An-Nisa: (11) "Allah instructs you..."

"Allah instructs you": This is the beginning of the explanation for what was summarized in His saying, Exalted and Majestic is He: "For men is a share," etc. The wasiyyah (instruction/bequest), as Al-Raghib said, is to present to another that which they should act upon, coupled with admonition. It is derived from their saying, "a wasiyyah land" (ard wasiyah)—meaning land with continuous vegetation. In reality, it is a command to the person to do what has been entrusted to them. Thus, the meaning is: "Allah commands you and imposes upon you [these laws]." The Qamus interprets it by the latter. He chose the term "instruction" (iysa) over "command" (amr) because it is more eloquent and indicative of concern and the desire for swift fulfillment.

"concerning your children": That is, regarding the inheritance of your children, or concerning their affairs. This [the latter] is estimated so that the meaning of the preposition "concerning" (fi) is valid. It is also said that fi stands for the lam (for/on behalf of), as in the report that "a woman entered the Hellfire because of a cat"—meaning for the cat—as the grammarians have stated. The address, it is said, is to the believers. Between the two connected nouns, there is a deleted possessor, meaning: "He instructs you concerning the children of your deceased," because it is not permissible to address the living regarding the division of the inheritance of their own children. It is also said the address is to those who have children, meaning: "He instructs you regarding their inheritance when you die." In this case, there is no need to estimate the deleted possessor, just as if one were to interpret "instructs you" as "He explains to you." The Exalted began with children because they are the closest heirs to the deceased and the most likely to remain after the legator. The cause for the revelation of the verse is what we indicated previously.

Abdul bin Humayd reported from Jabir who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit me while I was ill. I asked, 'How should I divide my wealth among my children?' He did not respond to me, then [this verse] was revealed: 'For the male is the equivalent of the portion of two females.'"

This is in the place of detail and clarification for the instruction, so the sentence has no grammatical position. Abu al-Baqa placed it in the accusative as an object of "instructs" by considering it in the sense of a statement, an imposition, or a legislative act, but this is forced. The meaning is that He counts every male as equal to two females when both classes (males and females) are present and their inheritance source is united; thus, the share of the male is doubled. This is how it is said, and the apparent meaning is the explanation of the ruling for the gathering of the son and the daughter in absolute terms. There must be a pronoun in the sentence returning to the "children" which is omitted due to the confidence in its obviousness, as in their saying "Fat is two manns for a dirham," and the estimation here is "for the male of them." So, reflect upon this.

The specification of the male by stating his share—despite the fact that the verse was revealed according to the famous report to explain inheritance—is a refutation of their former practice of bequeathing to males to the exclusion of females. It is also a manifestation of concern for females; and it could have been said "for the two females is the equivalent of the share of the male" because the male is superior, and because mentioning good attributes is more fitting for the Wise than other things. This is why the Exalted said: "If you do good, you do good for yourselves, and if you do evil, it is for them," for He mentioned the "doing good" and repeated it, not the "doing evil." Furthermore, this alerts one that doubling is sufficient for superiority. So, as they used to bequeath to the males instead of the females, it was said to them: "It suffices the males that their share is doubled in relation to the females' share, so they are not deprived of inheritance entirely," despite their equality in the cause of inheritance.

The preference for the names "male" and "female" over the aforementioned "men" and "women" is to specify that adults and minors from both parties are equal in entitlement, with no entry for reaching puberty or adulthood in that at all—contrary to the claims of the people of Ignorance, who would not bequeath to children just as they would not to women. The wisdom in that He (Exalted is He) made the females' share of wealth less than the share of the males is the deficiency of their intellect and religion, as it came in the report, despite their need for wealth being less because their husbands spend on them, and their desires are greater; so wealth might become a cause for their increased immorality. Among what is well-known: Youth, idleness, and wealth are a corruption for a person, what a corruption.

It is narrated from Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that Eve (peace be upon her) took a handful of wheat and ate it, and took another and hid it, then another and gave it to Adam (peace be upon him). When she made her own share double the man's share, the matter was reversed against her, and the woman's share was made half the man's share. Some have mentioned this, but I have not verified its authenticity.

The scope of inheritance is [applicable] unless an impediment arises, such as slavery, murder, or difference of religion, as is not hidden. Excluded from this generality is the inheritance from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), based on the view that he (peace and blessings be upon him) is included in the generalities brought by his own tongue that linguistically cover him. The proof for the exclusion is his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "We, the company of prophets, are not inherited from."

The Shi'a have taken the general meaning and denied the exception, and they attacked Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) for not giving al-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with her) an inheritance from the estate of her father (peace and blessings be upon him), until she allegedly said to him: "O son of Abu Quhafa, do you inherit from your father, while I do not inherit from my father? What fairness is this?" They claimed that the report was not narrated by anyone else. Even conceding that others narrated it, it is not mutawatir (mass-transmitted), but rather ahad (solitary), and it is not permissible to specify [restrict] the Book with an ahad report. The proof is that Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) rejected the report of Fatima bint Qays that she was not entitled to housing or maintenance, as it contradicted the verse "House them [in] where you reside," and he said: "How can we abandon the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the word of a woman?" If it were permissible to specify the Book with an ahad report, he would have done so and not rejected it, nor would he have considered the fact that it was a woman’s report—despite its contradiction to the Book—an obstacle to accepting it. Furthermore, the general—which is the Book—is definitive, and the specific—which is the ahad report—is speculative; thus, it necessitates abandoning the definitive for the speculative.

They also said that among what indicates the falsehood of the report is the saying of the Exalted: "And Solomon inherited [from] David," and His saying, recounting from Zechariah (peace be upon him): "So grant me from Yourself an heir who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob." These are explicit that the prophets do inherit and are inherited from. The response is that this report was also narrated by Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman, al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, Abu al-Darda', Abu Hurayrah, al-Abbas, Ali, Uthman, Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, and Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas. Al-Bukhari extracted from Malik bin Aws bin al-Hadathan that Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said in the presence of the companions, including Ali, al-Abbas, Uthman, Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, and Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas: "I adjure you by Allah, by whose permission the heavens and the earth stand, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'We are not inherited from; what we leave is charity'?" They said: "By Allah, yes." Then he turned to Ali and al-Abbas and said: "I adjure you both by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said that?" They said: "By Allah, yes."

Therefore, the claim that the report was not narrated by anyone but Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is not to be heeded. In the books of the Shi'a, there is that which supports it. Al-Kulayni narrated in al-Kafi from Abu al-Bakhtari, from Abu Abdullah Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "Verily, the scholars are the inheritors of the prophets. The prophets did not leave behind a dirham or a dinar; they only left behind hadiths (traditions). So whoever takes from them has taken an abundant share." The word "only" (innama) is definitively productive of restriction, even by the admission of the Shi'a. Thus, it is known that the prophets do not leave as inheritance anything but knowledge and hadiths.

It is also established by the consensus of the historians and scholars of hadith that a group of the Infallibles, according to the Shi'a (and the Preserved according to the Sunnis), acted according to it. For when the estate of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came into their hands, they did not give al-Abbas, his two sons, or the purified wives anything from it. If inheritance were applicable to that estate, they would have certainly shared in it. Since tawatur (mass-transmission) is proven from the sum of what we mentioned, that is well and good, for the specification of the Quran by a mutawatir report is permissible by consensus. Even if it were not proven and the report remained ahad, we say: Specifying the Quran with an ahad report is permissible according to the correct view, and this is the opinion of the four Imams. The proof of its permissibility is that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) specified [the Quran] with it without objection, so it became a consensus. Among these instances is His saying: "And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these," which includes the marriage of a woman to her paternal or maternal aunt, but it was specified by his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "Do not marry a woman to her paternal or maternal aunt."

The Shi'a also have specified many generalities of the Quran with ahad reports; they do not allow the wife to inherit from real estate, and they specify the eldest son of the deceased with the sword, the copy of the Quran, the ring, and the clothing without compensation, as we indicated before. They rely on ahad reports that they alone narrated, even though the general verses are to the contrary. The argument regarding the impermissibility of specification using Umar's (may Allah be pleased with him) report is answered by saying that Umar only rejected the report of the daughter of Qays because of his hesitation regarding her truthfulness or falsehood. That is why he said "on the word of a woman we do not know if she told the truth or lied," justifying the rejection by the doubt in her honesty, not by it being an ahad report. And the notion that specification necessitates abandoning the definitive for the speculative is rejected because the specification occurs in the signification, as it pushes away the signification in some instances. Thus, it does not necessitate abandoning the definitive for the speculative; rather, it is abandoning the speculative for the speculative.

Their claim that the two verses indicate the falsehood of the report is extremely weak, because the inheritance in them is the inheritance of knowledge, prophethood, and spiritual perfections, not the inheritance of worldly goods and wealth. What indicates that the inheritance in the first verse is such is what al-Kulayni narrated from Abu Abdullah that Solomon inherited David and Muhammad inherited Solomon; for the inheritance of wealth between our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Solomon (peace be upon him) is not imaginable in any way. Also, David (peace be upon him), according to what the historians mention, had nineteen sons, and all of them were inheritors in the sense the opponent claims; there is no meaning to specifying some of them with mention to the exclusion of others in the inheritance of wealth, as they all shared in it without any particularity for Solomon (peace be upon him), contrary to the inheritance of knowledge and prophethood.

Also, describing Solomon (peace be upon him) with that inheritance does not necessitate perfection or imply distinction, because the righteous and the wicked inherit from their fathers, so what is the motive for mentioning this general inheritance in stating the virtues of this prophet (peace be upon him)? What indicates that the inheritance in the second verse is the same is that if the intended meaning were the inheritance of wealth, the speech would resemble sophistry. For the "family of Jacob" at that time, if it meant his noble self, it would necessitate that the wealth of Jacob (peace be upon him) remained undivided until the time of Zechariah, and there is about two thousand years between them, which is as you see. If it meant all his children, it would necessitate that John (Yahya) was the heir to all of the Children of Israel, both the living and the dead, which is more absurd than the first. If it meant some of the children, or if "Jacob" was intended to mean someone other than the common understanding (i.e., the son of Isaac, peace be upon them), it would be said: what is the benefit in describing this heir, upon requesting him from Allah, as inheriting from his father and inheriting from some of his relatives? The son is the heir of the father and those close to him in all laws, even though this inheritance is understood from the word "heir" (wali) without forcing. The situation is not a situation of emphasis. Furthermore, there is no inclination for worldly goods in the exalted sights and holy souls that have cut off ties with this fleeting world and connected to the Divine holy presence—not even the weight of a mosquito's wing—such that Zechariah (peace be upon him) would ask for a son to whom his wealth would end up and his goods would reach, and for the loss of which he would show sadness and fear. Such would explicitly imply the perfection of love and the attachment of the heart to the world and what is in it, and that is far from his exalted status and holy aspiration. Also, there is no meaning to Zechariah's (peace be upon him) fear of his cousins spending his wealth after he dies. If the spending is in obedience, it is obvious. If it is in disobedience, when a man dies and the wealth transfers to the heir, the deceased is not held accountable, nor is there any blame [on him]. Besides, repelling this fear was easy for him by spending it and giving it in charity in the path of Allah before his death, leaving his heirs upon nothing more than rest. The possibility of sudden death and the inability to do so does not hold water for the Shi'a, because the prophets in their view know the time of their death. So there is no meaning for that prophet’s (peace be upon him) seeking of inheritance other than the inheritance of spiritual perfections, knowledge, and the prophethood that qualifies one for the status of hiburah (spiritual leadership). He (peace be upon him) feared the wicked of the Children of Israel would distort the divine rulings and the lordly laws, and would not preserve his knowledge or act upon it, which would be a cause for great corruption. So he requested a son to carry out the rulings of Allah after him and to promote the religion, and to be the place where the station of prophethood settles. That is a cause for multiplying the reward and connecting the recompense, and the desire for such is the way of those with holy souls and pure, sanctified hearts.

If it is said: "Inheritance in the inheritance of knowledge is metaphorical, and in the inheritance of wealth is literal, and turning the word from the literal to the metaphorical is not allowed without necessity, so what is the necessity here?" The answer is that the necessity here is protecting the speech of the Infallible from being lied about. Also, we do not concede that inheritance is literal for wealth alone; rather, due to the prevalence of usage in custom, it has become restricted to wealth, but in its original positioning, its application to the inheritance of knowledge, wealth, and status is valid. This application is its linguistic reality. We concede it is a metaphor, but this metaphor is customary and well-known to the point that it equals the literal, especially in the usage of the glorious Quran. Among that is His saying: "Then we caused to inherit the Book," and "They were made to inherit the Book," in addition to other verses.

Some of the Shi'a raised an issue here: "If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not make anyone his heir, why were his purified wives given their chambers?" The answer is that this is a fallacy, because the segregation of the chambers for the wives was because they were owned by them, not because of inheritance. Rather, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) built each chamber for one of them, so the gift with the taking of possession was realized, which necessitates ownership. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) built similar ones for Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) and Usama and handed them over to them. Everyone who had in their hands something the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) built for them exercised the authority of an owner over it during his lifetime (peace and blessings be upon him). What indicates what we mentioned is what is established by the consensus of Sunnis and Shi'a: when Imam Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) approached death, he asked permission from Aisha the Truthful (may Allah be pleased with her) and asked her to give him a place for burial next to his grandfather, the Chosen One (peace and blessings be upon him). If the chamber were not the property of the Mother of the Believers, the asking of permission and the request would have had no meaning. In the Quran, there is a type of indication that the purified wives were owners of those chambers, as the Exalted said: "And abide in your houses," attributing the houses to them, and did not say "in the houses of the Messenger."

Some Sunnis answered the core of the issue by saying that the wealth after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) became in the status of a waqf (endowment) for all the Muslims, so it is permissible for the Caliph of the time to specify whom he wishes with what he wishes. Just as the Truthful one (Abu Bakr) specified the Commander (Ali) (may Allah be pleased with them) with a sword, armor, and a gray mule called al-Duldul. That the Commander (may Allah honor his face) did not inherit from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is certain. It is also true that the Truthful one gave al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam and Muhammad bin Maslama some of what he left behind (peace and blessings be upon him). He did not give Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her)—may Allah bless her father and her—Fadak, even though she requested it as an inheritance, and her satisfaction was troubled by the denial, by consensus. She then turned from that to claiming it was a gift and brought Ali, Hasan, Husayn, and Umm Ayman as witnesses, but it did not stand on its legs according to the claim of the Shi'a, and it was not enabled for a religious and worldly benefit that the Caliph saw at that time, as mentioned by al-Aslami in the Tarjama al-Abqariya and al-Sawla al-Haydariya, in which he elaborated.

The verification of the discussion in this station is that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) specified the verse of inheritance with what he heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the report of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for the one who heard it from him without an intermediary produces certain knowledge, without doubt. Acting upon his hearing is obligatory upon him, whether others heard it or not. The scholars of the principles of the Sunnis and Shi'a have reached consensus that the division of reports into mutawatir and others is in relation to those who did not witness the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and heard his report through narrators, not in relation to one who witnessed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and heard from him without an intermediary. Thus, the report "We, the company of prophets, are not inherited from" is definitive for Abu Bakr because, in his case, it is like mutawatir, or even higher in rank. And the definitive specifies the definitive by consensus.

There is no contradiction between this report and the verses that attribute inheritance to the prophets (peace be upon them) because of what you have learned. Al-Zahra's (may Allah be pleased with her) claim to Fadak based on inheritance does not indicate the falsehood of the report, but rather that she did not hear it, which does not diminish her status, her high standing, or her extensive knowledge. Likewise, the purified wives taking their chambers does not indicate that, for reasons passed. Her turning to the claim of a gift is not verified according to us; rather, the verified is the claim of inheritance. And even if we concede that she claimed it was a gift, we do not concede that she brought those pure ones as witnesses. That is because it is agreed upon that a gift is not completed except by taking possession, and Fadak was not in the possession of al-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with her) at the time, so there was no dire need to request witnesses. Even if we concede that those pure ones testified, we do not concede that the Truthful one rejected their testimony; rather, he did not rule by it. There is a difference between "not ruling" and "rejection." The latter is an expression of non-acceptance due to a suspicion of lying, for example, while the former is an expression of non-execution due to the loss of some conditions considered after integrity. The shifting of the temperament of al-Zahra's satisfaction was among the requirements of human nature; Moses (peace be upon him) became angry with his older brother Aaron to the point of taking him by his beard and head, and that did not diminish their status at all. Furthermore, Abu Bakr sought to satisfy her (may Allah be pleased with her), using Ali (may Allah honor his face) as an intercessor, and she was satisfied with him, as is in Madarij al-Nubuwwah, Kitab al-Wafa, and the Sharh al-Mishkat by Dehlawi and others. In Mahajj al-Salikin and other reputable books of the Imamiyyah, there is what supports this chapter, as they narrated that when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) had withdrawn from him and forsaken him and did not speak after that about the affair of Fadak, that weighed heavily on him. So he wanted to satisfy her, and he came to her and said: "You spoke the truth, O daughter of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in what you claimed, but I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) dividing it, giving the poor, the destitute, and the wayfarer after providing your sustenance from it. So what would you do with it?" She said: "I will do with it as my father (peace and blessings be upon him) used to do with it." He said: "You have a covenant from Allah that I will do with it what your father used to do." She said: "By Allah, you will do it?" He said: "By Allah, I will do it." She said: "O Allah, be a witness." She was satisfied with that and took the covenant from him, and Abu Bakr used to give them their sustenance from it and divide the remainder among the poor, the destitute, and the wayfarer. The discussion remains on the reason for not enabling her (may Allah be pleased with her) to exercise authority over it, and it was to dispel confusion and close the door of requests that led to the breaking of many hearts or narrowing the matter upon the Muslims.

It has been received that "The believer, if afflicted with two calamities, chooses the lighter of them." Furthermore, the satisfaction of al-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with her) after that with the Truthful one closed the door of attack upon him, whether he was correct in the denial or not. Exalted is the One who grants success to the truth and protects His prophets from error in the decisive speech.

"If there are women": The pronoun is for the children in absolute terms, and the predicate is beneficial without interpretation. The necessity of giving preference to females over males does not harm, because that is something they have stated the permissibility of, in observance of the report and in conformity to it. It is permissible for it to return to the born-daughters or the daughters who are within the absolute "children." The meaning: "If the born-children or the daughters are pure women, with no male with them." By this, the pregnancy [of the meaning] is beneficial; otherwise, the noun and the predicate would be unified, and it would not be beneficial. Moreover, His saying: "above two" if made an adjective for "women," is the place of benefit. Abu Hayyan necessitated this and did not permit what more than one permitted: that it be a second predicate, thinking that the pregnancy [of the meaning] is not beneficial in that case. That is from some [mistaken] suspicion, as you have learned. Al-Zamakhshari permitted that "was" (kan) be complete (intransitive), and the pronoun be vague, explained by the accusative as a specification (distinction). The grammarians did not approve of this because "was" is not among the verbs whose subject is implied to be explained by what comes after it, as that is restricted to the category of "Yes" and "Dispute" (in grammar), as al-Shihab said. The meaning of "above" is the increase in number, not true superiority. The benefit of mentioning that is the explicit statement that the intent is not restricted to one number over another, meaning: "If they be women" exceeding two, however many they may reach.

"then for them is two-thirds of what he left": Meaning the deceased among you. It is implied due to the speech’s indication of it, and the like is common and permissible.

"And if she be": That is, the born-daughter understood from the speech, "one," meaning one woman, with no brother or sister with her.

Nafi' and the people of Medina read "one" (wahidatun) in the nominative, on the basis that "was" is complete, and the nominative is its subject. The reading of the accusative is preferred because it is more consistent with what precedes. Ibn Tamjid said: "The reading in the nominative is more appropriate and more suitable for the structure, because the structure falls apart in the reading of the accusative, according to the apparent [grammar]. For if the pronoun of 'was' refers to the children, the meaning is corrupted, as is apparent. And if it refers to the born-daughter as they say, it necessitates pronoun reference before mention. Both matters are lifted in the reading of the nominative, as the meaning is 'And if there be found one daughter from those children.'" The verifiers do not deny such reference, as you have learned just now.

"then for her is half": Meaning "of what he left." He left it out, finding sufficiency in the first. "Half" (nisf) is articulated in three ways, as in the Qamus, one of two sides of a thing. Zayd bin Thabit read "The half" (al-nusf) with the nun being dammahed, which is the dialect of the people of Hijaz. He mentioned that it is more analogical, because you say: al-thulth, al-rub', al-khums, and so on, and all of them have their beginnings dammahed.

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) took the apparent meaning of the verse, so he assigned two-thirds for more than two daughters, such as three or more, and assigned the share of two as half, like the share of one. The majority of the Companions, the Imams, and the Imamiyyah are to the contrary, as they ruled that for two and what is above them is two-thirds, and that half is for one only. The reasoning for this, according to what al-Qutb said, is that when it became clear that for the male with the female is two-thirds—since for the male is the equivalent of the portion of two females—then there must be two-thirds for the two daughters in one scenario. Otherwise, there would not be "for the male the equivalent of the portion of two females," because two-thirds is not their share at all. But that scenario is not the scenario of gathering, since there is no scenario in which two gather with a male and they receive two-thirds. Thus, it is determined that it is the scenario of singularity. To this, the Sayyid al-Sanad pointed in his Sharh al-Sirajiyah, and he objected that the deduction is circular, because the knowledge that the male has two-thirds in the mentioned scenario is dependent on knowing the share of the two females, since nothing was known from the verse except that the male has the equivalent of the share of the two females. So if the knowledge of the females' share were extracted from the male's share, a circularity would result. The answer is that what is extracted is the assigned share for the two females, which is two-thirds, and what the knowledge of the male's share depends on is the knowledge of the females' share in absolute terms. So there is no circularity. Due to the forcing in this argument, some verifiers turned away from it and mentioned that the ruling for the two daughters is understood from the text by way of implication or indication. That is because of what Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: "The wife of Sa'd bin al-Rabi' came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, these two are the daughters of Sa'd. Their father was killed on the day of Uhud, and their uncle has taken their wealth and left them nothing, and they cannot be married unless they have wealth.' He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Allah will rule in that.' Then the verse of inheritance was revealed. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent for their uncle and said: 'Give the two daughters of Sa'd two-thirds, and give their mother the eighth, and what remains is yours.'"

This indicates that the understanding of the ruling from the text is by one of the two ways, because he ruled by it after the revelation of the verse. The reasoning is that when the two daughters were entitled to half with the male, it was known that if they were alone without him, they would be entitled to more than that, because when one is alone, she takes half, after having taken a third with him. And their share must be as the male takes it in total, which is two-thirds, as he takes it with the daughter. Thus, His saying (Exalted is He): "If there are women," etc., is an explanation for the share of one and what is above two, after having explained their [general] share. That is why he branched it off from it, because if there were not in what preceded that which indicates the share of females, the fa (then/thus) would not have been placed correctly. This is something that has no dust on it. It is said that the ruling for the two daughters was established by analogy to the daughter with her brother, or to the two sisters.

As for the first, because since the daughter was entitled to a third with the brother, then with the daughter [as an heir] it is by way of priority. As for the second, because he mentioned the ruling of the one and the three and above from the daughters, and did not mention the ruling for the two daughters; and he mentioned in the inheritance of sisters the ruling of the one sister and the two sisters, and did not mention the ruling for many sisters. So the ruling of the two daughters is known from the inheritance of the daughters, and the ruling of the sisters from the inheritance of the daughters. Because when the share of two sisters was two-thirds, the two daughters were more entitled to them. And when the share of many daughters does not exceed two-thirds, it is by priority that the share of the sisters not exceed that. Many of the latecomers have gone to this, and the Allama Nasir al-Din made it an encouragement, but did not make it a proof, as he could dispense with it by what preceded. Also, it has been said: "Analogy does not run in the ordinances and the determined shares." Some looked into the first [argument] by saying that the single daughter did not deserve a third with the brother; rather, she deserves half of his share, and it being a third is by way of distribution. The weakness of this is not hidden. It is said: It is possible to say the two daughters were joined to the group because the description of women as being "above two" is to alert [people] to the absence of difference between one number and another, and the two daughters share with the group in plurality. It is known that smallness and largeness have no effect. So it is apparent to join them to the group with the unifying factor of plurality and the absence of considering smallness and largeness, unlike the single [daughter], due to the absence of a unifying factor between them.

It is said that the meaning of the verse "If there are women" is two and above, except that he presented the mention of "above" over the two, as narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: "A woman should not travel for a journey of more than three days unless her husband or a mahram is with her," for the meaning is "do not travel for a journey of three days and above." To this went those who said that the minimum of a group is two. An objection was raised against Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that if it were to be benefited from His saying "above two" that the situation of the two is not the situation of the group based on the concept of the adjective, it is countered by the fact that it is benefited from "one" that their situation is not the situation of the one due to the concept of the number, and it has been said so. The answer is the difference between them, for "women" is apparent in what is above them, so when he emphasized it, it became decisive in specification, unlike "And if she be one." An objection was raised against him that this is only completed upon the estimation that the adverb is an emphatic adjective and not a predicate after a predicate. The answer is that His saying "women" is apparent in its being "above two," so the lack of sufficiency with it and bringing a predicate after it indicates with explicit indication that the ruling is restricted to it and does not transcend it. Also, among what aids the [Ibn Abbas] report is that when the two evidences contradicted, the affair of the two daughters turned between the two-thirds and the half, and the certain is the half, while the excess is doubtful and not established. So it is determined to move towards it. It is not hidden that the authentic hadith that preceded destroys the affair of clinging to such ropes, and perhaps that did not reach him (may Allah be pleased with them), so he said what he said. In Sharh al-Yanbu', quoting Sharif Shams al-Din al-Armuni, it is said that he said in Sharh Fara'id al-Wasit: "It is confirmed that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) returned from that, so it became a consensus. Upon this, it is possible that the hadith reached him, or he looked deeply into the verse and understood from it what the majority are upon, so he returned to their agreement."

The story of al-Nazzam from him (may Allah be pleased with him) in Kitab al-Nukat that he said: "For the two daughters is half and a qirat, because for one is half, and for what is above two is [two-thirds], so for the two daughters there should be what is between them," is something that hardly stands. So understand.

"And for his parents": That is, of the deceased, whether male or female. This is separate from the noble structure, for its ruling is not restricted to the scenarios that preceded it from the images; rather, it is in reality the beginning of the inheritance of the ascendants after mentioning the inheritance of the descendants. The intended meaning of "the parents" is the father and the mother, giving preference to the term "father." It is not permissible to say in [the case of] a son and a daughter "two sons" due to the confusion. If it does not confuse, it is permissible, as Sibawayh said.

"for each one of them is the sixth": This is a substitute for "his parents," repeating the agent, and it is placed between the subject—which is His saying "the sixth"—and the predicate—which is "for his parents." Ibn al-Munir claimed that there is a concern in its parsing as a substitute. This is because, according to this estimation, it would be from the substitution of a thing for a thing when they are one and the same entity. The origin of the speech would be "The sixth is for his parents, for each one of them." The implication of limiting to the substitute-from is the sharing between them in the sixth, as He (Exalted is He) said: "If there are women above two, for them is two-thirds of what he left," which necessitated their sharing in it. The implication of the substitute, if one were to estimate the discarding of the first, is the singling out of each one of them with the sixth and the absence of sharing. This contradicts the reality of this type of substitute, as it requires that the substitute-from and the substitute be one and the same; its benefit is only emphasis by the sum of the two nouns, nothing more, without additional meaning. If the disparity between them is realized, the aforementioned substitution becomes impossible. It is not a substitution of partition according to this parsing either; otherwise, there would be an increase in meaning in the substitute. So the way is to estimate a deleted subject, as if it were said: "And for his parents is a third." Then, since he mentioned their share summarized, he detailed it by saying: "For each one of them is the sixth." It was permissible to delete the subject due to the detail’s indication of it, by necessity, because from the entitlement of each one of them to the sixth follows their entitlement together to the third. Abu Hayyan rejected this, saying that this is a substitute of a part for the whole, and for that reason he brought the pronoun. It is not to be imagined that it is a substitution of a thing for a thing when they are for one entity, because of the permissibility of "Your parents do so-and-so" and the impossibility of "Your parents, each one of them does so-and-so"; rather, you say: "He does so-and-so." However, an objection was raised against making "for his parents" the predicate of the subject, in that the substitute is the one which is the predicate of the subject in such examples, not the substitute-from, as in the example. Al-Halabi followed it by saying that there is a concern in this debate, because if it were said to you: "What is the parsing of 'for his parents'?" you would be forced to say: "It is in a state of being in the nominative as a preceding predicate." But he transferred the predicative nature to each one of them, not to "for his parents." This structure was chosen over saying "And for each one of his parents is the sixth" because of the summary and detail in the first, which is more impressive in the mind, rather than the second, and rather than saying "For his parents are the two sixths" to specify the equality of the parents in the first and the lack of specification of that in the second, due to the possibility of disparity, and its being contrary to the apparent does not harm, because it suffices as a point for changing [the structure].

Al-Hasan and Nu'aym bin Maysara read "the sixth" (al-sudus) with lightening, as well as the third, the fourth, and the eighth.

"of what he left": It is related to a deleted entity that occurred as a state from the pronoun hidden in the prepositional phrase referring to the subject, and the agent is the standing [of the state], meaning: "being [of what he left] the deceased." If the deceased had a child, whether male or female, one or more, the son’s child is likewise. Then, if the child was male, the remainder is for him. If they were males, the remainder is for them equally. If they were males and females, "for the male is the equivalent of the portion of two females." If it were a daughter, she has half, and for one of the parents is the sixth, or for both is the two sixths, and the remainder returns to the father if he exists, but by way of ta'sib (agnation), and the multiplicity of sides is placed in the position of the multiplicity of entities. If there is a mother and a daughter only, the remainder after the mandatory share of the mother and daughter returns to them. The Imamiyyah claimed in the scenario of parents or a father or mother and a daughter that the remainder after each takes their mandatory share returns to the daughter and to one of the parents or to both according to their shares.

"If he has no child": Nor a son’s child.

"and his parents inherit from him": Only. This is taken from the male specification, as the context indicates.

"then for his mother is the third of what he left": The remainder is for the father. It was not mentioned because of the lack of need for it; because when the inheritance was restricted to his parents and the mother’s share was determined, it was known that the remainder is for the father. This is something the Muslims have reached consensus upon. It is said that it was not mentioned because the intent was to change the share, and in this scenario, only the share of the mother changed, while the share of the father is in its state; he only takes the remainder after his share and the share of the mother by ta'sib. So the situation is not a situation of the father’s share. There is reflection here, because the apparent is that the father taking the remainder after the mother’s mandatory share is by way of ta'sib, and the scholars of fara'id (inheritance) have explicitly stated this. The specification of the mother’s side with mention and referring the father’s side to the indication of the situation—despite the existence of the explanation by the opposite—is also for that, and because her share is more concise and his entitlement is more complete and abundant. This is if none of the spouses is with them. As for when one of them is with them—these two issues are called al-Gharrawayn, al-Gharibatayn, and al-Umariyyayn—the mother has a third of what remains after the mandatory share of one of them, according to the majority of the Companions and jurists, not a third of the whole, contrary to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). He reasoned that the Exalted initially assigned her a sixth of the estate with the child, by His saying: "for his parents, for each one of them is the sixth of what he left if he has a child," then mentioned that she has, with the absence of [a child], the third by His saying: "If he has no child and his parents inherit from him, then for his mother is the third." Thus, it is understood from it that the intent is a third of the original estate as well.

He is supported by the fact that the determined shares are all in relation to their origin after the bequest and debt. The Imamiyyah went to this. Abu Bakr al-Asamm used to say that she has with the husband a third of what remains from his mandatory share, and with the wife a third of the original. This is attributed to Ibn Sirin, because if she were given a third of the entire wealth with the husband, it would necessitate her share exceeding the father’s share. For the issue in that case would be out of six due to the gathering of the half and the third; the husband has three and the mother two according to that estimation, so one remains for the father. In that is the favoring of the female over the male. If she were given a third of what remains from the husband’s share, she would have one and the father two. If she were given with the wife a third of the original, that favoring would not be necessitated, because the issue is out of twelve due to the gathering of the third and the quarter. So if the mother takes four, five remain for the father, so there is no favoring of her over him. The school of the majority was preferred over the school of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) because it is free from leading to the favoring of the female over the male who is equal to her in side and proximity; rather, he is stronger than her in inheritance by the evidence of his doubling over her when they are alone from one of the spouses, and his being a person of mandatory share and ta'sib. This is contrary to the position of the Law. This leading [to the absurdity] is apparent in the first issue. By this, Zayd bin Thabit justified his ruling in it, contradicting Ibn Abbas. Abd al-Razzaq and al-Bayhaqi extracted from Ikrimah, who said: "Ibn Abbas sent me to Zayd bin Thabit to ask him about a husband and parents. Zayd said: 'The husband has half, and the mother has a third of what remains, and the father has the remainder of the wealth.' Ibn Abbas sent to him: 'Do you find this in the Book of Allah?' He said: 'No, but I dislike favoring a mother over a father.'" It is not hidden that this does not rise to the level of a preference for the majority’s school over al-Asamm’s school. From here, the Sayyid al-Sanad and others said in support of their school, turning away from the path we traversed: "The meaning of His saying: 'If he has no child and his parents inherit from him, then for his mother is the third' is that she has a third of what they both inherited, whether it is all the wealth or some of it. That is because if a third of the original were intended, it would suffice in the explanation [to say]: 'If he has no child, then for his mother is the third,' as He said regarding the daughters: 'And if she be one, for her is half' after His saying: 'If there are women above two, for them is two-thirds of what he left.' Thus, His saying 'and his parents inherit from him' would be devoid of benefit." If it is said: "We interpret it as meaning the inheritance is for them only," we say: "There is no indication in the expression for restricting the inheritance to them. Even if conceded, there is no indication in the verse then regarding the scenario of the dispute, neither in negation nor in affirmation. So it is referred to that the parents in the ascendants are like the son and the daughter in the descendants, because the cause for the inheritance of the male and the female is one, and each of them connects to the deceased without an intermediary. So what remains from the mandatory share of one of the spouses is made between them in thirds, as in the case of the son and the daughter, and as in the case of the parents when they are alone in inheritance. Thus, the mother’s share does not exceed half of the father’s share, as the analogy necessitates. So there is no room for what al-Asamm went to either upon this, and I wish he had heard that. So understand.

They also differed in the mother’s share if, instead of the father, there is a grandfather, and the rest of the issue is in its state. The school of Ibn Abbas and one of the two narrations from the Truthful one (and the people of Kufa narrated this from Ibn Mas'ud in the scenario of the husband alone) is that the mother has a third of the entire wealth. The saying of Abu Yusuf—and it is the other narration from the Truthful one (may Allah be pleased with him)—is that she has a third of the remainder, just as with the father. According to this narration, the grandfather is made like the father in that he agnates the mother just as the father agnates her. The face of the matter in the first narration, according to what the scholars of fara'id mention, is that he left the apparent meaning of His saying: "Then for his mother is the third" in relation to the father and interpreted it as passed, so that the favoring of her over him is not necessitated when they are equal in proximity in rank. He supported the interpretation by the saying of most of the Companions. As for the grandfather, he left it on its apparent meaning due to the lack of equality in proximity and the strength of the disagreement among the Companions. There is no impossibility in favoring the female over the male with disparity in degree, as if a woman leaves a husband, a sister from mother and father, and a brother from the father; for the woman has a quarter, the sister has half, and the brother from the father has the remainder. The female was favored here because of her increased proximity over the male. Also, the mother has the reality of childbearing just as the father, so he agnates her, while the grandfather has the ruling of childbearing, not its reality, so he does not agnate her, for there is no ta'sib with the difference in cause, but only with agreement in it.

"If he has brothers, for his mother is the sixth": The majority are upon the fact that the intended meaning of "brothers" is a number of those who have brothers, without considering the triad, whether they are from the brothers or the sisters, and whether they are from both parents or from one of them.

Ibn Abbas disagreed in that, for he made three of the brothers and sisters a barrier for the mother, not two, so she has with them the third in his view, based on the fact that "brothers" is a plural form, so it does not cover the dual. With this, Uthman bin Affan argued against Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). Ibn Jarir, al-Hakim, and al-Bayhaqi extracted in their Sunan from Ibn Abbas that he entered upon Uthman and said: "The two brothers do not turn the mother away from the third," and he recited the verse. Then he said: "And the two brothers are not in the language of your people 'brothers'." Uthman said: "I cannot reject what was before me, and it has passed in the provinces and people have inherited by it." The majority said: "The ruling of two in the chapter of inheritance is the ruling of the group. Do you not see that two daughters are like the daughters, and two sisters are like the sisters in the entitlement of two-thirds? So likewise in the barrier [to inheritance]." Also, the meaning of the absolute group is shared between two and what is above them. This station is suitable for the indication of the absolute group, so it indicated it by the word "brothers." Rather, he said: "The plural form is a reality in two just as in what is above them in the speech of the Arabs." Al-Hakim and al-Bayhaqi extracted in their Sunan from Zayd bin Thabit that he used to bar the mother with two brothers. They said to him: "O Abu Sa'id, Allah the Exalted says: 'If he has brothers,' and you bar her with two brothers?" He said: "The Arabs call two brothers 'brothers'." This contradicts the report passed from Ibn Abbas, for it is explicit that the plural form is not used for two in the language of the Arabs. Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) conceded that, except that he argued that the application of "brothers" to the general [case] was a consensus.

From here, people differed in the significance of the plural form as a reality. Some of the principles-scholars stated that it is in two in inheritance and bequests, attached to the reality, and the grammarians are to the contrary. Ibn Abbas also disagreed in bequeathing the mother the sixth with pure females because "brothers" is the plural of "brother," so it does not include the sister except by way of giving preference, and the pure [females] have no males with them, so they give preference. This is sound speech, except that the action is upon his disagreement in consideration of the description of "brothers" in the verse, because of the consensus upon that before the appearance of Ibn Abbas’s disagreement. Breaking the consensus is only forbidden for one who was not present at it. The Zaydiyyah and the Imamiyyah went to the view that brothers from the mother do not bar her, unlike others. For the barrier here is in the sense of a rational meaning, as the speech of Qatada points to, and it is that if there are brothers from father and mother or from father, then the dependants of the father have increased, so he needs an increase in wealth for spending. This meaning does not exist if the brothers are from the mother, for their support is not upon the father. The majority went to the absence of difference because the name is a reality in the three categories, and this is a ruling whose meaning is not rational; it was established by the text. Do you not see that they bar the mother after the death of the father and there is no support upon him after his death, and they bar her as adults too, and their support is not upon him?

Then, the common, known meaning from the outside or from the verse in the opinion is that the brothers bar the mother with a barrier of reduction, even if they are barred by the father with a barrier of deprivation. The sixth that they barred her from returns to the father, and this is the school of the majority of the Companions. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that it is for the brothers, for they only barred her from it to take it. For the non-heir does not bar, such as if the brothers were disbelievers or slaves. It is sometimes argued with what Tawus narrated, in a mursal form, that he (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the brothers the sixth with the parents.

For the majority, as the Sharif said, the beginning of the speech indicates that for his mother is the third and the remainder for the father, so the situation is the same at its end. It is as if it were said: "If he has brothers and his parents inherit from him, then for his mother is the sixth and for his father is the remainder." Then, the condition of the barrier is that he must be an heir in relation to the one he bars, and the Muslim brother is an heir in relation to the mother, contrary to the slave and the disbeliever. So the brothers bar her, and they are barred by the father. Do you not see that they do not inherit with the father when the mother is absent, because they are kalala (distant relatives), so there is no inheritance for them with the parent? The situation of the brothers with the mother is not stronger than their situation with her absence. It is narrated from Tawus that he said: "I met a son of a man from the brothers to whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the sixth with the parents and I asked him about that. He said: 'That was a bequest.'" In that case, the hadith became a proof for the majority, since there is no bequest for an heir. The apparent is that there is no authenticity for this narration from Ibn Abbas, because he agrees with the Truthful one (may Allah be pleased with him) in the grandfather barring the brothers, so how would he say they inherit with the father? Thus in Sharh al-Imam al-Sarakhsi. In al-Durr al-Manthur that Ibn...

(Text missing from the end of page 226 to 229)

"If you have a child, for them is the eighth of what you left after any bequest you [may] make or debt." The man is assigned, by the right of marriage, double what is assigned to the woman, as in the lineage, due to a merit over her. Thus, he was singled out with the honor of address and the presentation of the mention of the ruling of his inheritance. Likewise is the analogy of every man and woman, sharing in the side and proximity. Nothing is excluded from that except the children of the mother and the manumitter and manumittress, due to the equality of the male and the female among them.

"And if a man": The intended meaning by the man is the deceased, and it is the name of "was."

"is inherited from": On the passive construction from "inherited," the triliteral, it is the predicate of "was." The meaning is "is inherited from," for "inherited" is transitive with "from," and it is often deleted.

"kalala": It is in the origin a source meaning kalal (exhaustion). Al-A'sha said: "So I swore I would not mourn for her from exhaustion nor from... until I meet Muhammad." Then it was borrowed and used as a reality for kinship from other than the side of the parent and the child, due to its weakness in relation to their kinship. It is applied to one who did not leave behind a parent or a child, and to one who is not a parent or a child of those who are left behind, in the meaning of "possessor of kalala," just as "kinship" is applied to the possessors of kinship. Jarir and Abd al-Razzaq and al-Bayhaqi from him.

Hamza and al-Kisa'i read "for his mother" (li-ummihi) with the cassation of the hamza, in following the cassation of the lam. It is said it is in following the cassation of the mim, but it was weakened because it is the following of an original movement with a transient one, which is the grammatical [movement]. It is said it is a dialect for the mother, and al-Shihab denied it. In the Qamus: "The mother—and it may be cassated—is the parent." It is said ummuhu and ummatahu, and it is pluralized as ummat and ummahat. These are for those who possess intellect, and ummat for those who do not. This was mentioned in the Sahah from some.

"after any bequest": Relates to "instructs you," and the speech is upon the deletion of a possessor, based on the fact that the intended meaning of "bequest" is the bequeathed wealth. The meaning is that these shares are for the heirs after the extraction of a bequest.

It is permitted that it be a state from the sixth, and the estimation is "entitled after that," and the agent in it is the prepositional phrase occurring as a predicate due to its reliance, and one estimates for what precedes it the same, like the dispute [in grammar]. It is said it is related to a general "being" that is deleted, meaning "that settled for these after a bequest..."

"which he instructs": [Of] the deceased. Ibn Amir, Ibn Kathir, and Abu Bakr from Asim read "instructs" passively, lightened. It was read "instructs" actively, strengthened. The sentence is an adjective for "bequest," and the benefit of the adjective is the encouragement for the bequest and the recommending to it. It is said the generalization, because the bequest cannot be except that which is bequeathed.

"or debt": Conjoined to bequest, except that it is not restricted by what it was restricted to from the previous adjective. Thus, the extraction of the debt does not stop at the instruction of it; rather, it is absolute, covering what is established by evidence and acknowledgment in health. The preference for "or" over "and" is to announce their equality in the obligation and their precedence over the division, collectively or singly. The precedence of the bequest over the debt in mention—even though the debt is precedent over it in ruling, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) judged in what Ali (may Allah honor his face) narrated and a group extracted from him—is to show the perfection of concern with its execution, because it is a place of suspicion of negligence in its performance, as it is taken like the inheritance without compensation, so it was difficult for them. And because everything is recommended to it where there is no obstacle, contrary to the debt in the famous view, with its rarity or the rarity of delaying it until death. Ibn al-Munir said that the verse did not contradict the order occurring in the Law, because the first that one begins with is the extraction of the debt, then the bequest, then the division of those of inheritance. So look at how the extraction of the inheritance came last, following the extraction of the bequest, and the bequest followed the debt. It agreed with our saying: the division of inheritance is after the bequest and the debt, in the image of the reality in the Law. If the mention of "after" had fallen and the speech had been "extract the inheritance, the bequest, and the debt," the aforementioned question could have been entered, and it is in a place of beauty.

"your fathers and your sons, you do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit": The address is to the heirs. "Your fathers" is conjoined to it. "You do not know" with what is in its scope is a predicate for it. Either "which" is interrogative, a subject, and "nearer" is the predicate, and the verb is related from it, so it is filling the place of the two objects. Or it is relative, and "nearer" is the predicate of a deleted subject, and the sentence is the connection of the relative, and it is a first object, dammahed due to its attachment [to the relative] and the deletion of the head of its connection, and the second object is deleted. "In benefit" is accusative as a specification (distinction), and it is transferred from the agency. The sentence is intercalated, emphasizing the obligation of executing the bequest.

The fathers and sons are an expression for the heirs, the ascendants and descendants, so it includes the daughters, mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers. That is, your ascendants and descendants who die before you; you do not know who is more beneficial to you from among them—is it one who bequeathed some of his wealth, so he exposed you to the reward of the Hereafter by fulfilling his bequest, or one who did not bequeath, so he saved for you the goods of the world? It is not intended—as the Sheikh of Islam said—by the negation of knowledge regarding them, the explanation of the confusion of the matter upon them, and that the benefit-nature of each of the first and the second is in the scope of probability in their view without one being preferred over the other. For that is far from benefiting the mentioned emphasis and the encouragement to execute the bequest; rather, it is the verification of the benefit-nature of the first, within the exposure that they have a belief in the benefit-nature of the second, based on the absence of knowledge. This has been pointed to where he expressed the benefit-nature as "nearness of benefit," reminding of the pivot of their claim and determining the source of their error, and in exaggeration of the mentioned encouragement, and by picturing the postponed truth in the image of the immediate [worldly], because temperaments are created to love the present good. As if it were said: "You do not know which of them is more beneficial to you, so you judge, looking to the apparent of the situation and the nearness of attainment, the benefit-nature of the second, even though the matter is to the contrary. For what results from the first is the everlasting reward in the Hereafter, and what results from the second is the fleeting good in the life of the world. The first, due to its remaining, is the nearer, closer; and the second, due to its perishing, is the further, farthest."

Many of the verifiers chose that the sentence is an intercalation emphasizing the command of division, and they made the address to the legators. The direction of that is that He (Exalted is He) explained the shares of the children and the parents in what preceded, and the shares were different, and the intellects do not find the way to the quantity of that. So it might occur to a person that if the division had occurred in other than this way, it would have been more beneficial and sound, as the people of Ignorance were accustomed to, where they would bequeath to the strong men and would not bequeath to the weak children and women. So Allah (Exalted is He) denied upon them what might occur to their minds of this type and pointed to the inadequacy of their intellects. As if He said: "Your intellects do not encompass your benefits, so you do not know who is more beneficial to you from among those who inherit from you from your ascendants and descendants in your immediate and your delayed [times]. So abandon the estimation of inheritances by the quantities that you deem good by your intellects, and do not intend to favor some and deprive others, and be obedient to the command of Allah in these estimations that He, the Exalted, estimated. For He is the Knower of the unseen matters and their consequences, and the face of wisdom is in what He estimated and managed, and He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." The benefit according to this is more general than the worldly and the otherworldly. The benefit of some of them to others in the world is by spending on them, educating them, and defending them, for example. And their benefit in the Hereafter is by intercession. Al-Tabarani and Ibn Marduyah extracted from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "When the man enters Paradise, he will ask about his parents, his wife, and his child, and it will be said: 'They have not reached your rank yet.' He will say: 'O my Lord, I have done [good] for myself and for them.' Then it will be ordered that they be joined to him." To this, al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him) went, and Mujahid restricted it to the worldly benefit, and some restricted it to the otherworldly.

It is mentioned that the meaning is: You do not know which of the fathers, from the parents, and which of the sons, from the sons and daughters, is nearer to you in benefit, to raise them to you in rank in the Hereafter. And when you do not know, pay out what Allah (Exalted is He) has assigned and divided, and do not say: "Why was the father delayed from the son, and for what reason did he [the father] take everything instead of the mother and the daughter?" It was objected that that is not explained by the benefit until what was mentioned is completed, and that it indicates that one who is presented in inheritance or whose share is doubled is more beneficial, and that is not the case. The answer is that it was intended that since the benefits were veiled from your knowledge, believe in it [as having] a benefit that your intellects do not reach—this is far because it is not understood from the context. Similar to this is rejected against what many chose. Perhaps it is said the meaning is: You do not know which of the ascendants and descendants is nearer to you in benefit, let alone the benefit, so how do you judge by the division according to the benefit while it is veiled from your knowledge entirely? The speech is driven to refute what was in the Ignorance, for the people of Ignorance were—as al-Suddi said—not bequeathing to the female servants nor the weak among the male servants, and a man would not inherit from his child except one who launched into fighting. From Ibn Abbas, they used to give the inheritance to the oldest, then the oldest. This suggests that the orbit of inheritance in their view was the benefit-nature with the kinship relation. So Allah (Exalted is He) refuted them by saying that the benefit-nature you do not know, so how do you consider it? The purpose of that is the binding argument, not to explain that the benefit-nature is considered in the reality of the matter except that they do not know it. Perhaps upon this, what preceded of the objection is not entered. So reflect. It is said that the intended meaning of the verse is: "You do not know which of the heirs and the legators is faster in death, so his companion inherits from him." So do not wish for the death of the legatee and do not hasten it. This is attributed to Abu Muslim, and its hand is not hidden behind it.

"A duty from Allah": A source emphasizing its self, on the limit of "this is my son truly," because it is occurring after a sentence that has no possibility for it other than it, so its verb that erects it is deleted by necessity, meaning: "He assigned that as a duty from Allah." It is said that it is not a source; rather, it is a noun for the passive participle occurring as a state, and the estimation is "for these heirs are these shares, being in the state of being assigned by Allah the Exalted." It is said, rather, it is a source, except that it is emphasizing its verb, and it is "He instructs you" in the preceding, upon other than its wording. For the meaning is "He imposes upon you." Essam al-Milla objected to it that the source, if it is attached to its agent or its object or they are related to it, its verb must be deleted, as al-Radi explicitly stated, except if one differentiates between the explicit source and what it contained. However, there is no evidence for this, and we have not come across it.

"Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing": That is, of the benefits and the ranks.

"All-Wise": In everything He judged and estimated. The rulings of inheritance enter into it by primary entry. The position of this sentence here is the position of His saying (Exalted is He) to the angels: "Indeed, I know what you do not know." The report about Allah (Exalted is He) with such words—as al-Khalil said—is like the report by the state and the future, because He (Exalted is He) is transcended from entering under time. Sibawayh said: "When the people witnessed knowledge, wisdom, virtue, and benevolence, they wondered, so it was said to them: 'Indeed, Allah (Exalted is He) was such,' meaning He was not ceasing to be described with these attributes, so there is no need for saying the increase of 'was' as some went to."