Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:176

(They ask you for a legal ruling)—that is, regarding the Kalalah. There is no need to mention it here because it is already stated in His saying: (Say, "Allah gives you a ruling regarding the Kalalah"). The prepositional phrase relates to "ask you," although Abu al-Baqa’ weakened this by arguing that if that were the case, it would have said, "He gives you a ruling concerning it regarding the Kalalah." The interpretation of Kalalah has already passed at the beginning of the Surah. This verse was revealed regarding Jabir ibn Abdullah, as Ibn Abi Hatim and others narrated from him.

The two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) and a large group of others narrated from him, saying: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) visited me while I was ill and unconscious. He performed ablution and poured it over me, and I regained consciousness. I said: 'I have no heirs except Kalalah, so how is the inheritance?' Then the verse of shares was revealed." It is the last verse to have been revealed. The two Shaykhs and others narrated from al-Bara’ who said: "The last complete Surah to be revealed was Bara’ah, and the last verse to be revealed was the conclusion of Surah An-Nisa." The intent here is the verses pertaining to legal rulings, as stated by the scholars of verification; the verification of this will come, if Allah wills. It is called the "Verse of Summer." Malik and Muslim narrated from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: "I did not ask the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) about anything more than I asked him about the Kalalah, until he poked his finger into my chest and said: 'The Verse of Summer, which is at the end of Surah An-Nisa, is sufficient for you.'"

(If a man dies)—this is a new beginning (istia’naf) explaining the legal ruling. Imru’ (a man) is in the nominative case due to a verb that is explained by the verb mentioned later, according to the popular view. His saying: (leaving no child)—is an adjective for him, and the separation by the explainer does not cause harm because it acts as a confirmation. It is said that it is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for him; this was objected to on the grounds that it is indefinite, and the occurrence of a circumstantial qualifier from an indefinite noun is contrary to the apparent rule, as the default for clauses occurring after indefinite nouns is that they are adjectives. Al-Halabi said: "It is permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier for him, and halaka (dies) is an adjective for him." Abu al-Baqa’ made it a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun hidden within halaka. It was argued against this: "The explainer is not intended to the extent that some claimed there is no pronoun in it, because it is an explanation for the verb alone without a pronoun." However, this was rebutted by the verse: "Say, 'Do you possess...'" Abu Hayyan said: "What the syntax requires is that this is impossible, because the subject (musnad ilayh) in reality is only the noun governed by the omitted verb, so it is the one that ought to be restricted. As for the pronoun, it is in an explanatory clause that has no place in the syntax (i’rab), so it acts as a confirmation of what preceded. When the following and the restriction circulate between the confirmed and the confirmer, the priority is for the confirmed, because it is the foundation of the predication." Al-Halabi agreed with him. Al-Safaqsi said: "It is more apparent that this is a preference, not a requirement."

The intent of "child," according to what some have chosen, is the male child, because it is the most immediate meaning, and because the sister—even if she inherits with the daughter according to those other than Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) and the Imamiyyah—does not inherit half by way of fixed share (fard). Some researchers criticized this, choosing the general meaning, arguing that it is a specification without a specifier. The reasoning that the son excludes the sister but the daughter does not is unsound, because the rule is the determination of the half, and this is fixed when there is no son or daughter, but it is not fixed when either of them exists. As for the son, he excludes the sister; as for the daughter, she makes her a residuary (asaba), so the fixed share is not determined for her. Yes, her portion with a single daughter is half by way of asabah, not by fard. Thus, there is no need to interpret "child" as "son," neither by expression nor by implication. Furthermore, the discussion is about Kalalah, which is one who has no child at all, and similarly one who has no parent; however, the text was restricted to the non-mention of the child out of reliance on the clarity of the matter. "Child" is a conceptual commonality in a context of negation, so it is general. Therefore, a specifier is needed for the restriction, and where is it to be found? So understand this.

His saying: (and he has a sister)—is a conjunction to "leaving no child," and it is also possible for it to be a circumstantial clause. The intended meaning of "sister" is the sister from both parents or from the father, because the sister from the mother has her fixed share as one-sixth, as has already been clarified at the beginning of the noble Surah.

(She shall have half of what he leaves)—that is, by fixed share, and the remainder is for the asaba, or for her by way of return (radd) if he has no asaba. The Fa (so) occurs in the response to the condition. (And he)—that is, the man hypothesized to die—(shall inherit from her)—that is, from his sister hypothesized to die, if her death is assumed while he survives. The clause is a new beginning with no place in syntax, and it has functioned—as Abu al-Baqa’ said—as the substitute for the response of the condition in His saying: (if she has no child)—whether male or female. Thus, his inheriting from her refers to his acquisition of all her wealth, as that is what is conditioned upon the total absence of a child, not his inheritance from her in general, for that occurs even with the existence of her daughter. Just as the verse did not indicate the exclusion of siblings by something other than a child, it did not indicate their non-exclusion by it. The Sunnah has indicated that they do not inherit with the father, as it was authentically reported from him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Give the shares to their rightful owners; whatever remains is for the nearest male asaba." There is no doubt that the father is closer than the brother. What has been mentioned is not the first of two rulings, one of which was clarified in the Book and the other in the Sunnah.

(But if there be two, they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves)—a conjunction to the first conditional clause, and the pronoun refers to those who inherit from the siblings; the dual form is carried over to the meaning. The ruling for more than two is the same as the ruling for them. It was considered problematic to report about the dual pronoun using "two" (ithnatayn), because the predicate must add information to the subject. For this reason, "The master of the servant is his owner" is incorrect, as the dual pronoun indicates duality, so informing about it with what was mentioned adds nothing. The answer given to this is that duality indicates mere plurality without restriction to age, size, or other descriptions. It is as if it were said: "They both deserve what was mentioned by mere plurality without consideration of anything else." This is informative, and al-Akhfash followed this view, but it was countered that the dual pronoun indicates that as well, so the problem returned. Makki reported from him that he answered that this was carried over to the meaning of "those who inherit." The basis and the estimate is: "If those who inherit through siblings are two," and "if those who inherit are males and females," in what follows. The reason "they were" (kanata and kanu) was used is to match the predicate, just as it is said: "Who was your mother?" This was countered as being incorrect and not similar to the example, because in that example, "who" (man) was explicitly used, which has both the form and meaning. Thus, whoever uses the feminine form observes the meaning, which is the mother, and does not use the masculine to observe the predicate. The model of the predicate in that case is contrary to the model of the noun, unlike the case we are in, for their models are one.

Abu Hayyan mentioned two ways to derive the verse: The first is that the pronoun in kanata does not refer to the two sisters, but to the heirs, and there is a hidden adjective for "two" (ithnatayn). The adjective with the described noun is the predicate, and the estimate is: "If they were—that is, the two female heirs—two of the sisters," and thus it provides information that the noun alone does not. The omission of the adjective for the understanding of the meaning is permissible. The second is that the pronoun refers to the two sisters, as they mentioned, and the predicate of kana is omitted due to the indication of the meaning, even if its omission is rare, and "two" is an emphatic circumstantial qualifier. The estimate is: "If they were—that is, the two sisters—for him," that is, for the deceased man. "And he has a sister" indicates the omission of "for him."

(And if they are siblings, men and women, then for the male is like the portion of two females)—its origin is "And if they are brothers and sisters," but the masculine was prioritized due to the juxtaposition of "men and women" appearing as a substitute. It is also said that there is sufficiency (iktifa’) here.

(Allah makes clear to you)—the ruling of Kalalah or His rulings and laws, among which is its ruling. Abu Muslim followed this view.

(Lest you go astray)—that is, disliking that you might go astray in that matter. This is the opinion of the insightful ones, and al-Mubarrad explicitly stated it. Al-Kisa'i, al-Farra', and others among the Kufans held the view of estimating the lam (for) and la (no/not) at both sides of "that," meaning "lest you go astray." It is said that there is no omission or estimation; rather, the formed meaning is the object of "makes clear," meaning: "He makes clear to you your error." This was preferred because it is a good conclusion and a turning back to the beginning of the Surah: "O mankind, fear your Lord," for He (subhanahu) commanded them to have taqwa and clarified for them what they were upon in the Age of Ignorance. When the detailed explanation was completed, He (Azza wa Jall) said: "I have clarified your error for you, so fear Me as I have commanded you, for evil, when known, is avoided, and good, when known, is pursued." This was objected to on the grounds that what is explicitly clarified is the truth, and error is known by comparison, so the apparent meaning would be "He makes clear the truth to you," unless it is said: "The clarification of truth and the clarification of error is hidden, so there was a need to draw attention to it." There is reflection in this.

Al-Jalal al-Suyuti mentioned that the good conclusion of this Surah is that it ended with the verse of shares, which contains the rulings of death, which is the final affair of every living being, and it is also the last of the rulings to be revealed.

(And Allah is, of all things)—among things, which includes your circumstances related to your life and death—(All-Knowing)—exaggerated in knowledge, so He clarifies for you what holds your interest and benefit.

(Indeed, those who disbelieved)—they veiled what their preparedness required and blocked and prevented others from following the path of Allah, that is, the road leading to Him—have gone far astray—due to their depriving themselves and others of what contains salvation. (Indeed, those who disbelieved and did wrong)—they prevented their preparedness from its rights of perfection by committing vices—Allah was not to forgive them—due to the invalidity of their preparedness—nor to guide them to a path—due to their compounded ignorance and corrupt belief—**except the path of Hell, and it is the fires of the longings of their wicked souls. And that was easy for Allah because of their attraction to it by nature.

O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion—a prohibition to the Jews and Christians according to many of our masters. Both parties exceeded the limits in their religion. As for the Jews, they delved deeply into the apparent and negated the inner, so they brought Jesus (peace be upon him) down from the degree of prophecy and moral emulation of the attributes of Allah (Exalted be He). As for the Christians, they delved into the inner and negated the apparent, so they raised Jesus (peace be upon him) to the degree of divinity. And do not say about Allah except the truth—by combining the apparent and the inner, and synthesis and preference, as is the Muhammadan Monotheism.

The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah—the caller to Him—and His word which He directed to Mary—that is, his reality, from His realities that indicate Him—and a soul from Him—that is, a sanctified affair purified from all shortcomings. The Great Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) mentioned that the reason for specifying Jesus (peace be upon him) with this description is that the blower into him, from the perspective of the Gabrielic form, is the Truth (Al-Haqq) Himself and no other. Thus, he was a perfect soul, a manifestation of the name of Allah (Exalted be He), issuing from an Essential Name and not issuing from secondary names like others. There were no intermediaries between him and Allah (Exalted be He), as there were with the souls of other prophets (peace be upon them), for their souls, even if they were from the Presence of the Name of Allah, were through many manifestations from all the Name-Presences. Jesus (peace be upon him) was not called "the soul of Allah and His word" except because he originated from the inner oneness of the gathering of the Divine Presence. Therefore, the actions special to Allah (Exalted be He) issued from him: reviving the dead, creating birds, and his influence on the lower, exalted gender. His call (peace be upon him) was to the inner and the sacred world, for the "word" is from the inner Name of Allah, his body purified from natural filth, because he is a soul incarnated in an ideal, spiritual body—to the end of what Imam al-Sha'rani mentioned in al-Jawahir wa al-Durar.

So believe in Allah and His messengers—in synthesis and detail—and do not say, "Three"—for that contradicts true Monotheism. Jesus (peace be upon him) in reality, for his existence is by the existence of Allah and His life (Glorified be He), and his (Jesus') knowledge is by His (Subhanahu) knowledge. Indeed, Allah is but one God—and He is the Absolute Existence, even from the constraint of absolute existence—Exalted is He above having a son—that is, I declare Him exalted above there being any other existence generated from Him, equal to Him in existence. To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth—that is, what is in the heavens of the spirits and the earth of the bodies, because they are the manifestations of His names and attributes (Azza wa Jall).

Never would the Messiah disdain to be a servant to Allah—in the station of detail, for everything that appears is contingent, and the contingent has no existence by itself, so he is a servant, needy, lowly, and impoverished, not disdaining the humility of servitude—nor would the angels near [to Him]—who are purified spirits and pure sacred lights. As for in the station of gathering, there is no Jesus, no angel, no proximity, and no distance... And whoever disdains His worship by the appearance of his "ego-ness" and acts arrogantly in his tyranny by the appearance of his attributes, He will gather them to Him all together—by the appearance of the light of His countenance and His manifestation with the attribute of dominance until they perish entirely in the essence of the gathering. As for those who believed—the true belief by the erasing of attributes and the blotting out of the self—and did righteous deeds and observed the details of the attributes and their manifestations, He will pay them their rewards from the Paradises of His attributes and will increase them from His bounty with the existence gifted to them after perishing. As for those who disdained, displayed their ego, acted arrogantly, and tyrannized—their speaker said: "I am your Lord the Most High," along with his seeing himself—He will punish them with a painful punishment by their obstruction and deprivation.

O mankind, there has come to you a clear proof from your Lord—and it is the Essential Monotheism—and We have sent down to you a clear light—and it is the detail in the essence of the gathering. The first is an allusion to the Quran, and the second to the Furqan (the Criterion). So as for those who believed and held fast to it, and did not turn to others from the perspective that they are "others," He will admit them into mercy from Him—which is the Paradises of the Acts—and bounty—which is the Paradises of the Attributes—and will guide them to Himself on a straight path—which is the perishing in the Essence. Or, the mercy is the Paradises of the Attributes, and the guidance to Him on a straight path is the steadfastness on Unity within the details of plurality. There is no restriction for the people of taste; the Book of Allah is a sea that buckets cannot drain. And Allah (Exalted be He) is the Guide to the straight path, and we ask Him for success in understanding His speech and for expanding our breasts with the returns of His benevolence and the banquets of His bounties. There is no lord other than Him, and nothing is hoped for except His goodness.