Surah An-Nisa (The Women): Verse 11

Issues in the Verse

In the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), inheritance was based on two things: lineage (Nasab) and covenant (Ahd).

1. Lineage: They only inherited to the male relatives who fought on horseback and took spoils of war; they did not grant inheritance to the young or to females.
2. Covenant (Ahd): This took two forms:
   • Alliance (Hulf): A man would declare to another: "My blood is your blood, my house is your house; you inherit from me, and I inherit from you; I will seek vengeance for you, and you will seek vengeance for me." If one died, the survivor inherited what was stipulated from the deceased's wealth.
   • Adoption (Tabanni): A man would adopt another's son, attributing him to himself by lineage, making him inherit from him instead of his biological father. This adoption was a form of covenant.

When the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent, initially, God allowed them to continue with their Jahiliyyah practices. Some scholars argue that God initially affirmed these practices, citing:

"And for everyone We have appointed heirs to what the parents and close relatives leave." (An-Nisa: 33) This referred to inheritance by lineage. "And those with whom you have made firm agreements, give them their share." (An-Nisa: 33) This referred to inheritance by covenant.

However, others argue that the verse about those with whom agreements were made did not refer to a share of wealth, but rather a share of support, sincere advice, and good companionship.

Inheritance in Islam: Initially, Islam affirmed alliance and adoption as causes for inheritance. Two other causes were added:

1. Hijra (Emigration): An emigrant inherited from another emigrant, even if they were unrelated, provided they had a special bond of close association. Non-emigrants did not inherit from them, even if they were relatives.
2. Brotherhood (Mu'akhah): The Prophet (PBUH) established brotherhood between pairs of companions, and this became a cause for inheritance.

Later, God abrogated all these causes with the verse:

"And those of kinship are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah." (Al-Ahzab: 6)

The established causes of inheritance in Islam are three: Lineage (Nasab), Marriage (Nikah), and Loyalty/Patronage (Wala').

It is narrated that Sa'd ibn al-Rabi' was martyred, leaving behind two daughters, his wife, and a brother. The brother took all the wealth. The wife came to the Prophet (PBUH) and said: "O Messenger of Allah, these are the daughters of Sa'd, and Sa'd was killed, and their paternal uncle took their wealth." The Prophet (PBUH) told her: "Return, perhaps Allah will decree something concerning this matter." She returned later and wept, and this verse was revealed. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) summoned their uncle and said: "Give the two daughters of Sa'd two-thirds (of the wealth), and their mother one-eighth, and whatever remains is yours." This was the first inheritance divided in Islam.

There are two views on how this verse connects to the previous one:

1. Since God had explained the ruling concerning the wealth of orphans and the duties of guardians toward them, He then explained how the orphan acquires that wealth through inheritance, which required detailing the general rulings of inheritance.
2. God established the ruling of inheritance generally in the verse: "For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave" (An-Nisa: 7). He then followed this general statement with this detailed explanation: "Allah instructs you concerning your children..."

Al-Qaffal said: "Allah instructs you concerning your children" means God is telling you a statement that will lead you to fulfill the rights of your children after your death. The root of Iṣā’ (bequeathing/instructing) is Iṣāl (conveying/reaching). If someone says, "He instructed me," it means, "He conveyed to me the knowledge I needed to know." Awṣā (He instructed) is used for emphasis.

Al-Zajjaj said the meaning of Yusikum here is "He obligates upon you," because a command from God is an obligation. Evidence for this is His saying: "And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right; that He has instructed you with" (Al-An'am: 151), and there is no doubt that this is obligatory upon us.

Objection: In Arabic, one does not typically say, "I instruct you for such-and-such." How then is it said here: "Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male is the share of two females"?

Response: Since the instruction (waṣiyyah) is a statement, a new sentence follows the phrase "Allah instructs you," stating: "For the male is the share of two females." This is analogous to: "Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward" (Al-Fath: 29), meaning God said to them, "You shall have forgiveness," because the promise is a statement.

God began by mentioning the inheritance of children because a person's attachment to their offspring is the strongest attachment. Hence, the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Fatimah is a piece of me." For this reason, God mentioned their inheritance first.

Children have two states: alone or together with the parents.

State 1: Children Alone (Without Parents) This state has three divisions based on who is left behind:

1. Males and females together.
2. Females only.
3. Males only.

Case 1: Males and Females Together God clarified the ruling: "For the male is the share of two females." This implies several rulings:

• If one male and one female are left, the male gets two shares and the female one share.
• If there are groups of males and groups of females, each male gets two shares, and each female gets one share.
• If other heirs (like parents or spouses) are present, they take their fixed shares first, and the remainder is divided among the children according to the male/female ratio.

Case 2: Females Only God stated that if there are more than two daughters, they receive two-thirds of the estate. If there is only one daughter, she receives half.

However, God did not explicitly state the share for two daughters. There is a difference of opinion:

• Ibn Abbas's View: Two-thirds is the fixed share for three or more daughters. The fixed share for two daughters is half. He argued that the condition "if they are females numbering above two" implies that receiving two-thirds is conditional upon them being three or more, thus excluding two daughters from receiving two-thirds.

Rebuttals to Ibn Abbas:

1. Logical Consistency: This argument is self-defeating. God said, "And if there is only one (female), she gets half." Making the half conditional on her being one implies that two daughters do not get half. This invalidates his own premise.
2. The Meaning of 'If' (In): We do not accept that the word In (if) strictly implies the negation of the ruling when the condition is absent. If it did, it would lead to contradiction between the two verses (the one for one daughter and the one for three or more), as consensus holds that the share for two daughters is either half or two-thirds. If In implied conditionality, both outcomes would be void, leading to falsehood. Furthermore, God says, "And if you find no scribe, then a pledge taken into possession" (Al-Baqarah: 283), and "There is no blame upon you if you shorten the prayer when you fear..." (An-Nisa: 101). The conditional particle does not carry the meaning of strict exclusion in these contexts.
3. Rearrangement (Taqdeem wa Ta'khir): The intended meaning is: "If they are two females or more than two, they receive two-thirds." This addresses Ibn Abbas's argument.

Consensus (Majority View): The rest of the Ummah agrees that the share for two daughters is two-thirds. They derived this through several means:

1. Abu Muslim Al-Isfahani: If one son and one daughter are left, the son gets two-thirds (due to the male/female ratio). Since the son's share is two-thirds, the two daughters' share must also be two-thirds.
2. Abu Bakr Al-Razi: If one son and one daughter are left, the daughter gets one-third (due to the male/female ratio). If her share is one-third when with a son, it is more appropriate for her share to be one-third when with another daughter (who is weaker than a son).
3. Ratio Implication: The phrase "for the male is the share of two females" implies that the share of two females is greater than the share of one female. If it were not greater, the male's share would equal the single female's share, contradicting the text. Since the share of two females must be greater than one female's share, it must be two-thirds, as there is no other established share between half and two-thirds.
4. Sunnah: As mentioned in the reason for revelation (Issue 2), the Prophet (PBUH) gave the two daughters of Sa'd two-thirds.
5. Analogy (Qiyas): In the inheritance of sisters, God specified the share for one sister (half) and two sisters (two-thirds), but omitted the share for many sisters. Similarly, here, God specified one daughter (half) and three or more (two-thirds), omitting two. Since the share of two sisters is two-thirds, the two daughters (being closer to the deceased than sisters) are more deserving of that share. Furthermore, since the share of many daughters does not exceed two-thirds, the share of many sisters should not exceed that either, as the daughter's closeness to the deceased prevents her share from being less than that of a more distant relative.

The first three arguments are derived from the verse itself, the fourth from the Sunnah, and the fifth from clear analogy.

Case 3: Males Only If the deceased leaves only sons, the single son inherits the entire estate.

1. From the Verse: The rule "for the male is the share of two females" combined with "if there is only one (female), she gets half" implies that the single son takes everything.
2. From Sunnah: The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Whatever remains after the fixed shares, it belongs to the nearest male Asabah (residuary heir)." The son is the nearest male Asabah. Since he takes what remains after fixed shares, he takes everything when there are no fixed shares.
3. Closeness: The son is the closest residuary heir. Since he has no fixed share and no other fixed-share heirs are present, he is the most deserving of taking the surplus, thus taking all.

Objection: If the share of two females is two-thirds, then "for the male is the share of two females" implies the male's share is absolutely one-third, which contradicts him taking everything.

Response: This rule applies only in combination (when females are present), not in isolation. Evidence: The verse begins by implying the existence of children ("Allah instructs you concerning your children"), and the ratio implies the existence of both male and female. Furthermore, the verse immediately follows this with the ruling for the isolated female. If there are multiple sons, they share the wealth equally as they have equal entitlement.

Question 1: Why is the female's share half the male's, given female weakness? Women are considered weaker in several aspects:

1. Physicality/Public Life: They are restricted from going out and appearing publicly by their husbands and relatives.
2. Intellect: They have less intellect and are more easily deceived.
3. Reputation: When they mix with men, they become suspect. Given this greater weakness, their share should be equal or greater, not half.

Responses:

1. Expenses: The woman's expenses are less because her husband supports her. The man's expenses are greater because he supports his wife. The one with greater need should receive more.
2. Completeness: The man is more complete in physical creation, intellect, and religious roles (like judgeship or leading prayer). A woman's testimony is half that of a man's. One who is more complete deserves a greater provision.
3. Temptation: The woman is described as having less intellect and greater desire. If she possessed great wealth, corruption would increase greatly. (Poet quoted: Idleness, youth, and wealth are a great source of corruption for a person.) God says: "Nay, but man transgresses, when he sees himself self-sufficient" (Al-'Alaq: 6-7). The man's situation is the opposite.
4. Beneficence: Due to his complete intellect, the man can use wealth for things that bring him praise in this world and great reward in the Hereafter, such as building ribats (fortifications/hostels), helping the distressed, and supporting orphans and widows. He is better able to do this because he mixes with people frequently, whereas the woman's mixing is limited.
5. Narrative (Ja'far al-Sadiq): When asked, he replied that Eve took a handful of wheat and ate it, took another handful and hid it, and took a third handful and gave it to Adam. When she made her share double that of the man, God reversed the matter upon her, making the woman's share half the man's.

Question 2: Why not say, "For the two females is the share of the male," or "For the female is half the share of the male"?

Responses:

1. Primacy of the Male: Since the male is superior to the female, his mention precedes hers, just as his share is double hers.
2. Emphasis on Virtue: Saying "For the male is the share of two females" indicates the male's virtue by direct statement (mutabaqah) and the female's deficiency by implication (iltizam). If the reverse were said, the female's deficiency would be stated directly, and the male's virtue implied. The first way is preferred, signaling that emphasizing virtues is superior to emphasizing vices. This is like: "If you do good, you do good for yourselves, and if you do evil, it is against yourselves" (Al-Isra: 7)—goodness is mentioned twice, evil once.
3. Context of Jahiliyyah: In the Jahiliyyah, they inherited only males. It was sufficient for the male to be given double the female's share; he should not aspire to deprive the female entirely of inheritance.

The term Walad (child) truly applies to direct offspring. It is also used for the son's children (grandchildren). God says regarding Adam's descendants: "O children of Adam..." (Al-A'raf: 26) and to the Israelites: "O Children of Israel..." (Al-Baqarah: 40). The debate is whether the term Walad applies to grandchildren metaphorically or literally.

If Metaphorical: In Usul al-Fiqh, a single word cannot be used simultaneously for its literal and metaphorical meaning. Thus, God could not have intended both direct children and grandchildren in "Allah instructs you concerning your children."

Resolution: We derive the ruling for grandchildren from the Sunnah and Analogy, not this verse. If we insist on deriving it from this verse, we argue that the grandchildren are not intended simultaneously with the direct children. Grandchildren inherit only in two cases: either when there are absolutely no direct children, or when the direct children do not take the entire estate (they share the remainder). They do not inherit alongside direct children as partners sharing the estate equally among themselves. Thus, the word is not used for both its literal and metaphorical meanings at the same time. The verse addresses direct children at one time and grandchildren at another; in each instance, only one meaning is intended.

If Literal: If the term Walad applies literally to both, the initial problem of using a shared term for two meanings simultaneously returns. We must argue that the term is *congruent (mutawāṭi’)* for both, like the term Hayawan (animal) applies equally to humans and horses. Evidence for this congruence is found in: "And forbidden to you are the wives of your sons who are from your own loins" (An-Nisa: 23). Consensus holds that this includes both the son's direct offspring and his children (grandchildren). Thus, the term Ibn (son) is congruent for both. This resolves the issue.

Related Note: This debate about whether Walad includes grandchildren applies also to whether Ab (father) and Umm (mother) include grandparents. It is clear that they do, based on God saying: "We worship Your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac" (Al-Baqarah: 133). However, it is more likely that this is not literal, as the Companions agreed that the grandfather has no fixed share mentioned in the Quran. If the term Ab literally included the grandfather, this would not be the case.

The generality of the verse ("For the male is the share of two females") is considered to be specified in four situations:

1. A free person and a slave do not inherit from each other.
2. A deliberate murderer does not inherit.
3. Heirs of two different religions do not inherit from each other. This is a widely accepted report reaching the level of widespread transmission, leading to two sub-issues:

Sub-Issue 1: Muslim Inheriting from a Non-Muslim

• Consensus: A non-Muslim does not inherit from a Muslim.
• Dispute: Does a Muslim inherit from a non-Muslim?
  • Majority: No.
  • Some Scholars (e.g., Sha'bi): Yes. Mu'awiyah ruled this way and wrote to Ziyad, who ordered Shurayh (who previously ruled against it) to follow this ruling.

Arguments for the Majority (No Inheritance): The general saying of the Prophet (PBUH): "Heirs of two different religions do not inherit from each other."

Arguments for the Minority (Inheritance Allowed):

1. The general verse "Allah instructs you concerning your children..." implies inheritance for both Muslim from non-Muslim and vice versa.
2. We specified this general verse with the specific Hadith: "Heirs of two different religions do not inherit." The specific takes precedence over the general.
3. The saying: "Islam increases and does not decrease" is more specific than "Heirs of two different religions do not inherit," so it must take precedence. This specification is stronger because the general verse is supported by the verse on children, whereas the first Hadith is not similarly supported.

Rebuttal to the Minority: The saying "Islam increases and does not decrease" is not explicit regarding the specific case of inheritance, so it must be applied to other situations.

Sub-Issue 2: Apostate (Murtadd) If a Muslim apostatizes and then dies or is killed:

• Wealth acquired during apostasy: Consensus is that it goes to the Public Treasury (Bayt al-Mal), not inherited.
• Wealth acquired while a Muslim: Two views:
  • Shafi'i: It goes to the Public Treasury (based on the precedence of "Heirs of two different religions do not inherit" over the general verse).
  • Abu Hanifa: His Muslim heirs inherit it.

Argument against Abu Hanifa: If the apostate's ownership was nullified at the moment of apostasy, the wealth transferred to the heirs after his death, meaning the Muslim heir inherits from a Muslim (the state/treasury), not the apostate.

Response: If the Muslim were to inherit from the apostate, it would happen either during the apostate's life or after his death.

• Inheriting during his life is void, as the apostate cannot dispose of the wealth (except to his wives or what his right hands possess, which is unanimously void).
• Inheriting after his death is void because the apostate is a disbeliever at the moment of death, leading to inheritance between people of two religions, contradicting the Hadith. The only remaining possibility is inheriting after death based on the last moment of his Islam. This is void because if ownership is established after death based on a past state (his Islam), it implies a retroactive disposition during his lifetime, which is logically absurd. If this "reliance" is interpreted as mere clarification, the issue reverts to inheriting during his life, which we already invalidated.

Point 4: Non-Inheritance of Prophets The majority of jurists hold that Prophets (PBUH) do not leave inheritance. The Shi'a oppose this. When Fatimah requested inheritance and was denied, the argument used was the Prophet's saying: "We, the company of Prophets, do not leave inheritance; whatever we leave is charity."

Fatimah argued using the general verse: "For the male is the share of two females," suggesting that the generality of the Quran cannot be restricted by a solitary Hadith (Ahad). The Shi'a further argued that even if a solitary Hadith could restrict the Quran, it is not permissible here, based on three points:

1. It contradicts verses like Zechariah's prayer: "He will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob" (Maryam: 6), and "And Solomon inherited David" (An-Naml: 16). They argue this cannot mean inheritance of knowledge/religion, as that is new acquisition, not true inheritance, which only applies to wealth.
2. The only people who needed to know this ruling were Fatimah, Ali, and Al-Abbas—all known for extreme piety and knowledge. It is unlikely the Prophet (PBUH) would convey this specific ruling to Abu Bakr, who would never imagine inheriting from the Prophet, while withholding it from those who desperately needed to know it.
3. The phrase "What we leave is charity" might be a dependent clause modifying "We do not leave inheritance," meaning: "The thing we leave as charity is that which is not inherited."

Rebuttal: If this is the case, the Prophet (PBUH) has no special status.

Response: The special status remains because perhaps when Prophets intend to give something as charity, the intention alone removes it from their ownership, preventing inheritance—a status not shared by others.

Conclusion: Fatimah was satisfied with Abu Bakr's statement after this debate, and consensus formed on the correctness of Abu Bakr's position, nullifying this question.

The phrase means "for the male among them," with the pronoun referring back to the children being understood, similar to saying, "Ghee is two man for one dirham."

Regarding: "But if they are females numbering above two, then they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves." This means if the daughters (or female offspring) are exclusively female, with no son present.

The phrase "above two" can either be a second predicate for Kāna (if they were), or an adjective for Nisā’ (females exceeding two in number).

Questions on this phrase:

1. The first phrase ("For the male is the share of two females") explains the male's share, not the females'. How is it appropriate to follow it with "But if they are females..." which explains the females' share?
   • Response 1: We established that "For the male is the share of two females" implies the share of two females is two-thirds. When God mentioned what implied the ruling for two females, He followed it by stating: "But if they are females numbering above two, then they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves," meaning: If they are a group reaching the number of two, they receive what two receive, which is two-thirds, establishing that the ruling for the group is the same as for two without difference. Thus, the connection is harmonious.
   • Response 2: Since two females were already mentioned, this statement suffices to establish the connection.

2. Can the pronouns in Kunna (they are) and Kānat (she was) be vague, with Nisā’ (females) and Wāḥidah (one) explaining them, assuming Kāna is complete (not needing a predicate)?
   • Response: Al-Kashshāf states this is not unlikely.

3. Nisā’ is a plural, and the minimum plural in Arabic is three. Why the restriction "above two"?
   • Response: Those who hold the minimum plural to be two use this verse as proof. Those who hold it to be three say this is for emphasis, like in "They eat nothing into their bellies except fire" (An-Nisa: 10) and "Do not take two gods; indeed, He is but one God."

Regarding: "And if there is only one (female), she gets half."

• Nāfi’ reads Wāḥidah (one) with the nominative case (implying Kāna is complete).
• The rest read it with the accusative case, which is preferred because the preceding clause ("if they are females...") has an accusative predicate. The structure is: If the estate left or the heirs are females, then here: If the estate left is one (female), she gets half.
• Zayd ibn Ali read An-Nisf (half) with a ḍammah on the Nūn.

Inheritance of Parents

"And for his parents, each of them is a sixth of what he leaves, if he has a child."

God mentioned the inheritance of the parents after detailing the children's inheritance.

Al-Hasan and Nu'aym ibn Abi Maysarah recited As-Suds (the sixth) with a lightened dāl (omitting the shaddah), as they did for the quarter and the eighth.

State 1: When a Child is Present (As mentioned in this verse) There is no dispute that the term Walad (child) includes both male and female. This state can occur in three ways:

1. Parents present with one or more sons. (Parents each get one-sixth).
2. Parents present with two or more daughters. (Parents each get one-sixth).
3. Parents present with one daughter. The daughter gets half. The mother gets one-sixth, and the father gets one-sixth by fixed share. The remaining sixth goes to the father by Ta'ṣīb (residuary right).

Questions on State 1:

1. Why is the parents' share less than the children's, despite their greater right over their children? God linked obedience to Him with kindness to parents.
   • Response: This is due to wisdom. The parents have little of their lifespan left, so their need for wealth is small. Children are young, so their need for wealth is great.

2. To what does the pronoun in Wa li-abawayhi (And for his two parents) refer?
   • Response: It refers to a non-mentioned antecedent, meaning: "And for the two parents of the deceased."

3. What is meant by Al-Abawān (the two parents)?
   • Response: The father and the mother. The mother's root term is Abbah. Abawān is the dual of Ab and Abbah.

4. Structure of the verse: "For each one of them is a sixth" is a substitute (Badal) for "For his two parents," repeating the operative verb. The benefit of this substitution is that if it only said, "And for his two parents, a sixth," it would imply they share that sixth jointly.

Objection: Why not say, "For each one of his two parents, a sixth"?

Response: Detailing after summarizing provides emphasis and reinforcement. As-Suds (the sixth) is the subject, and li-abawayhi is the predicate, with the substitute placed in between for clarification.

State 2: Parents Alone (No Children)

"If he has no child and his two parents inherit him, then for his mother is a third."

This is the second state: no children are present, and no other heir exists besides the parents. The mother receives one-third (her fixed share). The remainder goes to the father.

This is because the phrase "and his two parents inherit him" implies no other heirs exist. If the mother's share is one-third, the remaining two-thirds must go to the father. In this case, the wealth is divided between them according to the male/female ratio (father gets double the mother's share).

This leads to two consequences:

1. The previous verse established the father's fixed share as one-sixth. Here, he receives two-thirds. He receives one-sixth by fixed share and the rest by Ta'ṣīb.
2. Since the father receives half by Ta'ṣīb here, if he were alone (no mother), he must take the entire estate, as the characteristic of the Asabah is to take everything when alone.

If a Spouse is Present with Parents: The majority of Companions held that the spouse takes their fixed share first. Then, one-third of the remainder goes to the mother, and the rest goes to the father.

• Ibn Abbas's View: The spouse takes their share, the mother gets one-third of the total estate, and the rest goes to the father. He argued he found no basis in the Book for "one-third of what remains."
• Ibn Sirin's View: Agreed with Ibn Abbas regarding the wife and parents, but disagreed regarding the husband and parents, as that would imply the female (wife) gets half the share of two males (parents), contradicting the rule "for the male is the share of two females." This contradiction does not arise with the wife.

Arguments for the Majority (Spouse + Parents):

1. Inheritance Rule: When a male and female are from the same class of heirs (e.g., children, siblings, or parents), the male gets double the female's share. We established that if only parents remain, the father gets two-thirds and the mother one-third (a 2:1 ratio). Therefore, after the spouse takes their share, the remainder should be divided between the parents in a 2:1 ratio.
2. Partnership Analogy: The parents are like partners sharing wealth. Once a portion is allocated, the remainder is divided among them according to their initial entitlement ratio.
3. Spouse's Share: The spouse takes their share due to the marriage contract, not kinship, resembling a bequest (waṣiyyah) in dividing the remainder.
4. Wife's Inheritance: If a woman dies leaving a husband and parents, the husband gets half. If we gave the mother one-third and the father one-sixth, the female (wife) would get half the share of the two males (father and husband combined), contradicting the rule "for the male is the share of two females."

The first three arguments rely on specifying the general Quranic text by analogy (Qiyas). The fourth relies on specifying one general text by another general text.

Hamzah and Al-Kisā’i recited Fa-li-ummihi with a kasrah (short 'i') on the mīm, stipulating that this kasrah is only permissible if the preceding letter is kasrah (like in fī buṭūni ummahātikum) or a yā’ (like in fī ummihā rasūlan). If neither condition is met, the ḍammah (short 'u') is used (like in wa ja'alnā ibn Maryama wa ummahu āyatan).

Reason for Kasrah: Al-Zajjaj explained that they found the ḍammah heavy after the kasrah in li-ummihi. Since the lām is strongly connected to umm, the combination feels like one word. Since Arabic does not have a word structure of fa-`a-lu (kasrah-ḍammah-fatḥa), they changed the ḍammah to a kasrah.

Reason for Ḍammah (Others): They followed the original rule. Since the word is separate, the rule for separate words applies.

State 3: Parents with Siblings

"But if he has brothers, then for his mother is a sixth."

This is the third state: siblings (brothers and sisters) are present with the parents.

• Consensus: One sister does not prevent the mother from her full one-third share (i.e., she does not reduce it to one-sixth).
• Consensus: Three or more siblings do reduce the mother's share to one-sixth.
• Dispute: Two sisters. The majority of Companions held that two sisters do cause the reduction (like three or more). Ibn Abbas held they do not cause the reduction (like one sister).

Ibn Abbas's Argument: The verse states the condition for reduction is "if he has brothers" (Ikhwah), which is a plural. In Usul al-Fiqh, the minimum plural is three. Since three are not present, the condition for reduction is not met.

Evidence for Minimum Plural being Three: A narration states Ibn Abbas asked Uthman why two brothers reduce the mother's share from one-third to one-sixth, when the verse says "if he has brothers" (plural). Uthman replied that he could not overturn a ruling established by those before him and implemented across the provinces. Both Ibn Abbas and Uthman were leading Arabs and linguists; their agreement suggests the minimum plural is three.

Scholarly Views on Minimum Plural:

1. Two is the Minimum Plural (Al-Baqillani): Evidence includes "Then your two hearts have swerved" (At-Tahrim: 4), as one person only has one heart. Also, the restriction "above two" in the daughters' verse implies Nisā’ can refer to two.
2. Three is the Minimum Plural (Majority): If this is true, the apparent meaning of the Book does not mandate reduction by two brothers. The reduction is based on Analogy (Qiyas).
   • Analogy Argument: Since two sisters cause reduction (as established by induction/Istiqra' below), two brothers must also cause reduction, as there is no difference between them in this regard.
   • Basis for Two Sisters Causing Reduction: God equates two daughters with three in inheritance share (both get two-thirds). Similarly, He equates two sisters with three regarding the mother's share (both reduce it to one-third). This induction suggests two sisters cause reduction. If two sisters cause reduction, two brothers must as well.
   • Weakness: Applying analogy to numerical estimations is difficult as the underlying reason (Jami') is often unclear, making it mere resemblance. A stronger basis is induction (Istiqra'), where multiplicity implies generality.

Conclusion: The consensus of the Successors (Tābi'ūn) invalidated Ibn Abbas's view. A consensus reached after a dispute is considered authoritative in Usul al-Fiqh.

If the siblings reduce the mother's share from one-third to one-sixth, they do not inherit anything. The father takes the entire remainder (five-sixths: one-sixth by fixed share, five-sixths by Ta'ṣīb).

Ibn Abbas's View: The siblings take the one-sixth that the mother was deprived of, and the father takes the rest. His argument: Induction shows that one who does not inherit cannot cause reduction. Since these siblings caused reduction, they must inherit.

Majority Argument: When only parents exist, the wealth belongs to them. When siblings are present, God only mentioned them as causing the mother's share to drop from one-third to one-sixth. It is not necessary that one who causes reduction must inherit. Therefore, the wealth remains the property of the parents as it was before this reduction, with the mother's share fixed at one-sixth.

Bequests and Debts

"From after any bequest he [might have] bequeathed or debt."

After the fixed shares for children and parents are determined, these shares are given only from what remains after satisfying bequests and debts. Debt takes precedence: even if the debt consumes the entire estate, the heirs have no right. If debt is paid, and something remains, the bequest is paid from one-third of the remainder, and the rest is divided as inheritance according to God's fixed shares.

Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) said: "You recite the bequest before the debt, but the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) decreed the debt before the bequest."

Interpretation: Ali meant precedence in mention and wording, not in legal ruling. The word Aw (or) does not imply sequence in ruling.

Wisdom in Mentioning Bequest First:

1. Burden on Heirs: A bequest is wealth taken without compensation, making its payment burdensome for the heirs, leading to potential negligence. Debt repayment, however, is generally expected. God mentioned the bequest first to encourage its fulfillment. The word Aw (or) then emphasizes that both debt and bequest must be fulfilled equally in obligation.
2. Impact on Inheritance Shares: Just as inheritance shares are postponed after debt, they are also postponed after bequests. If a man bequeaths one-third, the heirs' shares are calculated after the one-third is given to the legatee. God joined debt and bequest to show that inheritance shares are calculated after both.

Difference between Debt and Bequest: If part of the estate perishes, the loss falls on the shares of the legatees and the heirs. It does not affect the debt, which must be fully satisfied from the remainder. If the remainder is consumed by the debt, the rights of the legatee and all heirs are void. The bequest resembles inheritance in that loss affects its share, but resembles debt in that inheritance shares are calculated after it is settled.

Why did God use Aw (or) instead of saying: "From after any bequest he bequeathed and debt"?

Responses:

1. Aw means Permissibility: Like saying, "Sit with Al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin." Either one is acceptable; sitting with both is also acceptable. If one said, "Sit with the two men," sitting with only one would be incomplete. Here, using Aw means if one exists, inheritance follows it, and if both exist, inheritance follows both.
2. Aw means Wāw (And) in Negation: When Aw follows a negative context, it means Wāw. Examples: "Nor obey any sinful disbeliever" (Al-Insan: 24), and the exceptions in the verse about forbidden fats. Here, since the context is an exception ("except after..."), Aw means Wāw, implying inheritance follows both the bequest and the debt.

Ibn Kathir, Ibn Amir, and Abu Bakr recited Yūṣā with a fatḥah on the ṣād (passive voice: "is bequeathed"). Nāfi’, Abu Ubayd, Hamzah, and Al-Kisā’i recited it with a kasrah on the ṣād (active voice, added to the testator: "he bequeaths"). The latter is preferred, supported by the following phrase: "if he has a child."

The Interjection: Wisdom of Distribution

"And your children—you do not know which of them are nearer to you in benefit. [This is] an ordinance from Allah. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

This statement is an interjection between the mention of heirs and their shares, and the phrase "an ordinance from Allah." An interjection should confirm what it interrupts.

God mentioned the differing shares for children and parents. Since these shares are complex, human intellect might assume a different division would be more beneficial, especially since the Arabs used to only inherit to strong males, excluding women, children, and the weak.

God removes this doubt by saying: You do not know your true interests. You might think something is beneficial when it is harmful, and vice versa. The Wise, Merciful God knows all hidden matters and consequences.

The meaning is: O people, abandon determining inheritance shares based on what your intellects prefer, and obey God's command regarding these fixed shares.

• "And your children—you do not know which of them are nearer to you in benefit" refers to abandoning the division based on natural inclination (like the Arab custom of favoring strong males).
• "An ordinance from Allah" refers to the obligation to submit to the division established by Sharia.

Interpretations of "Which of them are nearer to you in benefit":

1. Benefit in the Hereafter: Ibn Abbas said God will intercede for some of them for others. The most obedient among children and parents will have the highest rank in Paradise. If the parent is higher, God will raise the child to please the parent's eye. If the child is higher, God will raise the parents to please the child's eye. Thus, "you do not know which is more beneficial" in this ultimate reward.
2. Benefit in this World: The manner in which some benefit others through spending, upbringing, and defense.
3. Possibility of Death: One might die before the other, leading to inheritance in the opposite direction.

"An ordinance from Allah": This is an accusative of the verbal noun, meaning: "He has ordained this as an ordinance." God is Knowing (of all things) and Wise (He only commands what is most appropriate). Thus, God's division is superior to what your nature desires because He knows all interests and harms, and He is Wise, commanding only what is best. This is like when He told the angels: "Indeed, I know that which you do not know" (Al-Baqarah: 30).

Objection: Why did He say "was Knowing and Wise" (Kāna), when He is so now?

Response: Al-Khalil said that describing God with these terms is like describing His present state, as He is transcendent of time. Sibawayh said that when people witnessed His knowledge, wisdom, grace, and benevolence, they were amazed, and it was said to them: "Indeed, Allah was like this," meaning He has always been described with these attributes.

Inheritance of Spouses (Verse 12)

"And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, then for you is a quarter of what they leave, from after any bequest they [might have] bequeathed or debt. And for them is a quarter of what you leave if you have no child. But if you have a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, from after any bequest you [might have] bequeathed or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither descendants nor ascendants [but has] an [only] brother or sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than that, they are partners in a third, from after any bequest he [might have] bequeathed or debt, without [causing] harm. [This is] an ordinance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Forbearing."

• If the wives have no child, they inherit half of the husband's estate.
• If they have a child, they inherit one-quarter of the estate, after bequests and debts.

• If the husband has no child, he inherits one-quarter of the wife's estate.
• If he has a child, he inherits one-eighth of the estate, after bequests and debts.

Kalālah refers to one who dies leaving neither direct descendants nor direct ascendants.

• If a man or woman dies as Kalālah and leaves one brother or one sister, each receives one-sixth.
• If they are more than that (i.e., multiple brothers/sisters), they share one-third equally, after bequests and debts.

Condition: This distribution must be without causing harm (ghayra muḍār). This is an ordinance from Allah. Allah is ever Knowing and Forbearing.

Issue 1: Recitation Variants

• Hamzah and Al-Kisā’i recited Fa-li-ummihi (for his mother) with a kasrah on the mīm (as discussed previously).
• The rest recited it with a ḍammah.

Issue 2: Recitation of "Yūṣā bihi"

• Ibn Kathir, Ibn Amir, and Abu Bakr recited Yūṣā with a fatḥah on the ṣād (passive voice: "is bequeathed").
• Nāfi’, Abu Ubayd, Hamzah, and Al-Kisā’i recited it with a kasrah on the ṣād (active voice, added to the testator: "he bequeaths"). This is preferred due to the context of the following phrase regarding the father's inheritance.

Issue 3: The Meaning of "Ghayra Muḍār" (Without Harm) This phrase relates to the bequest. It means the bequest should not be made in a way that harms the heirs by exceeding one-third of the estate.

Issue 4: The Meaning of "Or" (Aw) As discussed in the previous section, Aw here means Wāw (And), indicating that the distribution occurs after both the bequest and the debt are settled.