Hassan Ilyas' Law Of Inheritance Videos
Assalamualikum Saqib Sahab! Kindly post your question as a separate topic so that it can be answered appropriately. Thank you.
Assalamualikum Ahraz Ahmad Sahab! Please see if this response answers your query. If not, do let me know: Discussion 32505 • Reply 32602
Saqib – So if parents are not ultimate beneficeries, they get 1/3 of the total. But if they are ultimate beneficeries, they get 2/3 and 1/3 of remaining after giving to husband. Its still a contradiction. See, being “ultimate beneficeries” is with respect to children/siblings and shares of parents are also changed with respect to children/siblings. Husband is not in refernece here. So i mean to say whether we give them 1/3rd (non ultimate beneficeries) OR 2/3+1/3 (ultimate beneficeries), in both cases either we should do from the total OR we should do from remaining after giving to husband. I dont think we can justify having two differnet rules. The ayat simply says… 1/3 for parents if there are children/siblings… and then 1/3+rest if there are no children/siblings and parents are the only heirs. If for the second case we want to calculate 2/3+1/3 from remaining after giving to husband, then we should do the same for first case.. meaning.. 1/3 from the remaining after giving to husband. What do you think?
Btw I haven’t yet seen your google sheet but have posted my comments above. Will review the sheet later on.
Ahraz, so figuring out if there is a contradiction will be way above my pay grade 🙂 My response was what I have understood to be ustaad’s explanation of the faraaidh (thanks to Umer/Hassan). I just want to figure out what the viewpoints are. To the best of my knowledge, ustaad claims that the An-Nisaa ayaat say this: There are 3 cascading levels of ‘ultimate’ beneficiaries. There are the following in-order: Case 1: Children Case 2: Siblings Case 3: Parents So children are the original ultimate beneficiaries. If they are not there, then siblings are the ultimate beneficiaries. If neither are there then the ultimate beneficiaries are the parents. Whatsoever might be the case, for each, there are a set of ‘prior’ shares that need to be disbursed. For Case 1, spousal (1/4 or 1/8) and parental (1/6 each) shares (if any) need to be disbursed. For Case 2, spousal (1/2 or 1/4) and parental (1/6 each) shares (if any) need to be disbursed. For Case 3, spousal (1/2 or 1/4) shares (if any) need to be disbursed. So, the point of confusion, is that parental shares are mentioned BOTH as ‘ultimate’ (Case 3), and ‘prior’ (Case 1 & 2). So to answer your question, yes the fact that parents are treated two different ways depending upon the case is interesting. I do not think it is anomalous though, and it does seem to jibe with the text of the ayaat (take my gulabi arabi with huge does of salt). P.S.: It’s interesting that the ultimate beneficiaries consistently have a 2:1 male to female ratio in play.