Al-Baqarah: (240) "And those who are taken in death among you..."

(And those who are taken in death among you and leave behind wives) is a return to clarifying the remaining injunctions detailed previously. In the word yatawaffawn (those who are taken in death), there is a metaphor for "the Orientals" (referring to the phenomenon of euphemistic expression).

(A bequest for their wives): Abu ‘Amr, Ibn ‘Amir, and Hamzah (on the authority of ‘Asim) read wasiyyatan (bequest) in the accusative case, either as an absolute object (masdar) or as a direct object. The implication is: "Let them bequeath" or "They are bequeathing a bequest," or "Allah has ordained upon them" or "They were obligated with a bequest." This is supported by the reading of ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas‘ud]: "It is ordained upon you, the bequest for your wives: provision for a year," in place of "And those who..." The others read it in the nominative case as a predicate, with the implication—for the syntax to hold—that it means: "The bequest of those who are taken in death" or "Their ruling is a bequest" or "Those who are taken in death are people of a bequest." It is also permissible for it to be a substitute subject for a deleted verb, or a subject for a deleted predicate that precedes it; that is, "It is ordained upon them [a bequest]" or "Upon them is a bequest." Ubayy read it as mata‘un (a provision) for their wives, and it is reported from him as fa-mata‘un with the prefix fa.

(A provision for a year) is in the accusative case due to the verb "they bequeath," if one implies it—which would be a case of deletion and connection—otherwise [it is in the accusative] due to al-wasiyyah (the bequest), because it is synonymous with al-taw-siyah (bequeathing), or due to mata‘an (provision) in the reading of Ubayy, because it is synonymous with al-tamattu‘ (enjoyment).

(Without turning them out): This is an appositional substitute (badal ishtimal) if one considers the necessity between the "provision for a year" and the "not turning them out." It is a total substitute (badal kull min kull) according to the essence, as they are united in essence and differ only in description. Some mentioned that when considering it a substitute, it is necessary to assume a genitive construction (mudaf) that is not explicitly present; the interpretation would be "provision for a year" (the provision of not turning them out), otherwise it would not be valid, because "provision" is interpreted as "spending," and "not turning them out" is an expression of "housing." Since the meaning of the latter is not the same as the former, nor is it a part of it, nor is it related to it, it would be a "substitute of error" (badal ghalat), which is not valid in the Glorious Speech. Therefore, the assumption is necessary. In this case, it becomes the substitution of the specific for the general, which is a type of substitution of the whole for the part, like saying "I saw the moon, its light." This is an ishtimal (inclusive) substitute, as the author of Al-Miftah has explicitly stated.

It was responded that we do not concede that "provision" is interpreted solely as "spending," but rather "provision" is a general term encompassing both spending and housing. Thus, "not turning them out" is an expression for housing, which is a part of "provision," making it a substitution of a part for the whole. It is also permissible for it to be an emphatic verbal noun (masdar), because the command to "bequeath that they be provided for a year" implies that they should not be turned out. It is as if it were said: "They shall not be turned out, not turned out," functioning as an emphasis for the negation of turning out that is indicated by "they shall not be turned out." Thus, it translates to saying: "They shall not be turned out, they shall not be turned out." It may also be a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from "their wives." Most scholars hold that it is an emphatic qualifier, as there is no meaning in restricting the bequest to the concept of this state, and that it is estimated, because the meaning of negating the turning out for a year is not concurrent with the bequest itself. There is room for reflection here.

It may also be an adjective for "provision," or in the accusative by the removal of the preposition. The meaning is: It is incumbent upon those who are taken in death to bequeath, before they are in the throes of death, for their wives that they be provided for after them for a year with sustenance and housing. Correctly, this was at the beginning of Islam, then the duration was abrogated by the words of Allah: "four months and ten days." Although it precedes in the recitation, it is later in revelation. Similarly, [the command for] sustenance was abrogated by their inheriting a quarter or an eighth. There is disagreement regarding the lapse of housing and its non-lapse. Our masters, the Hanafis, hold to the former, arguing that the husband's wealth became an inheritance for the heirs and his ownership ceased at death. The Shafi‘is went to the latter, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Stay in your house until the decree reaches its term." It was objected that there is no indication in this that she has the right to housing in the husband's wealth, and the discussion continues.

(Then if they leave) after the year and the completion of the waiting period (and it is said: in the midst of it, by their own choice), (there is no blame on you), O guardians of the deceased, or O leaders, (for what they do with themselves in an honorable way) that the Shari‘ah does not reject, such as applying perfume, adorning themselves, abandoning mourning, or accepting proposals. Or [it may mean] in leaving off preventing them from going out or cutting off their sustenance from them. Thus, there is no text in the verse that it was not mandatory for them to remain in the husband's house and mourn for him; rather, they were given the choice between staying and receiving sustenance, or leaving and abandoning it.

(And Allah is Exalted), Prevailing over His command, taking retribution from those who oppose His command regarding the bequest, the execution of the (bequest), and other matters; (All-Wise), observing in His rulings the interests of His servants. Therefore, His command and prohibition should be followed.