[An-Nisa: 12]
"And for you is half of what your wives leave behind, if they have no child."
Whether that child be male or female, one or many, from you or from others. It is for this reason that He, Exalted is He, said "for them" (the wives) and did not say "for you." There is no distinction between whether the child is from the womb of the wife or from the loins of her sons or the sons of her sons, to however far Allah, Exalted is He, wills.
"But if they have a child..."
According to the aforementioned details. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the child of a child (i.e., grandchild) does not exclude (the husband from his full share). The "fa" (in fa-lakum) is for the sequential ordering of what follows to what precedes; for the mention of the assumption of the absence of a child and the clarification of its ruling is followed by the assumption of his existence and the clarification of its ruling.
"...then for you is a fourth of what they leave..."
Of wealth. The remainder in both scenarios goes to the rest of the heirs from the Ashab al-Fara’id (those with fixed shares), the ‘Asabat (agnatic heirs), or the Dhawu al-Arham (distant relatives), or to the Bayt al-Mal (Public Treasury) if there is no other heir.
"...after any bequest they may make or debt."
This relates to both scenarios, not just the one immediately preceding it. The discourse regarding the benefit of this qualification—as well as the priority given to the bequest—has passed previously, so there is no benefit in repeating it.
Meaning the wives, whether they be many or one.
"...is a fourth of what you leave, if you have no child, according to the aforementioned detail."
Regarding *Kalalah*
Some scholars have treated it as a verbal noun (masdar). Others permitted it to be an adjective—similar to hajjajah for a fool. A poet said: "A 'hajjajah' (fool) with a selected heart, as if he were an ostrich in a valley." It is also used for inherited wealth where there is neither parent nor child, though this usage is not common. In all such cases, it is neither dualized nor pluralized. Many have chosen the view that its origin is from takallul (encompassing) of lineage, as it surrounds him; from this is iklil (crown) due to its surrounding the head, and kull (all) due to its surrounding the number.
Husayn ibn Ali al-Maghribi said: "In my view, the origin of kalalah is what a person leaves behind his back, derived from al-kull (the back/nape)." It is put in the accusative case (nasb) on the basis that it is a maf‘ul lahu (causative object)—i.e., one is inherited from due to the aforementioned kinship—or as a state (hal) from the pronoun in yurathu (is inherited), meaning: "while being in a state of kalalah." Al-Zajjaj chose this. Or it is the predicate of kana (was), and rajul (man) is the description, i.e., "if a man is inherited [who is] kalalah—neither a parent nor a child."
Abu al-Baqa mentioned the possibility that kana is complete (i.e., "happened/existed") and rajul is its subject, with yurathu as a description for him, and kalalah as a hal from the pronoun in yurathu. Its accusative state under this possibility, as a maf‘ul lahu, is also apparent. It was permitted to be in the nominative case (raf‘) as an adjective or substitute for the pronoun, but no one is known to have recited it that way, so it is not permitted to recite it thus at all. Its accusative state was also attributed to the uncommon usage of it being a second object for yurathu.
It has been recited as yurathu and yurithu with takhfif (lightening) and tashdid (strengthening), based on the active voice. In that case, the accusative state of kalalah is either as a hal from the pronoun of the verb (with the object omitted, i.e., "he inherits his heir while being kalalah"), or it is the direct object (i.e., "he inherits a kalalah"), or it is a maf‘ul lahu (i.e., inherited because of kalalah). This is what they said.
The position held by the people of Kufa and a group of the Companions and Successors is that kalalah here is the third meaning. It is narrated from others among them, including Ibn Jubayr—and there is a report substantiated by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)—that it is the second meaning. We have not seen these two other opinions attributed to any of the Salaf (pious predecessors). The first of these is not far-fetched, and the second is permissible, though it has some remoteness, as is evident.
This is a conjunction to "man," restricted by what "man" was restricted by. Often, it suffices to restrict the conjoined term. Perhaps the separation of her mention from his is to signal her honor and her fundamental status in the rulings. It is also said: it is because the reason for the revelation was the clarification of his ruling, based on what is narrated from Jabir, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) came to me while I was ill, and I said: 'How is the inheritance? I am only inherited as a kalalah,' and thus the verse of shares was revealed for that."
"And for him [the man]..."
The singular pronoun is used because of its necessity in what occurs after "or." Even if something different came, it is interpreted by the majority as such—like the Almighty's saying: "If he be rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both." It was brought in the masculine to allow a choice between observing the conjoined or the conjunct in such cases. Here, the masculine was observed due to its precedence in mention and honor. It is possible the pronoun is for one of the two, or the masculine is for taghlib (dominance). It is also possible that it returns to the deceased or the inherited, due to the preceding reference to it. It is less likely that it returns to the man and the woman's pronoun is omitted (i.e., "for him [and for her]").
"...an brother or sister..."
Meaning from the mother only. Upon this are the generality of the commentators, to the extent that some have claimed consensus on it.
More than one has extracted from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas that he used to recite: "And for him a brother or sister from the mother." And from Abu Bakr [the same]. This reading, even if shadh (irregular), many scholars have relied upon it based on the principle that if a shadh reading has a sound chain of transmission, it is like a solitary report (khabar al-wahid) in the necessity of acting upon it, contrary to some others. This restriction is also guided by the fact that the rulings for full siblings and paternal siblings are those that come at the end of the noble Surah. Furthermore, what is apportioned here for each of the brother and sister—and for the more—is a sixth and a third, which is the share of the mother; thus, it is appropriate that this be for the children of the mother. They are called ikhwat akhyaf (maternal siblings), and the addition is explanatory.
The sentence is in the place of an accusative as a hal from the pronoun in yurathu or from rajul on the assumption that yurathu is a description for it. Its progression is to illustrate the issue and mention kalalah to establish the flow of the ruling, even if there are other heirs alongside the mentioned one by way of kalalah. This does not harm those who do not hold to the concept of mafhum (implication), as it applies in the case of the mother or grandmother, even though their kinship is not by way of kalalah. Similarly, it does not harm those who hold to it, due to the consensus on that.
"So for each of them is a sixth of what is left..."
Without favoring the male over the female. Perhaps he refrained from saying "the sixth" (specifically) to deflect the notion that what was mentioned is the ruling for the brother and the ruling for the sister was omitted, for it is known from this that she has half the brother's share by virtue of femininity. The wisdom in the Lawgiver equating them is their equality in reaching the deceased purely through femininity.
"But if they are more than that..."
Meaning the maternal brothers and sisters indicated by what preceded. The masculine is used for dominance.
Meaning more than the one mentioned or more than that. The expression with the demonstrative noun instead of "the one" is used because it is not said "more than the one" until if it is said, the meaning becomes "in excess of it." Some researchers also insisted on interpretation here, as there is no preference after the state of the referred-to person is disclosed. Perhaps the expression with the demonstrative noun is then an emphasis on the indication that the issue is hypothetical. The "fa" is because, as previously mentioned, the mention of the possibility of solitude entails the mention of the possibility of number.
"...they are partners in the third."
They divide it among themselves equally. This is something upon which there is no disagreement among any of the nation. The remainder goes to the rest of the heirs from the Ashab al-Fara’id and the ‘Asabat. There is disagreement about this with the Shia.
Furthermore, some people have permitted that yurathu in the famous reading be passive from awratha, meaning the heir. The meaning is: "If a man is made an heir because of kalalah, or is a kalalah—meaning neither parent nor child—and that heir has a brother or sister, then for each of that heir or his brother or sister is a sixth. But if they are more than that—meaning more than two, by being three or more—they are partners in the third." This is distributed for the two; nothing is added to it. It is evident that this discourse falls short of explaining the ruling for the case of the heir being alone from the brother and sister. It implies that what is considered for the heirs' entitlement to the aforementioned share is their being siblings to one another only from the mother's side, which is an outcome for which there is no precedent, and it contains what it contains. Our Master, the Shaykh al-Islam—may his secret be sanctified—has clarified this with that to which nothing can be added.
"...after any bequest they may make or debt, without being harmful."
Meaning without causing harm to his heirs. He should not acknowledge a right that is not upon him, and he should not bequeath more than the third. Ibn Jubayr said this. Thus, the debt here is restricted just like the bequest. Regarding yusa (bequest), there are two canonical readings: in the passive voice and the active voice. Ghayr (without/other than) in the first reading is a hal (state) from the doer of the verb, which is implicit, indicated by what is mentioned, and what was omitted from the conjoined [noun] relying upon it. This is similar to the Almighty's saying: "...praising Him therein, morning and evening, men..." on the reading of yusabbahu in the passive, and the poet's saying: "Let weep for Yazid a man of need..."
On the second reading, it is a hal from the doer of the verb mentioned and the omitted [part] by relying upon it. It does not follow from this that there is a separation between the state and its owner by an extraneous element, as is evident. That is, it is bequeathed—the aforementioned bequest and debt—while being "without being harmful." It is not permitted for it to be a hal from the omitted doer in the passive voice because it is left in such a way that no attention is paid to it, so it is not valid for the hal to come from it. It was permitted for it to be an adjective for the masdar (verbal noun), i.e., "a bequest without being harmful."
Some chose to make it a hal from "bequest or debt," i.e., "after fulfilling a bequest or debt, [the person] not being harmful." He attributed the masculine to dominance, but this is nothing. This person also permitted that the meaning be: "without harming himself by committing a violation of the Law by exceeding the third." This is correct in itself, but the immediate meaning is the first, and Mujahid and others are upon it.
It is possible, as a group said, that the meaning is "not intending to harm, but rather seeking closeness (to Allah)." ‘Isam al-Millah mentioned that what is understood from the verse is that the bequest and the acknowledgment of debt for the purpose of harm is not worthy of execution. This is indeed so, but proving the intention is difficult unless it is known by his admission. The apparent meaning is that the intention of harm—not closeness—by bequeathing the third or less does not prevent execution. Ibn Abi Shaybah extracted from Mu'adh ibn Jabal that he said: "Allah, Exalted is He, has given you charity with a third of your wealth as an addition to your lives." Yes, that is prohibited without a doubt, but not every prohibited thing is unenforceable. For instance, emancipation and endowment for the sake of showing off or fame are prohibited by consensus, yet they are effective. Whoever claims that this is specific to the bequest must provide the explanation and the proof.
From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), it is narrated that causing harm in the bequest is one of the major sins. Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and al-Tirmidhi extracted from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) in a marfu’ (elevated) report: "A man may do the deeds of the people of good for seventy years, but when he makes his will, he is unjust in it, so he is sealed with his worst deed and enters the Fire. And a man may do the deeds of the people of evil for seventy years, but he is just in his will, so he is sealed with his best deed and enters Paradise."
"A bequest from Allah..."
An emphasizing masdar, i.e., "Allah bequeaths you with that as a bequest." The tanwin (indefinite marking) is for magnification. "From Allah" relates to an omitted [adjective] that occurred as a description for the indefinite noun, confirming its magnificence. Similar to this is: "...a duty from Allah." Perhaps the secret in specializing each of them to its place is what the Imam said: that the word fard (duty/obligation) is stronger and more emphatic than the word wasiyyah (bequest). Thus, he concluded the explanation of the inheritance of children with the mention of the fardiyyah (mandatory nature), and concluded the explanation of the inheritance of kalalah with wasiyyah, to indicate thereby that although the whole is worthy of observance, the first section—the state of observing the children—is more worthy.
It is also said that wasiyyah is stronger than fard to indicate the desire and the request for the swiftness of attainment. Thus, he concluded the explanation of the inheritance of kalalah with it because, due to its remoteness, its matter might not be cared for, so he incited care for it by mentioning the bequest. That is not the case with what preceded. Or it is in the accusative by mudarr (harming), as its object—either by assumption, i.e., "people of Allah's bequest"—or by hyperbole, because the harm is not to the bequest but to its people. It is like the saying, "O thief of the night, [thief of] the people of the house." Its harm is the violation of their rights and their reduction by what was mentioned of the bequest, by exceeding the third, or by it, for example, for the intent of harm instead of closeness, and the false acknowledgment of debt.
The intent by "the people" is the heirs mentioned here. It occurred in some expressions that the intent is Allah's bequest regarding the children. Perhaps the intent by them is the heirs absolutely, by way of expressing the generic through the most famous of its individuals, just as absolute benefit from wealth is expressed by "eating it." Otherwise, it is not appropriate. Mudarr is put in the accusative as a direct object because it is an active participle depending on the owner of the hal (state) or negated in meaning, so it acts upon the explicit object. Witnessing to this possibility is the reading of al-Hasan: "Ghayr mudarr wasiyyah" (without harming [the] bequest) by genitive construction. Abu al-Baqa mentioned two faces for this reading: First, the estimation is "not harming the people of the bequest," so the mudaf (possessor) was omitted. Second, the estimation is "not harming at the time of the bequest," so it was omitted; it is from the attribution of the quality to the time. Close to this is their saying, "He is a knight of war," meaning a knight in war. You say, "He is a knight of his time," meaning in his time. The majority do not establish the genitive with the meaning of "in."
In Al-Durr al-Masun, the possibility occurred that it is in the accusative as khuruj (exit/extra), but he did not clarify what is meant by that. In Hamm al-Hawami’, it occurred regarding the object: "The Kufans make it in the accusative as khuruj, and he did not clarify it either." Al-Shihab said: "It is as if their intent is that it is outside the two sides of predication, so it is like their saying 'a surplus.'" It should be examined.
"And Allah is All-Knowing..."
Of the harm and other things. It is said: of what He has ordained for His creation of duties.
He does not hasten with punishment. So let not the one who causes harm be deceived by the respite, or let not those who differ with Him regarding the duties He has decreed be deceived by that. The use of the pronoun (hidden) in the place of the explicit is to insert awe and cultivate reverence.
Then know that Allah, Exalted is He, brought the categories of heirs in these verses in the best of orders. This is because the heir is either connected to the deceased by himself without an intermediary, or connected through an intermediary. If connected without an intermediary, the cause of connection is either lineage or marriage. Thus, three categories resulted here:
The most noble and highest of them is the connection resulting initially from the side of lineage; that is the kinship of birth, and included in it are the children and the parents.
Second is the connection resulting initially from the side of marriage; this category is later in nobility than the first because the first is intrinsic and the second is contingent, and the intrinsic is more noble than the contingent.
Third is the connection by way of another; this is what is called kalalah. This category is later than the first two for several reasons:
- The children, parents, husbands, and wives are not subject to complete exclusion, whereas kalalah may be subject to complete exclusion.
- The first two categories, each of them is related to the deceased without an intermediary, whereas kalalah is related through an intermediary, and that which is established initially is more noble than that which is established by an intermediary.
- A person's mingling with parents, children, husbands, and wives is greater and more complete than his mingling with kalalah, and the frequency of mingling is a locus of affection and compassion, which necessitates intense concern for their conditions.
For these reasons and their likes, Allah, Exalted is He, postponed the mention of the inheritance of kalalah after the mention of the first two categories. How excellent is this order and how strongly does it correspond to the laws of logic, as the Imam said.
