The Last Trust: Justice Beyond Death In Islam

By Moin Qazi, New Age Islam

14 May 2026

·         Muhammad said: "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately and know that your deeds will not make you enter Paradise, and that the most beloved deed to Allah is the most regular and constant, even if it were little." \ Narrated by Aisha bint Abi Bakr: Sahih al-Bukhari Book: Kitab al-Riqaq (Book of Softening the Heart) Chapter: The adoption of a middle course, and the regularity of deeds Hadith no.: 6464: Book 81, Hadith 53

·         I "O you who believe! Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, or your relatives." (Qur'an 4:135)

·         And do not consume one another's wealth unjustly" (Qur'an 2:188)

·          "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." Surah An-Nisa 4:29

Justice Beyond Death

The Qur'an treats inheritance not as a technical transfer of property but as the final enactment of justice within the family. At the precise moment when ownership appears most absolute—death—the law intervenes to declare that wealth is not unrestricted dominion but a trust bounded by moral obligation. The estate does not remain an extension of personal preference. It enters a higher order in which debts, duties, and the rights of others take precedence over individual will.

This is one of Islam's most distinctive legal achievements. Few traditions regulate succession with such precision, because few recognise so clearly that death can expose the deepest fractures within kinship. Property can transform grief into rivalry and affection into exclusion. Islam anticipates this danger and removes inheritance from sentiment, favoritism, and posthumous retaliation. It converts succession into an ethical discipline, ensuring that justice enters the household at the moment it is most vulnerable to private power.

The doctrine of ʿIlm al-Farā’iḍ reflects this vision with exceptional clarity. Shares are fixed not by negotiation but by obligation. Spouses, parents, children, and kin possess rights that arise from relationship itself, not from the goodwill of the deceased. This prevents inheritance from becoming an instrument of domination and limits the concentration of wealth in the hands of those already strongest. In this sense, Islamic succession is not merely family law; it is a moral redistribution of power.

Its deeper originality lies in how it restrains the will. In many legal systems, a person may dispose of property after death almost without limit. Islamic law rejects this absolute discretion. The waṣiyya exists, but only within boundaries. A bequest may honor charity, gratitude, or unfinished obligations, yet it cannot consume the fixed rights of heirs. The one-third limit and the prohibition against overriding legal heirs ensure that personal intention remains subordinate to justice. The will becomes not an instrument of arbitrary preference but a final act of conscience under law.

This reveals a broader philosophy of ownership. Islam recognises property, but never as absolute possession. Wealth carries embedded claims: of creditors, family, dependents, and the vulnerable. Ownership is therefore stewardship. It confers authority, but only within a framework of accountability. The owner may use wealth in life, but cannot transform death into a final act of exclusion.

That principle remains strikingly relevant. Modern legal systems often celebrate testamentary freedom while allowing inherited wealth to reproduce inequality across generations. Estates become mechanisms through which privilege hardens into structure. Islam interrupts this accumulation. It disperses wealth, widens access, and prevents property from remaining a fortress of lineage. The aim is not equal division in a simplistic sense, but proportional justice—distribution according to relation, responsibility, and duty.

This is why Islamic inheritance remains intellectually remarkable. It recognises that the family, precisely because it is intimate, is not immune from injustice. Affection cannot be assumed to guarantee fairness. Law is required where trust is deepest, because trust is also where power can be concealed most easily.

The result is a quiet constitutionalism. Islam extends justice into the private sphere with the same seriousness as it does in the public sphere. It governs not only markets and courts, but the final transfer of wealth between generations. In doing so, it makes a profound moral claim: death ends possession, but not accountability. Even after life has ceased, wealth must continue to serve justice.

Core Principles of Muslim Inheritance Law

Two foundational principles give structure and certainty to Muslim inheritance law, ensuring that the rights of legal heirs are protected and that testamentary freedom remains limited and regulated.

First, no legal heir can ordinarily be deprived of inheritance through a will. Under Islamic inheritance rules, the shares of lawful heirs are fixed and operate independently of the deceased's personal wishes. This ensures that inheritance rights accrue by operation of law at the time of death, preserving the entitlements of spouses, children, and other designated heirs. The underlying idea is that inheritance is not a matter of personal discretion but a legally mandated distribution of property.

Second, a Muslim's testamentary power is strictly limited to one-third of the estate. A person may bequeath only up to one-third of their property through a will, and even this is subject to conditions and, in many interpretations, requires the consent of legal heirs if it affects their interests. The remaining two-thirds of the estate is compulsorily reserved for distribution among the legal heirs in accordance with the prescribed shares under Islamic law.

Together, these two principles balance limited individual autonomy with a strong commitment to protecting family rights, ensuring that inheritance remains structured and equitable rather than a purely discretionary transfer of wealth.

The Two fold Trust: Beneficiaries in Islamic Succession

In Islamic inheritance law, the estate is divided between farā’iḍ (fixed Qur'anic shares) and waṣiyyah (the discretionary one-third bequest).

The farā’iḍ portion passes to the waratha (legal heirs), primarily the dhawu al-furūḍ—those with fixed shares explicitly assigned in the Qur'an. These commonly include: zawj (husband), zawjah (wife), ibn (son), bint (daughter), ab (father), umm (mother), jadd (grandfather), jaddah (grandmother), and in certain cases akh (brother), ukht (sister), especially in kalālah situations.

After these, any residue may pass to the ʿaṣabah (residuary heirs), such as sons, brothers, paternal uncles, and male agnatic relatives.

The waṣiyyah portion—limited to one-third—is reserved for non-heirs and may be assigned to dhawu al-arḥām (extended kin not otherwise inheriting), dependents, or charitable recipients. It cannot ordinarily be used to increase the share of an existing wārith unless all heirs consent.

This structure maintains a balance between ḥaqq (fixed right) and ikhtiyār (limited personal discretion), making inheritance in Islam a final act of justice rather than a matter of personal preference.

Qur'anic Foundations and the Sacred Limits of Succession

Qur'an establishes inheritance not as a matter of personal preference but as a mandatory legal system. The shares of heirs are not advisory allocations but binding divine injunctions. The principal verses appear in Surah al-Nisāʾ:

"Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females…"
— Qur'an 4:11

"These are the limits set by Allah. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to gardens beneath which rivers flow…"
— Qur'an 4:13

"Whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits will be cast into the Fire…"
— Qur'an 4:14

These verses make succession a sacred legal order. Wealth after death ceases to be an unrestricted private asset and becomes a trust distributed under divine command. The legal heirs acquire rights not by human designation but by revelation. Thus, no individual may arbitrarily exclude, reduce, or alter those shares.

The estate (matrūka) is distributed only after four sequential obligations are fulfilled:

1. Funeral expenses
2. Debts and liabilities, including unpaid zakāt and mahr
3. Execution of valid bequests under a will
4. Distribution of residue among legal heirs under farā’iḍ

This sequence is unanimously recognised across Sunni and Shia jurisprudence and ensures that obligations precede entitlements.

Mulla's Two Rules: The Classical Formula of Testamentary Restraint in Islamic Inheritance

Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla occupies a singular place in the study of Muslim personal law in the Indian subcontinent. His Principles of Mahomedan Law remains one of the most authoritative syntheses of classical Islamic inheritance doctrine as applied in South Asian courts. Though Mulla was a legal scholar and jurist rather than a medieval theologian, his enduring significance lies in his precise distillation of centuries of Hanafi, Sunni, and Shia juristic doctrine into clear legal propositions that continue to guide courts. Among his most influential formulations are the two governing rules on wills (waṣiyya), which succinctly define the limits of testamentary power under Islamic law.

Mulla identifies two central restrictions that govern a Muslim's power to dispose of property by will. The first concerns the extent of the bequest; the second concerns the person in whose favour the bequest is made. These two restrictions form the core architecture of Muslim testamentary law.

The first rule, stated in Section 118 of Mulla's treatise, is the one-third limitation: a Muslim cannot validly bequeath more than one-third of the net estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts, unless the legal heirs consent after the testator's death. This rule is derived directly from the Prophetic narration of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, in which the Prophet ﷺ refused permission to bequeath two-thirds or half, and allowed only one-third, adding: "One-third, and one-third is much." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2742; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1628). Mulla's formulation is therefore not a statutory innovation but a direct legal restatement of Prophetic instruction.

The second rule, set out in Section 117, is the prohibition against a bequest to a legal heir without the consent of the other heirs. This rests on the well-known hadith narrated by Abu Umamah al-Bahili: "Indeed Allah has given every rightful person his due share; therefore, there is no bequest for an heir." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2870; Jami at-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2120; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2713). This rule prevents a testator from altering the divinely fixed shares already assigned to heirs under Qur'anic succession.

What makes Mulla's statement particularly significant is its precision: he reduces the vast corpus of classical doctrine into two controlling propositions—first, no excess beyond one-third; second, no preference to an heir through will. In effect, one rule limits quantity, and the other limits the beneficiary. Together, they preserve the sanctity of Qur'anic inheritance.

These rules reflect classical consensus. Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni affirmed that jurists unanimously agreed that a bequest to an heir is invalid without consent, and that any excess over one-third remains suspended unless ratified by heirs. Ibn Rushd in Bidayat al-Mujtahid treated the same two restrictions as essential safeguards against disruption of fixed shares. Al-Kasani in Bada'i al-Sana'i described the one-third as the outer boundary of testamentary liberty and reaffirmed the prohibition of preferential bequests to heirs. Mulla thus condensed an inherited juristic consensus rather than creating a new doctrine.

The brilliance of Mulla's formulation lies in its legal elegance. It recognises that Islamic law permits a final act of generosity but subjects it to the rule of justice. A Muslim may remember the poor, support a stranger, or dedicate property to pious purposes—but only within one-third. Likewise, a Muslim may not favour one child, spouse, or parent through a will, because their shares are already ordained by divine law.

Mulla's two rules, therefore, remain the clearest doctrinal formula for understanding Islamic testamentary law: the one-third rule safeguards the estate; the no-heir rule safeguards equality among heirs. They are not merely procedural limits but the ethical boundary where personal intention yields to divinely structured justice.

The One-Third Rule and the Restriction on Testamentary Thus, Mulla's two rules are not isolated statutory propositions but a concise restatement of centuries of juristic consensus: one limitation concerns the extent of the disposition, the other concerns the identity of the beneficiary. Together, they ensure that testamentary freedom cannot override the divinely fixed rights of heirs.

Inheritance in Islamic jurisprudence is founded on restraint. At the very point where a person may wish to exercise absolute control over property through a will, the law imposes limits to protect the rights of heirs. The testamentary power of a Muslim is therefore not unrestricted; it exists only within a carefully defined legal boundary shaped by the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and classical jurisprudence.

The second controlling principle is the prohibition of a bequest to a legal heir. The Prophet ﷺ declared:

"Indeed Allah has given every rightful person his due share; therefore, there is no bequest for an heir."

— Narrated by Abu Umamah al-Bahili; Sunan Abu Dawud; Jami at-Tirmidhi; Sunan Ibn Majah

The rule prevents a testator from enlarging the share of one heir at the expense of others whose portions are already fixed by divine law.

The most important restraint on testamentary power is the one-third rule. Under Islamic jurisprudence, a Muslim may bequeath only up to one-third of the net estate remaining after funeral expenses and debts. Any bequest exceeding one-third is valid only if the legal heirs consent; otherwise, the excess devolves by intestate succession.

This rule derives from the celebrated narration of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Saʿd narrated that when he was gravely ill, the Prophet ﷺ visited him and he said:

"O Messenger of Allah, I possess wealth and have no heir except one daughter. Shall I give two-thirds in charity?"
He said: "No."
I said: "Then half?"
He said: "No."
I said: "Then one-third?"
He said: "One-third, and one-third is much. You should leave your heirs wealthy than leave them poor, begging from people."

This hadith serves as the doctrinal basis for the testamentary ceiling. It protects heirs from impoverishment and prevents a dying person from diverting the estate according to emotion, resentment, or favouritism.

A second narration reinforces the moral basis of this allowance:

"Indeed, Allah has been charitable to you by allowing one-third of your property at death to increase your good deeds."

— Narrated by Abu Hurairah; Sunan Ibn Majah; Musnad Ahmad

Thus, the one-third is not an entitlement but a concession—a final space for charity and moral intention.

Sharia and Fiqh: The Twin Pillars of Mulla's Formula in Muhammadan Law

In the classical architecture of Islamic legal thought, the distinction and relationship between Sharia and Fiqh form the conceptual backbone of what jurists and scholars of Principles of Muhammadan Law describe as the operative structure of Muslim personal law. In particular, the "twin formula" implicitly reflected in Mulla's exposition is the interaction between divine normativity (Sharia) and juristic construction (fiqh). This duality sustains both the authority and adaptability of Islamic jurisprudence.

At its core, Sharia is the transcendent framework of law revealed in the Quran and in the practice of the Prophet Muhammad. It is conceived as fixed, moral, and divinely sourced. Within Mulla's formulation, Sharia functions as the substantive foundation—the source of rights, obligations, and ethical limits in matters such as marriage, inheritance, guardianship, and succession. It is the "ideal law" in its purest sense, carrying normative authority beyond human alteration.

Fiqh, by contrast, is the intellectual and juristic enterprise that interprets, systematises, and operationalises Sharia. It represents human engagement with revelation through reasoning (ijtihad), analogy (qiyas), consensus (ijma), and interpretation of precedent. In Mulla's framework, fiqh is not merely commentary; it is the working mechanism through which Sharia becomes enforceable legal doctrine. It translates moral imperatives into actionable rules applicable in courts, family arrangements, and social transactions.

The "twin formula" in Principles of Muhammadan Law can therefore be understood as a jurisprudential synthesis: Sharia provides the source of legitimacy, while fiqh provides the method of application. One without the other is incomplete. Sharia without fiqh remains abstract and incapable of institutional expression; fiqh without Sharia loses normative anchoring and becomes a purely technical exercise detached from moral authority.

This dual structure is particularly evident in areas such as inheritance law (fara'id), where Mulla extensively systematises Muslim succession rules. The Quran lays down fixed shares for heirs, but real-life contingencies—such as competing claims, exclusion rules, and residual distribution—require juristic elaboration. Here, fiqh operates as the interpretive engine that gives precision to the broad divine mandate. Mulla's codification reflects this interaction: he does not present inheritance rules as mere theological ideals, but as structured legal principles derived from Sharia through fiqh reasoning.

The genius of this twin framework lies in its balance between rigidity and flexibility. Sharia ensures continuity, preserving the moral core of Islamic law across time and geography. Fiqh introduces adaptability, allowing jurists to respond to changing social conditions while remaining within the bounds of revelation. Mulla's legal synthesis in colonial-era India demonstrates this balance in practice, as he organises classical juristic doctrine into a systematic form suitable for judicial application.

Thus, the relevance of Sharia and fiqh to Mulla's formulation is not merely theoretical but structural. They constitute the dual pillars upon which Muhammadan law rests: one divine and normative, the other human and interpretive. Together, they form a coherent legal system in which moral authority and juristic reasoning converge to produce a living tradition of law—at once principled, adaptable, and enduring.

Classical Support for Mulla's Two Rules

The two propositions codified in Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law—first, that a bequest to an heir is invalid without consent of the remaining heirs after death (Section 117), and second, that no Muslim may bequeath more than one-third of the estate without such consent (Section 118)—are direct restatements of classical juristic doctrine.

Ibn Qudamah explicitly affirmed both principles in Al-Mughni. He stated that the jurists were agreed (ijmāʿ) that a bequest to a legal heir is not valid except with the approval of the remaining heirs, because the Prophet ﷺ declared: "There is no bequest for an heir." He further held that a bequest exceeding one-third is suspended beyond that limit unless the heirs validate it after the death of the testator. This mirrors Mulla's Sections 117 and 118 almost verbatim.

Ibn Rushd in Bidayat al-Mujtahid similarly explained that juristic consensus recognised two restraints: first, that testamentary disposition cannot exceed one-third except with approval; second, that a legatee who is already a Qur'anic heir cannot receive additional testamentary preference unless the co-heirs agree. He treated both rules as mechanisms to preserve the equilibrium of fixed inheritance shares.

Al-Kasani in Bada'i al-Sana'i elaborated the Hanafi position that one-third is the outer legal boundary of testamentary freedom and that any excess remains in abeyance until ratified by heirs. He also affirmed that a bequest to an heir is void because the heir's entitlement has already been determined by divine allocation. His reasoning corresponds directly to Mulla's statement that bequests to heirs are ineffective without the heirs' consent.

Shah Waliullah Dehlawi framed the same doctrine ethically: the prohibition on bequests to heirs exists because divine shares already satisfy hereditary claims, and any additional bequest would create unjust preference. His commentary reinforces the rationale behind Section 117. Likewise, his discussion of the one-third rule as a limit intended to protect dependents reflects the policy behind Section 118.

A. A. A. Fyzee expressly notes that these two restrictions are the essential pillars of Muslim testamentary law: restriction as to quantum (one-third) and restriction as to beneficiary (no heir without consent). Fyzee's formulation is precisely the conceptual structure that Mulla later codified.

A. A. A. Fyzee described Muslim testamentary law as a controlled exception operating within inheritance, not outside it. Abdur Rahim similarly observed that a will is valid only so far as it does not prejudice the rights of legal heirs.

This is codified in Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law:

• Section 117 — a bequest to an heir is invalid unless the other heirs consent after the testator's death.
• Section 118 — A Muslim cannot validly bequeath more than one-third of the net estate unless the heirs consent.

The law of bequest in Islam, therefore, rests on two interlocking restraints: the one-third limit and the prohibition of a bequest to an heir without consent. Together, they ensure that personal generosity does not override inherited justice. The will remains permissible, but only within a moral framework in which the rights of heirs are protected before individual preferences can operate. In this balance between charity and restraint lies the enduring ethical discipline of Islamic succession.

Bequests to Heirs and the Doctrine of Consent

A central principle of Islamic testamentary law is that a bequest in favour of an heir is generally invalid:

"There is no bequest for an heir."
— Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2870; Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2120; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2713

This prevents a testator from giving an heir additional property beyond the divinely fixed shares, thereby upsetting the balance established by revelation.

A key distinction exists between Sunni and Shia law:

• Under Sunni law, even a bequest to an heir within one-third requires the consent of the other heirs, and such consent is valid only after the testator's death.
• Under Shia law, a bequest to an heir for one-third of the estate is valid without consent. Where consent is needed for an excess bequest, it may be given either before or after death.

Thus, the one-third rule is common to both schools, but the treatment of consent differs significantly.

Consent must be clear and deliberate. Mere silence is insufficient. Courts have recognised that attestation of the will, acquiescence in possession, or express written approval may constitute valid consent.

Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law states:

• Section 117: A bequest to an heir is invalid unless the other heirs consent after death.
• Section 118: A Muslim cannot by will dispose of more than one-third of the estate after funeral expenses and debts; any excess is void unless heirs assent.

These two provisions remain authoritative statements of Muslim testamentary law in India.

Classical Jurists and the Legal Philosophy of Restraint

Abdur Rahim in The Principles of Muhammadan Jurisprudence explained:

"The legality of a testamentary disposition is based on defeasance pro tanto of the rights of heirs generally; therefore, such a disposition should be for the benefit of non-heirs alone."

He emphasised that a bequest to an heir disturbs the divinely fixed balance and invites discord among family members.

A. A. A. Fyzee, in Outlines of Muhammadan Law, observed that Islamic law imposes one of the strictest limitations on testamentary freedom among major legal systems, subordinating personal discretion to the claims of family justice.

Ibn Qudamah, in Al-Mughni, stated that a bequest to an heir is universally void among Sunni jurists unless ratified after death by all heirs whose shares are affected.

The distinction between waṣiyya and hibah (gift) is equally important. A Muslim may gift any portion of property during their lifetime through hibah, and such a transfer is unrestricted if possession is delivered. But a will takes effect only after death and therefore remains subject to the one-third limitation.

This distinction preserves the equilibrium between living autonomy and posthumous justice.

Judicial Affirmation and Contemporary Indian Law

Indian courts have consistently upheld these principles.

A significant judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed the doctrine in Mohd. Abdul Rahim v. Smt. Shakira Begum (judgment dated 2 February 2026). The Court held that a Muslim's testamentary freedom is confined strictly to one-third of the net estate, and any excess requires the consent of all heirs after death. The Court emphasised that the burden of proving such consent lies on the beneficiary.

The Court conceptualised the estate as divided into two legal domains:

• One-third: discretionary and bequeathable
• Two-thirds: protected and reserved for legal heirs

This judgment reinforced the substantive—not merely procedural—nature of the one-third rule.

The Supreme Court of India in Zoharbee v. Imam Khan (2025) reaffirmed that succession among Muslims must strictly follow Muslim personal law and cannot be altered by private arrangements contrary to the Shariat.

Earlier, Indian authorities consistently supported the same doctrine:

• Mahomed Ismail v. Bai Bibi (AIR 1916 Bom 152) — Bombay High Court upheld the one-third ceiling as binding.
• Rashid Ahmad v. Anisa Khatun (AIR 1932 PC 25) — Privy Council affirmed heirs' vested rights.
• Md. Haneefa v. Salimuddin (AIR 1975 Mad 142) — Madras High Court reiterated that excess bequests are void absent consent.
• Noorunissa v. Rahaman Bi (2001) — Karnataka High Court recognised that heirs' assent must be affirmative and proved.

These cases collectively demonstrate that the one-third rule is an enforceable substantive principle under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.

Justice Through Limit and Moral Discipline

Islamic inheritance law is not merely a technical mechanism of distribution. It is a moral discipline imposed upon property. It recognises that death often produces conflict and that human preferences at that moment may become unjust. The law, therefore, restrains personal discretion to protect those entitled by revelation.

The one-third rule is the central expression of that restraint. It allows generosity but prevents injustice. It permits charity but preserves equity. It recognises individual conscience but subjects it to legal discipline.

As Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law confirms through Sections 117 and 118, no Muslim may defeat the rights of heirs either by excessive bequest or by favouring one heir over another except with lawful consent.

Thus, the system achieves a rare legal balance: it permits moral agency while denying arbitrariness. It recognises private intention but protects public justice within the family.

In the final analysis, the Islamic law of wills is a profound structure of restraint. It teaches that ownership is temporary, stewardship is accountable, and justice survives even death. The one-third rule is not simply a fraction—it is the moral boundary between personal generosity and the rights of others. Within that boundary lies the ethical genius of Islamic succession: freedom within limits, charity within discipline, and justice made enduring.

.

Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 13
KITAB AL-WASIYYA

A bequest (WasIyya) or will is defined as a transfer to come into operation after the testator's death. The testator is called Musi, and the legatee or devisee is called Musa lahu, and the executor is called Wasi. It is a spiritual testament of a man, enabling him to make up for his shortcomings in worldly life and securing rewards in the Hereafter.

According to the Shariah, one is entitled to make a will for one-third of one's property, not beyond that, so as not to affect the rights of the legal heirs adversely.

"Again, the principle on which the legality of a testamentary disposition is based being in defease pro tanto of the rights of heirs generally, the law requires that such a disposition should be for the benefit of non-heirs alone.

"A further reason why a bequest in favour of an heir is not allowed is that it would amount to giving preference to some heirs over others, thus defeating the spirit of the law which has fixed the portion of each in the inheritance and causing disputes among persons related to one another. If the other heirs consent to a bequest to one of them or to a bequest of more than one-third of the estate, the above reasons no longer hold good, and the bequest as made will be valid" (Abdur Rahim, The Principles of Muhammadan jurisprudence, pp. 311-2).

It is, however, preferable and most advisable not to will away the property if the legal heirs are poor, because it manifests benevolence to the heirs who have a superior claim to it from the relations in which they stand.

Another principle observed in the case of a bequest is that the proprietary right of a legatee in a bequest is established if he accepts it.

…

Moin Qazi is an Indian author and development leader who advanced dignity-centred, community-led change. A pioneer of microfinance and grassroots institutions, he fused ethics with social innovation. With deep interdisciplinary scholarship, he bridged policy, justice, and lived realities. His legacy affirms ethical leadership and people’s agency as drivers of India’s progress…

URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/last-trust-justice-death-in-islam/d/140020

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism