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 argue that men receiving double the inheritance of women in Islamic law is not actually an advantage for men. He contends that because men are financially obligated to support their families while women are not required to spend their inheritance on anyone, women effectively retain more net wealth.
Summary
In this short clip, Dr. Zakir Naik presents a hypothetical inheritance scenario to address the common criticism that Islamic inheritance law favors men over women by granting sons double the share of daughters.
He constructs a specific example: a father dies leaving $150,000 to be divided between one son and one daughter. Under Islamic inheritance rules, the son receives $100,000 and the daughter receives $50,000. On the surface, this appears unequal and disadvantageous to the woman.
However, Dr. Naik then introduces the financial obligations that accompany the male inheritance. He argues that the son is religiously and legally obligated under Islamic law to financially support his wife, children, and other dependents who fall under his care. Using his example, he estimates the son might spend $80,000 of his $100,000 on these obligations, leaving him with only $20,000 for himself.
In contrast, he argues the daughter who inherits $50,000 has no financial obligation to spend any of it on anyone. She is entitled to keep the entire $50,000 for herself. Any spending she does on others would be purely voluntary.
Dr. Naik then poses a rhetorical question to the audience: would you prefer to inherit $100,000 and be obligated to spend $80,000 on others, or inherit $50,000 and keep it all? The audience responds in favor of the second option — the woman's position — leading Dr. Naik to conclude with the rhetorical statement 'So, we are disadvantaged,' implying that men, not women, are the disadvantaged party in this arrangement.
Key Insights
- Dr. Zakir Naik argues that although a son inherits double the share of a daughter ($100,000 vs $50,000), the son is obligated to spend the majority of it — approximately $80,000 — on his wife, children, and other dependents under his care.
- Dr. Naik claims that a woman who inherits under Islamic law is not required to spend a single dollar of her inheritance on anyone, making her inherited amount entirely her own to keep.
- Dr. Naik frames the male financial obligation as a burden rather than a privilege, using the rhetorical question of which option is preferable to lead the audience to conclude that women are in the better financial position.
- Dr. Naik uses audience participation — asking 'First or second?' — and their agreement with the second option (the woman's scenario) to rhetorically validate his argument that men are financially disadvantaged despite receiving a larger inheritance share.
- Dr. Naik concludes with the self-deprecating rhetorical statement 'So, we are disadvantaged,' positioning men as the group that bears greater financial burden under Islamic inheritance and family support laws.
Topics
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access