Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:7

(For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave...) This marks the beginning of the explanation of inheritance laws, following the explanation of the orphans' wealth that transfers to them via inheritance. "Men" refers to male children, or it is general, covering both adults and minors. "Close relatives" refers to those from whom inheritance is derived. "Parents" covers those without an intermediary, while grandfathers and grandmothers are included under "close relatives." Mentioning the children, despite their inclusion in the latter, serves to emphasize their status. It is also permitted that "parents" be interpreted more broadly to include those with or without an intermediary, thus including grandfathers and grandmothers; however, this was challenged by the requirement that grandchildren would then inherit while children are present.

The response is that the exclusion of inheritance in this scenario is known from other evidence that is not hidden. "Share" (nasib) is a portion, like nasab (with a kasrah), and it is pluralized as ansiba'a and ansibah. The phrase "of what" (mimma) is attached to an omitted element serving as an adjective for the indefinite noun preceding it; that is, a share existing "of what they left." It is also permitted that it be attached to "share."

(And for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave...) "Women" here refers to daughters generally, or females likewise. The reason their ruling is presented independently rather than being integrated into the rulings of those preceding (by saying "For men and women is a share...") is to show concern for them, as the Sheikh al-Islam said, and to signal their original entitlement to inheritance, and to point from the very beginning to the disparity between the shares of the two groups, and to emphasize the invalidation of the Pre-Islamic (Jahiliyya) custom. They used to deny inheritance to women and children, saying: "Only he who fights and defends the territory inherits." This verse was revealed to refute them, as Ibn Jubayr and others have stated. It is narrated that Aws bin Thabit—or, it is said, Aws bin Malik; or Thabit bin Qays; or Aws bin al-Samit (though this is incorrect because he died during the caliphate of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him)—died leaving two daughters, a young son, and his wife, Umm Kuhh. His cousins, Khalid or Suwayd and 'Arfata or Qatada and 'Arfaja, came and took all of his inheritance. His wife said to them: "Marry the two daughters"—and they were not physically attractive—so they refused. She went to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and informed him of the situation. He said: "I do not know what to say." Then "For men is a share..." was revealed. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sent for the two cousins and said: "Do not touch any of the inheritance, for something has been revealed to me regarding it, in which I have been informed that the male and the female have a share." Then, "They ask you for a legal ruling concerning women" up to "All-Knowing," was revealed, and then "Allah instructs you concerning your children..." up to "And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) called for the inheritance, gave the wife an eighth, divided the remainder among the children—the male getting the equivalent of the portion of two females—and gave the two cousins nothing. In some versions, it is stated that the deceased left a wife, two daughters, and two cousins, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave the wife an eighth, the two daughters two-thirds, and the cousins the remainder.

This report serves as evidence for the permissibility of delaying an explanation after the initial address. Those who generalized "men" and "women," and argued that "close relatives" refers generally to relatives by blood or marriage, hold that the verse includes the ruling for the husband and wife and their mutual right to inherit from one another. Those who did not go that route, arguing that "close relatives" is specific to blood relatives, hold that the understanding of the right of entitlement is like the understanding of the amount of the entitlement that will come in later verses. The limitation to mentioning sons and daughters here is attributed to the increased concern for the state of orphans. The Hanafis and the Imamiyyah used this verse as an argument for the inheritance of dhawi al-arham (distant relatives). They argued: Since paternal aunts, maternal aunts, and daughters' children are "close relatives," their inclusion under His (the Exalted) saying "For men..." is mandatory. The furthest point in the matter is that the specific share is not mentioned in this verse, but we establish that they are entitled to the principle of a share through it; the specific amount is derived from other evidence. The Imamiyyah also argue that prophets (peace be upon them) are inherited from like others, and a refutation of this in the most complete manner will follow shortly, God willing.

**(Of what is little of it or much) is an appositive to the latter "of what" by repeating the governing agent. Perhaps they did not consider the prepositional phrase to be an appositive to the [previous] prepositional phrase because it necessitates substituting one preposition for the same, and the identity of wording in an appositive is not customary.

Abu al-Baqa permitted the prepositional phrase to be a hal (state) from the implicit pronoun in "left"—that is, "of what they left, whether it be little or much," or "fixed of what is little." Such a constraint is understood in the first clause, though not explicitly stated there, relying on its mention here. Its benefit is to repel the misconception that certain properties belong specifically to certain heirs, such as horses and weapons belonging [only] to men. This refutes the Imamiyyah, because they specifically allocate the sword, copy of the Quran, ring, and body clothing of the deceased to his eldest son without compensation, according to most of them. This is strange, as is [their view on] the wife not inheriting from real estate, even though the verse indicates that each of the two groups has a right to everything, large or small. Placing the "little" before the "much" is of the style of "It leaves nothing small or large without enumerating it."

**(A share, determined [7]) is in the accusative either as a cognate infinitive (masdar) emphasized by interpreting it as a 'gift' or similar verbal meanings—otherwise, it is a static noun; some have reported it as an infinitive—or it is an accusative of state (hal) from the implicit pronoun in "little" and "much," or in the prepositional phrase that serves as an adjective, or from "share" because describing it with a prepositional phrase permits the hal to be derived from it, or from the implicit pronoun in the prepositional phrase that acts as the predicate, since the meaning is "a share is established for them as determined." In this case, it is a preparatory hal, and the hal is in reality its description. It is said: it is in the accusative as the object of an implicit verb, the estimation being "He has obligated for them a share." It is also said it is in the accusative by implication of "I mean" (a'ni). Its accusative as a noun of specialization (ikhtisas) in the famous sense is something Abu Hayyan denied because they explicitly state the requirement that the noun in the accusative of specialization must not be indefinite. Fard (determination) is like dar (a measure) in the sense of timing; from this is "Whoever determines (farada) the Hajj during them." Haz (a portion) in a thing is like tafrid (fixing). That which Allah the Exalted has obligated is called fard (fixed/obligatory) because it has signs and boundaries. It is used in the sense of cutting off, as in His saying, "I will surely take from among Your servants a fixed (mafrudan) share," meaning cut off and bounded, as in the Sihah. Thus, "determined" (mafrudan) here is either in the sense of cut off and bounded, as in that verse, or in the sense of that which Allah has obligated—that is, a share that Allah has obligated for them.

The Hanafis distinguished between fard (obligation) and wajib (necessity) by stating that if a command requesting an action—such that failing to perform it throughout its time results in punishment—is established by a definitive (qat'i) text, it is fard, like the recitation of the Quran in prayer, which is established by His saying: "Recite what is easy of the Quran." If it is established by a speculative (zanni) proof, then it is wajib, like the requirement of the Fatiha, which is established by the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "There is no prayer without the Opening of the Book," which is an isolated (ahad) report. Denying this excellence is possibly apparent. The Shafi'is hold that they are synonyms, and each group argues for its claim with its respective proofs. The dispute, as verified in legal theory, is verbal, as stated by more than one scholar. Some researchers say: There is no dispute for the Shafi'i regarding the disparity in the meanings of fard and wajib in the language, nor in the disparity between what is established by a definitive proof (like the ruling of the Book) and what is established by a speculative proof (like the ruling of a single-narrator report in the law). For the denier of the first is an unbeliever, unlike the second, and the one who neglects the work of the first while interpreting it is a transgressor (fasiq), unlike the second. Rather, they claim that fard and wajib are synonyms transferred from their linguistic meanings to a single meaning: that which the doer is praised for and the abandoner is blamed for by the Law, whether established by definitive or speculative proof. This is merely a terminology, so there is no meaning in arguing that the disparity between the Book and the single-narrator report necessitates a disparity between their meanings, or that fard in the language is estimation and wajib is falling; therefore, fard is known definitively to be estimated upon us and wajib is what fell upon us by way of speculation. It cannot be that the speculative is estimated, nor that the definitive knowledge is what fell upon us. Furthermore, the opponent may say: If we concede the consideration of the linguistic concept, we do not concede the impossibility of something being estimated upon us via speculative proof, and being something that fell upon us via definitive proof. Do you not see their saying: "The fard, i.e., the mafrud (estimated/determined) in wiping [the head in ablution], is a quarter"? Moreover, the truth is that wujub in the language is fixity (thubut). As for the source of wajib in the sense of "falling" (saqit) and "trembling" (mudtarib), it is rather wajba and wajib. The use of fard for what is established by speculative proof and wajib for what is established by definitive proof is widespread, such as their saying: "The Witr is fard," "Adjusting the limbs [during prayer] is fard," and so on. This is called fard amali (practical obligation). And like their saying: "Prayer is wajib," "Zakat is wajib," and so on. From here, the collapse of the argument of some Shafi'is in refuting the Hanafis' inference—regarding the inheritance of distant relatives—becomes clear, based on the fact that wajib for the Hanafis is what is known by a speculative proof, and mafrud is what is known by a definitive proof, and the inheritance of distant relatives is not of this kind by consensus, so we know it is not intended by the verse. The way it collapses is evident and needs no explanation.

Some have argued from the verse that if an heir turns away from his share, his right does not lapse. This is the school of the Great Imam, may Allah be pleased with him.