Example Explaining the Inheritance of the Man as Compared to that of the Woman - Dr Zakir Naik
Dr. Zakir Naik uses a numerical example to justify the Islamic inheritance rule where men receive double the share of women. He argues that because men are financially obligated to support their families while women have no such obligation, men's larger inheritance is offset by their greater financial responsibilities, making women's smaller share effectively more beneficial in net terms.
Summary
In this short clip, Dr. Zakir Naik presents a hypothetical scenario to explain and defend the Islamic inheritance law that grants a son twice the inheritance share of a daughter. He sets up the example with a deceased father leaving $150,000 to be divided between one son and one daughter, resulting in the son receiving $100,000 and the daughter receiving $50,000.
Dr. Naik then introduces his core argument: that the son's larger inheritance comes with a corresponding financial burden. He suggests the son might spend approximately $80,000 of his inheritance on obligations such as supporting his wife, children, and other dependents who fall under his financial care according to Islamic law. The daughter, by contrast, has no such financial obligations imposed on her — her $50,000 is entirely her own to keep, with no requirement to spend it on anyone else.
Dr. Naik frames this as a rhetorical question to his audience, asking whether it is preferable to inherit more but spend most of it on others, or to inherit less but retain everything. The audience responds in favor of the second option — keeping the smaller amount entirely for oneself. Dr. Naik uses this response to conclude, somewhat humorously, that men are actually 'disadvantaged' under this system, reframing the gender disparity in inheritance as a financial burden on men rather than a privilege.
Key Insights
- Dr. Naik argues that under Islamic inheritance law, when $150,000 remains after other shares are distributed, the son receives $100,000 and the daughter receives $50,000 — a 2:1 ratio — as the baseline example.
- Dr. Naik claims that the son's larger inheritance is largely consumed by his mandatory financial obligations, estimating he may spend $80,000 of his $100,000 on his wife, children, and dependents under his care.
- Dr. Naik asserts that a woman who inherits her share has no obligation to spend any of it on anyone — her entire inheritance is hers to keep, with voluntary charity being the only exception.
- Dr. Naik uses an audience participation rhetorical question to argue that the daughter's position is financially superior in net terms, since she retains 100% of a smaller amount versus the son retaining only a fraction of a larger amount.
- Dr. Naik concludes by sarcastically declaring that men are 'disadvantaged' under Islamic inheritance rules, inverting the conventional critique that women receive less, and framing male financial obligations as the true burden.
Topics
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access