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%.

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Wife	1/4	25%
Any distant male Relative like a Cousin	3/4	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:

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Mother	1/3	33.33%
Any distant male Relative like a Cousin	2/3	66.67%

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:

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Daugher	1/2	50%
Any distant male Relative like a Cousin	1/2	50%

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:

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Mother	1/3	33.33%
Full Sister	1/2	50.00%
Distant Male Relative	1/6	16.67%

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:

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Mother	1/6	16.67%
Two or More Full Sisters	2/3	66.67%
Distant Male Relative	1/6	16.67%

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:

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Wife	1/4	25.00%
Full Sister	1/2	50.00%
Distant Male Relative	1/4	25.00%

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):

Relative	Share Fraction	Share Percentage
Daughter	1/2	50.00%
Full Sister	1/2	50.00%
Distant Male Relative	0	0.00%

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, she is left with absolutely nothing. Instead, a distant male relative walks away with the entire estate. To make matters worse, this male relative, who inherits by default, has no responsibility whatsoever to look after or support her.

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.

The Apologetic Claim: "Allah's Wisdom Lies in His Complete System"

The religious party claims here that Allah has not committed any injustice against women. Instead, they argue that to understand Allah's wisdom, one must look at the "complete system." According to them:

1. A person can eliminate the share of a distant relative by giving 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, and the man is 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. Financial Responsibility versus the Right to Earn:

If Islam has not placed "financial responsibility" on women, on the other hand, it has also stripped women of the environment to work freely and build their own wealth.

The first right taken away from a woman is that she cannot even work without the permission of her father or husband.

The second right taken away is that even if the father or husband grants permission, Islam keeps women away from public spaces and economic activities by imposing strict restrictions on the veil, placing barriers on leaving the house, and requiring a "Mahram" for travel. When a woman is not even provided with an environment to step outside freely and work on equal footing with men, how can she build her own "wealth"?

In contrast, a man is not only given the full right to work and build his own wealth, but he is also given a double share in inheritance, and thirdly, he is granted the authority to seize the property of distant relatives through "Asaba".

4. 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.

5. 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. 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.

6. The Final Logical Conclusion:

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

They do not answer the fundamental question of what exactly Allah's "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.

 

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.