Hiba: Gifting in Islam Before Death — The Complete UK Guide

What Is Hiba? The Islamic Law of Lifetime Gifts

Hiba (هبة) is the Islamic legal term for a gift — an immediate, unconditional transfer of ownership of property or rights from one living person to another, without any exchange or consideration. It differs from a sale (there is no price), from a bequest/Wasiyyah (which takes effect only after death), and from Sadaqah (charitable giving with a spiritual intention).

The critical word is immediate. For a Hiba to be valid under Islamic law, ownership must transfer to the recipient now — not at some future point, not conditionally, and not “when I die.” A promise to give, or an undelivered intention, is not a Hiba.

The three conditions for a valid Hiba

All four major Sunni madhabs agree that a valid Hiba requires three elements:

1. Offer (Ijab): the donor clearly expresses the intention to give — verbally, in writing, or by clear conduct.
2. Acceptance (Qabul): the recipient accepts the gift. If the recipient is a minor or lacks capacity, the guardian accepts on their behalf.
3. Delivery of possession (Qabd): the gift must actually be delivered. For cash, this means the money is physically handed over or transferred. For property, this means the donor has relinquished control and the recipient has taken it. This condition is particularly important for the marad al-mawt and UK tax positions discussed below.

A gift that satisfies all three conditions is complete and irrevocable. A gift where Qabd has not occurred — where the donor still controls the asset — can be revoked at any time before delivery.

Hiba vs Wasiyyah vs Sadaqah

The most important practical point in this table: a Hiba made during healthy life is unrestricted in amount. This is why lifetime gifting is used in estate planning — it lets you transfer assets entirely outside the Wasiyyah one-third cap. But it comes with obligations the one-third cap does not.

Must You Treat Children Equally When Giving Gifts in Islam?

Yes — with a specific meaning of “equal” that depends on which madhab you follow. The obligation comes directly from an authenticated hadith in which the Prophet ☨ told a father who had given a gift to only one of his children: “Fear Allah and be just to all your children.” He then instructed the man either to give equally to all children or to take back the gift (Sahih al-Bukhari 2587, Sahih Muslim 1623).

What does “equal” mean?

There are two scholarly positions:

• Majority position (Hanbali, Shafi’i, and many Maliki scholars): gifts to children must be in equal shares — son and daughter receive the same amount. This is distinct from Faraid, where sons receive twice a daughter’s share.
• Minority position (Hanafi, and a view within Maliki): gifts follow the same 2:1 ratio as Faraid (“sons receive twice daughters”). On this view, gifting equally (son = daughter) is permissible but gifting at 2:1 is also permissible.

The Hanbali/Shafi’i majority position is stricter and the safer one to follow. If you follow the Hanafi school, the 2:1 ratio is defensible — but any gift that singles out one child entirely, while others receive nothing, is considered wrong across all madhabs.

When is differential gifting permissible?

Scholars accept that a parent may give more to one child — or give to one and not others — where there is a recognised Shari‘a justification. Examples include:

• One child is the sole carer for a disabled or elderly parent and receives more in recognition of that service
• One child is in severe financial need while others are comfortably provided for
• One child is being supported through education or a business start-up, and equivalent support was given to others at different times

The justification should be documented. If a parent gives a large gift to one child and dies, the other children may dispute whether any justification existed — and an Islamic scholar or Islamic inheritance expert may be asked to assess the gift’s validity.

Scenario: parent gifts £80,000 to one child only

The gift satisfies the three Hiba conditions (offer, acceptance, delivery) and is technically valid as a transfer of property. But under the majority scholarly position it is sinful because it treats the other three children unequally without justification. If Hafsa dies without equalising, the over-gifted son should — under Islamic law — return the excess or deduct £80,000 from his inheritance share.

Whether a UK court will enforce that return is a different question entirely — addressed in the next section.

What Happens If You Gifted Unequally? The Return-to-Estate Rule — and Why UK Courts Won’t Enforce It

This is the gap no other UK Muslim estate planning resource explains clearly — yet it affects a large number of families.

The Islamic position: return to estate or deduct from share

Under Islamic law, if a parent dies having made unequal gifts to children, the over-gifted child must do one of two things:

1. Return the excess gift to the estate, so that it can be distributed according to Faraid, or
2. Deduct the value of the gift from their own Faraid inheritance share (called hotchpot or i'tidal in the jurisprudence).

The logic is straightforward: if a parent intended to treat all children equally and simply did it through a gift rather than through their will, the gift should be treated as an advance on that child’s inheritance, not as an addition to it.

The English law position: hotchpot was abolished in 1996

English intestacy law used to operate a hotchpot rule, under s.47(1)(iii) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Children who had received advancements from the deceased during their lifetime were required to bring those gifts into account before taking their intestate share.

That rule was repealed by the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995, effective 1 January 1996. Since then, a child who received a large lifetime gift from a parent takes their full intestate share in addition to the gift, with no obligation to account for it.

A testator can reintroduce the principle by including an express hotchpot clause in their will — a provision that says “any child who has received a lifetime gift of over £X from me must bring that gift into account before taking their share.” Without this clause, the hotchpot rule simply does not apply.

The collision: Islamic obligation vs English law

A gift that Islamic law requires to be returned or deducted from an inheritance share may be legally unrecoverable in an English court. If a parent made an unequal gift, completed it with full delivery of possession, and then died without a hotchpot clause in their will, the UK legal system provides the over-gifted child with no obligation to equalise — and the other children with no mechanism to force them to.

Scenario: £150,000 deposit gift, three siblings nothing

Under UK intestacy (Administration of Estates Act 1925), the wife receives the first £322,000 — the statutory legacy — and since the estate (£280,000) is below that threshold, the wife receives the entire estate. The children receive nothing from the estate. The eldest daughter keeps the £150,000 gift. No hotchpot applies.

Under Islamic law, the £150,000 gift was an advance on inheritance and should be equalised — but there is no UK mechanism to enforce this unless a valid Islamic will with an express hotchpot clause existed.

The only enforceable protection is prevention: make an Islamic will before death, include a hotchpot clause, and either equalise gifts during your lifetime or record which gifts are advances against which children’s shares.

Marad al-Mawt: Gifts During Terminal Illness in Islam

Islamic law draws a sharp distinction between a gift made during ordinary healthy life and a gift made during terminal illness. If a person is critically ill — in a condition from which they fear they will die, and from which they subsequently do die — that illness is called marad al-mawt (مرض الموت, literally “the illness of death”). Any gift made during this period is governed by special rules.

The three conditions for marad al-mawt to apply

1. The illness is serious and life-threatening: a reasonable person in that condition would fear dying from it. A chronic condition that is managed and stable does not qualify. A sudden terminal diagnosis or a serious deterioration does.
2. The person subsequently dies from that illness: if they recover and later die from a different cause, marad al-mawt did not apply, and any gift made during the illness is treated as an ordinary healthy-life Hiba.
3. The gift was made during the period of that illness: not before the illness began, and not after recovery.

The two rules for marad al-mawt gifts

When all three conditions are met, any gift is subject to the same restrictions as a Wasiyyah bequest:

1. Cap of one-third: the total of all marad al-mawt gifts cannot exceed one-third of the net estate (after debts and funeral costs), even if the donor intended to give more.
2. No gifts to Faraid heirs: a marad al-mawt gift cannot go to a person who holds a Quranic inheritance share, without the consent of all other heirs. This is the same rule as the Wasiyyah restriction: “No bequest for an heir” (Abu Dawud 2870, Tirmidhi 2120).

If a gift exceeds the one-third cap, the excess reverts to the estate. If the gift goes to a Faraid heir without consent, the gift is invalid to the extent it would take from the other heirs.

The grey area: chronic illness and fluctuating conditions

Many families deal with conditions that are serious but not immediately terminal: heart failure managed with medication, cancer in remission, progressive conditions like Parkinson’s. Determining whether marad al-mawt applies requires a scholar’s assessment of the specific condition and circumstances. As a practical guide:

• A person given a terminal prognosis with a specific timeframe is almost certainly in marad al-mawt
• A person with a managed chronic condition who is stable is generally not
• A person experiencing a serious acute deterioration — hospitalisation for heart failure, for example — may be in marad al-mawt during that episode even if they later stabilise

When in doubt, treat the gift as subject to marad al-mawt rules and seek scholarly guidance. Getting this wrong can affect other heirs’ established entitlements in ways that are very difficult to correct.

Scenario: house gifted during terminal illness

Islamic law outcome: The gift of £200,000 to a Faraid heir (the son) during marad al-mawt is subject to the one-third cap and the no-heir rule. One-third of the net estate is £165,000. The gift exceeds this (and goes to an heir without consent), so:

• The gift is void in its entirety unless the other heirs consent to it
• If they refuse, the £200,000 returns to the estate and is distributed by Faraid
• If they partially consent, the son may keep up to £165,000 but the excess (£35,000) returns

Note that under English probate law, a different analysis applies — see the next section.

Marad al-Mawt vs UK Donatio Mortis Causa: Two Completely Different Doctrines

This is perhaps the most practically dangerous gap in UK Muslim estate planning. Islamic scholars treat marad al-mawt gifts under strict Wasiyyah-equivalent rules. English probate law has its own doctrine for deathbed gifts — donatio mortis causa (DMC) — and the two doctrines operate completely differently. Treating them as the same concept is a serious error.

The collision: what is void under Islamic law may be enforceable in a UK court

The house gift in the marad al-mawt scenario above — £200,000 to a Faraid heir, exceeding one-third — would be void under Islamic law without heirs’ consent. But in an English court, if that gift satisfied the DMC requirements (belief of imminent death, conditional delivery, donor subsequently died), a court could hold it valid as a DMC. The gift would pass to the son, overriding both the will and the Faraid calculation.

This is not a theoretical risk. In Rahma v Hassan [2019], the High Court accepted WhatsApp messages sent from a hospital bed as evidence sufficient to establish a valid DMC, even though no formal documentation existed. Digital messages, voice notes, and emails have all been accepted as evidence of DMC intention in recent English cases.

What this means in practice

• A gift made during terminal illness that an Islamic scholar would declare void (too large, to an heir) may be legally enforceable in a UK court as a DMC
• Family members who challenge the gift in an Islamic context may simultaneously be unable to recover it through English litigation
• The only protection is a valid Islamic will that addresses gifts made during terminal illness — either expressly recalling them or establishing their Wasiyyah character — and ideally documented scholarly guidance obtained while the donor is still alive

If a family member is terminally ill and making gifts, early guidance matters. A written opinion from a qualified Islamic inheritance scholar, documentation of the gifts, and a solicitor reviewing or updating the will to reflect the Islamic position — these are the steps that protect everyone involved.

Can You Gift Your Home to Your Children Before Death?

Gifting the family home to children before death is one of the most common estate planning instincts — and one of the most commonly misexecuted. It appears to remove the largest asset from your estate, reducing inheritance tax. In practice, it frequently achieves nothing on the IHT front, creates an Islamic equal treatment problem, and can leave the family worse off than if nothing had been done.

The HMRC gift with reservation of benefit (GROB) trap

HMRC applies the gift with reservation of benefit rules under the Finance Act 1986, s.102. The rule is simple: if you give away an asset but continue to benefit from it, HMRC treats the asset as still part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes — regardless of whether legal title has transferred.

The most common scenario: a parent transfers their house to their children via a Land Registry Form TR1, but continues to live in the house rent-free. Under GROB, the house remains in the parent’s taxable estate. The legal title transfer was real, but the IHT benefit is entirely lost. When the parent dies, the house is valued and taxed as if it was still theirs.

The only way to avoid GROB is to pay full market rent to the new owners (the children) from the date of transfer. Full market rent means what a commercial landlord would charge for the same property in the same area — verified by a surveyor or local rental comparables. A nominal amount, or a below-market payment “to help with bills,” does not satisfy HMRC and the GROB treatment continues.

What the correct process looks like

1. Transfer legal title by completing Land Registry Form TR1 (transfer of whole of registered title) and filing with HMRC Stamp Duty Land Tax return if applicable.
2. Obtain a market rent valuation from a RICS-qualified surveyor or lettings agent at the time of transfer.
3. Pay full market rent every month by bank transfer, and keep all bank records — HMRC will ask for these if the estate is investigated after death.
4. Review the rent annually as market rents change. Falling below market rent at any point re-triggers GROB.
5. The 7-year IHT clock starts from the date of the TR1 transfer — if the donor survives seven years and is paying full market rent throughout, the gift is outside the estate for IHT.

The Islamic equal treatment problem

A property gift to one child — even perfectly structured for IHT purposes — violates the equal treatment rule unless the other children receive equivalent value simultaneously. In practice, this means either:

• Giving equivalent cash gifts to the non-property-recipient children at the same time (and starting their 7-year clocks simultaneously), or
• Making a documented record of the justification (e.g. the child receiving the house is the live-in carer and the arrangement is compensation for that), which a scholar has confirmed is a valid Shari‘a reason for differential gifting.

Scenario: parents gift £400,000 home to eldest son, continue living there

IHT outcome: GROB applies — the house remains in the estate. Taxable estate = £600,000 − £500,000 thresholds = £100,000. IHT = £40,000. The IHT benefit of the transfer was zero.

Islamic outcome: Equal treatment rule violated (two daughters received nothing). Eldest son received a gift worth £400,000; daughters received nothing. Any scholar asked to assess the estate would note this as a significant violation.

What should have been done: Transfer the house, commence paying full market rent (e.g. £1,500/month), give the two daughters £400,000 equivalent in cash or assets simultaneously (or over time using annual IHT exemptions), and run the 7-year clocks on all three gifts concurrently.

Inheritance Tax on Gifts: The 7-Year Rule Explained for Muslims

Every gift you make to an individual is a Potentially Exempt Transfer (PET) for UK inheritance tax purposes. If you survive seven years after making the gift, the PET becomes fully exempt — it falls entirely outside your estate and no IHT applies. If you die within seven years, the gift is pulled back into your estate and IHT may be charged on it, at a rate that reduces with time (taper relief).

This rule operates entirely separately from Islamic Hiba validity. A gift can be a perfectly valid Hiba under Islamic law while simultaneously being an IHT-liable PET — and vice versa. The two frameworks do not interact.

Taper relief: how the IHT rate falls over 7 years

Note: taper relief only applies if the total of the gift plus the estate exceeds the nil-rate band (£325,000 as of June 2026). If the combined figure is below the threshold, there is no IHT regardless of timing.

Immediately exempt gifts (no 7-year wait required)

Three categories of gift are exempt from IHT immediately — no seven-year survival needed:

1. Annual exemption: £3,000 per year

Every tax year, you can give away up to £3,000 in total IHT-free. If you did not use the previous year’s allowance in full, you can carry it forward by one year only — meaning a maximum of £6,000 in any year if the prior year was unused. This exemption is immediate: the £3,000 is outside your estate from the moment of the gift, regardless of when you die.

2. Small gifts: £250 per person

You can give up to £250 to any number of individuals in a tax year, free of IHT. There is no limit on the number of recipients. However, you cannot use the £250 exemption for the same person you are using the £3,000 annual exemption for in the same year.

3. Normal expenditure out of income (the powerful one)

This exemption has no monetary limit, but three conditions must all be met:

1. The gifts must be made from your income (salary, pension, rental income, dividends) — not from capital
2. The gifts must be regular — not a one-off payment. HMRC looks for a pattern: annual payments to children, regular transfers to a family savings account, consistent charitable donations
3. The gifts must not affect your standard of living — you must have enough left after giving to maintain your normal lifestyle

If all three conditions are met, gifts of this kind are immediately outside your estate regardless of when you die. A retiree with a pension of £40,000 per year and living costs of £25,000 could give £15,000 per year tax-free under this exemption — with no IHT consequences even if they die the following week. Document these payments clearly: a note of the date, amount, recipient, and that it was from income will support the exemption claim if HMRC challenges the estate.

The Islamic planning interaction

IHT planning through gifts aligns naturally with the Islamic encouragement of lifetime generosity. Making regular gifts from income to your children, starting the 7-year clocks early on larger gifts, and using annual exemptions consistently can substantially reduce the IHT payable by your estate — leaving more for your Faraid heirs to receive free of tax.

The Islamic constraint to remember: each large gift that starts a 7-year clock must be matched by equivalent gifts to all children (or a documented justification), otherwise the IHT planning creates an Islamic equal treatment violation simultaneously.

Can a Gift Be Challenged After the Donor Dies?

A lifetime gift that appears final may be challenged after the donor’s death on several grounds. In many families, these challenges arise only at the point of death, when the full picture of what was given to whom becomes visible. Understanding the grounds for challenge — and the evidence that supports or defeats a challenge — matters both for those who made gifts and those who received them.

Lack of mental capacity

For a gift to be valid, the donor must have had mental capacity at the time of the gift. The legal test (derived from Banks v Goodfellow [1870] and applied to lifetime gifts) requires the donor to have understood: the nature of the gift, the extent of the property being given, who has a reasonable claim on their estate, and the effect of making the gift. A diagnosis of dementia, cognitive decline, or delirium at the time of the gift does not automatically invalidate it — the test is capacity at the specific moment, not a general condition. Medical records from the period of the gift, GP notes, and witness accounts of the donor’s behaviour are the key evidence.

Undue influence

A gift made under undue influence is voidable. Undue influence means the donor’s free will was overborne by another person — not merely persuaded, but coerced or manipulated into making a gift they would not otherwise have made. Deathbed gifts are particularly vulnerable: a carer, a live-in child, or a financially dependent relative may exert influence over a person who is ill, isolated, and frightened. Where there is a relationship of trust and confidence (parent-child, carer-patient) and a gift that is not readily explained by normal motives, the burden shifts to the recipient to show the gift was freely made.

Digital evidence and Rahma v Hassan [2019]

In Rahma v Hassan [2019] EWHC 367 (Ch), the High Court accepted WhatsApp message conversations as evidence supporting a claim that a deathbed gift had been made. The case confirmed that informal digital communications — text messages, voice notes, messaging apps — can satisfy the evidential requirements for a donatio mortis causa in English law. This cuts both ways: digital messages showing a donor’s clear intent to gift are strong evidence in favour of the recipient; messages showing pressure, confusion, or contradiction are evidence in favour of the challenger.

Islamic angle: gifts made under coercion (ikrah)

Islamic jurisprudence makes a gift invalid if made under coercion (ikrah): an Ijab (offer) that is not freely given is not a valid offer and the Hiba fails at its first condition. This aligns closely with the English undue influence doctrine. A gift extracted through threats, emotional manipulation, or financial pressure on a vulnerable person is not a valid Hiba under Islamic law, regardless of whether legal title was formally transferred.

Incomplete delivery (qabd not completed)

Where delivery of possession was never completed, the gift may be challengeable on the basis that it was never validly made. A promise to give, a statement of intent, or a verbal agreement without actual transfer of possession is not a binding Hiba in Islamic law. In English law, a similar principle applies: an incompletely constituted gift (where the donor retained full control and the recipient never took possession) may fail. However, equity may intervene to perfect an imperfect gift in certain circumstances — this is a specialist area of trust law.

Practical steps for heirs who want to challenge

1. Act quickly — limitation periods apply. Most challenges to lifetime transactions are subject to a 6-year limitation period, but this can run from the date of the gift, not the date of death.
2. Gather medical records from the period of the gift — GP records, hospital notes, any cognitive assessments.
3. Identify witnesses who can speak to the donor’s state of mind at the time.
4. Preserve all digital communications — text messages, WhatsApp, emails — between the donor and the recipient around the time of the gift.
5. Seek specialist legal advice early. Proprietary estoppel, constructive trust, and undue influence claims are complex and require a solicitor with contentious probate experience.

A Worked Example: Hiba, IHT, and Faraid on a £600,000 Estate

The following worked example brings together every thread in this guide — Islamic Hiba validity, IHT on lifetime gifts, Faraid distribution, and the equal treatment problem — on a single realistic UK estate. Work through it step by step.

The family

Step 1: Which gifts fall back into the estate for IHT?

£50,000 to Yusuf (5 years before death): This gift is a PET. Muhammad survived more than 3 years but less than 7 years. Taper relief applies at the 5–6 year band: IHT rate of 16% on the gift value. However, the first step is to check whether the nil-rate band (NRB) covers the gift before applying taper. Muhammad’s full NRB of £325,000 is applied against the estate first. The £50,000 PET is added to the estate for the NRB calculation — but see Step 2.

£80,000 to Maryam (18 months before death): This gift is a PET within 3 years of death. Taper relief does not apply — the full 40% rate applies if this gift, combined with the estate, exceeds the nil-rate band.

Step 2: IHT calculation

IHT outcome: £0. The spouse exemption eliminates IHT on the estate itself. Both PETs fall within the unused nil-rate band. No IHT liability arises on either gift or on the estate.

Step 3: Faraid distribution of the net estate

When Fatima eventually dies (her estate is a separate IHT question), the estate passes under Islamic Faraid. But at Muhammad’s death, if Fatima takes the whole estate as spouse: Fatima receives £600,000 as surviving spouse — under Islamic Faraid, a wife’s share is ¼ where there are children. If the estate is distributed by Faraid at Muhammad’s death (not left to Fatima by English will): Fatima ¼ = £150,000; remainder £450,000 distributed to three children in 2:1:1 ratio (Yusuf 2 shares, Maryam 1 share, Sara 1 share) = Yusuf £225,000, Maryam £112,500, Sara £112,500.

Step 4: Does the equal treatment rule apply to the gifts?

Yusuf received £50,000 five years before death. Maryam received £80,000 eighteen months before death. Sara received nothing. The gifts are unequal — Yusuf and Maryam received between them £130,000; Sara received zero.

Under Islamic equal treatment principles, Sara has a legitimate grievance. The ideal resolution: Sara’s Faraid share should be topped up by the equivalent amount (or the gifted amounts should have been distributed equally across all three children). However, UK courts will not enforce this — the hotchpot rule was abolished in 1996. Sara’s only options are: (1) a voluntary family agreement where Yusuf and Maryam agree to equalise, or (2) a hotchpot clause in Muhammad’s will directing that gifts be accounted for — but if Muhammad died intestate or without such a clause, there is no legal mechanism to enforce equalisation.

Step 5: Summary — what each heir receives

Key lesson: The IHT position is clean (no tax due), the Faraid distribution is mathematically correct, but the equal treatment problem is real and unresolvable in court. Muhammad should have gifted £43,333 to each child (or equalised Sara’s gift to £65,000 before death), and included a hotchpot clause in his Islamic will directing the lifetime gifts to be brought into account.

Five Steps to Get Your Gifting Right Under Islamic Law and UK Law

Acting on this guide means translating the principles above into concrete decisions. These five steps apply whether you are planning gifts for the first time or reviewing gifts already made.

1. Gift during healthy lifetime — not during illness. Make gifts while you are in good health and not facing a life-threatening condition. Gifts made during healthy life are unrestricted in amount, bypass the ⅓ limit, and are fully valid Hiba. Waiting until illness triggers the marad al-mawt rules, which capped and restricted the same gift you could have made freely one year earlier. Start now, not later.
2. Treat children equally — document any justification for differential gifts. Every gift to one child should be matched (in amount or kind) by equivalent gifts to all other children at the same time. If you have a valid Shari‘a reason for giving more to one child — sole carer for a disabled parent, exceptional financial need, a business contribution — document it in writing and have a scholar confirm it. The documentation protects you and the recipient if the gift is challenged after your death.
3. If gifting property: complete the legal transfer, pay full market rent, start the 7-year clock. Transfer legal title via Form TR1. Obtain a RICS market rent valuation. Pay by bank transfer every month and keep records. The 7-year IHT clock starts on the TR1 date — not the date you first discussed it. Do not gift a property and continue living there rent-free: GROB will apply and the IHT benefit will be zero.
4. Use your annual IHT exemptions every year without fail. The £3,000 annual exemption and any carry-forward from the previous year is lost if not used. If you have regular surplus income above your living costs, consider setting up regular payments to your children — these may qualify as normal expenditure out of income (immediately IHT-exempt, no 7-year wait). Small amounts given consistently over many years can significantly reduce the taxable estate.
5. Make an Islamic will that includes a hotchpot clause. Your Islamic will should list every significant lifetime gift made to each child, direct that the values be brought into account when calculating Faraid shares, and instruct your executor to deduct the gift value from the recipient’s inheritance share (or require return of the excess). Without this clause, the hotchpot gap is open: a UK court will not enforce equalisation, and the under-gifted children have no legal recourse. The will closes the gap.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources and Further Reading

Islamic jurisprudence

• Sahih Bukhari (2586) and Sahih Muslim (1623) — Nu‘man ibn Bashir hadith on equal gifting to children
• Abu Dawud (2870) — marad al-mawt gifting rules
• Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (Ibn Abidin) — Hanafi rules on Hiba and marad al-mawt
• Al-Mughni (Ibn Qudama) — Hanbali position on equal treatment of children in gifting

UK law and tax

• Finance Act 1986, s.102 — gift with reservation of benefit (GROB)
• Inheritance Tax Act 1984 — potentially exempt transfers, annual exemptions, normal expenditure out of income
• Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 — abolition of statutory hotchpot (repealing s.47(1)(iii) Administration of Estates Act 1925)
• Rahma v Hassan [2019] EWHC 367 (Ch) — WhatsApp evidence for donatio mortis causa
• Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 — mental capacity test for testamentary and lifetime gifts
• HMRC Inheritance Tax Manual — IHT400 guidance on gifts, PETs, and GROB

Mizaanly resources

These guides cover the related topics referenced throughout this article:

• Writing an Islamic Will (Wasiyyah) in the UK — how to include a hotchpot clause and structure your will to enforce gift equalisation
• UK Intestacy Rules for Muslim Families — what happens without a will and why the hotchpot gap matters for intestate estates
• Faraid vs UK Intestacy — the full comparison of Faraid distribution and English intestacy