What is the ruling on a father bequeathing all his wealth to one of his sons?

The questioner : My Shaykh, there is a man with three children. One is an older man who has a commercial shop in a strategic location in the market. One of the three young men is more commercially minded than he is knowledgeable, though he also has some knowledge, of course worldly knowledge. His father suggested that if you stay in the shop and teach your brothers medicine, then if you teach your brothers medicine and spend on them until they finish their studies, this shop is yours, and they will have their degrees. But if it turns out differently, you have nothing except what is like theirs. In fact, the children went to the West to study. Before his father passed away by five years, his father relinquished the shop to this young man alone on the basis that he would teach his brothers and spend on them. His father passed away, of course, after writing this five years later. The children graduated after a few years, they got their medical degrees and finished. They started demanding each one’s share in the shop. Of course, there are daughters among them and sons, and so on. Does it appear to you, my Shaykh, that they can take from this share if they have a share in it?

The Shaykh : Of course, because they are partners. Each one takes and his bequest is an invalid bequest that is not executed, meaning, .

The questioner : No, excuse me, my Shaykh, I made a mistake. He did not bequeath it; he relinquished it and sold it, meaning he relinquished the shop to him before he died by five years. He registered it in the son’s name.

The Shaykh : Did he sell it or register it?

The questioner : No, he registered it.

The Shaykh : Ah, so he did not sell it. Do you think there is no sale now? Are you settled that there is no sale?

The questioner : In exchange for his effort...

The Shaykh : I am asking now if there is no sale.

The questioner : No, the exchange is his effort.

The Shaykh : I said there is no bequest to an heir. Suppose this man wrote a bequest that this shop is for my son so-and-so; this bequest is not executed because this shop is the inheritance of all the heirs. The situation now is that he did not write a bequest. He did not write a bequest saying, "If I die, this shop is for so-and-so." Rather, directly, as you say, he said this shop is for so-and-so. There is no difference between the two. And it is not prescribed, as may be inferred from your words, to give one of his children something without the others because this child performed his duty on behalf of his father toward his brothers. It is not prescribed for him, nor does it justify that for him. Is my speech clear?

The questioner : Clear, my teacher.

The Shaykh : There is only one possible scenario: that this child, through his own effort, acquired wealth and became rich, and his father permitted him to work for himself. This wealth that he gathered with the sweat of his brow and the toil of his hand, his father said to him, "If you spend on my children here, and teach and raise them, then this shop is yours." This bequest is not executed except to the extent of what he spent from his own pocket. Is that clear?

The questioner : Clear, my Shaykh. Now, regarding his work, it exists that he mentioned it to me, and I remembered it now, even though through your speech we reached a benefit. Because the shop is registered in his father’s name, but he paid approximately one-third of the capital. But the shop is registered in his father’s name, so it neither advances nor delays.

The Shaykh : He paid one-third.

The questioner : One-third of the capital of the shop.

The Shaykh : How do you mean one-third of the capital of the shop?

The questioner : I mean from the rest of the capital of the shop.

The Shaykh : I said he mentioned something, he put something from his pocket, right?

The questioner : Yes, he put something at the beginning of the shop.

The Shaykh : He who put from his pocket has the right to recover it, no more.

The questioner : And also his wife, she is a teacher, so the shop could not afford to spend on these children, so he took money from his wife too to send to them.

The Shaykh : It is not important, my brother. The wife’s money is like his money. What he spent, the total of what he spent, whether the total was his wife’s money or his money, or some of his money and some of his wife’s money, he has the right to take that money which he spent. But he cannot take more than that.

The questioner : Well, my Shaykh, if the cost was, for example, more than that, the degree of this student who studied medicine, for example, twenty thousand dinars. Can he take twenty thousand, and this one take twenty thousand? Can he, for example, value the shop at a certain amount and deduct...? If, for example, he spent twenty thousand dinars on each child until they obtained their medical degrees, and they are two children, is it permissible for him, for example, from this shop, is it permissible for him to take the equivalent of what he spent on each of them, meaning so that the three are equal with each other?

The Shaykh : I mean, here they are equal in the original share.

The questioner : How, my Shaykh, are they equal in the original share? Well, he spent on them and got their degrees for them.

The Shaykh : You are saying he takes what they took.

The questioner : Yes, for example, he is a person with calculations. For example, he did these calculations. A professor, for example, calculated that each student spent twenty thousand dinars. This one twenty thousand, and this one twenty thousand. Okay, is it permissible for him now? The shop must be for everyone, as I understood from you now. This is considered a bequest that he wrote, whether delayed or immediate, after his death, it is a bequest. But of course, he ruined himself; he did not study like them and relied on his father who spent on his brothers. In this case, can he take what the rest of his brothers took so that they are equal? For example, the shop brings in fifty thousand, he takes, for example, twenty thousand from it, and thirty thousand remains to be divided among the three.

The Shaykh : What did I tell you at that time? Is there something new in your speech? I told you that what he spent from his own money is what comes out for him, no more than what comes out for him. But he is a partner with them in that he inherits as they inherit.

The questioner : My Shaykh, I now understand your division, but I did not understand the second part. It is now mixed money, between his money and his father’s money. We are now in his father’s money. He takes his money which he spent, but his father’s money which he spent on his sisters...

The Shaykh : His father’s money follows the ruling of the others, meaning he inherits with them as they inherit.

The questioner : What he spent on them, he accounts for it with them.

The Shaykh : I am telling you that what he spent, he recovers it. He does not take the excess, but he is like them in that he inherits.

The questioner : Even if he takes from... his share, he takes like them?

The Shaykh : Well, he needs to take like them, of course. But my only warning is that he should not exploit the fact that he spent on them to take more than what he spent.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.


The questioner : The issue of relinquishment, meaning, is it permissible for one to relinquish, for example, in his lifetime, to his wife or his son? For example, a person has a farm.

The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible.