Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:33

It is necessary to assume a genitive construction here, meaning: for every human being, or for every nation, or for every wealth or estate. Regarding this, there are views mentioned by al-Shihab, may Allah Almighty illuminate his resting place:

First: Based on the first assumption, it means: "For every human being who leaves an inheritance, We have appointed mawali—that is, heirs—from what he left." Here the sentence is complete. Thus, "(from what is left)" is attached to mawali or to an implied verb, and mawali is the first object of ja'alna (We have appointed), meaning "We have made." (For everyone) is the second object, placed before it to emphasize inclusivity and to dispel the notion that the appointment applies to some without others. The subject of taraka (left) is the pronoun "everyone." Al-walidan (the parents) is nominative as the predicate of an implied subject, as if it were said: "And who are the heirs?" and the response was: "They are the parents and the close relatives."

Second: The assumption is: "For every human being who leaves an inheritance, We have appointed heirs from what that human left," and then He, Glory be to Him, clarifies that human by saying: (the parents), as if it were said: "And who is this person who leaves an inheritance?" and the response was: (the parents and the close relatives). Its parsing is the same as the previous one, except that the difference between them is that (the parents and the close relatives) are the heirs in the first, while they are the ones who leave the inheritance in the second. In both, the speech consists of two sentences.

Third: The assumption is: "And for every human being who has an heir from what the parents and close relatives have left, We have appointed mawali—that is, those who inherit." So, the mawla is the one who inherits, and (the parents) is nominative via taraka (left). The ma (what) is in the sense of min (from), and the prepositional phrase is an adjective for the ma to which "everyone" is added. The speech is one single sentence.

Fourth: Based on the second assumption, it means: "And for every nation, We have appointed them mawali—a portion of what their parents and close relatives left." So, (for everyone) is the predicate of an implied naseeb (portion) placed at the end, and ja'alnahum (We have appointed them) is an adjective for "nation." The returning pronoun is the omitted one, which is the object of ja'ala. Mawali is either a second object or a state (hal), and (from what is left) is an adjective for the omitted subject. The rest of its adjectives are like the adjectives of the genitive construction, with the returning pronoun omitted from them. An analogy is your saying: "For everyone whom Allah Almighty created as a human, there is a portion of Allah's provision," meaning: for every individual whom Allah created as a human, there is a portion of Allah's provision.

Fifth: Based on the third assumption, it means: "For every wealth or estate (from what the parents and close relatives left), We have appointed mawali—that is, heirs who oversee it and possess it." (For everyone) is attached to ja'ala, and (from what is left) is an adjective for "everyone."

Objections were raised against the first and second [interpretations] that they involve disassembling the noble structure, and that mawla originally tends to be a place-name, not an adjective, so how can min (from) serve as a connection to it? This was answered by stating that it is because it contains the meaning of a verb, as has been indicated. Furthermore, the claim that mawla is not an adjective contradicts the statement of al-Raghib, for he said it means both the doer and the object—that is, the one who inherits and the one who is inherited from. However, some have denied the maf'al form in adjectives, and Ibn al-Hajib said in Sharh al-Mufassal that it is rare. Thus, it is either classified as rare or as a case where a place-name is used metaphorically for an adjective due to its stability and residence in the one described. It is also possible to classify it under the category of "The Exalted Council."

Objection was raised against the third [interpretation] due to its distance, and against the fourth because it involves deleting the subject described by the prepositional phrase and putting it in its place, which is rare. Also, because "every nation" of mawali receives everything the parents and close relatives left, not just a "portion," whereas the portion belongs to each individual. This was answered regarding the first [objection] that it is established despite its rarity, like His saying, "And there is none of us but has a known position" and "And we are below that." Regarding the second, it is that what the people are entitled to is a part of the estate due to the priority of funeral expenses, debts, and bequests, if any exist. As for taking min as an explanatory particle for the omitted [portion], it is very far-fetched.

Al-Shihab critiqued the response to the first [objection] by stating that it is flawed in two respects: First, that what was mentioned has no supporting evidence because the grammarians established that if an adjective is a sentence or a prepositional phrase, it stands in the place of the described noun on the condition that the described noun is part of what precedes it, derived from min (from) or fi (in); otherwise, it does not stand in its place except in poetry, and what was mentioned falls under that, not the verse. Second, it is not the intended meaning of it standing in its place that it should be a subject in reality; rather, the subject is deleted, and this is its explanation, as indicated in the summary, so there is no basis for regarding it as far-fetched. Indeed, what they mentioned, even if famous, is not universally accepted, as Ibn Malik explicitly stated the contrary in Al-Tawdih, permitting the deletion of the described noun in prose without that condition. Therefore, the truth is that it is a majority rule, not an absolute one.

Objection was raised against the fifth [interpretation] that it involves separating the adjective from the described noun with a sentence that acts upon the described noun, such as "Every man I passed, Tamimi." There is doubt regarding its permissibility. It was countered that it is permissible, as in His saying, "Say, 'Shall I take someone other than Allah as a protector? [He is] the Creator of the heavens and the earth.'" Here, "Creator" is an adjective for the Majestic Name, and it is separated from it by "take," which acts upon "other than." This [example] is more worthy. The response that the operator did not intervene, rather the object was moved forward—causing the intervention—is such that it does not weaken it, since the right of the object is to follow its operator. In that case, the described noun being coupled with its adjective is an affectation that is not needed.

A group of researchers chose this fifth [view] and the one before it, considering the sentence to be the start of a statement confirming the essence of what preceded it. They objected to the first view because it excludes children, as they are not included in the "close relatives" conventionally, just as parents are not included in them. And if the linguistic meaning is intended, it would include the parents. It was countered that this objection applies to all, and it has been answered that the children were omitted because their status is evident from the verse of inheritance, just as the mention of spouses was omitted for that reason, or that the mention of parents is for their honor and the importance of their affair, so there is no obstacle from this perspective. Consider this.

(And those to whom your oaths have bound): This refers to the mawali of the pledge of alliance (muwalat). Ibn Jarir and others narrated from Qatada who said: "A man would enter into a contract with a man in the Pre-Islamic era and say: 'My blood is your blood, my destruction is your destruction, you inherit from me and I inherit from you, you seek blood-money for me and I seek it for you.' In Islam, he was granted a sixth of all the wealth, and then the people of inheritance would divide their inheritance. This was later abrogated in Surah al-Anfal by His saying: (But those of [blood] relationship are more entitled to one another)."

This has been narrated through more than one path from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, and also from others. The school of Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, is that if a man converts to Islam at the hands of another and they enter into a contract that he inherits from him and takes responsibility for his blood-money, it is valid; he is responsible for his blood-money and inherits from him if he has no heirs at all. The report of the aforementioned abrogation does not serve as an argument against him, for there is no evidence in what is claimed to be the abrogator regarding the lack of inheritance of the ally, especially since he only inherits in the absence of agnates and those of kin.

Al-Ayman (oaths) here is the plural of yamin, meaning the right hand, and the contract is attributed to it because they would place their hands in contracts, or it means "oaths." The claim that the contract here is the marriage contract is contrary to the apparent meaning, as it is not known to be attributed to the "right hand" in that context. The Kufans read (aqadat) without an alif, while others read (aqadat) with an alif. It has also been read with a geminated (shaddah). The object in all readings is omitted, meaning "their covenants." The deletion is systematic so that the omitted returning pronoun is in the accusative case, as is the frequent and consistent [custom]. Regarding the relative pronoun (alladhina), there are several views on its parsing:

First: That it is the subject, and the sentence of His saying, "So give them their portion," is its predicate, with the fa added because the subject contains the meaning of a condition.

Second: That it is in the accusative case due to ishtighal (busy-ness of the verb). It is said: It should be the preferred one so that the request does not become a predicate, but they did not choose it because the likes of this rarely occur outside of instances of exclusivity, and it is not appropriate here. It was countered that in "Zaid, I hit him," if the operator is assumed to be at the end, it signifies exclusivity, and if it is assumed to be at the beginning, it does not. And it is hidden that the apparent [reading] assumes it to be at the beginning, so exclusivity does not follow.

Third: That it is conjoined to (parents). If it is intended that they are those inherited from, the pronoun from "so give them" returns to mawali. If it is intended that they are the heirs, it is permissible for it to return to mawali or to parents and those conjoined to them. It is said: This is weakened by the fame of the stop at close relatives rather than at your oaths.

Fourth: That it is in the accusative case by conjunction to mawali, and this is an affectation.

In a narration from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, brought forth by al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, and a group, he said regarding the verse: "The Emigrants, when they arrived in Medina, would inherit from the Ansar rather than their own kin due to the brotherhood that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, established between them. When (And to everyone We have appointed heirs) was revealed, it abrogated that." Then he said: (And those to whom your oaths have bound, so give them their portion) of support, aid, and advice; inheritance has been removed, but a bequest is made for them. Mujahid narrated something similar. The apparent [implication] of this is the inadmissibility of conjunction, as whoever conjoins intended "so give them their portion" of inheritance.

(Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, a Witness), meaning: He, Glory be to Him, has never ceased being All-Knowing of all things, watching over them—their manifest and their hidden—so He watches over the giving and the withholding, and He recompenses each of the withholder and the giver according to his action. Thus, the sentence contains a promise and a threat.