skills/sistani-guidance/references/books/jme/pages-205-216.md

# Jurisprudence Made Easy

PDF pages 205 to 216. Physical PDF numbering, not inferred printed labels.

Mechanical text extraction, not a verified transcription. Read the full rule or dialogue across page boundaries and retain its footnotes.

Source characters are preserved except corrupt control glyphs, which are marked. Blank layout lines are removed. Do not silently repair other wording.

Previous block: [pages 193 to 204](pages-193-204.md).

Next block: [pages 217 to 228](pages-217-228.md).

## PDF PAGE 205

```text
215
provisions of his will were in the sphere of what is good
and for the benefit of his immediate family and relatives.
At the time of making the will, the testator should not be
resigned to taking his own life. In such a case, his
instructions as to his estate shall, for example, be limited
to that which relates to matters and expenses arising from
his funeral and his children who are under-age.
The executor cannot appoint another person to carry out
the will. He could, however, authorize a trustworthy
person to handle any particular matter of the will, if the
testator did not specify that the executor should attend to
that particular matter himself.
* Is it conditional that the will be written?
- No, any person can make a will verbally or by expressing
any meaningful gesture. It suffices, too, for a will to be
deemed as such, if there was any paper, bearing the
signature, seal, or finger print, of the mandator,
suggesting that he intended it to be executed after his
death.
* Should any one of us make his will at the time of illness
only?
- No, not only in sickness, in health too.
* You said earlier that one can cater for any thing he
wished. Am I right?
- Yes, provided it should not be outside the pale of what is
lawful and ethical.
* Could any one of us make a will, stating that all his
estate, for example, be spent in a certain avenue?
- No, the will must be confined to one third of the entire
estate.
* Should there be a person, who exceeded that limit, what
shall be the ruling in this case?
- The will should be declared void and null, unless the
heirs sanction the excess share.
* If the heirs agreed, how should they go about executing
```

## PDF PAGE 206

```text
216
the will?
- That which should be set aside of the estate be: a) any
outstanding debt, b) religious dues, c) compensations, and
d) reserve money for any religious obligations that were
not carried out during the lifetime of the deceased.
Obligations such as hajj, prayer, fasting etc, should be
performed on his behalf, irrespective of whether or not he
made provisions in his will to cater for them.
That is, if the deceased did not specify that it should be
taken out from his share of one third, in which case it must
be taken out of it.
The remainder must be divided into three shares.
One third must be set aside to meet the provisions made
by the testator and two thirds for his inheritors.
* Should provisions, made by the testator in his will, like
paying a named person a specific amount of money, or
granting them a property or a plot of land, and other ones
pertaining to his funeral, for example, be acted upon?
- The testator has the right to make such provisions and
the executors of his will should be bound by that,
provided the cost did not exceed one third of his estate.
* Parts of the estate of the deceased person could sustain
damage at the hands of the executor of his will. Should
the latter be held responsible?
- The executor cannot be made to pay for the damage,
provided that there was no negligence or malice on his
part.
However, making a will is mustahab as long as death was
imminent, in which case attending to certain things as a
matter of priority becomes wajib; among these are the
following:
1. Settling one’s debt, especially those that have become
due, if one was able to do so.
As for a) the debt whose date of repayment was not due,
```

## PDF PAGE 207

```text
217
b) that which was due but was not yet demanded by the
creditors to pay, or c) that which he did not have the
means to pay back, he should make a will to that effect
before witnesses, if it was not common knowledge.
2. Releasing deposits in his safekeeping to their owners,
notifying the owners, or making a provision to return
them.
3. Settling unpaid khums, zakat, and madhalim (Material
or moral restitution, or reparation, to people you have
wronged), if you were liable and could afford payment.
4. Hiring a person, for money paid from his own property,
to say obligatory prayers or perform hajj on his behalf.
Even if he was not financially able to hire someone, and a
volunteer came forward to carry such obligations out for
him, making a provision in the will to this effect becomes
wajib. In certain cases, however, informing a trusted
person, such as the eldest son, to cater for meeting his
obligations vis-a-vis prayer and hajj would suffice.
5. Advising his heirs of any money, property, or otherwise
he has with other people, that they do not know of, so
that their right in such dues would be preserved after his
death.
* If a person did not make a will, what would happen to
his estate?
- He shall forgo his right in having disposal over one third
of his estate in the way he may have wished.
* How would his estate be divided?
- It be divided according to certain formula, that we will
discuss in the next dialogue on inheritance.
```

## PDF PAGE 208

```text
218
Dialogue on inheritance
From inheritance perspective, relatives fall into three
categories.
The First Group
The deceased’s parents, their offspring, and the third
generation. However, by the offspring I mean the
genealogical ones. In the presence of such offspring, they
take precedence over the paternal and maternal
grandchildren, i.e. the latter do not inherit anything.
The Second Group
The deceased’s brothers and sisters; in their absence, their
offspring, paternal and maternal grandfathers and
grandmothers should be given their share of the
inheritance. If the brother had offspring and
grandchildren, the nearest to the deceased shall have
precedence in the inheritance over the more remote
relative.
* Could you give me an example?
- In the presence of a nephew, he takes precedence over
the son of a nephew.
The Third Group
Paternal and maternal uncles and aunts, and in their
absence, their offspring shall have a right in the
inheritance, according to the principle of the nearest
blood relative comes first.
* Why is it that relatives of the deceased are classified as
such?
- The reason is that a person belonging to the lower
category shall receive an inheritance only if there was no
person in the higher category.
* If the deceased did not have any person in all those
categories, who will inherit him?
- The deceased’s paternal and maternal uncles and aunts,
mother, and their children or grandchildren shall inherit
```

## PDF PAGE 209

```text
219
him, if it is widely believed that they really relate to him.
This, should, though, be applied without losing sight of
the principle of the closest the relation, the more
preference it warrants in getting a share of the
inheritance.
* I have noticed that, so far, you haven’t mentioned the
husband and wife in the three categories you told me
about. Are they a special case?
- They inherit one another according to a special criterion
in the presence of all those groups of relatives.
* What if the deceased did not have any relative from the
first category, except his offspring?
- They alone have the right to inherit him, even if there
was one son or one daughter.
* If they were all males or all females?
- The inheritance shall be divided equally between them.
* If they were mixed?
- Allah, the Most High says in His Holy Book, “Allah enjoins
you concerning your children: The male shall have the
equal of the portion of two females”. (4/11).
* Suppose a man died and left behind a son and a
daughter. How should their inheritance be divided
between them?
- The estate of the deceased should be divided into three
portions, two of them go to the son and one to the
daughter.
* If the deceased did not have any relative from the first
category, except one of his parents?
- The one who is alive takes all.
* What division will be adopted, if both the parents were
alive, and the deceased did not have brothers?
- His father gets the amount of two thirds and his mother
gets one third.
* What sort of allotments would the two parents and the
daughter of the deceased get?
```

## PDF PAGE 210

```text
211
- One fifth of the estate goes to his father, a second fifth to
his mother, and three fifths to his daughter.
* In the event of the presence of one of the parents and a
number of male and female children, what sort of shares
would they get?
- One sixth goes to the parent, and the remainder should
be divided pursuant to the principle of “the equal of the
two portions of the female”.
* Can we now turn to the relatives of the deceased of the
second category?
- Why not?
* Suppose the deceased had either one brother or one
sister; what shares would they get?
- The entire estate reverts to the brother or sister.
* Should there be numerous brothers from both the
parents, how would the allocation of shares be carried out
between them?
- If they were all males or all females, the estate shall be
divided equally between them. If the heirs were of both
the sexes, the criterion of two shares for the male and one
share for the female must be upheld. That is, if they all
were traced to the same parents, or they were his half
brothers from his father’s side. If, however, they were half
brothers from his mother’s side, they shall receive equal
shares irrespective of their number.
* Well, paternal and maternal uncles and aunts are of the
third category. Aren’t they?
- Yes, they are.
* Suppose the deceased did not have but either one
paternal uncle or aunt, what would happen to the
bequest?
- The entire estate reverts to that particular person.
* Should there be numerous paternal uncles and aunts,
what portions would they get?
- The bequest must be divided into three parts, two parts
```

## PDF PAGE 211

```text
211
go to the paternal uncles and one to the maternal ones.
* What about the inheritance of husband and wife?
- The wife has a special treatment when it comes to
inheritance. She is not entitled to some items of the
possessions of her dead husband. This includes capital
assets such as any land, in general, or the value thereof.
She can, though, receive a share of the value of, not the
corporeal, property left by her deceased husband, such as
plantation and trees. She also gets her share after the
property has been properly valued. The rest of the
inheritors shall not have the right of disposal over any part
of the estate that may yield a share to the wife, except
with her approval.
* What about other material possessions, i.e. other than
those you have explained early on?
- Like other heirs, the wife inherits a share of the estate.
* Does the husband inherit his wife?
- Yes, the husband can inherit his wife without restrictions.
That is, movable or immovable property, including land.
* In the event of the death of the wife, who had no
offspring by him or from a previous marriage, what share
would her husband get?
- The husband would get half of the estate, and the other
half goes to the rest of the heirs.
* If she had offspring?
- The husband takes one quarter of the estate; the rest
shall be divided between the remaining heirs.
* What share would befall a wife who had no children by
her deceased husband?
- She would get one quarter of the estate, and the rest
goes to the other heirs.
* Suppose the husband had children, by her or from
previous marriages, what would she get?
- She should get one eighth of the estate and the rest goes
to the other heirs.
```

## PDF PAGE 212

```text
212
Although there are other rules governing inheritance,
detailed in jurisprudence books, I should, however,
mention few other points in this regard:
1. The eldest son of the deceased, exclusively, inherits
certain items of the bequest, such as his copy of the Holy
Qur’an, ring, sword, clothes, whether used or brand new.
If there were more of these, [the eldest son should reach
an agreement with the rest of the heirs. The same goes for
other kinds of weapons, such as dagger and gun].
2. The murderer shall not inherit the murdered, if the
murder was premeditated. Should the killing be
accidental, inheritance should be upheld.
3. A Muslim can inherit a non-Muslim; the latter does not
inherit the Muslim.
```

## PDF PAGE 213

```text
213
Dialogue on religious endowments
I started today’s session by asking my father about certain
phenomenon I often notice in mosques, holy shrines, and
some buildings and amenities. It is to do with the phrase
“waqf, or endowment”, I see inscribed or written on the
buildings themselves or on pieces of furniture therein, and
sometimes on copies of the Holy Qur’an. What does this
phrase mean?
- Any person can provide such things you have just
mentioned and other things by way of endowment. If this
is done according to shar’ie rules, the object declared as
waqf shall come out from the ownership of the person
who made the endowment and be used for the purposes
designated in the endowment, that could be public or
private. The endowment fund or property cannot be
bequeathed or sold, except in certain circumstances.
The person creating the endowment could appoint a
trustee to carry out the affairs of the endowment trust
according to the deed of waqf.
* Does waqf have a particular mechanism?
- No, suppose a person built a place for public worship, not
necessarily looking like a traditional mosque building,
intending it to be a mosque, then it shall be deemed thus.
However, there are general rules that should be satisfied
to make a waqf viable:
1. Continuity and permanence, in that waqf shall not be in
order, if the person dedicated the endowment appointed
a limited period for it to run through.
* Could you expand on that?
- Suppose you make an endowment whereby you put your
house at the disposal of poor people, to live in for a year;
this cannot be recognized as waqf.
```

## PDF PAGE 214

```text
214
2. The person who made the endowment should not be
the exclusive beneficiary, or among other beneficiaries, of
the endowment.
* What about a person giving the right of disposal over his
property, by way of endowment, to a given person, his
children, or relatives, for example?
- The endowment shall be in order, provided it is enforced
at the time it was made, because private endowments
should exchange hands on the spot, i.e. the donor must
part with the property for the beneficiaries forthwith.
* Who should take charge of a public endowment?
- The viability of a public endowment is not contingent on
a particular date.
* Earlier, you mentioned that one of the rules of a proper
endowment is continuity and permanence in that the
donor has no right to fix a duration during which the
endowment could run, and on whose expiration his
property may revert to his ownership.
- That is right. However, if there was someone wanting to
donate, say, his property or assets for a particular use
during a specified time, he could tie it up inalienably. That
is, on the expiration of the specified period his property or
capital should revert to his ownership.
* Could you expand on that?
- Suppose an owner of a vehicle said, “My car is put away
inalienably for the transport of pilgrims for five years”, it
should so be done, i.e. he cannot change his mind and
revoke the promise. Of course, his vehicle shall revert to
his ownership after the expiration of the five years.
* If the person in the example you have just quoted
passed away, would this be a good reason for the vehicle
to revert to his heirs?
- No, the property or any other assets that were set aside
for such a purpose would stay during the entire duration
specified by the owner. It shall revert to his heirs on the
```

## PDF PAGE 215

```text
215
expiration of the term originally fixed.
* Is it within the right of any person to consecrate his
property for the use of another person for his lifetime?
- Yes, it is within his legitimate right, and once he has
made that decision he cannot go back on it. If he dies,
though, his property reverts to his heirs.
* Suppose someone said to another, “I grant you and your
family this property to live in”, i.e. without specifying the
length of their stay in the property. What would happen?
- The occupiers of the property have the right to stay
indefinitely; that is as long as they live. It can only revert to
the original owner when they all die.
* And if the owner said to the beneficiary, “I grant you
abode in my property during your lifetime”. Then the
owner died. What shall be the position of the heirs?
- They have no right to evict the tenant. Should he pass
away, the property can revert to their ownership.
* Can the husband consecrate one third of the produce of
his grove, for example, for the exclusive benefit of his wife
during her lifetime, provided that the said portion reverts
to his property after her death?
- Yes, he is free to exercise such a choice.
* Can the trustee of an endowment of a mosque exercise
the authority vested in him to lend some items of the
furniture of the mosque for the use, outside the mosque
premises, in a wedding party, for example?
- So long as such items were devoted to the exclusive use
of the mosque, the trustee has no right to lend them.
* Is it permissible that such items be rented?
- It is not permissible too.
* Suppose a special fund was set up for the maintenance
of a certain mosque, and that there was no need to utilize
the money for that purpose. Can the fund be diverted for
the same use in another mosque?
- If there was no need now, or in the foreseeable future,
```

## PDF PAGE 216

```text
216
for that fund, and it was not feasible to vouchsafe it for
the purpose of the endowment in time of need, it could be
spent on all the needs of the original mosque, as the
person who made the endowment had intended. Only
then can it be spent on maintaining another mosque.
```