The gift and the inheritance .. a controversy between fathers ruled by Sharia

Cairo: Bassiouni El Halawani

In recent weeks, the Egyptian media and “Social Media” have occupied important doctrinal questions and a social controversy that did not stop after artist Rashwan Tawfiq announced that all his wealth would be distributed to his children in the event of his life. It represents a belief among some fathers who act like a man behaved, and may not retain enough for themselves in the future for their needs and face disobedience and rebellion from their children.

We turned to a number of Islamic scholars to explain to us what is permissible and what is forbidden in this matter, so that the fathers and mothers do not lapse into transgressions and do not learn the lesson from what happened to the artist whose daughter sued and denied him possession of her property which he had previously given to her; She instead accused him in the court case petition of breach of trust, according to what he said on one of the satellite channels.

Initially, I met the Azhari scholar d. Nasr Farid Wasel, a member of the Council of Senior Scholars at Al-Azhar: Is it permissible for a man to distribute his wealth to his children during his lifetime? And if he distributes money or real estate, does he have the right to return to it for any reason?

Wasil said: Fathers and mothers who distribute their wealth while they are alive to their children may be acceptable from a legal point of view if justified, provided that this conduct does not constitute a legal offense, such as a person claiming his wealth to his daughters to deprive other heirs or to distribute his wealth among his children to donate to some of them.

The case here is due to the intent.If the father’s conduct was innocent and his intent was to continue the relationship of affection and grace between them and the absence of a dispute between them after his departure over his legacy, and he was fair, just and to satisfy everyone’s satisfaction, he would have it and he is not blamed and there is no legal violation in it .. So the father’s behavior here is acceptable, the money is his money and his That he disposes of it as he pleases, especially if his children need money to lead a decent life and face life requirements that will bring them stability and tranquility in their lives .. and here it is handed out as a gift and not a legacy .. the legacy of a person is after his death.

However, Dr. Wasil advises all fathers to leave these matters to their natural time to be distributed as the Creator, glory to Him, in the two inheritance verses legislation.The legal division achieves justice among the heirs and satisfies all.

Regarding the ruling on the use of the gift or gift on the part of the father, says dr. Weasel: It is permissible for the parents to withdraw the gift or gift if he needs it for himself, or for another son who is not a part of the father’s gifts, or to attain righteousness.

The father is first with his money

Azhari preacher d. Mabrouk Attia confirms that he is against the father distributing his wealth to his children while he is alive and not leaving for himself what meets his needs and overflows. He says: A person does not realize when his life ends and he leaves life, nor what the condition of his children will be in terms of justice and disobedience after he has distributed his wealth to them, and who wants to fulfill it needs his children during his life to be happy to see them happy and stable in their lives. those who will bring them this happiness. So whoever needs a house to marry and settle down will fulfill his desire for him. And whoever wants a car will bring him a car and so on, provided he treats his children fairly and does not violate justice here to distinguish one of these children for his need for treatment Or study costs, etc.

Here the father did not hand out all his wealth to his children and sat empty-handed, so did the artist who declared that he only had his little cell phone alive.

He adds: It is not legal or customary for a person to give up all his wealth and then sit as a hostage to honor his children with it. Rather, religion, reason and logic give to those who to their needs during his life and let the rest of his wealth after his departure be legally divided among them.

And he said, Do not leave yourselves as hostages for the righteousness of your children, for no one knows what the change of hearts and souls is, and whether the boy is male or female, there is no security for anyone. A boy may be changed by his wife and a daughter may be changed by her husband, and the events of the life we ​​live confirm this.

Dr. say. Sabri Abdel-Raouf, Professor of Islamic Law at Al-Azhar: Both the son and the father have an independent financial responsibility. Once the son grows up and earns money himself, the money becomes his right alone, and if the father can not work and does not earn and has no money, the boy must legally support his father to provide for his needs

He adds: The father’s right to dispose of the son’s entrusted money is conditional. If the father spends or disposes of the son’s money, it is determined that this disposition does not prejudice the son’s money, and that the son does not in the need of this money that no need of the son related to it, if the son was saving The money is with his father to marry him, or to buy a house that suits him in the future, or for others needs. father does not have the right to dispose of the independent money that belongs to his son without giving it back to him. But if this money was originally the father’s money and he gave it as a gift to the son, then he has the right to dispose of it; Rather, he has the right to return to his gift and to get back what was fully donated.

Al-Azhar Fatwa

Al-Azhar International Center for Electronic Fatwa confirmed in an official fatwa that “the distribution of a man who left him before his death is not legally permissible; Because the death of the testator is a basic condition of the conditions imposed by Islam for inheritance, among the conditions of inheritance – as the jurists said – four: the death of the testator is realized, or his attachment to the dead in appreciation as a fetus death separated in the life of his mother, or the inheritance of bequeathed to the dead as a rule, as in the judge’s ruling on the death of the missing person due to zeal, And if the man divides his estate during his life, the heirs can take the whole estate and then leave the owner of the money without care or shelter, and in this case the consequences will not be bad, ”what happened to the artist.

And the center continued in its fatwa: “After the distribution, another son could be born to this man, and in this case he did this boy injustice at the time when he was ordered to settle among his children, and with this decision was made the Egyptian law, as it came in the first article of Law No. 77 of 1943 regarding Inheritance: The inheritance is due to the death of the heir, or since he is considered dead by a judge, knowing that a man can distribute his money to his children during his lifetime, but it is considered as a gift and not an inheritance, and in this case it is necessary to settle among all his children, and it is necessary that in the case of his health, not the disease of his death , and accordingly: the distribution of the man’s remains while he is alive is not permissible by Sharia. In summary, Al-Azhar affirms that it is better to have the fathers hand over what they own to their legal heirs, with the permissibility to give his children gifts and presents to meet the burdens of life, and to to satisfy legitimate desires, provided it is only among them, and it is not here a condition that he gives the male the same happiness as the two females. It is not an inheritance, but it is gifts according to the needs of every boy. He must observe justice among them so as not to tempt the hearts of those who receive the least gifts.

As for the Egyptian Dar al-Iftaa, it warned against some handing out the estate before death to deprive the heirs of their legal rights, such as some fathers who did not have sons, or those who were deprived of the blessing of reproduction is. , they apply to the distribution of what they own to their female offspring in the first case, or to Their wives are in the second case, to deprive the rest of the heirs of their legal rights … and emphasize that this behavior by Sharia is forbidden, and brings to those who do it the wrath and punishment of God.

Leave a Comment