Hidden Injustices Against Women in Islamic Inheritance Law: Far Beyond the Son vs Daughter Case

A Critical Analysis of the Excuse That Women Get Less Because They Have No Financial Responsibility

Introduction

Islamic apologists claim that:

• Islam did not give women rights on the basis of “equality” (as the West does), but on the basis of “equity” and “justice.”

However, the truth is:

• Islam gave women rights neither on the basis of equality nor on the basis of equity or justice. Instead, it usurped the rights of women and committed injustice against them.

So let us begin and examine the reality of this claimed “Islamic justice” toward women.

1st Example: Old Widow Gets 25%, Distant Male Relative Gets 75%

In the case where the deceased has no children, but only a wife and a distant male relative such as a cousin, or his son, or his grandson, the distribution is:

• Widow gets 25%
• Distant male relative gets 75%, no matter how distant he is

This hurts even more than the case where a daughter gets half of what a son gets.

A wife who stayed with her husband and served him her whole life gets only 25%. Meanwhile a distant male relative gets 75%, even if he never met the deceased and had no connection with him.

Note: According to Islam, that distant male relative is not responsible for the widow if she cannot afford housing and living expenses.

Do you see any justice for women in this that apologists claim? It is neither equal rights for women nor rights based on justice.

2nd Example: Mother Gets 33.33%, Distant Relatives Get 66.67%

If the deceased leaves an old mother and a distant male relative:

• Mother gets 1/3, which is 33.33%
• Distant male relative gets 2/3, which is 66.67%

Is this logical and just in any way?

Note: According to Islam, that distant male relative is not responsible for the old mother if she cannot maintain herself due to poverty.

Do you see any justice for women in this that apologists claim? It is neither equal rights for women nor rights based on justice.

3rd Example: Daughter Gets 50%, Distant Male Relative Gets 50%

If a man dies leaving only a daughter:

• Daughter gets 50%
• Distant male relative, like a cousin, gets 50%

A person naturally loves his daughter more than any distant male relative. He would always wish his inheritance to go to his daughter.

But this system goes against human nature. It gives away 50% to a distant male relative. It is perhaps more painful for a woman to see a distant non-mahram male relative, for example a first cousin, getting half the estate, than a brother getting double share.

Note: According to Islam, that distant male relative is not responsible for the daughter if she cannot maintain herself due to poverty. Only in one Sunni fiqh, Hanbali, he may become responsible, but only if she is unmarried and cannot maintain herself from her own wealth. The other three Sunni fiqhs, Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafii, put no responsibility on him even if she is unmarried and poor.

Do you see any divine wisdom here? Do you see any justice for women in this that apologists claim? It is neither equal rights for women nor rights based on justice.

4th Example: A Daughter's Children Receive Nothing

In Islam, the children of a daughter are completely denied any inheritance.

Consider this scenario: A man has only one orphaned granddaughter who lives under his care and guardianship. When he passes away, she is left with absolutely nothing. Instead, a distant male relative walks away with the entire 100% estate.

To make matters worse, this male relative who inherits by default has no responsibility whatsoever to look after or support her.

Result: Granddaughter gets 0%, distant male relative gets 100% with zero obligation to support her.

Can you honestly find any divine wisdom in this? Do you see any perfect justice for women in this that apologists claim? It is neither equal rights for women nor rights based on justice.

The Apologetic Claim: “Allah’s Perfect Divine Wisdom Lies in the Complete Holistic Islamic System”

After these clear injustices against women, Islamic apologists claim that Allah has committed no injustice even in these cases. Instead, they argue that one must examine the “complete holistic Islamic system” in order to grasp Allah’s wisdom.

According to them:

1. A person can eliminate the share of a distant relative by bequeathing property to his mother, wife, or daughter through a will (wasiyyah) before he dies.
2. Alternatively, a person can gift his property to his mother, wife, or daughter as a hiba (gift) during his lifetime.
3. The complete system of Islam dictates that a woman has no financial responsibilities, yet she still inherits from her father, husband, and son, while the man remains her provider.

Counter-Analysis and Logical Rebuttal:

1. Flaws in the Islamic System of Wills:

The first issue is that according to Islamic law, a person can only bequeath one-third (1/3) of their total property through a will before they die. This means that the same unjust rules remain in effect for the remaining two-thirds (66%) of the property, and a distant male relative (Asaba) walks away with 50% to 75% of the remaining estate without any moral or legal obligation. The law of wills fails to correct this fundamental flaw.

The second issue is that the Islamic principle states: "La Wasiyya Li Warith" (meaning a bequest cannot be made for an heir).

This means that a person cannot even bequeath a portion of their one-third (1/3) share to their daughter or wife unless all other heirs give their permission. Since the rightful owners of the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of the property are the "Asaba" (distant male relatives on the father's side, such as uncles or cousins), gaining their consent becomes difficult. Consequently, if the distant male relative from the Asaba does not agree to this will, he walks away with 50% to 75% of the entire property, bearing absolutely no responsibility for the woman.

2. Hiba (Gift) and the Risk to Human Psychology:

Gifting away all of one's property as "Hiba" during one's lifetime is a massive risk, which is why you will rarely see it implemented on a large scale in practical life.

• A person would hesitate to gift his property to his mother because he might wish to get married and have children in the future.

• Similarly, he might not gift it to his wife because if a divorce occurs in the future, he would be left out on the street.

• Or he would not transfer property to his children during his lifetime because if he contracts a disease in the future, faces another financial disaster, or his children fail to take care of him in his old age, how will he meet his own needs? Therefore, due to these very natural reasons, people have practically never transferred their properties to their wives or daughters during their lifetimes throughout the entire 14-century-long history of Islam.

3. Tragic Cases of Oppressed Women

If a woman is an orphan, or she received no inheritance due to her father's poverty, and she has no son, then why should she be deprived of 75% of her husband's inheritance and have it given to a distant male relative?

Similarly, consider a mother whose only support is her son (and who received no inheritance from her father or husband due to poverty or other reasons). Why should distant male relatives take away a 66% share upon her death?

An unmarried daughter is only supposed to inherit from her father, so why should a distant male relative take away 50% of her share?

In all these scenarios, the apologists' claim that "the entire system compensates for her inheritance" completely fails because the entire system is not present for her in such cases, and distant relative who takes away the property is also not obligated to spend a single penny on these women.

4. Sunni Families with Only Daughters Converting to Shiism: Living Proof of the System's Failure

If we step outside the realm of theoretical debates and look at the ground reality in Pakistan and India, the greatest evidence of the failure of Islamic inheritance laws is the behavior of Muslims themselves. Today, it is an open secret that Sunni families where the only heirs are daughters or the mother (with no sons) often formally convert to the Shia school of thought before their death.

Why does this happen? There are two very clear reasons:

First Reason: Natural Affection and the Convenience of Shia Law

Human nature dictates that a person wants their estate to go to their own immediate family (mother and daughters), rather than to a distant male relative.

Sunni Islam is against this human nature, while Shia Islam provides them with complete protection in this regard, i.e., if the only heirs are the mother and daughters, they become the owners of 100 percent of the estate, and distant male relatives (residuary heirs, or 'asaba) have no right to it whatsoever.

Second Reason: The "Complications" and "Bitter Legal Disputes" of Wills in Sunni Law

Under the Sunni school of thought, such families face bitter disputes over property after death between the women of the household and distant male relatives. People think they can avoid this by writing a will, but Sunni law disappoints them:

Through a will, you can only bequeath up to one-third (1/3) of your estate. The major part of the remaining two-third of the state still goes to that same distant male relative.

The greatest tragedy is that, according to the Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, even if you write a will during your lifetime with the consent of the male relative, it is nothing more than a piece of paper. Legally, that male relative must give his consent again after your death, at the time the estate is being distributed. Obviously, when his own share is at stake, in many cases he refuses to give his consent, and the women of the household are trapped in long and humiliating court battles.

Therefore, to save the mother and daughters from these very court battles, Sunni fathers have themselves registered as Shia during their own lifetimes. Mr. Shahbaz Ahmed Cheema's 2014 research paper mentions several such cases from Pakistani courts, where wars over property were fought between residuary male heirs and the women of the household.

Just think about it that  if "gift" (hiba) and "will" (wasiyyah) were truly such easy and effective solutions, would any father be forced to abandon his ancestral school of thought to secure his daughters' future? This practical trend is itself the greatest proof that, in today's era, the Sunni system of inheritance has become so unjust in people's eyes that they are taking the drastic step of changing their religion to escape it.

Note:

Shia Islam also has this same heir injustice, but only in the case of the "wife." That is, if the wife is the sole heir, she receives only 25 percent of the estate, and the remaining 75 percent goes to a distant male relative.

5. The Final Logical Conclusion:

The reality is that "Hiba" and "Wasiyyah" are merely workarounds, and they are flawed, difficult, and uncertain ones at that.

And the main problem is, they do not answer the very fundamental question of what exactly Allah's "perfect wisdom" was in making a distant male relative the rightful owner of 50% to 75% of the inheritance in the default law, without placing any responsibility on him, while depriving the mother, wife, and daughter who lived with him their entire lives and spent their lives serving and caring for him.

If the default system created by Allah fails to meet the demands of human nature and justice to the extent that humans have to seek alternative routes like "Hiba" to fix it, or even change their sect from Sunni to Shia, then labeling this system as "wisdom" and "justice" is nothing but ignorance and a mistake.

The Financial Responsibility Argument of Islamic Apologists

Despite clear disparities in inheritance laws that disadvantage women, apologists frequently rely on a standard defense:

“Islam has committed no injustice against women. Financial responsibility rests solely upon men, while women are completely free of any obligations. That is why men receive a larger share of inheritance.”

This argument is false and misleading. The premise that men carry all financial burdens while women bear none is a false dichotomy. Apologists conveniently ignore the extensive domestic labour, child-rearing responsibilities, biological costs, and legal disadvantages imposed on women.

Let us compare their respective responsibilities so that the sacrifices required of women become clear:

Despite all these responsibilities and sacrifices, she is still deprived of an equal share of inheritance:

• A sister receives half the share of a brother.
• A daughter receives half the share of a son.
• A wife, mother, sister, or daughter may receive only 25%, 33%, or 50%, while the remaining 75% to 50% passes to a distant male relative (such as a cousin) who bears no responsibility for these women.
• The children of a daughter receive no inheritance, while the children of a son inherit in full.

In contrast:

1. A man retains the full right to work and accumulate his own wealth and property.
2. He is granted a double share of inheritance.
3. Only male relatives (never female relatives) are given the authority, through the rule of ‘asaba, to claim the property of distant female relatives.

This is the complete Islamic system that apologists describe as superior for women. They claim that Islam does not grant women “equal rights” in the modern Western sense, but instead provides rights based on “equity” and “justice.”

Seekers of truth must now decide for themselves whether they discern “perfect divine justice” toward women in this system, or only divine injustice.

Final Conclusion: Neither Equality Nor Justice

This detailed examination proves that the apologetic claim collapses on every front.

Islam neither gives women equal rights as in modern civil law, nor does it give them rights based on equity or justice.

If it were based on equality, a widow who served her husband for life would not get 25% while a distant cousin who never met him gets 75%. A mother would not get 33% while a stranger gets 66%. A beloved daughter would not get 50% while a distant male relative gets 50%. An orphaned granddaughter would not get 0% while a distant male relative gets 100%.

If it were based on justice or equity, then the one who takes the property would at least bear financial responsibility for the women left behind. But the distant male relative bears zero obligation. The mother, wife, and daughter bear a lifetime of unpaid labor, reproductive risk, restricted movement, and legal dependency, and still lose their share.

The proposed solutions of will and gift fail legally because a will is limited to one third and requires the consent of the same male relative who benefits from denying it, and they fail practically because no rational person will give away all his property during his life and risk destitution.

The fact that Sunni fathers in South Asia are forced to change their sect to Shia to protect their own mothers and daughters from the asaba system is living proof that even Muslims themselves recognize this as injustice, not wisdom.

Therefore, the claim that Islam gives women justice through a holistic system is false. In reality, Islam neither gives women equal rights, nor does it give them rights on the basis of true justice. It takes away their natural right to their own family's property and transfers it to distant male relatives without responsibility, while adding layers of legal and social restrictions upon women themselves.