Grandchildren Deprived of Inheritance: Orphans Under the Shadow of Sharia

First Injustice:

If a father dies during his father’s lifetime, the children (i.e. the grandchildren) receive nothing when the grandfather dies.

Similarly, if a daughter dies before her father (the maternal grandfather), her children are deprived of the grandfather’s inheritance.

• Source:  The largest Fatwa website IslamQ&A website

Until today, Muslims have not been able to justify this irrational Sharia law.

The question arises if a child’s relationship with the grandfather end when the father dies? No, absolutely not. Even if the children grow up, they are obliged to care for their elderly grandfather, providing both financial and physical support. Yet, despite fulfilling these duties, they receive nothing from the grandfather’s inheritance. Islam is strange, indeed.

Second Injustice:

The cruelty of this irrational law does not stop at depriving grandchildren of their grandfather’s inheritance. It extends further and orphaned children may also be denied a share of their father’s inheritance, which instead goes to the father’s brother (uncle).

For example, a question was asked to a Mufti (Pakistan):

Question Summary:
My brother died during my father’s lifetime. He has two children who are now claiming their share of the grandfather’s inheritance. Should I give them (the nephews) any part of the inheritance?
Answer from Mufti:
According to Islamic Sharia, you should not give these two children any share of the grandfather’s inheritance. In fact, when the children’s father died, the grandfather was entitled to a portion of his deceased son’s inheritance. After the grandfather’s death, as the surviving son, you become the rightful owner of that inheritance. Therefore, instead of giving the children any inheritance, you should demand that they give the grandfather’s share from their father’s estate to you.

Thus, orphaned children are not only deprived of the grandfather’s inheritance, but also lose a portion of their father’s estate. This is the height of irrationality and injustice, upheld in the name of religion. 

Further irrationalities of this law:

• If the grandfather has no close living relatives (e.g., surviving sons), the inheritance goes to distant male relatives (first, second, or third cousins  ... or even to the sons of those cousins), yet the real grandchildren still receive nothing.

• If the grandfather has only a daughter alive, she receives half of the inheritance, and the remaining half goes to distant male relatives, with grandchildren again receiving nothing.

• If only the grandmother (the grandfather’s wife) is alive, she receives 1/4, and the remaining 3/4 goes to distant male relatives, while grandchildren again get nothing.

And then Muslims claim that Islam is a mercy for orphans.

PS: 

Numerous online Islamic inheritance calculators are available. For instance:

• Calculator 1 (A simple Islamic inheritance calculator).
• Calculator 2 (A detailed Islamic inheritance calculator)

Please use any online calculator to verify the above mentioned examples. 

The Apologist Argument: Grandfather can give share to grandchildren by making a WILL

Islamic apologists present the following excuse:

Islam commands good treatment of orphans; therefore, under the “Wasiyyat-e-Wajibah” (Mandatory Bequest), grandchildren are given a share of the grandfather’s inheritance. Direct inheritance to grandchildren was not given in Islam to avoid disputes among heirs.

Our Response:

This law is completely against reason, and any sensible Muslim can see that it fails to meet even the basic standards of justice.

Due to this irrational and inhumane law, a few Muslim countries (like Egypt and Pakistan) have today introduced the “Wasiyyat-e-Wajibah” law, under which grandchildren are entitled to inherit the same share their parents would have received.

However, this is not Sharia; it is a humanly imposed state amendment, which is called an innovation (bid‘ah).

The questions are:

• If the amendment is humane, why is the original Sharia inhumane?

• If the amendment is just, why is Sharia based on injustice?

• Should divine law require humans to later correct it to achieve justice?

Making such excuse to defend the illogical Islamic Ruling is worse than the injustice itself.

Secondly: Only 1/3rd of estate can be given through WILL

According to Islamic law, a will (wasiyyah) is limited to only one-third of the estate, and even that is valid only if the other heirs do not object.

This means that if a grandfather wishes to act justly during his lifetime and leave a will granting his grandchildren the equal share of their deceased father, the Sharia itself forbids him from doing so. In other words, because of “God’s law,” the grandfather is stripped of the freedom to ensure justice.

Suppose a man had only one son, and that son died before his father. In this case, the grandchildren can only inherit up to one-third of the estate, and only through a will. The remaining two-thirds must necessarily go to some distant male relative, such as a first cousin, second cousin, third cousin, or their sons. Even if those cousins had already died, their sons could still inherit, but the children of the deceased son cannot inherit. What a strange and irrational principle this is, yet Muslims defend it by claiming it came from an all-wise and all-knowing God.

The injustice becomes even clearer in another scenario, where if a man had one son and one daughter, and the son died before him, then upon the father’s death, the daughter receives half of the estate. The son’s children, however, can at most receive up to one-third if a will was made for them, while the rest still goes to distant cousins or their sons. Is this justice, that the deceased man’s own grandson or granddaughter is left empty-handed, while the children of distant cousins inherit?

This contradiction itself is the strongest proof that the system of Islamic inheritance is a human product, not divine wisdom. And today, when some modern Muslim states attempt to fix this flaw through the introduction of wasiyyah wajibah (mandatory will), it is in fact an open admission that the original law was defective, and human experience has rejected it.

Thirdly: The Lame Excuse of “Preventing Disputes”

Islamists claim that Allah did not give inheritance rights to grandchildren because such a law could have created disputes among the heirs. This is nothing more than a crippled excuse. Even Islam itself never gave this reasoning. It is a modern fabrication of today’s apologists who are forced to invent weak justifications.

If disputes were truly the reason, then Islam should also have disinherited daughters, because disputes often arise when it comes to a daughter’s share as well. Why was the risk of conflict ignored in her case but exaggerated in the case of grandchildren?

Moreover, if, according to these apologists, the newly invented law of “wajibah bequest” in some Muslim countries can prevent disputes, then why would disputes arise if Allah Himself had directly granted a share to grandchildren?

And can disputes not arise even with the one-third bequest? Let them bring proof that no disagreements ever happen in such cases. On what basis can they claim that if Allah had directly assigned grandchildren their rights, that would have caused conflict, but the current system of will is somehow “wiser” and will prevent conflicts?

Worse still, under the so-called wajibah bequest, two-thirds of the estate still goes to distant cousins or their sons, while the closest heirs, the grandchildren, remain deprived. How can this will not cause a conflict and can be defended as justice or divine wisdom?

An excuse for a sin is often worse than the sin itself.