(F 393) A man died at approximately ninety years of age, leaving behind one son and five daughters. All of them are married except for two daughters, whom Allāh did not decree to marry yet. They used to live with him in his house, which he owned. He gifted this house—where he lived with them—to these two daughters and officially registered it in their names. This house is valued at three million dollars, which amounts to seventy-five percent of the total value of his estate. After that, the man passed away—may Allāh have mercy on him—and now the remaining heirs are asking: Has this gifted house become exclusively the property of the two daughters, excluding the rest of the heirs? Did the deceased father sin by doing this? And do the two daughters bear any sin for accepting their father’s gift? If he did sin by gifting his house to two of his daughters without including the rest of the heirs, what can the heirs do to remove this sin from him? – International Institute of Islamic Studies

(F 393) A man died at approximately ninety years of age, leaving behind one son and five daughters. All of them are married except for two daughters, whom Allāh did not decree to marry yet. They used to live with him in his house, which he owned. He gifted this house—where he lived with them—to these two daughters and officially registered it in their names. This house is valued at three million dollars, which amounts to seventy-five percent of the total value of his estate. After that, the man passed away—may Allāh have mercy on him—and now the remaining heirs are asking: Has this gifted house become exclusively the property of the two daughters, excluding the rest of the heirs? Did the deceased father sin by doing this? And do the two daughters bear any sin for accepting their father’s gift? If he did sin by gifting his house to two of his daughters without including the rest of the heirs, what can the heirs do to remove this sin from him?

First:
Scholars have differed on the ruling regarding equal distribution among children in gifts or donations.
The majority—Ḥanafīs, Mālikīs, Shāfi῾īs, and a view from the Ḥanbalīs—consider equal distribution recommended. However, the official Ḥanbalī position is that it is obligatory, based on the apparent meaning of the ḥadīth of Al-Nu῾mān ibn Bashīr.

Second:
It is known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) represented different legal capacities in his conveyance of the Sharī῾ah message, including legislation, judiciary, issuing fatwā, giving advice and guidance, peacemaking, and others.
To determine the ruling on a specific incident, these various contexts must be considered in two aspects: understanding the evidence and applying it to the incident.

Third:
In judicial matters, there are governing legal maxims, including:
– The default principle is upholding the words of the legally accountable people.
– The default principle of contracts is validity.
– An established right takes precedence over an anticipated one.
– Ownership does not lapse unless the property right ends.
– A person has the right to dispose of their property in customary ways even if others are harmed by it.
In addition to other maxims that govern the validity of both Sharī῾ah and customary rulings.

Fourth:
There is a difference between something being categorically forbidden, being khilāf al-᾽awlā (merely contrary to what is best), or being subject to scholarly naẓar (reflection).
A jurist considers the collective evidence to determine the proper ruling and the prerequisite for reflection.

An example is the ḥadīth of Al-Nu῾mān ibn Bashīr about him being gifted a garden—one of the foundational texts in the matter of favoring one heir over others with a pre-inheritance gift.
The correct understanding is that it is not conveyed as legislation but as advice and guidance. This is indicated by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “Then call someone other than me to witness it,” and also by his words, “Would you like them all to be equally dutiful to you?” He said: Yes. He replied: Then do not (gift him alone).”
Had he sought Abū Bakr’s and ῾Umar’s witness and they approved it, it would have been permissible. Had the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intended to prohibit the pre-inheritance gift entirely, he would not have merely advised him to seek another witness. Nor is it permissible for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to delay clarification at the time of need.
Also, the question “Would you like…?” indicates advice, not legal obligation—since treating children equally in gifts does not necessarily result in equal filial piety.

Support for permissibility without dislike is found in Abū Bakr’s gifting to ῾Ā᾽ishah (may Allāh be pleased with them both), which he later revoked due to lack of possession, not due to prohibition. If the act were sinful, neither Abū Bakr would have done it nor would the Prophet’s household have accepted it. If ῾Ā᾽ishah had not returned it willingly, no one would have forced her.

This is the view held by the majority of scholars.
If, in addition, there is a customary justification for preferring certain children, then the permissibility becomes even more clear—with neither sin nor dislike.

Accordingly, it is permissible for that parent to gift what they like of their estate to some of their heirs during their lifetime. They are not sinful unless the intention was causing harm to others. If the distinction was based on personal judgement, then the act is permissible, and no sin is incurred in the religious sense.

Fifth:
It is reported that some Companions favored certain children with gifts during their lifetimes, including:
– Abū Bakr’s gifting to ῾Ā᾽ishah (may Allāh be pleased with them both).
– ῾Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) favoring his son ῾Āṣim with a gift.
– ῾Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ῾Awf (may Allāh be pleased with him) favoring the children of ᾽Umm Kulthūm bint ῾Uqbah ibn Abī Mu῾ayṭ.

Sixth:
There are clear cases where distinction is justified because they fall under broader legal maxims—such as: “Benefit follows burden” and “It is enough of a sin for a man to neglect those under his care.” Examples include:

A man has several children, one of whom has a disability—like blindness or a physical impairment. Is he prohibited religiously from favoring that child with a gift to protect them from poverty after his death?
A man’s children leave him, going to other lands, and one child stays behind to care for him in his old age. Is it religiously prohibited for him to reward that child in return for their service, as opposed to those who neglected him?
A daughter does not marry and devotes herself to caring for her aging parents, even missing the usual and expected time for marriage. If the parents—one or both—compensate her with something that would typically attract suitors, is that religiously forbidden?
A son spends most of his wealth on his parents in their lifetime, while others are busy with their wives and children. Are the parents religiously prohibited from favoring this son with a gift in appreciation of his kindness?

Conclusion:
It is correct to say that favoring children with gifts is judicially valid in courts, and also religiously permissible in Islam as long as there is a reasonable justification.

Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr