Among the more discussed issues in Islamic inheritance law is the situation when a deceased individual leaves behind only daughters as heirs, with no sons. The share granted to daughters in such cases—particularly when there are two or more—is a maximum of two-thirds (2/3) of the estate. Had there been sons, the entire estate would have been divided among the children, with the male receiving a portion equal to that of two females, as ordained in the Qur’an.

But when there are only daughters, the remaining one-third of the estate (after granting them their maximum share of two-thirds) is often inherited by the deceased’s brothers or their sons—relatives who are not immediate descendants. This structure has prompted widespread critique: is it fair that close kin like daughters receive only part of the estate while distant male relatives, such as paternal uncles or cousins, receive the rest? Critics argue this reflects a fundamental injustice against women, particularly daughters.

In Indian context, for instance, even some Muslims who otherwise advocate for implementing Islamic law find themselves drawn toward adopting the Indian Succession Act in such situations. Liberal commentators have taken this opportunity to critique Islamic law as outdated or biased, highlighting the “only daughters get two-thirds” rule as a chief example.

Contextual Background

To understand the fairness of this system, one must first situate it within the historical and ethical framework of Islam. Before the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reformed Arabian society, both Roman and Byzantine cultures treated women as second-class citizens or property. It was not until the 16th century that Western societies began granting women civil and economic rights. In contrast, Islam, in the 7th century itself, enshrined women’s rights to own property, conduct trade, and inherit wealth—principles recognized and documented in references like the Oxford Dictionary of Islam and the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Islam.

Islam grants women the right to own wealth acquired through business, agriculture, or trade, and the freedom to enjoy it, invest it, or give it away as charity. The inheritance laws of Islam were developed as part of this broader vision of equity.

The Roots of the Controversy

The main criticism arises in scenarios where a man dies leaving only daughters. In such a case, if there are two or more daughters, they collectively receive 2/3 of the estate. The remaining 1/3 then goes to residual heirs—often the father’s brothers or nephews. Critics object that these distant male relatives can end up receiving as much as 33% of the estate, even though their relationship to the deceased is weaker than that of the daughters.

This arrangement appears especially unjust when placed alongside the rule that, had there been even one son, he would block out those same distant relatives entirely. Daughters alone cannot do the same.

Some educated Muslims and legal scholars echo these concerns, sometimes interpreting them as signs of partiality against daughters. But to address such objections, we must return to some foundational principles of Islamic thought.

Theological and Ethical Foundations

The Qur’an, in Surah Ash-Shura (42:49), states:

لِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ يَهَبُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ إِنَاثًا وَيَهَبُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ الذُّكُورَ

To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He gives to whom He wills female [children], and He gives to whom He wills male [children].

Here, the Qur’an strikingly mentions daughters first—indicating that girls are not only equal but precious gifts from God. Thus, the value of women is not an afterthought in the divine message but is foundational.

The verse that often provokes criticism is Surah An-Nisa (4:11), which states: Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.

This applies when both sons and daughters are present. When there are only daughters, as we have seen, the rule shifts.

Even among siblings or cousins of the deceased, the ratio of male to female shares remains the same. Why? Because Islamic inheritance is not only about equity in rights but about responsibility. The man, in Islamic law, bears financial responsibility for his wife, children, and sometimes even parents. Obligations like zakah, dowry, and general household support fall on him. A woman, on the other hand, has no such mandatory financial burden. Her wealth remains hers to use as she wishes.

This rationale holds true across time. Some argue that because today’s women also work and contribute to household income, the inheritance disparity is outdated. But even in the Prophet’s time, women like Khadijah (RA) were businesswomen. Imam Nawawi in his Sharh al-Muhadhdhab explicitly states that if a woman buys gold with the intention of trading it, she is liable to pay zakah on it—evidence that businesswomen were not uncommon even in early Islamic history.

An Example of Misreading the System

When we analyze the shares numerically, interesting patterns emerge.

Case A: Deceased leaves behind father, mother, husband, and a son.

• Father: 1/6
• Mother: 1/6
• Husband: 1/4
• Son: Residual heir

Here, the son receives about 41.66% of the estate.

Case B: Same relatives, but instead of a son, the deceased has a daughter.

• Father: 1/6
• Mother: 1/6
• Husband: 1/4
• Daughter: 1/2

Here, the daughter receives about 46.15%—a higher and fixed share.

In another example:

Case A: Two sons

• Mother: 1/6
• Father: 1/6
• Wife: 1/8
• Sons: Residual heirs

Each son receives about 27%.

Case B: Two daughters

• Mother: 1/6
• Father: 1/6
• Wife: 1/8
• Daughters: 2/3 (fixed)

Each daughter ends up receiving around 29.63%.

In both cases, the daughters (being fixed-share heirs or ashab al-furudh) end up with more than sons (who are residuary heirs or asaba). This undermines the narrative that Islamic law always favors male heirs.

The Role of the Brother or Uncle

Another point of confusion is when daughters are the only immediate heirs, and a paternal uncle receives the remaining one-third. Critics argue: Why should a distant male relative benefit? But Islamic inheritance law recognizes this paternal uncle not just as a recipient of wealth, but also as a potential guardian and protector of the daughters. In the absence of a father or brother, the uncle carries familial responsibilities toward the women of the household.

And even this share is not guaranteed. If the deceased also leaves behind a father or mother, the uncle is excluded from inheritance altogether.

The Principle of Radd (Return)

When the estate is not fully consumed by the fixed shares, and no eligible residuary heirs remain, the surplus returns to the fixed-share heirs themselves. So if a woman dies and only her daughter survives, with no brothers, father, or other heirs, the daughter not only receives her fixed half-share—but also the remaining half as part of radd. Thus, she receives the entire estate. This crucial principle is often missed by critics.

Conclusion

Critics often seize on isolated verses or examples to argue that Islamic inheritance law discriminates against women. But a deeper, more informed reading of the system reveals a nuanced, balanced structure—one that integrates legal rigor with social responsibility. Daughters are not shortchanged; they are protected. Their shares are not inferior; they are more secure. And in the rare instances where distant male relatives inherit a portion, it is either residual, limited, or burdened with familial duty—not privilege.

When such laws are seen not merely as economic formulas but as part of a comprehensive system of ethics, family, and justice, the integrity of Islamic inheritance shines through—not as unjust, but as deeply just.