The Quran's Mathematical Errors and Unjust Rules Against Women in Inheritance Law

(Acknowledgment goes to Ex-Muslim_HOTD, whose post served as the inspiration for this detailed article)

There is no divine Allah present in the heavens, and Muhammad had to create Islamic laws on his own.

Since Muhammad was only a human and not well-educated, he made significant "Mathematical Mistakes" while distributing inheritance.

Furthermore, your human intellect will clearly guide you to recognize that these Islamic rulings are ridiculous and lack wisdom.

As expected, it is only women who have to suffer due to these absurd rulings.

 Table of Contents:

1. When SHARES make less than the Estate (An 'Asbah عصبة Case)

For instance, let's consider a scenario where an individual passes away, leaving behind one daughter, parents, and wife. In such a case:

• The share of the daughter is 1/2 of the estate [Quran 4:11].
• And the share of the parents is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 of the estate [Quran 4:11].
• And the wife’s share = 1/8 of the estate [Quran 4:12].

The total number of shares in this case is calculated as follows: 1/2 for the daughter + 1/3 for the parents + 1/8 for the wife, resulting in a total of 0.96.

To illustrate, if the deceased left behind $1000, according to the Qur'an, the judge would only need to distribute $960 among the heirs, leaving $40 remaining.

When confronted with this mathematical error, Muhammad found it impossible to rectify. As a solution, he advised them to allocate the remaining portion of the estate to the nearest "male" relative (Source: Sahih Muslim, 1615a). This is known as 'Asbah عصبة.

While the remaining amount of $40 USD in this particular scenario may appear insignificant for the next male relative, little did Muhammad know that it would turn out to be a fatal mistake. This error resulted in Islamic rulings that are deemed ridiculous, illogical, and unjust towards women.

Allow me to provide a few examples to demonstrate the unjust nature of these inheritance laws, and your human intellect will naturally recognize their lack of wisdom.

Numerous online Islamic inheritance calculators are available. For instance:

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

Or just use ChatGPT or any other AI model to confirm the following examples. 

1st Example: Old Widow will get 25%, while a “MALE” relative (even a distant one like a cousin, or his son, or his grandson) will get 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 of shares would be as follows:

The widow will receive 25% of the inheritance, while the "male" relative, regardless of their proximity, will receive the remaining 75%.

Do you see any "Divine Wisdom" in it?

It is even worse than the case where a daughter gets half than a son. 

In the case of a wife who remains with her husband and served him throughout her life, she is entitled to only 25% of the inheritance. Meanwhile, a distant male relative gets 75%, even if he never met with the deceased person and had no connection with him. 

Note: According to Islam, that distant male relative is not responsible for the widow, if she cannot bear the expenses of a house and living herself.

2nd Example: Mother will get 33.33%, while distant relatives (like cousins, or his son, or his grandson) will get 66.67%

Similarly, if the deceased person has an old mother and a distant male relative, the distribution of shares would be as follows:

Therefore, in this case, the old mother will receive only 33.33% of the inheritance, while a cousin (or his descendants, whom the deceased person may not have even encountered in his entire life) will receive 66.67%.

Please also note, once that distant male relative collects his 66.67% share of the inheritance, he is legally and financially entirely free. He has no duty to ensure that the elderly mother has a home, medical care, or daily sustenance, even if she cannot afford a house and her living expenses on her remaining 33.33% share.

Is it logical and just in any way?

3rd Example: A Daughter will get 50% while a Distant Male Relative (like Cousin) will get 50%

If a man dies leaving only a daughter, then:

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

But Islam is against Human Nature. It gives away 50% of share to a distant male relative. 

Do you see any divine wisdom here?

4th Example: A Sister Receives More Than the Mother, With Neither Her Nor the Distant Relative Having Any Duty to Help

If a man dies leaving only a mother, a full sister, and a distant male relative, the inheritance is distributed as follows:

Despite the uniquely close biological relationship between a mother and her son, the full sister receives a larger share (50%) of the estate than the mother (33.33%), while a distant male relative takes the remaining 16.67%. Even if the sister is married and her husband takes care of her expenses, she walks away with half the estate. Meanwhile, if the elderly mother cannot survive or afford a house on her meager 33.33% share, neither the sister nor the distant male relative has any legal or financial responsibility to look after her, house her, or support her.

Is it logical and just in any way?

Note:

If the deceased leaves behind two or more full sisters, the Islamic law reduces the mother's share even further down to 1/6, distributed as follows:

Here, the mother’s share is slashed down to just 16.67%, while the full sisters collectively take a massive 66.67% of the estate, even if they are married.

5th Example: The Sister Receives Twice as Much as the Widow, With Zero Responsibility for Her Welfare

If a man dies leaving only a wife, a full sister, and a distant male relative, the inheritance is distributed as follows:

In this scenario, the widow who spent her life with the deceased receives only one-quarter (25%) of the estate. In stark contrast, the full sister receives twice as much (50%), and a distant male relative (whom the deceased may have never even met) takes another 25%. Even though the sister is comfortably maintained by her own husband and the widow has to look after herself, neither the sister nor the distant male relative is responsible for taking care of the widow. Despite her 25% share being entirely insufficient for her survival, she is left completely on her own while family wealth is funneled away.

Is it logical and just in any way?

6th Example: Daughter and Full Sister  (The Sister Takes the Residue While Distant Relatives Get Nothing)

Even if a deceased person leaves behind a daughter, half of the property still goes to the full sister (even if she is married), who steps in as 'Asbah ma'al-ghayr (residuary with another female):

The full sister (even if married) will get 50% share, but she is not responsible for the daughter, even if her 50% share is not enough to secure a house and cover her living expenses.

Is there any logic or justice in it? 

Another Contradiction in Sharia: If a Sister Can Replace a Distant Male Relative ('Asabah), Why Not the Mother, Widow, or Daughter?

Furthermore, note yet another contradiction and irregularity in these Islamic laws. That contradiction is as follows:

• In Example No. 5 above, in the case of the "daughter and sister," the distant male relative (such as a first cousin) receives no share under the banner of 'asabah; instead, the sister steps in and takes the place of the distant male relative.

• However, in Examples No. 3 and 4 above, in the cases of "mother and sister" or "widow and sister," the sister cannot take the place of the 'asabah, and in both cases, the distant male relative receives a share.

This contradiction and irregularity give rise to two fundamental and important questions:

First Question:

If a sister is permitted to take the place of a distant male relative in the case of a daughter, why is she not allowed to do so in the case of a mother or a widow? Is this not a glaring contradiction devoid of any underlying logic?

The case of the "mother and sister" is particularly intriguing. Both are close, blood relatives. If the mother is poor and unable to sustain herself, it becomes incumbent upon the sister to bear her expenses. Yet, in the case of the mother, Islamic law does not give the 'asabah share to the sister, but instead it awards it to a distant male relative (such as a first cousin), who carries no legal obligation to support the mother. That first cousin simply walks away with a share of the estate without bearing any responsibility.

Do you see any wisdom or logic in this Islamic law?

Second Question:

Furthermore, if a sister, despite being a woman, can act as an 'asabah and shoulder responsibilities, why cannot the mother, widow, or daughter themselves directly replace the distant male relative or the sister?

Would the heavens have fallen if Sharia had made these women themselves the 'asabah, instead of prioritizing distant male strangers who carry zero legal obligation to care for the mother, widow, and daughter?

Once again, is there any logic or wisdom to be found here?

How on earth did this contradiction and irregularity become part of Islamic Sharia?

This is a fascinating question, because at this stage one is left holding one's head in disbelief, wondering how such an illogical and irregular principle ever became part of Islamic Sharia. It is a contradiction so glaring that even a child can clearly see it.

The answer is that the sole reason for this is that these rulings were not descending from the heavens, but rather Muhammad himself was constructing them. Since he was not God but an ordinary human being, he made "human errors" here and there while framing the laws of Sharia. Instead of following a consistent and disciplined heavenly principle, he was frequently making arbitrary decisions on different occasions.

The incident from Sahih Sahih Bukhari (Hadith 6736) illustrates that this irregularity occurred when a case was brought before Muhammad where a deceased person had left behind a daughter, a granddaughter, and a full sister as heirs. On that occasion, going against previous norms, Muhammad issued the following verdict:

• The daughter receives one-half (1/2) of the total estate.

• The granddaughter receives one-sixth (1/6) of the estate.

• The entire remainder goes to the full sister (thus completely eliminating the share of the distant male relative).

This ruling by Muhammad was not subject to any overarching principle, but rather it was an arbitrary decision that he pronounced at that specific moment according to his own discretion, yet it later became a permanent principle of Sharia.

7th Example: A daughter's children will not receive a single share

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, then:

• The granddaughter will get 0% share. 
• While the distant male relative will take away 100% of the estate.

Can you honestly find any divine wisdom in this?

A Lie: The distant male relative get's share while he becomes responsible for the deceased's family

Truth-seekers should stay alert here. Unfortunately, apologists often deceive people by spreading the claim that 'Asabah (distant male relatives) receive a share of the inheritance because they supposedly bear the responsibility of looking away and caring for the deceased's family. However, this claim is entirely false.

For example, suppose a deceased person leaves behind a mother, a widow, and a daughter, along with a distant male relative (such as a first cousin). Because of rigid rules, a significant portion of the estate goes to this distant cousin.

The reality of the situation is clear:

• The first cousin has absolute zero legal or financial obligation to look after the mother, the widow, or the daughter of the deceased.

• All three women (mother, widow, and daughter) are non-Mahram to this distant 1st cousin.

• All four major Sunni Fiqh Imams agree that none of these women are the financial responsibility of that first cousin. You can easily verify this with any qualified scholar or legal reference.

There is only one minor differing opinion within Hanbali Fiqh, and that applies only to the daughter (but never to the mother or the widow). Even in that single exception, the 1st cousin only becomes responsible under extremely narrow conditions:

• If the daughter is married, the cousin has no responsibility.

• If the daughter has enough personal wealth to maintain herself, the cousin has no responsibility.

• The cousin only becomes responsible if the daughter is unmarried, completely poor, and utterly unable to cover her own living costs on her own.

In every other normal scenario, the distant relative walks away with a massive chunk of the estate while leaving the surviving women entirely to fend for themselves.

Understanding the True Reason Behind These Unfair Laws Against Women in Islam

Islamic inheritance laws appear entirely illogical, unfair against women, and completely devoid of wisdom to human reason, as distant male relatives receive massive shares of the estate while close female heirs are deprived of their full inheritance rights.

So, why did such clearly illogical and unfair laws become part of the Sharia?

Put simply, the answer is that these laws were not being made by some all-wise and all-knowing God in heaven, but rather by Muhammad himself.

Muhammad was only a human being. He was not very well-educated, and his knowledge was extremely limited. Consequently, when he began formulating inheritance laws, complex mathematical problems arose. It was not possible for Muhammad to solve these intricate mathematical problems. As a result, when a portion of the inheritance remained leftover even after giving all close heirs their shares, Muhammad decided to solve this by giving it to a distant male relative.

In a large family where multiple close heirs exist, the impact of this law seemed minor. For example, if a deceased person left behind a daughter, two parents, and a wife, the remaining portion was quite small. For instance, out of 1000 rupees in this large family estate, the distant male relative would receive only 40 rupees.

However, Muhammad did not realize that in a small family where only a single widow, a single mother, or a single daughter remains, a distant male relative would end up devouring a massive chunk ranging from 50 to 75 percent of that 1000 rupees.

Therefore, this inability of Muhammad to solve mathematical problems is the sole reason why we see these illogical, unfair, and wisdom-devoid inheritance laws in Islam.

2. When SHARES make MORE than the Estate (An 'Awl عول Case)

For instance, in the case where an individual passes away, leaving behind three daughters, parents, and wife, the distribution of inheritance would be as follows:

• The share of the three daughters is 2/3 of the estate [Quran 4:11].
• And the share of the parents is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 of the estate [Quran 4:11].
• And the wife’s share = 1/8 of the estate[Quran 4:12].

The total number of shares in this scenario is calculated as 2/3 for the daughters + 1/3 for the parents + 1/8 for the wife, resulting in a total of 1.125.

In other words, if the deceased left behind 1000 dinars, according to the Quran, the judge would require 1125 dinars to distribute among the heirs, which exceeds the available amount.

Muhammad passed away without providing any solution to rectify this mathematical mistake in the Quran or Hadith.

Later, a similar case was presented to 'Umar Ibn Khattab, and he also found himself at a loss regarding what to do. However, someone suggested that he proportionally reduce the share of all heirs, and 'Umar adopted this "self-made" solution in an attempt to address the mathematical error in the Quran (link). 

However, Ibn Abbas disagreed with 'Umar's approach, and Shia Muslims also have a differing perspective. They proposed an alternative "self-fabricated" solution (link).

In Islam, the Creator of Two Trillion Galaxies can’t add fractions, and thus Islamic Sharia has one Quranic Mathematical Error and 2 self-fabricated solutions. 

3. Quranists (The Rejectors of Hadith) making their own new Quran

Modern Quranists, who reject the authority of Hadith, also found themselves grappling with this mathematical error. As a result, they resorted to fabricating their own new Quran. They claimed that the wife's share, equivalent to 1/8 of the estate, should be allocated FIRST, and then the remaining portion should be distributed among the remaining heirs.Thus:

• The wife will get FIRST the 1/8 of the whole estate.
• And then from the remaining estate, parents will get 1/3, and daughters will get 2/3
• This makes 1/3 of parents  + 2/3 of daughters = 1 

They cite verse 4:33 as evidence to support their belief that the wife's share should be given priority and allocated first from the entire estate.

Answer:

Let us examine verse 4:33:

(Quran 4:33) And for all We (have) made heirs of what (is) left (by) the parents and the relatives. And those whom pledged your right hands - then give them their share. Indeed, Allah is over every thing a Witness.

Nowhere in this verse does it explicitly state that the wife should be given her share first from the entire estate. The idea of prioritizing the wife's share as the Quranists propose is a novel interpretation, similar to Umar Ibn Khattab's new solution of 'AWL or the different solution offered by Ibn Abbas/Shias. While this alternative may address the issue of inheritance, it does not resolve the underlying mathematical mistake in the Quran.

It is important to note that the Quran claims that:

• Its verses are "easy" to understand" (Quran 54:17)
• Its verses are "clear", "manifest" and "guidance" (Quran 27:1-2)
• It was revealed in the Arabic language so that they could understand it (Quran 12:2)

But then according to modern Quranist standards:

• This Quranic claim appears to be contradicted here, as the companions (Sahaba) and the billions of Muslims over the past 14 centuries, who have diligently read and contemplated the same Quran, were allegedly misguided according to modern Quranists.  They were supposedly unable to comprehend that the Quran intends for the wife to be given her share first.

• Thus, the Quran is deemed to be deceptive in its assertion of clarity and ease of understanding. This raises doubts about following such an ambiguous book that allegedly leads its billions of followers astray despite their unwavering faith and continuous contemplation.

Furthermore, there is no such solution present in the Hadith literature either, which suggests giving the wife her share first. In fact, Muhammad himself recognized the impracticality of dividing the entire estate according to the Quranic rulings and instructed to distribute the remainder to the next male relative. Throughout the 1400-year history of Islam, this solution suggested by modern Quranists today has been absent.

Related article, Must read:

• Women getting Only Half Inheritance Because They have No Financial Responsibility [Right or Wrong?]