A Muslim cannot be the heir of an infidel and two more questions related to this
A Muslim cannot be the heir of an infidel and two more questions related to this
Question: (1) What do religious scholars says about that issue that Zaid is the son of a Hindu polytheistic father who became a Muslim? His father, a Hindu, owns a lots of property. Can Zaid be the heir of his father's property under Shari'a or not? Although Zaid can be heir by government law (i.e. being the property of Zaid's Hindu grandfather). And if Zaid according to preferred Islamic law of the Sharia Muhammad (ﷺ), on which Muslim is not an heir of an infidel. It is on the issue that religious differences are obstacles to inheritance. If he cannot inherit, so with out religious priority, which is the Hadith of Islam 'Yalu wala Ya'ala'. (یعلو ولا یعلی) some companions of Muhammad (ﷺ) for example Sayedna Ma'az bin Jabal (رضی اللہ عنہ), Sayedna Muawiya (رضی اللہ عنہ) bin Abi Sufyan (رضی اللہ عنہ), Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah, (رحمۃ اللہ) Muhammad bin Ali bin Al-Hussain (رحمۃ اللہ), and Masrooq (رحمۃ اللہ), etc., says that a Muslim can inherit from his infidel father, and an infidel cannot inherit from his Muslim father. If he takes his inheritance, is it permissible for him to take this inheritance or not? And after obtaining this, will his property be halal or haram or suspecous?
(2) Because some of the Neo-Muslims in Haza District obtained official inheritance from the property of their Hindu fathers under the law. So Zaid said to his Hindu father (who is alive at the moment and wants to transfer his property to his Hindu son) then by pressure that I will become the official necessary heir by law after your death. So you don't give me full share, give me partial share, for example, give me third share instead of half?
So is this expediency permissible? Because there is no pressure in it? And is such pressure justified? Since an infidel gives some wealth to a Muslim, it is permissible for a Muslim to receive that wealth.
Therefore, in the above-mentioned case, which is a case of pressure, is it permissible to obtain wealth as a compromise or not? He takes the other way, i.e., to get more property as a reconciliation, so that if there is any doubt about the status of the inheritance of the religious heirs, then he should receive the said property as a reconciliation.
(3) Umar is a Neo-Muslim person of Hindu religion, he has inherited a lot of property from his Hindu father, according to the law of Govenment. Now his children who were before Islam i.e. Hindu children will also be heirs after the death of Umar. According to the law, because the Hindu children of Umar are Aryans who are among the fiercest enemies of Islam.
So, is it not obligatory for Umar to try to somehow prevent his Hindu descendants from inheriting after his death? Whereas according to Sharia, an infidel cannot inherit from a Muslim in any case. And is Umar not guilty of this lack of effort?
It should be noted that at that time Umar has two Muslim wives, two Muslim sons and two Muslim daughters has children .Umar's Hindu children sued Umar until the case reached the Chief Court. Legally, in an official law property of grand father can be a Muslim inherit from an infidel and a non-Muslim can inherit from Muslim, even if the inheritor makes a will to deprive it during his lifetime, that is, religious differences are not obstacles to inheritance.
Answer: (1) A Muslim cannot be the heir of an infidel: as stated in the book of al-Fiqh-al-Faraiz: And when he takes the inheritance of an infidel without entitlement, how will it be halal (كما هو مصرح في كتب الفقه والفرائض)?
(2) If a infidel gives it to someone willingly, it becomes halal. But where was the consent when pressurized? So this reconciliation is not valid. So the justification is that the Hindu should tell the father clearly that legally I can be your heir, but my religion does not allow me to be your heir. So I want you to give whatever you want to give into your life with joy. And do not make me an heir, but say that I have given my Neo-Muslim sons a share in my life. Therefore, there will be no heir after me and at the same time he says that it is his pleasure to give it. If you don't give, I will neither sue nor be unhappy.
(3) From number 1, it was cleared that Umar himself does not get an inheritance from this property, so how can he will interfere in it?
(Jami- ul-Fatawa, Volume: 9, Page: 449)