Allah – the Best of the Inheritors?

Jochen Katz

When comparing stories of the Bible with their counterparts in the Qur’an, one can quite often discover significant differences that have weighty implications.

In the first chapter of the Gospel according to Luke, there is the report of the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist. It starts this way:

When we compare the above text with the version(s) of this story that is/are found in the Qur’an, we observe that the Bible only states that Zechariah had prayed to God for a son, but the actual words of this prayer are not reported. The angel only comes and brings Zechariah the good news that his prayer has been heard.

The author of the Qur’an, on the other hand, apparently found this unsatisfactory and provided his audience even with different versions of this prayer:

So, which one is the prayer that Zechariah actually, or rather supposedly, prayed?  It looks like the author of the Qur’an made them up “on the spot” and the second time around simply forgot that he already had a different version of this prayer in another chapter. That is quite telling and rather damaging to the authority of the Qur’an as an allegedly authentic divine revelation, but it is not the main topic for this article.

Though rather short, and perhaps more a summary than the actual prayer, the version in Sura 3:38 is possible and Zechariah may well have prayed a prayer that was similar to the one formulated in that verse, even though it is fictitious.

However, the prayer that Muhammad put into Zechariah’s mouth in Sura 21:89 is strange and makes little sense.¹

It sounds like Zechariah is saying: If I will not have a son, then Allah will inherit me. But that is hardly possible. It does not even matter whether we apply Jewish or Islamic inheritance laws. If he does not have children, then his possessions in this world will go to his wife and/or his siblings, or even more distant relatives.² The earth will receive his body and his soul/spirit will either return to God, or wait for God’s final judgment somewhere, but the point is that the latter will happen independently from the question whether Zechariah has a son at the time of his death or not. So, in what sense is the question of having a son related to the concept of “Allah being an inheritor”? This is entirely unclear.

Inheritance laws are an important topic in the Qur’an and Islamic jurisprudence.³ The Qur’an defines clearly⁴ who will get which share of the inheritance. But Allah does not get a share from the inheritance. All of it goes to human relatives. If Allah is not even one of the inheritors, how can he then be the best of the inheritors?⁵

Now, seeking an heir is certainly not the only reason for wanting a child. Children are a joy to their parents. They enrich your life. You love them and they love you. And, eventually, they will look after you and care for you when you are becoming too old and frail to look after yourself. So, they can be comforters and providers in our old age. Zechariah would be missing out on that if he had no children.

Therefore, it would have been meaningful if the Qur’an had put into Zechariah’s mouth a prayer going something like this:

or:

In other words, even though he prays for a son, which is a natural desire of any man, he also expresses his faith that the Lord will comfort him and provide for him even if he will not be granted a son.⁶

But in what way is Allah inheriting from Zechariah? And how would that be changed or impacted by whether or not Zechariah will have a son? In other words, what is the connection between his request for a son, and the belief that “Allah is the best of inheritors”? Even more: Maybe this connection is so difficult to understand because there is a fundamental problem with the belief that Allah is an heir at all?

Most translators render this verse similar to the version that is quoted above, since that is the plain meaning of the words, even though the statement is not really meaningful when it is put under close scrutiny. Several other translators, however, recognized that something is wrong here and so they tried to be creative in their translations, coming up with the following suggestions to “improve” or “repair” the strange formulation of the Qur’an.⁷

Two observations need to be made in regard to this “improvement”. First, “inheritor” is replaced by “giver”. I agree, that would make a lot more sense. Allah is not the one who receives (in this case, an inheritance) but he is the one who gives and provides. Zechariah is requesting something, so that would be “matched” more suitably by Allah giving. Second, the standard translation “though” is replaced by a “for”. Instead of stating a possible objection against his request Zechariah rather gives a reason why Allah by his nature should be inclined to grant it. Ahmed Ali’s version makes more sense than the original, but it has one major problem: it is not a faithful translation of the Arabic text.

M. M. Ghali also thought that Allah should rather be giving than receiving – at least in this context. But he was not as bold as Ahmed Ali who removed “inheritor” altogether. Instead he qualified the term and inserted his expectation by adding the expression “most charitable”. So, when Allah receives an inheritance, then he is most charitable and shares what he received with others. Still, what is the connection with Zechariah’s request for a son? Does Allah first have to inherit that son from somebody else before he can then pass him on to Zechariah?

If that sounds blasphemous, it does so because it is. This is a good example of “making something worse by trying to improve it”.

Ünal also felt that the “though” doesn’t quite fit here. A reason for granting the request is more appropriate than an objection against it, but he does not make any attempt to deal with the problem inherent in the term “inheritor”.⁸

M. Asad and A. R. Omar are taking off in an entirely different direction. A person can only be an heir/inheritor when he is alive. Dead people do not inherit. So, an heir is one who is “remaining” when somebody else died. This one aspect is then extrapolated to infinity as if “inheritor” speaks of Allah’s eternal existence. That is quite a stretch, to say the least. There are many other conditions to become an heir. E.g., a person is an heir when he is related to the deceased by blood or marriage. What does that imply for Allah?⁹

This is another case of making things worse by trying to improve them. The expression says that Allah is the best of the inheritors, which means he is one of many, although he is “the best” in some sense in comparison to the group in view. How A. R. Omar can then conclude that this means or implies “You alone are …” is a mystery. Asad also simply drops the “group aspect” in the expression and speaks of Allah remaining when “all else has ceased to be”. If the formulation had been, “you are the only inheritor”, maybe one could make such an argument, but to turn a statement of “one among a group” into a claim about an exclusive attribute of God is bold and has little to do with faithful translation.

Is Allah “the best” of the inheritors merely because he manages to remain alive the longest and thus the whole inheritance falls to him for that reason? No moral greatness here, merely longevity?¹⁰

Even more, what exactly is left for Allah to inherit when “all else has ceased to be”? If there is nothing left, there is nothing to inherit, and thus, it is meaningless to call Allah an inheritor.¹¹ So, Muhammad Asad’s “improvement” is even more illogical than the Quranic original. And the same holds for the next variant:

No, Zechariah has a current need. He wants a son and heir in this life. Why would he be concerned about the question of who will eventually get his possessions in hundreds or thousands of years, after humanity as such will already have ceased to exist on this planet?¹² The interpretation by Asad, Ahmed and some others does not make any sense at all. It is utterly artificial and contrived and an obvious attempt to detract from the problem in this statement. It fails to explain anything.

Finally, pondering this interpretation some more, it seems that it is even worse than merely being illogical; it is an insult to God. This issue will be discussed in Appendix 1.

Let me return to my original statement that S. 21:89 “sounds like Zechariah is saying: If I will not have a son, then Allah will inherit me.” The next Muslim translation brings that out clearly. It is, after all, the most natural interpretation of the actual words.

Moeinian added an emotional touch by inserting the parenthetical remark “it is a pleasure to have you as inheritor; after all”, but even attaching a “pleasurable feeling” to it does not turn a meaningless statement into a meaningful one. It still does not explain how Allah would inherit Zechariah, in what way is it justified to call Allah an inheritor at all, and what is the connection of this “divine attribute” to the question whether Zechariah will have a son or not.

Clearly, the translators are struggling mightily to make sense of this statement – but have failed so far. It still doesn’t make sense.

Apart from the specific location of it in S. 21:89, and the questions arising from that, what could have been the reason for the author of the Qur’an to come up with this expression, “the best of the inheritors”, at all?¹³ Perhaps the logic went like this: Being an inheritor is good. Everything that is good must also hold true for Allah, even in the superlative; therefore Allah must be not only an heir but the best of the inheritors.

However, this reasoning overlooks one significant aspect: Being an inheritor is good because we are needy and dependent people: We are in need of food, clothing, shelter, etc. in order to live a good and comfortable life. Therefore, receiving an inheritance helps us to provide for our needs. Since Allah is the Almighty and owns everything, since he has no needs and is not dependent on anyone, there is for Allah no value in receiving an inheritance. Why would he be interested to become an heir to anyone? How would Allah’s lot be improved by receiving Ali’s fields, Omar’s house, Faruq’s car or cattle, or Uthman’s money?

Why would “the heir” or “the best of the inheritors” be a desirable title for Allah at all?

There is one more aspect that we need to examine.

Not only common believers but even prophets and apostles occasionally make inappropriate statements about God and need to be corrected and should then repent. Since the title “the best of the inheritors” is found in a statement by Zechariah and is not presented as the direct speech of Allah, we have to ask: Could it be that the Qur’an only reported this without endorsing it?

This objection does not work because the claim that Allah is an heir and inherits is repeated several times in the Qur’an in different contexts, and most of them are presented as the direct revelation from Allah, not only quoted as a (possibly misguided) opinion of human beings who may have erred.

There are several other passages which speak of Allah being an heir (noun) or inheriting (verb).

Thus, the answer to the question raised above is: No, the Qur’an puts this statement into Zechariah’s mouth because it is a genuine part of Quranic theology. It is consistent with the rest of the message of the Quran.¹⁴

For whatever reason, the author of the Quran felt the urge to include this element of his theology also into the prayer of Zechariah even though it does not fit there at all.

The problem is, however, more fundamental than merely importing the concept of Allah being an heir into the wrong context. That is the topic of the companion article, Allah – the Heir?

One final question: Leaving all the logical and theological problems aside, let us assume there is a simple-minded but rich Muslim who wants to take seriously that “Allah is the best of the inheritors” and therefore desires to bequeath some of his wealth to Allah. How would he even do it?

Many Muslims would probably suggest that he should bequeath it to the mosque, but isn’t it blasphemous to equate the mosque with Allah? And how can this poor rich Muslim be sure that the money will reach Allah, and Allah is not defrauded of his inheritance, particularly given this recent news report: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Accused of Embezzling Millions from Mosque Fund! After all, this Muslim wanted to give it to Allah and not to corrupt mosque officials.

Appendix 1 – Is it best to be the last?

There is another aspect in the translations of Asad and Ahmed that is worth discussing.

Apart from the observation that Shabbir Ahmed’s translation (published in 2003) is clearly dependent on Muhammad Asad’s translation (first published in 1980), it is interesting to see that Ahmed mixes Asad’s interpretation of the last phrase of S. 21:89 with a second translation of the same expression that keeps the term “inheritor” and thus creates even more problems.¹⁵ A problem that is already lurking implicitly in Asad’s paraphrase becomes now explicit in Ahmed’s rendering.

Allah is the final or ultimate inheritor because there is nobody else around anymore. Everyone else has “ceased to be” and so the complete inheritance of Zechariah, and of everyone else for that matter, falls to Allah by default.

Pondering this interpretation some more, it seems that it is even worse than being merely illogical; it is an insult to God. The name “the best of the inheritors” is clearly intended to be a title of honor. But what is the implication of the above understanding of it?

Basically, there are two kinds of heirs which I want to call “heirs of law” and “heirs of love”. This is prominently emphasized in the core text in which the Qur’an deals with inheritance shares. Sura 4:11-12 contains one recurring phrase that is repeated four times: “after any bequest he/they may bequeath” (the full text is displayed here).

The Qur’an defines the shares for the sons and the daughters, the parents and the wives of the deceased in various constellations. Those are the legally necessary heirs, the “heirs of law” as I called them above. One cannot change their ‘divinely appointed’ shares. Whether these people treated the deceased with friendliness and respect or mistreated him with hostility and contempt, these are the shares for the legal heirs.

And then there are heirs who may not be part of the immediate or even wider family but to whom a bequest is made in the last will or testament of the deceased. They are friends whom the deceased was grateful to. They are honoured in his will. And here is the important point: These bequests take priority over the standard inheritance distribution. Bequests are to be handed over first, and then the legal heirs receive their shares from what is left over.

Among the legal heirs are the children, parents and the spouse(s) of the deceased. Only if there does not exist an heir in the direct line (children and parents) then more distant relatives (brothers, sisters, uncles, etc.) will inherit.

Here is the principle: The one who receives a bequest has a position of honor and receives first. He is an “heir of love”. And also among the relatives, the heirs of law, those relatives who are the closest inherit first. In other words, those coming later, i.e. those who inherit only if no closer heir is alive are more distant to the deceased.

After understanding this principle, we look again at the interpretation proposed by Asad and Ahmed. Their translations basically turn Allah into the most distant heir, the one who inherits only because all other potential heirs do no longer exist. Instead of being the most dear, Allah is demoted to be the most distant.

The expression “the best of the inheritors” is clearly intended to be an honorable title, an expression of value and high esteem, but the interpretation given by Asad and Ahmed makes Allah stand last in the line of potential heirs.

Does that sound appropriate? Does that sound like it is a correct understanding?

Isn’t this rather an insult to God to assign him the last place in the line of inheritance? This means that he is not an heir of love, who receives first what was bequeathed to him out of the free will of the testator. And even among the “heirs of law” he is of the lowest rank and only receives because nobody else is left.

Although it is hard to make sense of the concept that Allah is an heir or the heir or the best of the heirs,¹⁶ and the widely differing translations of S. 21:89 testify to the struggle of the translators with this issue, the title “the best of the inheritors” was clearly intended to honor Allah,¹⁷ but the interpretation of this expression that is promoted by Asad and Ahmed is actually demoting and insulting him.