A Dictionary of Islam / Being a cyclopedia of the doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs, together with the technical and theological terms, of the Muhammadan religion.

by Thomas Patrick Hughes

“(j) In respect of inheritance, there are many and important differences between the two sects, but they admit of being reduced to a few leading principles, which I now proceed to notice, following the order in which the different branches of the subject are treated of in this volume. The impediments to inheritance are four in number, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, viz. slavery, homicide, difference of religion, and difference of dār, or country. Of these the Shīʿahs recognize the first; the second also with some modification, that is, they require that the homicide be intentional, in other words, murder, while with the Ḥanafīyahs it operates equally as an impediment to inheritance, though accidental. For difference of religion the Shīʿahs substitute infidelity, and difference of country they reject entirely. Exclusion from the whole inheritance, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, is founded upon and regulated by two principles. The one is that a person who is related to the deceased through another has no interest in the succession during the life of that other, with the exception of half-brothers and sisters by the mother, who are not excluded by her. The other principle is, that the nearer relative excludes the more remote. The former of these principles is not expressly mentioned by the Shīʿahs, but it is included without the exception in the second, which is adopted by them, and extended, so as to postpone a more remote residuary to a nearer sharer—an effect which is not given to it by the Ḥanafīyahs.

“With regard to partial exclusion or the diminution of a share, there is also some difference between the sects. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, a child, or the child of a son, how low soever, reduces the shares of a husband, a wife, and a mother, from the highest to the lowest appointed for them; while, according to the Shīʿahs, the reduction is effected by any child, whether male or female, in any stage of descent from the deceased. Further, when the deceased has left a husband or wife, and both parents, the share of the mother is reduced, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, from a third of the whole estate to a third of the remainder, in order that the male may have double the share of the female; but, according to the Shīʿahs, there is no reduction of the mother’s third in these circumstances, though, when the deceased has left a husband, the share of the father can only be a sixth. The shares and the person for whom they are appointed being expressly mentioned in the Qurʾān, there is no difference in respect of them between the two schools. But they differ materially as to the relatives who are not sharers. They are divided by the Ḥanafīyahs into residuaries and distant kindred. The residuaries in their own right they define as every male in whose line of relation to the deceased no female enters; and the ‘distant kindred,’ as ‘all relatives who are neither sharers nor residuaries.’ The residuaries not only take any surplus that may remain after the sharers have been satisfied, but also the whole estate when there is no sharer, to the entire exclusion of the distant kindred, though these may, in fact, be much nearer in blood to the deceased. This preference of the residuary is rejected with peculiar abhorrence by the Shīʿahs, who found their objection to it, certainly with some appearance of reason, on two passages of the Qurʾān cited below. Instead of the triple division of the Ḥanafīyahs, they mix up the rights of all the relatives together, and then separate them into three classes, according to their proximity to the deceased, each of which in its order is preferred to that which follows; so that while there is a single individual, even a female, of a prior class, there is no room for the succession of any of the others.

“Within the classes operation is given to the doctrine of the return by the Shīʿahs, nearly in the same way as by the Ḥanafīyahs: that is, if there is a surplus over the shares, it reverts to the sharers, with the exception of the husband or wife, and is proportionately divided among them. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, this surplus is always intercepted by the residuary, and it is only when there is no residuary that there is with them any room for the doctrine of the return. When the shares exceed the whole estate, the deficiency is distributed by the Ḥanafīyahs over all the shares by raising the extractor of the case—a process which is termed the ʿaul, or increase. This is also rejected by the Shīʿahs, who make the deficiency to fall exclusively upon those among them whose relationship to the deceased is on the father’s side. With regard to the computation of shares, there does not appear to be any difference between the schools.” A Digest of Moohummudan Law. Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie, London (1869).

Mr. Wilfrid S. Blunt, in his Future of Islam, has the following remarks on the present position of the Shīʿah sect:—

“In theory, I believe the Shias still hold that there is an Imam and Caliph, but they will not tolerate the pretension of any one now in authority to the title, and leave it in abeyance until the advent of the Mohady (Mahdī), or guide, who is to reunite Islam and restore its fortunes. So much is this the case that, sovereign though he be and absolute master in Persia, the Shah is to the present day looked upon by the Persians as a usurper, and he himself acknowledges the fact in a rather curious ceremony. It is a maxim with Mussulmans of all sects that prayer is not valid if made in another man’s house without his permission, and this being so, and the Shah admitting that his palaces of right belong not to himself but to the Mohady, he is obliged to lease them according to legal form from an alem (ʿālim) or mujtahed, acting for the supposed Mohady, before he can pray in them to his spiritual profit.

“It will be readily understood that, with such an organization and with such tendencies to deductive reasoning, a wide basis is given for divergence of opinion among the Shiites, and that while the more highly educated of their mollahs occasionally preach absolute pantheism, others consult the grosser inclinations of the vulgar, and indulge their hearers with the most extravagant tales of miracle and superstition. These are a constant source of mockery to the Sunites. Among the more respectable Shiite beliefs, however, there seems to be a general conviction in Persia that a reform of Islam is at hand, and that a new leader may be expected at any moment and from any quarter, so that enthusiasts are constantly found simulating the gifts of inspiration and affecting a divine mission. The history of the Babites, so well described by M. de Gobineau in his Religions of Asia, is a case in point, and similar occurrences are by no means rare in Persia. I met at Jeddah a highly educated Persian gentleman, who informed me that he had himself been witness, when a boy, to a religious prodigy, notorious, if I remember rightly, at Tabriz. On that occasion, one of these prophets, being condemned to death by the supreme government, was bound to a cross with two of his companions, and, after remaining suspended thus for several hours, was fired at by the royal troops. It then happened that, while the companions were dispatched at the first volley, the prophet himself remained unhurt, and, incredible to relate, the cords which bound him were cut by the bullets, and he fell to the ground on his feet. ‘You Christians,’ said another Persian gentleman once to me, ‘talk of your Christ as the Son of God and think it strange, but with us the occurrence is a common one. Believe me, we have “sons of God” in nearly all our villages.’ [[SUFI].]

“Thus, with the Shiites, extremes meet. No Moslems more readily adapt themselves to the superficial atheisms of Europe than do the Persians, and none are more ardently devout, as all who have witnessed the miracle play of the two Imams will be obliged to admit. Extremes, too, of morality are seen, fierce asceticisms and gross licentiousnesses. By no sect of Islam is the duty of pilgrimage more religiously observed, or the prayers and ablutions required by their rule performed with a stricter ritual. But the very pilgrims who go on foot to Mecca scruple not to drink wine there, and Persian morality is everywhere a by-word. In all these circumstances there is much to fear as well as to hope on the side of the Shiite sect; but their future only indirectly involves that of Islam proper. Their whole census does not probably exceed fifteen millions, and it shows no tendency to increase. Outside Persia we find about one million Irâki Arabs, a few in Syria and Afghanistan, and at most five millions in India. One small group still maintains itself in the neighbourhood of Medina, where it is tolerated rather than acknowledged, and a few Shiites are to be found in most of the large cities of the west, but everywhere the sect of Ali stands apart from and almost in a hostile attitude to the rest of Islam. It is noticeable, however, that within the last fifty years the religious bitterness of Shiite and Sunite is sensibly in decline.”

For information on the History of the Shīʿahs, the English reader can refer to Malcolm’s History of Persia, 2 vols. (A.D. 1815); Morier’s Travels, 2 vols. (A.D. 1812); Markham’s History of Persia (A.D. 1874). A translation of their traditions is found in the Life and Religion of Mohammad, by the Rev. James L. Merrick, Boston (1850). For Shīʿah Law, consult Tagore Lectures, 1874; A Digest of Moohummudan Law. The Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie (1869). [[MUHARRAM].]

SHIRB (شرب‎). The share of water used for tillage. [[RIVER].]

SHIRK (شرك‎). “Idolatry; paganism; polytheism.” Ascribing plurality to the Deity. Associating anything with God.