basis of division will be the immediate descendants. Thus if there are grandsons, they will take the shares of their respective fathers. The case in which there are sons and grandsons should be treated on a similar basis, but here the jurists make a distinction, treating the grandsons as the remoter relatives and therefore not entitled to any inheritance, as long as there is a son. Again a son’s daughters, where there is no son, are treated by the jurists not as taking the place of that son who, if alone, would have taken all the property, but as the daughters of the deceased, taking one half in case of a single daughter and two-thirds in the case there are two or more.
But curiously enough, a son’s daughter when co-existing with one daughter of the deceased is considered as a sharer in inheritance, the two being treated together as two daughters of the deceased.
The words of the Holy Qur’ān may however be interpreted in a manner which will avoid all such inconsistencies. The issue of a deceased son or daughter would take the place of their father or mother, and would take what their father or mother would have taken if alive. Suppose a person has one daughter only, who dies before her father, but who has got children; then her children would take the share their mother would have got, ie., one-half of the property. Again, where there are several children, some of whom are dead and have left issue behind them, while others are alive, then it is only an equitable principle that the issue of the dead offspring should take the place of their parents, and that is also the natural interpretation of the words of the Holy Qur’ān. Moreover if this interpretation is adopted, the law of inheritance becomes very simple and free from all the complications and inconsistencies which juristic reasoning has in some cases introduced into it. All that is traceable to the Holy Prophet in this case is only a broad principle: “Give the fixed portions (farā‘idz) to those who are entitled to them, and what remains should go to the nearest male” (Bu. 85:6). This ḥadīth does not show at all that the grandson is not entitled to inheritance, if there is a son living: though it is on this that the juristic principle of excluding grandsons is based. The application of the ḥadīth may be illustrated by an example. A man dies leaving two parents and one daughter. The parents will get one-third; one half of the residue will go to the