in-law. For them to ask their son to divorce her, because she does not serve them, is wrong. It cannot be approved by Islam, provided that she looks after her Islamic duties. Her husband must not act on his parents' advice to divorce her because that may constitute a grave wrong.
| Back | Contents | Next |