Why does the Quran entitles the wife to inherit only quarter of her husband's money?

there is a big reason dear read it carefully u will find it...

most of the time, the female gets half the share of the male counter part, but not in all cases. For example, for a uterine brother and sister, both get one sixth, if the deceased has got no ascendant or descendent…

both get equal share. If the deceased has got no children, both mother and father get equal share of one sixth. And in certain cases, if the person who has died, is a lady who has got no children, the husband gets half, the mother gets one third, and the father gets one sixth. That means, there are cases in which the woman even gets double than that of the male counter part -

- that is, the mother gets double than that of the father.

But I agree with you, in most of the cases, the female gets 1/2 the share as compared to the man, when it is considered to daughter and a wife.

The reason is here.....

the answer to this, is that since man… since man is held responsible for the financial aspects of the family, and in order not to do injustice to the man, Allah has given a higher share to the man, as compared to the woman - Otherwise we will have to have talk on… ‘The rights of men’. I would like to give an example - Suppose a person dies, and after the properties have been distributed… the share of the children, remaining is one and a half lakh -

and that person has two children, one son, one daughter. According to the Islamic Shariah, the son gets 1 lakh Rupees, and the daughter gets fifty thousand Rupees - but of the one lakh Rupees which the son receives, he has to spend, may be the majority of it, on looking after his family - may be eighty thousand or… eighty thousand … or 1 lakh, he has to spend on looking after the family.

But that lady when she receives 50,000 she does not have to spend a single pie on looking after her family.

hope this helps u.

Hey there,

Sorry I dont have the answer to that but it is exactly one of the many issues have with Islam. If you go deeper, you will find not only is it completely gender biased but also very contradictory.

Because she is only a quarter of a person?

there are three more women in the group

because its SEXIST! thats why! id consult a lawyer!

Thank you for your interest in Islam and the Muslims. It is our duty and privilege to present the truth and proof about Islam and what it represents. We desire to clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islam to help others see the true message that came with all of the prophets from Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them all.

The message is: Laa elaha illa lah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah).

And before we begin to answer the question, we would like ask a question ourselves. If while listening to the answer you find yourself saying something like, Gee, I didn't know that or That sounds pretty good or I like that for me, then are you prepared to accept the message of worshipping your Lord without any partners? After all, that is what Islam is really all about anyway

Wife’s property

The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the headship of the husband into ownership of his wife.

The Jewish tradition regarding the husband’s role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave[19]. This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband’s right to his wife’s property as a corollary of his possession of her: “Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?”, and “Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?”[20] Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows:

“How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his...... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband...” (San. 71a, Git. 62a)

The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish female was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as a dowry in case of marriage. It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcome burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset [21]. This liability explains why the birth of a daughter was not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the “Shameful Daughters?” section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowry at the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for her maintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband’s death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband’s death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband’s own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to his bride, yet again he was the practical owner of this gift as long as they were married .

Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters’ marriages until later than had been customary . Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriage was annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to the dowry which remained in her husband’s hands . Under Canon and civil law a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under English law were compiled and published in 1632. These ‘rights’ included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue or be sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband. A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name .

Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independent personality which the Judaeo-Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands. It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This gift is considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride’s family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual . The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husband is not allowed any share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent .The Quran has stated its position on this issue quite clearly:

“And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer” (4:4)

The wife’s property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children’s, maintenance is her husband’s responsibility . No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family name [31]. An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: “ A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own.”

Female inheritance

One of the most important differences between the Quran and the Bible is their attitude towards female inheritance of the property of a deceased relative. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: “The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions.” [44] Why were the female members of the family considered part of the family estate? Rabbi Epstein has the answer: “They are owned --before marriage, by the father; after marriage, by the husband.”

The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband’s estate, while he is her first heir, even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother is not an heir at all while the father is. Widows and daughters, in case male children remained, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. That is why widows and orphan girls were among the most destitute members of the Jewish society.

Christianity has followed suit for long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in the father’s patrimony. Besides, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived till late in the last century .

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Quran abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives inheritance shares:

“From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large --a determinate share” (4:7).

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters had received inheritance rights thirteen hundred years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. The division of inheritance is a vast subject with an enormous amount of details (4:7,11