{ وليخش الذين لو تركوا من خلفهم ذرية ضعافا خافوا عليهم }

There are several opinions regarding this [verse]:

First: It is a command to guardians to fear Allah, the Exalted, or to fear for their own children, so that they act toward the orphans in the way they would wish for their own weak offspring to be treated after their death. Ibn Abbas's statement points to this. Ibn Jarir extracted from him that he said regarding this verse: "It means a man who dies leaving behind young, weak children. He fears for them destitution and loss, and he fears that whoever takes charge of them after him will not treat them well. It is said: If he were to be left with orphans who are like his own children, he should treat them with kindness and not consume their wealth [through extravagance and haste, fearing they will grow up]."

According to this view, the verse is connected to what precedes it, for the Almighty's saying, "{To men...}" etc., is in the sense of a command to the heirs—meaning: "Give them their due rights, as a rejection of the ways of the Pre-Islamic Era [Jahiliyyah]," and the guardians should safeguard what they have been given and fear for them just as they fear for their own children. It is also said regarding the connection: This is a commandment to guardians to protect the orphans after having mentioned the heirs (which includes both young and old) by way of completion. Another view states the verse is connected to His, the Almighty’s, saying: "{And test the orphans.}"

Second: It is a command to those who attend the sick among the visitors at the time of making a will, that they should fear their Lord or fear for the sick man’s children and show them the same compassion they would show their own children, so they do not allow him to cause them harm by squandering his wealth away from them. Something similar is attributed to al-Hasan, Qatadah, Mujahid, and Sa'id ibn Jubayr.

It is also narrated from Ibn Abbas to support this. Ibn Abi Hatim and al-Bayhaqi extracted from him that he said regarding the verse: "It means a man approaching death, and it is said to him: 'Give charity from your wealth, emancipate [slaves], and give in the way of Allah,' and they are forbidden from commanding him to do that." This means that whoever of you is present with a sick person near death should not order him to spend from his wealth on emancipation, charity, or in the way of Allah; rather, he should order him to clarify his wealth and his debts, and to bequeath a portion of his wealth—a fifth or a quarter—to his relatives who do not inherit. He says: "Does not one of you, when he dies and leaves behind weak children—meaning young ones—not wish that he does not leave them without wealth, becoming a burden upon the people? Therefore, it is not fitting for you to command him to do that which you would not be pleased with for yourselves and your children, but rather say that which is right."

Based on this, the first part of the discourse is directed to guardians, and the latter part to the heirs, while this is directed at the "outsiders" [the visitors] so they do not let him harm them or command him to do that which causes harm. Thus, the verse is also connected to what precedes it.

Third: It is a command to the heirs to show compassion to those among the weak relatives, orphans, and the poor who attend the division [of the estate], imagining that if they were their own children left behind as weak as these, would they allow them to be deprived? The connection of the speech here to what precedes it is clear, as it is an incitement to give to them and a command to fear their deprivation as they would fear the deprivation of their own weak offspring.

Fourth: It is a command to the believers to look after the heirs and not be extravagant in their will. It has been narrated from the predecessors that they considered it desirable for the will not to exceed one-third, and they would say: "A fifth is better than a quarter, and a quarter is better than a third," and there is a report that supports this. On this account, "{Those}" refers to the sick and those making a will; they are commanded not to be extravagant in the will out of fear for their own weak offspring. The context supporting this is that they are the ones concerned with this, and the warning against consuming the orphans' wealth thereafter acts as a warning against taking more than the [proper] share of the will. It is thus connected to it and remains joined to what precedes it, completing the command to guardians and heirs by addressing the sick among the believers. This is the most remote of the views.

Even more remote is the saying that it is a command to those present with the sick to show compassion to the relatives by not saying to the sick man: "Do not bequeath to your relatives, but save it for your offspring." Further still is the claim that it is a command to those dividing the inheritance to be just among the heirs, not to favor the elder one and give him the good part of the estate while ignoring the younger, even if he is in his care.

As for the conjunctive noun [al-mawsul], as many have stated: since the conjunction must be a known story to the addressee that is established for the one referenced by the conjunction, just like an adjective, they said: "It is likewise here as well, and the meaning is: {And let those fear}—those whose state and attribute is that if they were nearing the point of leaving behind weak offspring, they would fear for them [the prospect of] loss."

Al-Ajhuri and others maintained that "{If}" [law] is in the sense of "if" [in/inna], thus shifting the past tense to the future. They insisted on interpreting "{leave behind}" as "nearing the point of leaving behind" so that the condition of "{they feared}" being the consequence [jazaa'] of it would be valid, by necessity, as there is no fear after the actual occurrence of death and leaving the heirs. In ordering the command based on the attribute mentioned in the relative clause—which signifies causality—there is an indication that the goal of the command is that they should not let the orphans be lost, so that their own children may not be lost. In it is a threat to them that if they do so, Allah will cause their children to be lost, and a symbolic promise that if they observe the command, Allah, the Exalted, will protect their children.

Ibn Jarir extracted from al-Shaybani, who said: "We were in Constantinople during the days of Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik, and among us were Ibn Muhayriz, Ibn al-Daylami, and Hani ibn Kulthum. We began discussing what would occur at the end of time, and I became distressed by what I heard. I said to Ibn al-Daylami: 'O Abu Bishr, I wish that I would never beget a child.' He struck his hand on my shoulder and said: 'O son of my brother, do not do that. For there is not a soul that Allah has decreed to emerge from the loins of a man except that it will emerge, whether he wills it or objects.' Then he said: 'Shall I guide you to a matter, that if you attain it, Allah the Exalted will save you from it, and if you leave children after you, Allah will protect them through you?' I said: 'Yes.' Then he recited: {And let those fear...} [the verse]."

Describing the offspring as "weak" is an incitement to mercy. It is apparent that "{behind them}" is a predicate [dharf] for "leave behind." Mentioning it explicitly serves to exaggerate the horror of that situation. It is also permitted for it to be a state [hal] for "offspring." "{Weak}"—as Abu al-Baqa said—is read with tafkhim (fullness of sound) based on the root, and with imalah (inclination of the vowel) due to the kasrah (the vowel under the preceding letter). This is permissible despite the letter of elevation [the 'qaf'] because it is kasrah and is placed before it, thus creating a descent [in the tone]. Similarly, "{they feared}" is read with tafkhim based on the root, and with imalah because the kha is broken [has a kasrah] in some instances, which is khiftu (I feared). It is also read as du'afa' [weak], di'af, and di'afi like sukara and sukari.

"{So let them fear Allah}" in that. The fa is for ordering what follows to what precedes it. He, the Glorified, only commanded them to have taqwa (piety), which is the ultimate form of fear, after commanding them to have [general] fear, in order to account for the beginning and the end. Since the first would not suffice without the second, He did not limit Himself to it, even though the former usually necessitates the latter.

"{And let them speak}" to the orphans, or to the sick person, or to those attending the division of the inheritance, or [let them speak] regarding the will, "{a word that is right.}" Thus, the guardian says to the orphan what he would say to his own child, with beautiful speech that guides him to good character and virtuous deeds. The one visiting the sick says what reminds him of repentance, uttering the testimony of faith, thinking well of Allah, and what prevents him from extravagance in the will and wasting the inheritance. The heir says to those attending the division what removes their anxiety or increases their happiness. The testator says in his will what does not lead to exceeding one-third.

Sadid (right/sound), according to al-Tabarsi, means the correct, the just, that which conforms to the law. It is also said: that which contains no flaw. It is said "sadada qawluhu yasuddu" (his speech is correct), with a kasra, when it becomes sadid. If someone is musadd, it means he hits the sadad—that is, the correct aim. "Amrun sadid" (a right matter) and "asad" mean "direct." Al-sadad with a fatha is rectitude and correctness; likewise al-sadad is a shortened form of it. As for al-sidad with a kasra, it is the provision [or the amount] that suffices, or that with which something is stopped/plugged. From this is their saying: "Fihi sidadun min 'awaz" (He has a sufficiency to cover a need). Many have stated this. In Durrat al-Ghawwas fi Awham al-Khawas, it is stated that they say "sadadun min 'awaz" with a fatha on the sin, and that this is a solecism (lahn), while the correct [vocalization] is kasra. Ibn Barri contested this, stating it is a mistake, for Yaqub ibn al-Sikkit equated the fatha and kasra in Islah al-Mantiq, in the chapter of fi'al and fu'al meaning the same thing. He said: "It is said sidadun min 'awaz and sadadun." Ibn Qutaybah mentioned the same in Adab al-Katib, and so did [the author of] al-Sihah, though they added that the kasra is more eloquent. Yes, it is mentioned therein that sidad al-qarura (the stopper of a flask) and sidad al-thaghr (the defense of a frontier) are with a kasra only. And he cited the saying of al-'Arji: "They have lost me, and what a youth they have lost... for a day of battle and a sidad (defense) of the frontier." So let it be preserved.