As A Reason for Disinheritance the Killing of the Legator Investigation in Terms of Turkish Civil Law and Islamic Law
Abdullah İslamoğlu, Esra EvizA limited number of grounds for disinheritance are regulated in Article 578/I of the Civil Code as follows: intentionally or unlawfully murdering or attempting to murder the heir; intentionally or unlawfully rendering the heir permanently incapable of making a testamentary disposition; enabling or preventing the heir from making a testamentary disposition or revoking such a disposition through deception, coercion or intimidation; and intentionally and unlawfully abolishing or revoking a testamentary disposition in a situation and at a time when the heir is no longer able to make it again. The motive of the prospective heir is not effective in the emergence of the deprivation result. However, because the law emphasizes that murder or attempted murder may be committed intentionally and unlawfully, deprivation of inheritance will not come into question in the event that the possible heir does not have the power of discernment, such as self-defense, which eliminates the illegality in the concrete case. The person who realizes one of the reasons for disinheritance automatically loses the title of heir by law. In this context, the behavior that causes deprivation is seen to be sanctioned severely enough to prevent the acquisition of the right of inheritance, which falls under constitutional guarantee. The person who murders or attempts to murder the heir is considered to have died before the heir, and the right of inheritance passes to that person’s descendants. In Islamic law, the reasons for disinheritance upon which jurists agree are the murder of the heir, difference of religion, and slavery. Apart from these, other reasons for disinheritance are a difference of countries, unknown date of death, unknown heir, li’an, or the heir being a child of adultery. This study comparatively analyzes the provisions on murdering the heir as a reason for deprivation of inheritance in these two legal systems.
Mirastan Yoksunluk Sebebi Olarak Mirasbırakanın Öldürülmesinin Medeni Hukuk ve İslam Hukuku Açısından İncelenmesi
Abdullah İslamoğlu, Esra EvizMirastan yoksunluk sebepleri, Medeni Kanun m. 578/I’de, mirasbırakanı kasten veya hukuka aykırı olarak öldürme veya öldürmeye teşebbüs etme, mirasbırakanı kasten veya hukuka aykırı olarak sürekli şekilde ölüme bağlı tasarruf yapamayacak duruma getirme, ölüme bağlı tasarruf yapmasını veya böyle bir tasarruftan dönmesini aldatma, zorlama veya korkutma yoluyla sağlama veya engelleme, mirasbırakanın artık yeniden yapamayacağı bir durumda ve zamanda ölüme bağlı bir tasarrufu kasten ve hukuka aykırı olarak ortadan kaldırma veya bozma olarak sınırlı sayıda düzenlenmiştir. Muhtemel mirasçının öldürme fiilini gerçekleştirirken hangi saikle hareket ettiği yoksunluk sonucunun doğumunda etkili değildir. Bununla birlikte, kanunda öldürmenin veya öldürmeye teşebbüsün kasten ve hukuka aykırı olarak gerçekleştirilebileceği vurgulandığından somut olayda hukuka aykırılığı ortadan kaldıran, muhtemel mirasçının ayırt etme gücünün olmaması, meşru müdafaa gibi ihtimallerde mirastan yoksunluk söz konusu olmayacaktır.
Mirastan yoksunluk sebeplerinden birini gerçekleştiren kişi kanun gereği, kendiliğinden mirasçılık sıfatını kaybeder. Bu bağlamda, yoksunluğa neden olan davranışın anayasal güvence altında olan miras hakkının kazanılmasını engelleyecek düzeyde ağır bir yaptırıma bağlandığı görülmektedir. Mirasbırakanı öldüren veya öldürmeye teşebbüs eden kişi mirasbırakandan önce ölmüş gibi kabul edilir ve bu kişinin miras hakkı altsoyuna geçer.
İslam hukukunda, hukukçuların üzerinde görüş birliğine vardıkları mirastan yoksunluk sebepleri, mirasbırakanı öldürme, din farklılığı ve köleliktir. Bunların dışında, ülke ayrılığı, ölüm tarihinin bilinmemesi, mirasçının bilinmemesi, lian, mirasçının veled-i zina olması durumları da üzerinde görüş ayrılığı olan mirasçılıktan yoksunluk sebepleridir. Çalışmada bu iki hukuk sisteminde, bir mirastan yoksunluk sebebi olarak mirasbırakanı öldürmenin hükümleri üzerinde karşılaştırmalı olarak durulmuştur.
In terms of Turkish Civil Law, a person who realizes one of the reasons for disinheritance automatically loses the title of heir in accordance with the law. In this context, the behavior that causes disinheritance is seen to be subjected to a heavy sanction that will prevent the acquisition of the constitutionally guaranteed right to inheritance. A person who murders or attempts to murder the legator is considered to have died before the legator, and this inheritance right passes to this person’s descendants. When looking at the reasons for disinheritance in Islamic law, the situations in which the heir cannot claim the right of an heir are seen to be determined by the Qur’an, sunnah, and ijma.
Qadis have reached a consensus on the situations that cause disinheritance, such as the murder of the legator, religious differences, and slavery. Apart from these, difference of countries, unknown date of death, unknown heir, li’an, and the heir being a child of adultery are also listed among the reasons for disinheritance. However, a difference of opinion exists among Islamic sects on these issues.
Murdering the legator is accepted as a reason for deprivation of inheritance in all Islamic sects. However, the fact that Islamic sects make different distinctions regarding the way the act of murder is carried out has also affected the perceptions on this issue. This study takes the Hanafi sect as its basis, which makes the broadest ruling by making a five-fold distinction: intention, intention-like, mistake, current, and causing mistake. Among these distinctions, Hanafi not only views murder by causing as a reason for disinheritance, but also other types of murder as a reason for disinheritance.
When comparing the provisions regarding the murder of the legator as a reason for disinheritance between Turkish Civil Law and Islamic law, the following results are encountered:
In both legal systems, a person who commits acts that result in disinheritance cannot be an heir or a creditor of the will.
Disinheritance not only prevents the transfer of the inheritance but also eliminates the possibility of making any claims regarding the reserved portion, resulting in the inability to make claims regarding death-related savings made by the legator.
According to Art. 578/I b.1 of the Turkish Civil Code, the caste condition is required. For this reason, in order for murder to result in disinheritance, the person who commits the act of murder must be mentally competent. On the other hand, criminal liability is not required. In Islamic law, however, the Hanafi sect also requires criminal liability. A person who kills the legator without criminal liability will not be disinherited. According to Turkish Civil Law, no requisite exists for a person who engages in behavior that is considered a reason for disinheritance to be tried in a criminal court for this behavior and to be convicted as a result of this trial. In Islamic law, however, the person must be punished with retaliation or compensation.
In Turkish Civil Law, intentional and unlawful acts that cause disinheritance can be positive (e.g., performed) or negative (e.g., deliberately not helping one’s father who is drowning and unable to swim, and thus not save him from drowning). Situations that occur due to carelessness or negligence (e.g., carelessly burning the will) or situations that are not against the law are not grounds for disinheritance. When evaluated from the perspective of the Hanafi sect, one can conclude that such actions will not be a reason for disinheritance, as killing the legator cannot be carried out with a negative action. When looked at in terms of imprudence and negligence and considering that such actions will be within the scope of mistakes and similar to mistake, one can say that such actions are also a reason for disinheritance. However, such actions that occur through causation will not result in disinheritance.
In both Turkish Civil Law and Islamic law, people who participate in murder as an abettor, encourager, or aider, will also be deemed as grounds for disinheritance.
Again, the presence of a legal reason for the act of murder is an obstacle to disinheritance in terms of both legal systems. An heir who causes death in selfdefense while performing a duty or as a result of the exercise of a right will not be subject to disinheritance.
While attempting to murder the legator is considered a reason for disinheritance in Turkish Civil Law, only the concept of murder (not attempted murder) is used in Islamic law. Therefore, one can conclude that, because death does not occur in the possibility of an attempt, this is not considered a reason for disinheritance. According to Turkish Civil Law, murdering or attempting to murder a relative of the legator is not a reason for the deprivation of the legator’s inheritance. Relative of the legator means legator’s mother, father, children, or family close relatives. Although the study found no information regarding this issue in the relevant research in Islamic Law, due to all sources mentioning murder of the deceased, one can conclude that murdering a relative of the deceased will not be a reason for disinheritance. One can also state that the motive of reaching the inheritance as soon as possible, which is stated as the cause of disinheritance in Islamic Law, facilitates this result being reached.
In both legal systems, disinheritance is private and does not affect the descendants of the deprived person. The inheritance right of the deprived person passes to that person’s descendants as if they were not alive at the death of the legator.
Ultimately, the main motive for disinheritance in both legal systems can be said to be in line with each other, and the murder of the legator and relevant provisions lead to similar results. The fact that most of the other reasons listed under the title of inheritance obstacles in Islamic law are actually obstacles to the title of inheritance rather than being a reason for disinheritance would be appropriate to note.
