In pre-Islamic traditions, women had no assured right of inheritance, which in many cases was a matter restricted between men, the men of the husband’s clan or her own relatives. They used to deprive women of the right to the part of inheritance constituted by dowry.
In order to realize the status of women, Islam grants her different types of rights like the right to life, education, marriage, dower, maintenance, divorce etc. Among these rights, one is the right of inheritance. Islam entitles both men and women to inherit from the deceased person.
However, the shares of men and women are different in inheritance. These shares are justifiable in Islamic society, keeping in view the status and role of men and women in Islamic society.
Why Is The Inheritance of Men Twice That of Women?
Although it appears that the inheritance of men is twice that of women, a closer look reveals that from one viewpoint, the inheritance of women is twice that of men! This is due to Islam’s support for the rights of women.
Explanation
Islam has placed certain responsibilities upon men, as a result of which, virtually one-half of their earnings is spent upon women whereas no such responsibilities have been placed upon women.
The male has to bear the expenses for all of his wife’s needs such as housing, clothing, food and other necessities; apart from this, the expenses of his minor children are also to be provided by him, whereas the wife is exempt from every kind of payment, even if it is for her own self.
Thus, a woman can stockpile her entire share of the inheritance, whereas a man is bound to spend his share upon himself, his wife and his children. Consequently, half of his earnings are effectively spent upon his wife and the other half is for him, whereas the entire share of the wife remains unused and intact.
For a better understanding, consider the following example: Suppose that the entire wealth existing globally is 30 billion tumans,(1) which will be gradually distributed as inheritance amongst men and women (sons and daughters). When we compute the earnings of all men and women of the world by way of inheritance, we find that of this amount, the share of the men is 20 billion tumans while that of the women is 10 billion.
However, as is customary, the women will marry, after which the responsibility of providing for their expenses will fall upon the shoulders of men and so, the women can conveniently put their 10 billion tumans aside while, at the same time, be a partner to the men in their share of 20 billion, since this amount would be utilized by the men to provide for the expenses of their wives and their children.
Thus, in reality, half of the share of the men – totalling 10 billion tumans – would be spent on women. This, in addition to the 10 billion tumans, that the women had placed aside, would collectively amount to 20 billion tumans – two-thirds of the (supposed) global wealth – whereas the men, effectively, do not use up more than 10 billion tumans for themselves.
In conclusion, the actual share of women, with respect to ‘consumption and use’, is twice the actual share of men, and this distinction is influenced by the fact that, generally, their ability and strength for generating earnings is less than that of men. This is a kind of just and logical support, which Islam has offered to the women, allotting a greater actual share for them although, ostensibly, their share appears to be one-half (that of the males).
Incidentally, upon referring to the Islamic sources we come to infer that the above query had plagued the minds of the people from the very onset of Islam.
Time and again they would question the Imams in this regard and their answers predominantly pointed to one meaning, which is: Allah has placed upon the males the onus of bearing the wife’s expenses and paying them the dower, and so, He has allotted them a greater share (from the inheritance).
In the book Ma’aniul Akhbar it has been reported that Imam ‘Ali b. Musa al-Ridha (a.s) in reply to this query, said: “The share of the females, in the inheritance, is half that of the males because when a female enters into a marriage she receives something, while the male is obliged to give something. In addition, it is the responsibility of the males to shoulder the expenses of the females whereas the females are neither responsible for their own expenses nor that of the males.”(2)
Why is Blood Money for Women half that for Men?
Some individuals might possibly object that in the verses of qisas (retaliation) it has been ordered that a man should not be subjected to retaliation for the murder of a woman; but is a man superior to a woman? Why should a criminal, having killed a woman and shed unwarranted blood of a gender constituting more than half the global population, not be subjected to retaliation for his crime?
In answer to this it must be stated that the verse does not intend that a man should not face retaliation for killing a woman, rather – as has been explicitly explained in the Islamic jurisprudence – the guardians of the murdered woman can seek retaliation from the male murderer, but upon the condition that they pay half the blood money (to the heirs of the murder).
In other words, when it is said that a man cannot be subjected to retaliation for the murder of a woman, what is intended is ‘unconditional retaliation’. However, if half of the blood money is paid, then it is permissible to have him killed in retaliation (for the crime committed by him).
There is no need to explain that the payment of the above-mentioned sum for seeking retaliation is not because the woman is any less human than the man or inferior to him. This is a perception which is totally misplaced and illogical, and perhaps the expression ‘blood money is the basis for this misleading notion. The payment of half the “blood money” is only to compensate for the loss, which is suffered by his family, after the retaliation has been extracted.
Explanation
Predominantly, it is the men who are the instrumental members of households monetarily and who, by means of their activities, shoulder the expenses of their families. Thus, the difference between the death of a man and that of a woman, in financial terms, is something which is not concealed from anyone, and which, if not taken into account, would cause unjustified damage to be inflicted upon the survivors of the dead man and his innocent children.
Hence, Islam, by stipulating the payment of half the blood money in the case of retaliation against a man, has taken into consideration the rights of all individuals and has prevented this economic vacuum and irreparable blow to fall upon a family. Islam never permits that the rights of other individuals – like the children of the person facing retaliation – to be trampled under the pretext of the term ‘equality’.
Of course, it is possible that some women may be higher earners for their families than men, but as we do know, rules and regulations are not determined by (a few) individuals but rather, the entire category of men is compared with the entire category of women (take note).(3)
NOTES:
__________________
1. The currency used in Iran – at present (2005), one US Dollar is approximately 900 tuman.
2. Tafsir-e-Namunah, vol. 3, pg. 290
3. Tafsir-e-Namunah, vol. 1, pg. 611
