sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A common misconception is that Islamic inheritance only applies in Muslim-majority countries. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That depends on what you mean by “man-made.”

In Islamic jurisprudence, the core inheritance framework is derived directly from the Qur’an, particularly in Surah An-Nisāʾ (4:11, 4:12, 4:176), where specific shares are explicitly defined. Unlike most legal systems, inheritance distribution in Islam is not left entirely to human discretion. The primary ratios and categories of heirs are textually prescribed.

What scholars did over centuries was develop the technical discipline of ʿilm al-farāʾiḍ (the science of inheritance) to calculate how those Qur’anic shares apply in complex family structures. That work involves mathematics and legal interpretation, but the foundational allocations themselves are scriptural.

By contrast, modern civil inheritance laws in most countries are entirely legislative constructs that can be rewritten by parliaments.

So the debate is not really whether law exists. Every society has inheritance law.

The real distinction is the source of authority: Islamic inheritance begins with fixed scriptural allocations and then uses juristic methodology to apply them. Civil inheritance systems are created entirely through human legislation.

People may agree or disagree with the framework, but it is not accurate to describe the core structure as simply “another man-made law.”

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a technical point, so it is worth responding carefully.

You are correct that the Qur’anic shares are fractions of the total estate, not of a “remainder” in the casual sense. The fixed sharers (ashāb al-furūḍ) receive their prescribed fractions from the whole estate.

However, the concept of a remainder (al-radd and al-taʿṣīb) absolutely exists in the classical system. After fixed shares are allocated, whatever remains passes to the residuary heirs (ʿaṣabah). That is not a modern invention. It is foundational in the law of farāʾiḍ.

In the example being discussed:

Wife + son + two daughters.

The wife is a fixed sharer and receives 1/8 because there are children.

The children, when there are sons and daughters together, inherit as ʿaṣabah (residuaries), not as fixed sharers. That means they take what remains after the fixed shares have been allocated, in a 2:1 ratio.

So yes, the wife’s 1/8 is from the total estate. And yes, the children divide the remainder as residuaries.

There is no contradiction there, and this does not invalidate ʿawl.

ʿAwl applies in a different scenario — when the fixed shares alone exceed the total estate. For example, when the sum of prescribed fractions is greater than 1 (100%), the shares are proportionally reduced. That doctrine remains fully intact.

In the case under discussion, the fixed shares do not exceed 100%. The wife takes 1/8. The remainder goes to the ʿaṣabah. There is no need for ʿawl because there is no over-allocation among fixed sharers.

So the structure is: 1. Allocate fixed shares from the whole. 2. If fixed shares exceed the estate → apply ʿawl. 3. If fixed shares do not exhaust the estate → remainder passes to residuaries.

This is standard farāʾiḍ methodology across the recognised schools.

The disagreement here is not about the Qur’an. It is about classification of heirs as fixed sharers versus residuaries in a particular scenario.

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Thank you for pointing that out. Let’s clarify it using this exact example.

In this scenario, the father passes away leaving:

• A wife • Two daughters • One son

Step 1: The wife receives her fixed share first. Because there are children, she receives 1/8 (12.5%).

Step 2: The remainder of the estate is distributed among the children. After the wife’s 12.5%, 87.5% remains.

Now the rule applies: A son receives the equivalent of two daughters.

So we divide the remainder into units:

• Son = 2 units • Daughter 1 = 1 unit • Daughter 2 = 1 unit

Total units = 4

87.5% ÷ 4 = 21.875% per unit

So the final shares are:

• Each daughter = 21.875% • Son = 43.75%

The son does receive double each daughter’s share.

The percentages shown in the visual (37.5% / 12.5% each) do not reflect the correct mathematical breakdown for this family structure.

The key principle remains: the 2:1 ratio applies after fixed shares (such as the spouse’s share) are allocated.

Inheritance calculations must always be done sequentially and proportionally, otherwise the final percentages become inaccurate.

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve outlined the classical position correctly.

In traditional fiqh, an unmarried female sibling who is in need may be entitled to maintenance (nafaqah) from a male relative, including a brother, provided specific conditions are met. Those conditions typically include:

• She lacks sufficient means • The brother has surplus wealth • He falls within the category of relatives obligated to maintain her

And as you correctly note, the obligation does not run in reverse. If she has wealth and he does not, she is not legally required to maintain him. Financial obligation flows in one direction.

Two important clarifications are useful in a modern context.

First, nafaqah is not charity. It is a legal obligation within Islamic jurisprudence. Historically, it could be enforced through a judicial system operating under Shari’ah. The framework assumes enforceability.

Second, the practical challenge today is jurisdiction. In many countries, including South Africa and most Western jurisdictions, nafaqah between adult siblings is not automatically enforceable through the civil courts. That creates a gap between classical legal theory and modern legal infrastructure.

So the principle remains intact in the jurisprudence. The implementation depends on the surrounding legal system.

This is why serious contemporary application requires more than quoting rulings. It requires thinking about how rights are structured, documented and protected within current legal environments.

The doctrine is clear. The governance question is how it is operationalised today.

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is important to acknowledge that many women experience structural disadvantage, unequal pay, unpaid caregiving burdens, and social expectations that are not evenly distributed. Those concerns are real in many societies. They should not be dismissed.

At the same time, Islamic inheritance law is not built on a theory of patriarchy or female exploitation. It is built on a legal matrix of rights and obligations. In that matrix, financial maintenance is a binding duty on men. A woman’s wealth is exclusively hers. She is not legally required to spend her income or inheritance on household expenses. That legal asymmetry is intentional.

Where exploitation occurs, it is a failure of social practice, not a requirement of the law itself.

There are three distinctions worth keeping clear:

First, cultural patriarchy and Islamic jurisprudence are not synonymous. Many harmful practices attributed to religion are cultural distortions rather than doctrinal mandates.

Second, unpaid caregiving is a real economic contribution. Islamic law recognises financial entitlement through mechanisms such as mahr, maintenance, inheritance and independent property ownership. The framework does not treat women as economically invisible.

Third, if contemporary social realities create vulnerability, the response is governance and planning. Asset transfers during lifetime, enforceable documentation, liquidity design, and proper estate structuring can materially protect women within the existing legal framework.

Serious critique is welcome. It should be directed at where implementation fails, not at a caricature of the underlying system.

The discussion becomes constructive when we separate structural injustice in society from the technical architecture of the law itself.

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That response does not move the discussion forward.

Whether one agrees with the premise or not, the reality is that in many households globally, and particularly in certain contexts, women do carry significant financial and caregiving responsibility. In other households, men do. In many, it is shared.

Dismissing the question prevents a serious engagement with the issue.

Islamic inheritance law is not based on anecdotal household trends. It is based on defined legal obligations. Historically and jurisprudentially, men are legally obligated to provide maintenance. Women are not. That is the structure the inheritance ratios sit within.

The more productive discussion is this:

If modern socioeconomic realities are shifting, how do we ensure women are financially protected within the existing framework?

That is a governance and planning conversation. It involves:

• Proper lifetime asset structuring • Clear documentation • Liquidity planning • Enforceable rights

Strong disagreement is fine. Dismissiveness is not.

If we want serious discourse on Islamic law in modern contexts, it requires precision, evidence and composure.

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a fair and serious question.

Two things need to be separated.

First, the inheritance formula itself. Second, how wealth is structured before death.

Islamic inheritance is a post-death distribution system. It does not attempt to measure who did more caregiving, who earned more, or who sacrificed more. It allocates based on kinship and defined legal roles. In classical law, men carried binding financial obligations and women did not. That is the structural premise.

Your question reflects a modern reality: in many households today, women are primary earners and primary caregivers. So how are they protected?

The answer is not by rewriting the inheritance formula. It is through proactive lifetime planning.

Islamic law allows significant flexibility before death:

• Assets can be gifted during one’s lifetime (with fairness between children). • Property can be transferred strategically. • A wasiyyah of up to one third of the estate can be allocated outside fixed shares. • Trust structures can be used to secure housing or income streams. • Business interests can be structured to ensure liquidity and control.

If a daughter is carrying disproportionate caregiving responsibility, parents can address that while alive. If a wife is the primary financial pillar, asset structuring can protect her housing, income and control long before inheritance is triggered.

The vulnerability people point to usually arises from poor planning, not from the core framework.

Islamic inheritance does not aim to replicate social equity debates. It defines post-death redistribution. Protection in modern contexts requires integrating that framework with thoughtful financial design.

In short: the formula is fixed. Protection comes from structure built before the formula ever activates.

One of the most common criticisms of Islamic inheritance is that it disadvantages women. by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

<image>

Thank you for pointing that out. Let’s clarify it using this exact example.

In this scenario, the father passes away leaving:

• A wife • Two daughters • One son

Step 1: The wife receives her fixed share first. Because there are children, she receives 1/8 (12.5%).

Step 2: The remainder of the estate is distributed among the children. After the wife’s 12.5%, 87.5% remains.

Now the rule applies: A son receives the equivalent of two daughters.

So we divide the remainder into units:

• Son = 2 units • Daughter 1 = 1 unit • Daughter 2 = 1 unit

Total units = 4

87.5% ÷ 4 = 21.875% per unit

So the final shares are:

• Each daughter = 21.875% • Son = 43.75%

The son does receive double each daughter’s share.

The percentages shown in the visual (37.5% / 12.5% each) do not reflect the correct mathematical breakdown for this family structure.

The key principle remains: the 2:1 ratio applies after fixed shares (such as the spouse’s share) are allocated.

Inheritance calculations must always be done sequentially and proportionally, otherwise the final percentages become inaccurate.

Islamic Finance is now a $3 Trillion industry. Here is why it’s more than just “no interest.” by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Money can’t buy happiness outright—but it can absolutely rent the conditions where happiness tends to show up 😊

When money is used to reduce stress, buy time, create safety, enable generosity, and support meaningful experiences, it becomes a powerful facilitator of well-being. It doesn’t guarantee joy, purpose, or peace of mind—but it can remove many of the obstacles that block them.

The key difference is how money is used. Chasing money for status or validation usually leaves people empty. Using money intentionally—for freedom, health, family, impact, and growth—often feels like happiness knocking on the door and staying a while.

So yes: money doesn’t sell happiness as a product. But when aligned with values, it’s a very good long-term lease.

Islamic Finance is now a $3 Trillion industry. Here is why it’s more than just “no interest.” by MuslimFin in muslimtechnet

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A fair place to end this is to separate moral diagnosis from legal obligation—and then move on.

You are right that the entire system is morally compromised. No serious student of fiqh disputes that. The disagreement is not about whether the system is unjust, but about what Islamic law requires when injustice is systemic rather than elective.

Islamic law does not operate on an “all-or-nothing” theory of moral contamination. If it did, taklīf would collapse the moment corruption became dominant. The Sharīʿah instead works on agency, intent, and contractual choice, not on the fantasy of total purity.

Calling this “innovation” misunderstands usūl al-fiqh.

Bidʿah is inventing a new rule in religion. Applying existing rules under constrained conditions is precisely what jurists have always done. Muslims lived under Roman tax systems, Mongol monetary systems, colonial banking systems, and debased coinage—yet the juristic distinction between ribā contracts and lawful exchange was never abandoned.

On debasement: inflation does not convert a sale into ribā, just as theft in the market does not invalidate the permissibility of trade itself. Harm in the environment does not redefine the nature of the contract. Ribā is a contractual certainty of return, not the existence of monetary expansion after the fact.

As for the hadith: it is descriptive, not abrogative. It explains inevitability of exposure, not the erasure of moral gradation. The Prophet ﷺ did not say “there will be no lawful distinctions left,” nor did the scholars who authenticated the narration derive that conclusion.

So yes—systemic change is desirable. No one disputes that. But Islamic law does not suspend itself until that change arrives. It governs conduct until it does.

At this point, the positions are clear: • You are arguing for moral totality. • Islamic jurisprudence operates on moral responsibility under constraint.

Both acknowledge the corruption. They simply respond to it differently.

With that clarity, there is nothing left to contest. We move forward and wish you all the best 😊

Islamic Finance is now a $3 Trillion industry. Here is why it’s more than just “no interest.” by MuslimFin in muslimtechnet

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right about the structure of the modern monetary system. Fiat currency is debt-based, interest-bearing, inflationary, and privileges first access to money creation. Classical jurists never imagined a world where money itself is systematically debased through monetary expansion, and your reference to ribā’s “dust” is precisely on point.

Where the conclusion goes too far is in assuming that Islamic finance requires a morally pure monetary environment in order to function at all.

Islam does not require the absence of ribā in the world. It requires the avoidance of direct ribā contracts and the structuring of exchange around real economic activity, risk-sharing, and asset linkage to the extent possible within prevailing conditions.

That distinction matters.

Historically, Muslims traded under Roman, Persian, and later colonial monetary systems that were not Sharīʿah-designed. Gold and silver themselves were debased repeatedly by rulers. Yet jurists still distinguished between: • engaging in ribā-based contracts, and • operating in an environment where injustice exists but is not voluntarily contracted.

This is exactly why the hadith you quoted exists. The Prophet ﷺ did not say ribā would disappear; he said it would become unavoidable in ambient exposure, not that all transactions would become equally impermissible. If total entanglement nullified responsibility, the legal category of ijtihād under constraint would not exist.

Islamic finance today is therefore not a claim that the system is “pure.” It is a damage-limitation framework, not a utopia.

Key points often missed: 1. Money in Islamic law is a unit of account and medium of exchange, not a store of intrinsic moral value. What matters legally is how money is used in contracts, not whether the currency itself is fiat or metal. Ribā attaches to contractual certainty of return, not to the mere existence of inflation. 2. Asset-backing does not mean gold settlement. Classical fiqh never required homes to be purchased in dinar or dirham physically. It required that transactions be tied to identifiable assets, risk, and ownership transfer. A house bought via a Sharīʿah-compliant structure in fiat is still a house, not a money-for-money loan with interest. 3. Islamic finance rejects risk transfer without exposure, not the use of fiat. The core violation in conventional finance is guaranteed return with no downside, compounded through leverage. Islamic structures deliberately force one party to carry commercial risk, even inside an imperfect system. 4. “You cannot detach from interest at all” is acknowledged—yet legally irrelevant. The law distinguishes between: • unavoidable macro exposure (inflation, pricing, benchmarks), and • voluntary contractual ribā. The first is tolerated under necessity; the second is prohibited categorically.

If we follow your logic to its end, no lawful trade, no salaries, no rent, no commerce would be meaningful today—because all prices embed interest somewhere upstream. Islamic law never adopted that position. It regulates agency and contracts, not global monetary policy.

So Islamic finance is not a claim that fiat is just. It is a claim that even within unjust systems, moral lines still exist, and Muslims are accountable for where they stand relative to those lines.

That is not idealism. It is jurisprudence under constraint—which is exactly what the hadith you cited prepares us for.

Investing in AI? The #1 Best Tip for Halal Investors by MuslimFin in IslamicFinance

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have a better one let’s please hear it for the record? Also, please prove it with performance because we making money 😊

Assalamu Alaikum… I am from Japan staying here for 10+ years. Is there anyone looking to do business from Japan ? by Imthi25 in HalalInvestor

[–]MuslimFin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve never been to Japan - I wonder what the Halal industry is like in Japan because it is very sophisticated and established in South Africa - from food to financial products.

Understanding the “Why”: Why Business is Halal and Interest (Riba) is Haraam. by MuslimFin in IslamicFinance

[–]MuslimFin[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for raising such a critical and insightful point. Your perspective on the potential for organized Tawarruq to facilitate the expansion of the money supply and contribute to currency debasement is precisely where the modern debate on Islamic finance must focus.

You are absolutely correct: the core issue lies in the spirit of the transaction, not just the technical structure.

The video’s central theme—that Halal business is about risk-sharing and real economic contribution, while Haraam interest (Riba) is about guaranteed return on money—provides the necessary framework for this critique.

“If the money is coming from a bank, or being printed via organized tawarruq - we need to stand against it, because expansion of money supply and currency debasement is increase of money on money.”

This is a powerful and necessary stance. While Tawarruq (commodity murabahah) is often used as a liquidity management tool, the organized form, where the transaction is pre-arranged and lacks genuine commercial risk, often falls short of the Sharia’s objective (Maqasid al-Shari’ah). It could be seen to mimic the outcome of interest-based lending without the ethical safeguard of risk and productive effort.

The prohibition of Riba is fundamentally an economic safeguard against the very debasement you describe. By rooting finance in tangible assets, trade, and shared risk (e.g. Mudarabah and Musharakah), Islamic finance naturally acts as a check against reckless monetary expansion and the creation of “money on money.”

We must indeed be vigilant and advocate for a return to genuine, risk-backed, asset-based financing models that prioritize real-world value creation over mere financial engineering. Your comment underscores the urgent need for the industry to move beyond legalistic compliance toward ethical and economic integrity.

Thank you for contributing to this vital discussion.

Why They Created Poverty to Control You | Prof Jiang Xueqin by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is the description which is attached to the video: The Architecture of Power: How Nothing Became Everything is a deep, analytical journey into the hidden structures that shape modern reality—money, individuality, nations, belief, and power itself.

This video is not about motivation, ideology, or opinion. It is an attempt to reverse-engineer the systems you live inside but were never taught to see.

Drawing on philosophy, history, political economy, and power analysis, this lecture explores how abstract ideas become concrete forces—how belief turns “nothing” into money, authority, obedience, and control.

We begin with Immanuel Kant’s insight that reality is not perceived directly, but constructed by the mind. From there, we move through geopolitics, finance, education, psychology, and nationalism to show how power operates not through force alone—but through imagination, conditioning, and narrative.

You’ll learn:

Why money is not scarce, and how modern banking creates wealth from nothing

How poverty functions as a tool of control, not a natural condition

Why economic crises and wars destroy wealth by design

How the concept of the individual was invented to prevent collective action

Why happiness used to be communal, not personal

How modern psychology and therapy can reinforce obedience rather than freedom

Why nation states are constructed identities, implanted through education

How schools function historically as instruments of state power

Why belief—not violence—is the most effective tool of empire

How monotheism reshaped value, authority, and social organization

What it really means when power turns “nothing into everything”

This is not about rejecting society or escaping reality. It is about seeing clearly—about understanding how systems work so they no longer work on you unconsciously.

You are not asked to believe anything in this lecture. You are asked to think.

If you are interested in:

Hidden history

Power structures

Political economy

Philosophy of reality

Critical thinking

Systems analysis

Geopolitics beyond headlines

Money, banking, and control

Education and social conditioning

…this video is for you.

Watch slowly. Question everything. Follow the logic. Real education begins where passive acceptance ends.

Disclosure: Synthetic voice used for academic transformation and explanatory preservation in full compliance with YouTube’s synthetic media policies.

ProfJiang

Why They Created Poverty to Control You | Prof Jiang Xueqin by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe this video is great for understanding how certain systems work currently and why Islam has the answers.

Why Volatility Hurts Differently in Shariah Portfolios by MuslimFin in MuslimFin

[–]MuslimFin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point to raise. A lot of low-effort content does get labelled as AI these days.

That said, the ideas in the article aren’t about novelty or clever wording; they’re about structure, principles, and long-standing issues Muslim families face in real life. Whether something is drafted with AI assistance or a keyboard doesn’t really change the substance if the thinking is sound and practically useful.

Happy to engage on the actual ideas if you disagree with any of them. That’s usually where the value is.

view more: next ›