فلسفہ احکام میراث

This research article explores the rationale behind Islamic injunctions regarding inheritance. Unlike other Islamic injunctions, which are briefly enunciated in the Quran but elaborated in Sunnah, inheritance has been detailed in considerable length in the Quranic text itself. This coupled with numerous Prophetic traditions underpins the unique importance Islam accords to the question of inheritance. However, despite its exceptional importance, the subject of Islamic law of inheritance remains mostly a neglected one, even among the students of Islamic seminaries and Ulema. Resultantly, Islam’s brilliant system of inheritance is often not implemented by the adherents of Islam, much to the miseries and hardships of the legal heirs, especially the children and women. Thus these marginalized segments of society are deprived of their rights today just as they were treated before the advent of Islam. This research brings home the fact that the divinely ordained Islamic injunctions of inheritance are based on sound rationale and justification in the best interest of humanity, and that the believers must adhere to these injunctions that are based on three key principles: proximity in relationship, need, and distribution of wealth. The paper explains in great length the types of relatives and legal heirs, the principles of distribution among them, the justification for such shares, and the limits imposed by Quran and Sunnah with regard to the right of the deceased, the heirs, relatives and the state. It also discusses some of the contentious issues in contemporary debate on Islam: an orphan grandson’s title to inheritance, and the philosophy behind 2: 1 inheritance distribution formula between son and daughter. In doing so, the author has not only relied on the main sources of Islamic jurisprudence viz. Quran and Sunnah, in addition to classical and modern Islamic scholarship but also sound argumentation and logical exposition.

Traits of Modernism in Hardys Female Protagonists: Instinctual Versus Social Selves

Thomas Hardy (1840-1928) — a versatile literary genius and one of the most celebrated English novelists— has subtly combined the traditional heritage of the Victorian era with modern literary trends, linking the two centuries divided by conflicting schools of thought. Though having created memorable scenes, settings and unique places, his prime focus is on inner human sensibilities. Among humans, it is the fair sex which gets more share of his attention. His sensitive mind dwells on women and the issues faced by them due to their anatomical marginalization. Unlike his Victorian contemporaries who treated the mental and emotional complexities of women in accordance with the typical and Victorian perception of their nature and character, Hardy has made a difference by deviating significantly. The most instrumental form of this deviation is his anticipation of the ways in which women would be perceived and portrayed in the coming century epitomized by the term “Modernism”. My research capitalizes on the aforementioned point and contends that, despite being placed in an inevitably Victorian setting, Hardy’s major female characters are neither strictly the product of his age nor do they typically correspond to the standards and sensitivities of the same. They are rather more akin in feeling and thought to the revolting and emancipated females of the 20 th century modernistic tradition. Some of his female characters—particularly Eustacia, Bathsheba, Sue and Tess—think and behave in ways so shockingly queer for the Victorian readership that Hardy had to face tremendous iiicensorship for having created them as such. They, however, came to be better understood and appreciated during the second half of the 20 th century as they were found corresponding to the image of the New Woman or the role of women as redefined by Modernism. It was observed that they could be more variedly approached by the emerging standards of psychoanalytical theories rather than the stereotypical critical approaches generically applied to nineteenth century fictional characters. Their complex psychic constitution proves the fact that their actions are motivated by the co-existence of conflicting demands. They strive to achieve fulfillment in an environment which is not conducive for self-realization and emotional autonomy. On the one hand too defiant to surrender while on the other hand too fragile to succeed, they have to suffer multiple spiritual, emotional and psychological crises. Once in crisis, they find it impossible to escape, as all external agents seem to have conspired against them. Every other Tess somewhere shouts in desperation ''once victim, always victim'' or feels that ‘Bygones would never be complete bygones till she was a bygone herself’; and that holds true for every woman irrespective of temporal and spatial constraints. Hence, it has been argued that, notwithstanding the role of extraneous elements like Nature, Providence and society in facilitating the downfall of these rare individuals, the roots of their tragic dooms can be traced to the devastating inner conflict caused by their complex psyches with heterogeneous constituents. Their impulsive quest for self-realization directly clashes with their socially acceptable frames of behaviour, culminating in tragedies which may be ethically justifiable but which compel the readers to sympathize with the romantically sublime victims.