Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:180

Al-Baqarah (2:180): Kutiba ‘Alaykum...

[Translation and Exegesis based on Mafatih al-Ghayb]

Know that His statement, the Exalted, {Kutiba ‘alaykum} (It is prescribed for you) implies obligation, as we have explained.

As for His statement, {Idhā ḥaḍara aḥadakum al-mawt} (when death approaches one of you):

This does not mean witnessing death itself, because at that point, the person is incapable of making a will. Regarding its interpretation, scholars have offered two views:

1. The Majority View (Preferred): It refers to the presence of the sign of death, which is a life-threatening illness. This is linguistically apparent, as one whose death is feared is said to have "death approach him," just as one nearing a city is said to have "arrived."
2. Al-Aṣamm's View: It means the obligation of making a will is imposed during a state of health, requiring one to say: "When death approaches us, then do such-and-such."

The Judge (Al-Qāḍī) stated that the first view is preferable for two reasons:

1. The testator (Mūṣī) may make a will without explicitly mentioning death in it.
2. The first view is the apparent meaning, and when that is possible, one should not interpret the speech otherwise.

As for His statement, {In taraka khayran} (If he leaves behind khayr):

There is no dispute that al-khayr (good/benefit) here means wealth. The term khayr is often used to mean wealth in the Qur'an, such as in {Wa mā tunfiqū min khayrin} (And whatever good you spend) and {Wa innahu li-ḥubbi al-khayri} (And indeed, he is intense in the love of wealth).

Once this is established, we have two opinions regarding the quantity:

1. No distinction between little and much: This is the view of Al-Zuhri. The will is obligatory on all wealth left behind.
   • Argument 1: God obligated the will when one leaves khayr. Even a small amount of wealth is khayr. This is supported by the Qur'an (e.g., {Fa-man ya‘mal mithqāla dharratin khayran yarah}) and reason, as anything beneficial is khayr.
   • Argument 2: God tied the rulings of inheritance to whatever wealth remains, whether little or much, as seen in {Lil-rijāli naṣībun mimmā taraka al-wālīdāni wa-al-aqrabūn...}. Therefore, the ruling should be the same for the will.

2. The term Khayr is specific to abundant wealth:
   • Argument 1: If someone leaves only a single Dirham, one would not say he "left khayr" or that he "possesses wealth" in the sense that implies abundance beyond basic needs. While wealth technically applies to anything acquired, the term khayr here implies amplification, similar to saying someone is in ni‘mah (blessing) or rafāhiyyah (prosperity), even though everyone is under God's blessing. This is a common metaphorical usage where the name is negated due to deficiency (e.g., "There is no prayer for the neighbor of the mosque except in the mosque").
   • Argument 2: If the will were obligatory on everything left, whether little or much, the qualification {In taraka khayran} would be meaningless, since everyone must leave something. (The exception being the extremely rare case of someone dying completely destitute.)

If we accept that khayr means abundant wealth, there are two further opinions on whether this amount is fixed:

1. It is fixed by a specific measure:
   • Reported from ‘Alī (RA): He told a dying man with 700 Dirhams not to make a will, saying, "God said, {In taraka khayran}, and you do not have much wealth."
   • Reported from ‘Ā’ishah (RA): When a man with 3,000 Dirhams and four dependents wished to make a will, she said this was a small amount and better left to his family.
   • Reported from Ibn ‘Abbās: If one leaves 700 Dirhams, he should not make a will; if it reaches 800, he should.
   • Others: Qatādah mentioned 1,000 Dirhams; Al-Nakha‘ī mentioned 1,500 Dirhams.

2. It is not fixed by a specific measure: It varies according to the circumstances of the man. What constitutes wealth for one person (due to few dependents/expenses) might not for another. It is not impossible for an obligation to be tied to an amount determined by Ijtihād (independent reasoning). The lack of a specified amount does not prove the obligation never applied.

As for {Al-waṣiyyah} (The will):

Issue 1: Why the noun form {Al-waṣiyyah} instead of the verb?

1. The intent is the act of bequeathing (al-īṣā’), which is confirmed by the pronoun reference in the subsequent verse: {Fa-man baddalahu ba‘da mā sami‘ahu} (Then whoever changes it after hearing it).
2. It serves as a separation between the verb and the object (the will). Since the sentence became long, the noun form acts as a separation, similar to how the feminine marker (tā’) is sometimes omitted when the subject and verb are separated by a long intervening phrase (e.g., Ḥaḍara al-qāḍī imra’ah).

Issue 2: The grammatical parsing of {Al-waṣiyyah} (Nominative case):

1. It is parsed as the object of an implied verb whose agent is unknown (passive voice), i.e., Kutiba [al-amru bi] al-waṣiyyah.
2. It is parsed as the subject (Mubtada’), and {Lil-wālidayni wa-al-aqrabīn} is the predicate (Khabar). The entire nominal sentence is then in the position of being governed by Kutiba, similar to saying: Qīla ‘Abdullāh qā’im (It was said: ‘Abdullāh is standing’).

As for {Lil-wālidayni wa-al-aqrabīn} (To the parents and the near relatives):

Issue 1: Why specify parents and relatives?

1. Al-Aṣamm’s View: People used to bequeath to distant relatives seeking prestige, neglecting their close kin who were poor. God obligated this will at the beginning of Islam to prevent this practice.
2. The Second View: This obligation preceded the verse of inheritance (Ayat al-Mawārīth). God gave the testator discretion over his wealth, obligating him only that the distribution after death should reach the parents and near relatives through his ownership and choice. When the inheritance verse was revealed, the Prophet (PBUH) said, "God has given every rightful owner his due, so there is no will for an heir." This clarified that the previous distribution was a gift from the testator. Now, God has determined the due for every rightful owner, and God's gift takes precedence over the testator's gift. Thus, there is absolutely no will for an heir. Under this view, the will was previously obligatory for parents and near relatives.

Issue 2: Who are {Al-aqrabīn} (the near relatives)?

1. View 1: They are the children. Thus, the command was for parents and children (reported from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd from his father).
2. View 2 (Ibn ‘Abbās and Mujāhid): They are those other than the parents.
3. View 3: All relatives, whether they inherit or not. This aligns with those who held the obligation existed but later deemed it abrogated.
4. View 4: They are the relatives who do not inherit. The heirs are excluded from the term.

As for {Bi-al-ma‘rūf} (in kindness/equity): This can mean:

1. The appropriate measure/amount to be willed.
2. Distinguishing which relatives to will to (the inheritors vs. non-inheritors), as both fall under ma‘rūf.

God commanded him to follow the beautiful path, free from harshness. If he favors some over others, it must be done equitably (bi-al-ma‘rūf). If he treats them equally, it is fine. If he prohibits some, it must still be equitable; for instance, it is not ma‘rūf to prohibit the poor relative while willing to the rich one, or to treat paternal uncles equally with cousins when the latter are distant, or to will to distant grandfather's children while full brothers are present. God tasked him with the will according to a beautiful standard known by custom.

As for {Ḥaqqan ‘alā al-muttqīn} (an obligation upon the God-fearing):

This serves to further emphasize its obligatory nature. {Ḥaqqan} is an emphatic cognate accusative (Maṣdar Mu’akkid), meaning: "This obligation is truly an obligation."

If one asks: Does this phrasing imply this duty is exclusive to the God-fearing and not others? The Answer (Two ways):

1. It means it is incumbent upon whoever chooses piety (taqwā) as their path; thus, everyone is included.
2. This verse implies the obligation for the God-fearing, but consensus (Ijmā‘) confirms that obligations and duties are general for both the God-fearing and others. Thus, everyone falls under this command.

This concludes the interpretation of this verse.

People differed regarding this will: some said it was obligatory, others said it was recommended (nadb).

Those who held it was Obligatory: They cite {Kutiba} and {‘Alaykum}, both indicating obligation, further emphasized by {Ḥaqqan ‘alā al-muttqīn}. These scholars then differed on whether this ruling was abrogated:

A. View: The verse is NOT abrogated (Abu Muslim al-Iṣfahānī’s choice):

1. This verse does not contradict the inheritance verse. It means: "It is prescribed for you to fulfill what God commanded regarding the inheritance of parents and relatives," referencing {Yūṣīkum Allāhu fī awlādikum}. Or, it means the testator must ensure he does not diminish the shares God ordained for them.
2. There is no conflict between establishing inheritance and establishing a will. Inheritance is a gift from God, and the will is a gift from the one approaching death. The heir receives both benefits under the two rulings.
3. Even if conflict existed, the inheritance verse could be seen as specializing (Takhṣīṣ) this general ruling. The inheritance verse excludes the inheriting relative, leaving the non-inheriting relative covered by this verse (for maintaining kinship ties). Some parents/relatives do not inherit due to differences in religion, slavery, or murder. For these non-inheriting relatives, the will remains obligatory as an act of maintaining kinship, supported by verses like {Wa-ttaqū Allāha alladhī tasā’alūna bihi wa-al-arḥām}.

B. View: The verse IS abrogated: This view proceeds based on how the abrogation occurred:

Inquiry 1: What is the evidence for abrogation?

1. By the Inheritance Ruling: That God gave every rightful owner their due. (This is weak, as one can have a small inheritance right and still be obligated to a supplementary will.)
2. By the Hadith: {Alā lā waṣiyyata li-wārith} (There is no will for an heir). This is closer, but it is a solitary report (khabar wāḥid), which generally cannot abrogate the Qur'an. (Response: The Imams accepted it, elevating it to the status of mutawātir.)
3. *By Consensus (Ijmā‘):* Consensus cannot abrogate the Qur'an, as consensus only proves the existence of the abrogating evidence, which they chose not to mention. (Counter: How can consensus be claimed when some scholars deny the abrogation occurred?)
4. By Analogy (Qiyās): If this will were obligatory, then when it is absent, these relatives should not lose their right, similar to debts where absence of a will does not negate the debt. However, the inheritance verse implies that if there is no will and no debt, the wealth goes entirely to the heirs. (Counter: Abrogating the Qur'an by analogy is impermissible.)

Inquiry 2: If abrogated, to whom did the abrogation apply?

1. Abrogated for both inheritors and non-inheritors: The view of the majority of commentators and jurists.
2. Abrogated only for inheritors, remaining for non-inheritors: The view of Ibn ‘Abbās, Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Masrūq, Ṭāwūs, etc. They argue the Hadith {lā waṣiyyata li-wārith} only applies to heirs. They cite the Hadith: "It is not right for a Muslim who possesses wealth to spend two nights without his will being written down," arguing that since wills to non-relatives are not obligatory, this obligatory will must be specific to non-inheriting relatives, making the Sunnah a confirmation of the Qur'an.

Inquiry 3 (For those holding it remains for non-inheritors):

1. Distribution: Ibn Mas‘ūd favored the poorest of the relatives. Al-Ḥasan favored the wealthy relatives.
2. Proportion: Al-Ḥasan and others said if one wills to non-relatives while having non-inheriting relatives, two-thirds of the one-third (i.e., 2/9) goes to the relatives, and one-third of the one-third (1/9) goes to the person willed to. Ṭāwūs said if relatives are needy, the bequest to outsiders is revoked and returned to the relatives.

{Fa-man baddalahu ba‘da mā sami‘ahu fa-innamā ithmuhu ‘alā alladhīna yubaddilūnahu, inna Allāha Samī‘un ‘Alīm} (But whoever changes it after hearing it, the sin is only upon those who change it. Indeed, Allāh is Hearing and Knowing.)

This verse addresses the one who alters the will after hearing the command. The sin falls entirely upon the changer, as God is fully aware of the alteration and the intent behind it.