In many Muslim communities, Western old age homes are frequently demonized as a "social curse." This narrative pushes the idea that the Islamic family structure is the sole bastion of elderly respect, while Western societies supposedly discard their aging parents like trash. However, once the veil of sentimentality is lifted and we examine the situation through the lens of reason, justice, and the technical framework of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), a starkly different reality emerges.
In truth, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black; the Islamic model is functionally inferior when addressing the complexities of modern aging.
Islamic Sharia lacks a sustainable, institutionalized solution for the social challenges of the elderly. Instead of establishing "legal rights" for the aged, it relegates their care to the realm of "individual morality." and "mercy-based". This creates a double-edged crisis: it places an unauthorized and immense burden on daughters-in-law to serve their in-laws under the guise of religious duty, while simultaneously leaving the elderly at the mercy of their daughter-in-law's personal temperament and goodwill.
Beneath the dense terminology of "rights and duties," Islam actually established a system that was only ever feasible for a small circle of wealthy, elite families only, and never for the common person. Most people remain unaware of these original Sharia rulings, which we will deconstruct and clarify throughout this article.
Old Age Homes: The Path to Freedom from Exploitation
Calling old age homes "garbage dumps" or "selling of conscience" is sheer injustice. These institutions are actually modern and evolved facilities that save elderly individuals from dying a death of loneliness and disgust within homes while "chanting Allah Allah" and listening to taunts from daughters-in-law.
In Western societies, the concept of old age homes is fundamentally based on "autonomy" and the protection of "self-esteem." Parents there do not like to make their honour and dignity dependent on their children's kindness or mercy. They value their independent life and autonomy so much that they themselves make arrangements for their old age.
In the West, parents often arrange for old age home expenses during their lifetime through social security, pensions, and personal savings so that they do not become a burden on their children. However, if for some reason they cannot do so, European and other Western states legally bind the children to pay a fixed portion of the old age home expenses from their income.
It is extremely important that this money is considered the parents' "right," not someone's favour or charity. Due to this legal protection, parents neither have to beg in front of their children, nor listen to their taunts, nor remain under anyone's "burden of obligation." This system maintains the autonomy and dignity of parents.
In contrast, in Muslim societies, elderly parents are forcibly made to "adjust" with the next generation under the same roof, where they often end up becoming a heavy burden. In these joint family system societies, the daughter-in-law's behaviour toward her parents-in-law is generally not good. Children also get tired of their constant care and attention needs, especially if the parents are so ill that special dietary meals must be prepared for them, or if they become bedridden and the daughter-in-law and children have to manage everything from changing their clothes, washing their hands and face, to their urination and defecation. The home atmosphere becomes stressful and weary, but this situation is endured due to religious and social pressure.
In old age homes, elderly people meet peers of their own age with whom they can spend time. There is trained professional staff for their care who receive regular compensation. Since this is a professional service, there is no element of "showing favours" here. Elderly people spend the final days of their lives in complete autonomy, leading an active social life without being a burden on anyone.
The Contradictions of Islamic Sharia and Its Lack of Solutions
Muslims often proudly claim that in Islam, serving parents is the path to paradise and paradise lies beneath their feet. However, when the legal details and principles of Islamic jurisprudence are examined in depth, this entire system appears unrealistic and impractical.
In Actual Islamic Sharia, There Is No Religious Obligation on the Daughter-in-Law to Serve Her Parents-in-Law
Today's Muslims are "unaware." They often live in a "joint family system" today where the burden is placed on the daughter-in-law to serve her parents-in-law (this is perhaps the situation in nearly 100% of all Muslim households today where this burden is on the daughter-in-law).
But today's Islamic environment is completely "un-Islamic."
According to actual Islamic Sharia, it is not obligatory for a daughter-in-law to serve her parents-in-law. This is not the opinion of just one scholar but the consensus position of all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Hanafi Jurisprudence: In authoritative books of Hanafi jurisprudence such as "Al-Hidayah" and "Fatawa Alamgiri," it is clearly written that if a woman refuses to do household work, she cannot be forced. Fatawa Hindiyyah explicitly states that "if a woman says she will not cook, she cannot be forced, and it is obligatory upon the husband to provide her with cooked food."
Shafi'i Jurisprudence: This school is even more explicit in this matter. Major Shafi'i jurists like Imam Nawawi write that "the purpose of the marriage contract is solely to obtain sexual benefit; therefore, it is not obligatory for a woman to do household tasks such as cooking, washing clothes, or cleaning."
Hanbali Jurisprudence: Scholar Al-Bahuti clearly states in Hanbali jurisprudence that "it is not obligatory for a wife to serve her husband, bake bread, prepare food, clean the house, or fetch water because the marriage contract was for sexual relations, not for service."
Maliki Jurisprudence: There is an interesting division in Maliki jurisprudence that indicates this entire system was actually for the wealthy and aristocracy. According to Maliki jurists, if a woman belongs to a respectable or wealthy family, it is absolutely not obligatory for her to do household work, and it is obligatory upon the husband to provide her with a servant.
The Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh (Al-Mawsu'ah Al-Fiqhiyyah Al-Kuwaitiyyah), which is a summary of all schools of thought, clearly states that "it is not obligatory for a wife to serve her parents-in-law, nor can she be forced to do so. It is her right to demand a separate house where her husband's relatives do not live."
Ibn Hazm, in his book Al-Muhalla (Volume 9, Page 161), writes:
1906 - Issue: It is not obligatory for a woman to serve her husband in any way at all, neither in kneading dough, nor cooking, nor arranging the house, nor sweeping, nor spinning, nor weaving, nor anything else. However, if she does so, it would be better for her, and it is incumbent upon the husband to provide her with fully stitched clothing and fully cooked food. Her only obligations are to treat him well, not to fast voluntarily when he is present without his permission, not to allow into his house anyone he dislikes, not to deny herself to him when he desires, and to safeguard what he entrusts to her.
Now the question arises: if the son is financially struggling and cannot afford to hire a separate servant or maid, or if he is away from the city or abroad for work, what will happen to these elderly parents? Islamic Sharia has no concrete and legal answer to this question, except to exploit the daughter-in-law in the name of "ethics" and force her to give up her Sharia rights.
Challenge:
Are Islamic societies ready to accept this challenge that they openly announce these rights of daughters-in-law from mosques and loudspeakers in Islamic society today and give daughters-in-law their rights to decide whether they want to live together or take a separate house? The answer is clear that Islamic society will not do this. Instead of making daughters-in-law aware of their rights (i.e. they can refuse to serve parents-in-law), they will hide it from them. And if some how daughters-in-law become aware of it, and demand their rights, Islamic societies will never admit their demand and will continue to exploit daughters-in-law by threatening divorce.
Multiple Wives and a Scattered Family
Islam has permitted a man to have four marriages, which causes dispersion in the family. When a man has multiple wives and half a dozen children from each, where will he find time and attention for his elderly parents? He will be entangled in maintaining justice among his multiple wives, meeting their expenses, and raising so many children.
The Sharia Prohibition of the Joint Family System
According to Islam, even a brother-in-law (i.e. brother of the husband) who grew up with his brother from childhood becomes a non-mahram for his sister-in-law (the wife of his brother) when he reaches adulthood, and according to Islam, instead of protecting his brother's honour, this brother-in-law becomes like death for his sister-in-law (meaning that according to the Prophet of Islam, he will be foremost in committing adultery with his brother's wife).
Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (link):
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Beware of entering upon (non-mahram) women." A companion asked: "O Messenger of Allah, what about the brother-in-law (devar)?" He replied: "The brother-in-law is death (meaning the brother-in-law will be foremost in committing adultery with his sister-in-law)."
After this hadith, the joint family system in Islamic Sharia has been finished. According to this, even if a man keeps his parents with him in the house, he will first have to separate his younger (unmarried) brothers from his parents and send them out of the house.
The result is that while Sharia has exempted the daughter-in-law from serving her parents-in-law, it has not provided any alternative "Institutional Solution" that could take care of these elderly people.
But here Islamic Sharia itself is defeated at the hands of Islamic society, and Muslims themselves turn away from Sharia and the sister-in-law and brother-in-law live together in the same house in a joint family system.
The Deception of "Queen" and Class Discrimination
Islamic preachers proudly say that Islam has freed women from "household chores" and made them queens. This claim is sheer deception and based on half-truths.
Why Sharia is a System for the Elite ONLY
The notion that Islam liberated women from domestic servitude by granting them the right to avoid household chores and the care of in-laws is often presented as a progressive miracle. However, once you analyze the historical and legal context, this privilege reveals a much darker reality. Sharia was never designed for the common person. It was a code for the aristocracy.
A System Built on Slavery
The early legal framework of Islam was built upon the customs of the seventh century Meccan elite, specifically the Quraysh tribe. In this social hierarchy, domestic freedom was not a universal human right. Instead, it was a class privilege sustained by the labor of others.
Just as the Hijab was a status symbol reserved for free women, while slave women were physically punished if they attempted to cover themselves, freedom from manual labor was a mark of nobility. Respectable families acquired domestic infrastructure through war captives or slave markets. Since slaves performed the kneading, cooking, and cleaning, a free woman’s refusal to do housework was simply a reflection of her social rank.
The Practical Failure for the Working Class
For the average person, both then and now, this system is entirely dysfunctional. Even the poor Bedouins of the seventh century who lacked the means to own human property could not possibly adhere to these rulings.
Sharia essentially defines the ideal Muslim life through the lens of the wealthy. It demands that:
-
The woman be treated as a Queen, a status only possible if slaves are present.
-
The husband provide pre-stitched clothing and fully prepared meals.
-
The wife remain perpetually available for her husband’s intimacy, freed from the physical toll of labour to maintain her market value as a sexual commodity.
Imagine the modern reality for a working class Muslim man. He returns home after a gruelling day of physical labour, only to be told that he must now cook and clean because his wife has a Sharia right to remain idle.
This highlights the fundamental contradiction of Islamic Fiqh. It advocates for a lifestyle that requires a slave based economy to function. Without the servants and slaves mentioned in classical texts, the system collapses. It either forces the man into an impossible burden or, as we see in most Muslim societies today, it forces the woman into a role of domestic servitude that the original law never actually intended for her. All the while, preachers continue to ignore the aristocratic roots of their own religion.
The real truth is that this system does not make a woman a "queen" but a "sexual object." She was prevented from household chores so that she would always be available for her husband's sexual gratification and maintain her beauty. This system presents a woman as a "Commodity."
The price of this so-called comfort and honour is paid by the woman by losing her complete freedom. She cannot leave the house without her husband's permission, she must completely obey her husband, and her entire life revolves around her husband's wishes.
Service to Parents: Ancient Human Values, Not a Religious Miracle
Religious preachers create the false impression that if there were no Islam or religion, children would leave their parents on the street. This is a white lie and a complete refutation of historical facts.
In old times in Europe too, children took care of their elderly parents.
And even in non-religious civilizations, honouring and serving parents was considered one of the most important values. In China, whether it was Confucianism or ancient Taoism, "Filial Piety" (service to parents) was the most fundamental pillar of society. These non-religious (atheist) societies took care of their elderly for thousands of years without any concept of God, revelation, or heaven and hell.
The followers of Buddhism also considered serving their parents as their duty on the basis of human compassion and moral foundations without any "divine command."
In all these non-religious societies, the daughter-in-law's role was that of a helper who, along with her husband, took care of the elderly at home so that the family structure remained intact. This was not any religious duty but a natural human instinct and social necessity.
Even today, Vietnam, North Korea, rural areas of China, and other non-religious or communist societies consider serving parents as their duty, and elderly parents still live with their children.
Vietnam
In Vietnam, there is no concept of God and it is a completely non-religious society. But there, for thousands of years until today, "Filial Piety" (service to parents) has been the basic pillar of society. Usually, the youngest son lives with the parents and takes care of them. Even during the communist government era, this tradition continued. Old age homes are almost non-existent.
North Korea
North Korea, which is an Atheist State, there too families live together and children take responsibility for their parents. There is no organized social security or old age home system from the government, rather the social pressure is very strong that children should not abandon their parents.
China
In China, which is a communist and atheist state, traditionally "Filial Piety" was the most important value and even today the traditional system continues in rural areas. The government made a law in 2013 that makes it mandatory for children to regularly visit and take care of their elderly parents.
All these examples clearly prove that serving parents is not an "Islamic miracle" but a universal human value that has existed in various civilizations for thousands of years, whether religious or non-religious.
The Muslim claim that "without religion, the elderly die on the streets" is false.
Old Age Homes: The Evolutionary Journey from Burden to "Right"
Old age homes came into existence not because "Parents Love" ended in the West and children stopped loving their parents, but because the structure of life changed drastically after the Industrial Revolution.
In the past, when both men and women were involved in household chores and farming, they could give time and attention to their parents. But in the fast-paced life of the modern era, when both partners have to work and work pressure is very high, "Professional Care" for elderly parents became a necessary requirement.
The growth of old age homes in countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan proves that this change is not due to the decline of religion but is a necessary result of the Industrial Revolution and modern economic structure. In Japan, families lived together until the 1980s-90s, but rapid urbanization, women's employment, and economic changes made old age homes necessary.
Old age homes are actually an evolved system. Just as people used to treat illnesses at home and now go to hospitals, similarly, for the care of the elderly, the need for a specialized and trained institution was felt.
Legal Responsibility and Government System
This is an extremely important point that making children "free" from parents in the West does not mean leaving them "helpless."
In European countries, "Filial Responsibility Laws" (laws regarding children's responsibility toward parents) exist. If parents' financial resources are exhausted and they are in an old age home, the government first checks their children's income.
If the children are well-off, the law compels them to pay a fixed portion of the old age home expenses. If the children are poor or disabled, then the state itself takes on this responsibility.
That is, the West has established such a balanced system where parents' self-esteem is maintained, they receive professional care, and they have legal protection, based of "rights" and not as charity/favour of their children.
The Balanced Western System vs. Islamic Failure
The beauty of relationships in the West is that there is no concept of "burden" but of "cooperation." There, parents do not raise children so that they can "collect" from them in old age, but they make them free and autonomous individuals.
Whereas in Islamic societies even today, children are considered old age insurance, and therefore children are produced in large numbers.
In the Western system, if a woman is at home, she manages the house, and if both work, they share responsibilities. There, no unnatural burden is placed on the man that he should provide maintenance, give mahr (dowry), and also provide servants for the house because the "queen" will not lift a finger.
In the Western system, a woman is not just an "object" or "decoration" but an equal life partner who shares life's responsibilities together.
Exploitation vs. Self-Esteem
In the Islamic system, relationships are severely exploited in the name of rights and duties. Here, children are humiliated under the weight of "favours," while in the West, the beauty of relationships lies in their freedom and mutual respect.
In the West, parents do not like to put their self-esteem in anyone's hands. They enjoy life in old age homes with people of their own age, where trained professionals take care of them and receive compensation in return. Since this is a professional agreement, there is no element of "showing favours."
In Muslim societies, parents are often pushed toward disgust and humiliation in the name of "chanting Allah Allah." The daughter-in-law's behavior toward her parents-in-law is often harsh and merciless. Children also get tired of the constant needs and care of elderly parents. The home atmosphere becomes tense and bitter, but everyone silently endures it due to social pressure.
Whereas in the West, parents are provided with an active social life where they spend the rest of their lives with happiness and dignity.
An Objection by Islamists: Incidents of Abuses happen in old people's homes
An Islamist wrote:
It is increasingly common to hear of abuse in old people's homes, which can involve directly undermining their autonomy and dignity.
Our Reply:
It is right that abuse exists in care homes, and it is absolutely abhorrent. However, we must distinguish between institutional failure and systemic failure.
-
In the West, abuse in a care home is a crime, a scandal, and a violation of the contract. There are inspectors, ombudsmen, and legal pathways to sue these institutions.
-
In a joint family system, 'abuse' (in the form of taunts, neglect, or psychological pressure from a resentful daughter-in-law or overextended son) is often hidden, culturally normalized, and has no legal remedy. We don't live in a 100% ideal world, but a system with professional standards and legal oversight is objectively more 'rational' than one that relies entirely on the fluctuating temperament of family members who may feel trapped by their situation.
Conclusion
When Western dominance brought an end to the aggressive Jihad of Muslim states, it also killed the system of slavery that was the very foundation of the Islamic family structure. The reality is that the status of a free woman as a "queen" in Islam was only possible as long as forced labour by slaves and concubines was available to do the housework. The abolition of slavery effectively buried this unrealistic Sharia system, where a husband was legally obligated to provide his wife with fully cooked meals and ready-made clothing.
Justice demands that we flatly reject the baseless propaganda of Muslim preachers who label Western humanitarian institutions as "heartless." The truth is that Islamic Sharia has completely failed to provide for the elderly in the modern world. This is because the system still clings to an elitist, primitive model that belongs to a bygone era. Most Muslims are unaware of this fact, making them easy targets for dishonest propaganda against the West.
In contrast, the Western system offers a balanced and human-centered solution. Instead of leaving the elderly at the mercy of others, it provides them with "legal rights", professional care, and true independence. It is time for Muslims to accept the bitter reality of Sharia and move past these empty claims. If they do not, they will remain crushed under the weight of broken relationships and mental agony. Old age homes are an evolutionary and better solution for humanity, and they stand as living proof of the failure of traditional religious systems.
Hassan Radwan