Uterinerelations Meaning

UTERINE RELATIONS. Arabic ẕawū ʾl-arḥām (ذوو الارحام‎), called by the English lawyers “distant kindred.”

They are divided into four classes:—

(1) Persons descended from the deceased, how low soever, i.e. the children of daughters or of son’s daughters.

(2) Those from whom the deceased is descended, how high soever, i.e. False grand-parents, in contradistinction from the True, a true grandfather being one between whom and the deceased no female intervenes; a true grandmother, one between whom and the deceased no false grandfather intervenes.

(3) Those descended from the parents of the deceased, how low soever, i.e. the daughters of full-brothers and of half-brothers (by the same father only), the children of half-brothers (by the same mother only), and the children of sisters.

(4) The children of the two grandfathers and two grandmothers of the deceased, i.e. father’s half-brothers and sisters by the same mother only and their children; the deceased’s paternal aunts and their children; maternal uncles and aunts and their children; the daughters of full paternal uncles and half-paternal uncles by the same father only.

This classification, however, does not exhaust the distant kindred, which, in the language of the law, are defined as those relations of a deceased person who are neither sharers nor residuaries. [INHERITANCE.] Thus, cousins who are children of residuaries, but are not residuaries themselves (e.g. paternal uncles’ daughters) are distant kindred, though not members of any of the foregoing classes, or related through any member of such a class.

When the distant kindred succeed, in consequence of the absence of sharers and residuaries, they are admitted according to the order of their classes. Within the limits of each particular class, it is a general rule that a person nearer in degree succeeds in preference to one more remote; and in all classes, if there be several of an equal degree, the property goes equally among them if they are of the same sex. There is, however, some disagreement as to cases in which persons through whom they are related to the deceased are of different sexes or of different blood; and it is maintained by Muḥammad, against Abū Yūsuf, that regard must be had partly to the “roots” or intermediate relations, and not only to the “branches,” or actual claimants. Thus all are agreed that if a man leave a daughter’s son and a daughter’s daughter, the male will have a double portion, for there is no difference of sex in the intermediate relations; but if there be a daughter’s son’s daughter and a daughter’s daughter’s son, it is said by Abū Yūsuf that the male will have a [658]double portion, on account of his sex; but by Muḥammad, that the female, instead of the male, will take the double portion, by reason of her father’s sex. And on the other hand, all are agreed that if there be two daughters of different brothers, they will take equally between them; but if there be a daughter of a brother and a daughter of a half-brother by the father only, Muḥammad rules that the latter will take nothing; for having regard to the circumstances that a brother excludes a half-brother by the father only, he considers that there is nothing to be handed down to the descendant of the latter, and that the whole will go to the descendant of the former.

This rule of Muḥammad, which in its application to the different classes of the distant kindred, leads to curious results of a complex character, seems to deserve a particular notice, as resting to a large extent on the principle of representation, which otherwise is all but foreign to the Muḥammadan law of inheritance. (A. Rumsey, Moohummudan Law of Inheritance, p. 56; Syed Ameer Ali, Personal Law, p. 52; Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār, p. 873.)