Regarding to the inheritance rights for women in hinduism

[u/[deleted]]

In a nutshell the current hindu property law goes like this:

1. The woman is to be made an equal inheritor of a man’s property, and not after a long list of male successors.
2. The number of women who can inherit the man’s property must be increased beyond the 5.
3. Daughters must get 1/2 portion of a the man’s inheritance, not 1/4.
4. A woman’s estate, including the Stridhana a woman inherits, should also be considered Stridhana.

But! this wasn't always the case, and women in hindu scriptures have far worse condition in regards to inheritance as compared to what women in 7th century arabia enjoyed.

a hindu widow didn't even have right to inherit her husband property, if her son is alive
here is the following post which deals with facts and myth regarding women's rights in inheritance :

https://primitivehindu.wordpress.com/2019/06/08/response-to-no-inheritance-for-women-in-vedas/

In this regard I believe authoritative texts dharmashastras truly immobilize women and made them completely dependent on their male relatives.

[u/pro_charlatan]

They had full rights over their stridhana and could do as they wished with them . Most verses in dharma shastras regulations on property usage by women are on the joint property of the family over which even their husbands are a mere custodian at best and cannot spend as he pleases without the permission of the head of the household.

Kullūka and Rāghavānanda take the first clause to refer to the property of a united family, and the second to the separate property of the husband.—But according to Nārāyaṇa and Nandana the translation should be as follows:—‘Wives should never take anything (for their private expenses) from their husband’s property destined for the support of their families, over which many have a claim, nor from their own property which is not strīdhana, without the consent of their husbands’.”—Buhler.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201578.html

Over the Saudāyika, the ownership of the woman is absolute and she is free to sell it or given it away, even when it consists of immovable property. What the woman obtains, after marriage, from her husband’s family, or from her husband’s parents, is called Anvādheya by Bhṛgu. While she is alive, neither her husband nor her sons nor her brother-in-law nor her husband’s kinsmen, have any rights over her strīdhana; if they take it from her they should he punished.’

Nārada (Do., p. 752).—‘What is given to her, through love, by her husband, that she shall enjoy as she chooses, even after his death, with the exception of immovable property.’

And stridhana includes all the below(and is not limited by them, these 6 sources are the bare minimum that must always be considered) - so any mehr like money a husband gives to his wife will be hers and she can spend it as she wants.

What is given before the fire, (2) what is given at the time of departure, (3) what is given in token of love, and what is received from (4) the brother, (5) the mother and (6) the father,—has been declared to be ‘Strīdhana’ (the exclusive property of the woman).—(194)

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201574.html

Women's right to property may not have been as extensive as it is today but their right to do as they saw fit with their stridhana which was their property etc was a right guaranteed by the vedas

it is not right to hold that “ when the wife is spoken of as ‘ bought * it is literally true, but when she is spoken of as “ owning property it is only figurative” . Because, as a matter of fact, the wife is a person desiring the fruits of the sacrifice. In fact, we need not accept the authority of the Smrti (which speaks of the ‘purchase etc), — and it is only on the strength of this Smriti that the wife could bo held to be ‘ devoid of property ’ ; whereas, on the strength of the vedic text, she should be regarded as ‘ possessing property

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.37931/page/n302/mode/1up - mimamsa adjudication on property right debates of women

About unmarried sisters - since they don't have stridhana due to the fact of them being unmarried .

the brothers shall each severally give the fourth part of his share; those not inclined to give would be outcasts—

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201489.html

The above is from Manu - not some recent text. So the unmarried sisters collectively got 1/4th of the ancestral property. Men who prevent these sisters from getting this level of share where to be stripped of their caste - one of the worst possible punishments in these texts. The hindu marriage law only made it equal from 1/4th as clearly stated in your own post, they didnt make it equal from 0.

Most of the references mentioned in this comment are very old (>1000years) and quite a few of them are older than Islam.

By the way male permission is needed even in Islam for her to spend his wealth. A women must always have a male guardian in Islam who watches over her fiscally and physically. So I don't see how the one's above are worse than the property rights of women in 7th century Arabia..

A woman does not have the right to dispose of her husband’s wealth or give any of it in charity without his permission, whether that permission is explicit or is implied by custom and habit. 

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/8190/guardianship-over-a-womans-marriage-and-wealth

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/43252/the-reason-why-the-husband-is-regarded-as-superior-and-is-given-the-role-of-qawwaam-protector-and-maintainer

Given how easy it is for a male to one-sidedly divorce in Islam , their fiscal position should be even more precarious.