I wonder though if all assets are declared joint how would that sit alongside Quranic inheritance rules? In joint family households would not this blur lines between matrimonial and family property and create new disputes? And could recognizing domestic labour be better achieved through compensation rather than automatic ownership?
The ruling applies to divorce, not death, so faraid is not directly disturbed. The two operate on separate legal tracks. Joint family households are the ruling's weakest point imo. It works cleanly for nuclear households but becomes genuinely messy in multigenerational ones where assets are entangled across generations. Also, compensation sounds fairer but reintroduces the evidentiary burden the court was trying to eliminate. The tension is real but parallel for now; whether future legislation keeps them that way is the question to watch.
Even if divorce and inheritance are treated as separate legal tracks isn't it true that awarding half the property to a spouse at divorce effectively depletes the estate that children would inherit later? This indirectly impacts the Quranic shares as Allah fixed those portions based on the estates value at the time of death. Essentially modern divorce law shrinks the pie before faraid can even be applied. If joint property is presumed without explicit proof of contribution does it not circumvent the intended distribution of wealth established by Sharia?
That is definitely an interesting question raised. As per my understanding, this IHC ruling adds matrimonial property division to an already existing list. Divorce has always depleted the estate before inheritance. Mahr, maintenance (nafaqa), and settlement payments upon divorce all reduce what children eventually inherit, and all are recognised within Islamic law, but it does not introduce a new category of depletion. It recalibrates how much a wife receives within an already-accepted category.
(These views are of the author herself; they may or may not reflect ILN's views)
While it is true that Mahr and Nafaqah reduce the estate there is a fundamental legal difference this argument overlooks Consent and Contract.
Mahr is a fixed debt agreed upon by both parties at the start of the marriage. Because it is a known liability, the husband and his future heirs (the children) can plan around it. It is a slice of the pie that was already promised away.
Unlike Mahr a 50/50 split of all assets is a presumed share of ownership that was never agreed upon in the Nikah. The IHC is essentially turning a marriage contract into a 50/50 business partnership without the husband’s signature.
As for the claim that this isn’t a new category of depletion in Sharia the only ways to lose ownership of property are through a gift Hiba a sale, or a debt. If the wife didn’t pay for the house and it wasn’t a gift then giving her half is indeed a new category it is the forced redistribution of wealth based on a secular joint property theory which lies outside the framework of Sharia...
I wonder though if all assets are declared joint how would that sit alongside Quranic inheritance rules? In joint family households would not this blur lines between matrimonial and family property and create new disputes? And could recognizing domestic labour be better achieved through compensation rather than automatic ownership?
The ruling applies to divorce, not death, so faraid is not directly disturbed. The two operate on separate legal tracks. Joint family households are the ruling's weakest point imo. It works cleanly for nuclear households but becomes genuinely messy in multigenerational ones where assets are entangled across generations. Also, compensation sounds fairer but reintroduces the evidentiary burden the court was trying to eliminate. The tension is real but parallel for now; whether future legislation keeps them that way is the question to watch.
Even if divorce and inheritance are treated as separate legal tracks isn't it true that awarding half the property to a spouse at divorce effectively depletes the estate that children would inherit later? This indirectly impacts the Quranic shares as Allah fixed those portions based on the estates value at the time of death. Essentially modern divorce law shrinks the pie before faraid can even be applied. If joint property is presumed without explicit proof of contribution does it not circumvent the intended distribution of wealth established by Sharia?
That is definitely an interesting question raised. As per my understanding, this IHC ruling adds matrimonial property division to an already existing list. Divorce has always depleted the estate before inheritance. Mahr, maintenance (nafaqa), and settlement payments upon divorce all reduce what children eventually inherit, and all are recognised within Islamic law, but it does not introduce a new category of depletion. It recalibrates how much a wife receives within an already-accepted category.
(These views are of the author herself; they may or may not reflect ILN's views)
While it is true that Mahr and Nafaqah reduce the estate there is a fundamental legal difference this argument overlooks Consent and Contract.
Mahr is a fixed debt agreed upon by both parties at the start of the marriage. Because it is a known liability, the husband and his future heirs (the children) can plan around it. It is a slice of the pie that was already promised away.
Unlike Mahr a 50/50 split of all assets is a presumed share of ownership that was never agreed upon in the Nikah. The IHC is essentially turning a marriage contract into a 50/50 business partnership without the husband’s signature.
As for the claim that this isn’t a new category of depletion in Sharia the only ways to lose ownership of property are through a gift Hiba a sale, or a debt. If the wife didn’t pay for the house and it wasn’t a gift then giving her half is indeed a new category it is the forced redistribution of wealth based on a secular joint property theory which lies outside the framework of Sharia...
Thank you for sharing your views Muhammad, appreciated!