A wealthy father and his son and daughters, all of whom are married, and he does not distinguish between the son and the daughter in financial support, whether before or after marriage, and he has purchased
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : A wealthy father and his son and daughters, all of whom are married, and the father always does not distinguish between the son and the daughters in financial support, whether before or after marriage, and he has purchased land for the son and written it in his name, which has caused the daughters to feel something regarding the father, and this brother has this favoritism. Does the father sin by this distinction, knowing that this father is knowledgeable about matters of his religion, and may Allah reward you with good?
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and I send prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment. It is established in the two Sahihs and others from al-Nu'man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) أن أباه بشير بن سعد نحله نحلة فقالت أمه أي: زوجة بشير: لا أرضى حتى تشهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على ذلك، فذهب بشير إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم ليخبره ويرشده، فسأله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: هل أعطى أبناءه مثل ما أعطى النعمان ؟ قال: لا، قال: أشهد على هذا غيري، فإني لا أشهد على جور، اتقوا الله واعدلوا بين أولادكم That his father, Bashir ibn Sa'd, gave him a gift, so his mother, meaning the wife of Bashir, said: I am not satisfied until you witness the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on that. So Bashir went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) to inform him and seek his guidance. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him: Did you give your sons the same as you gave al-Nu'man? He said: No. He said: I will not witness to injustice, so let others witness to this. Fear Allah and be just among your children. And the way to be just among the children in financial support is to give each of them what they need for support, whether it is similar to what their siblings receive or not. It is well known that children differ in their need for support; the wealthy one does not need support, while the poor one does. The older one who has entered school needs support for his books, courses, and clothing, while the younger one who has not entered school does not need that. So, give the older one what he needs, even if you did not give the younger one the same. The adult who has reached the age of marriage should be married if he cannot marry on his own, and do not give his siblings the same amount you gave him for the mahr (bridal gift) and the wife's maintenance, and so on. The important thing is that justice in support is to give each one what he needs, whether you gave the others the same or not. Here is an issue that many people do not notice: the older son may need a car to go to school and take care of his affairs, while the younger ones do not need it. Should he buy a car for the older one and give it to him exclusively because of his need, or what? We say: he should not buy a car for him, but rather buy the car for himself, the father, and give it to the son as a loan (ariyah), because the son only needs the benefit of the car, not the car itself. So, grant him its benefit. If it is decreed that the son dies, it returns to the father. If it is decreed that the father dies, it returns to the father's estate, meaning the car. And in this way, he is just among the children.
Here is another issue: a person may have multiple children, one of whom needs to get married, so he marries him, while the others have not reached the age of marriage. Some people bequeath the amount of the mahr to their sons who have not married in his lifetime, have not reached the age of marriage, and have not asked for marriage. This is forbidden (haram) because it is a bequest to an heir, and it is also invalid (batil). The heirs have the right to invalidate this bequest and add what was bequeathed to the rest of the estate. As for what relates to the questioner's question, we say: singling out his son with the land, to the exclusion of the rest of the children, both sons and daughters, is forbidden (muharram), and it is not permissible for him. The way to do this is either to return it, or to give the sons the same as he gave this son, and the daughters half of what he gave, because the adjustment among sons and daughters is that the male gets the share of two females, as is the division of Allah the Exalted in inheritance, and there is no division more just than the division of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. This is the way: either he reclaims it, or he gives the others what achieves justice, or he assesses it against him at a fair value, meaning a value that would be its price if someone other than the son bought it. If the son is satisfied that it be upon him as a purchase, it becomes a sale, and there is no favoritism in it. If it is said: what if the children allowed their father to do so, whether they were sons or daughters, but the father knows that they only allowed it out of shyness? Then this permission has no standing, and it is a permission whose existence is like non-existence, and it is not permissible for the father to rely on it. However, if he knows that they allowed it out of a willing heart, due to the love and affection among the family members, then there is no blame on him, because he singled him out with this land with the consent of everyone. But what is in the question indicates that the daughters did not consent to it. And in this case, he must follow one of the three matters we mentioned: either he returns the land, or he gives the daughters half of what he gave this son and the sons the same as he gave this son, or he sells it to him for a price equal to what it would fetch if he sold it to a stranger.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and I send prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment. It is established in the two Sahihs and others from al-Nu'man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) أن أباه بشير بن سعد نحله نحلة فقالت أمه أي: زوجة بشير: لا أرضى حتى تشهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على ذلك، فذهب بشير إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم ليخبره ويرشده، فسأله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: هل أعطى أبناءه مثل ما أعطى النعمان ؟ قال: لا، قال: أشهد على هذا غيري، فإني لا أشهد على جور، اتقوا الله واعدلوا بين أولادكم That his father, Bashir ibn Sa'd, gave him a gift, so his mother, meaning the wife of Bashir, said: I am not satisfied until you witness the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on that. So Bashir went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) to inform him and seek his guidance. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him: Did you give your sons the same as you gave al-Nu'man? He said: No. He said: I will not witness to injustice, so let others witness to this. Fear Allah and be just among your children. And the way to be just among the children in financial support is to give each of them what they need for support, whether it is similar to what their siblings receive or not. It is well known that children differ in their need for support; the wealthy one does not need support, while the poor one does. The older one who has entered school needs support for his books, courses, and clothing, while the younger one who has not entered school does not need that. So, give the older one what he needs, even if you did not give the younger one the same. The adult who has reached the age of marriage should be married if he cannot marry on his own, and do not give his siblings the same amount you gave him for the mahr (bridal gift) and the wife's maintenance, and so on. The important thing is that justice in support is to give each one what he needs, whether you gave the others the same or not. Here is an issue that many people do not notice: the older son may need a car to go to school and take care of his affairs, while the younger ones do not need it. Should he buy a car for the older one and give it to him exclusively because of his need, or what? We say: he should not buy a car for him, but rather buy the car for himself, the father, and give it to the son as a loan (ariyah), because the son only needs the benefit of the car, not the car itself. So, grant him its benefit. If it is decreed that the son dies, it returns to the father. If it is decreed that the father dies, it returns to the father's estate, meaning the car. And in this way, he is just among the children.
Here is another issue: a person may have multiple children, one of whom needs to get married, so he marries him, while the others have not reached the age of marriage. Some people bequeath the amount of the mahr to their sons who have not married in his lifetime, have not reached the age of marriage, and have not asked for marriage. This is forbidden (haram) because it is a bequest to an heir, and it is also invalid (batil). The heirs have the right to invalidate this bequest and add what was bequeathed to the rest of the estate. As for what relates to the questioner's question, we say: singling out his son with the land, to the exclusion of the rest of the children, both sons and daughters, is forbidden (muharram), and it is not permissible for him. The way to do this is either to return it, or to give the sons the same as he gave this son, and the daughters half of what he gave, because the adjustment among sons and daughters is that the male gets the share of two females, as is the division of Allah the Exalted in inheritance, and there is no division more just than the division of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. This is the way: either he reclaims it, or he gives the others what achieves justice, or he assesses it against him at a fair value, meaning a value that would be its price if someone other than the son bought it. If the son is satisfied that it be upon him as a purchase, it becomes a sale, and there is no favoritism in it. If it is said: what if the children allowed their father to do so, whether they were sons or daughters, but the father knows that they only allowed it out of shyness? Then this permission has no standing, and it is a permission whose existence is like non-existence, and it is not permissible for the father to rely on it. However, if he knows that they allowed it out of a willing heart, due to the love and affection among the family members, then there is no blame on him, because he singled him out with this land with the consent of everyone. But what is in the question indicates that the daughters did not consent to it. And in this case, he must follow one of the three matters we mentioned: either he returns the land, or he gives the daughters half of what he gave this son and the sons the same as he gave this son, or he sells it to him for a price equal to what it would fetch if he sold it to a stranger.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.