An-Nisā’ (The Women): (12) And for you is half of what...

Structure of Inheritance Distribution

The Almighty has ordered the categories of heirs in these verses in the most excellent arrangement.

This is because an heir is either connected to the deceased without an intermediary or through one.

1. Connection without an intermediary: This connection is either through kinship (nasab) or marriage (zawjiyyah). This yields three categories:
   • The most noble and highest: Connection through kinship, which is the lineage of offspring. This includes children and parents. Therefore, God Almighty prioritized the ruling concerning this category.
   • The second: Connection through marriage. This category is lower in nobility than the first because the former is inherent (dhātī), while the latter is accidental (ʿaraḍī). The inherent is nobler than the accidental. This category is what is intended in the verse we are currently interpreting.
   • The third: Connection through an intermediary, known as Kalālah (inheritance without direct ascendants or descendants). This category is subsequent to the first two for several reasons:
     • The first two categories (children, parents, spouses) are never entirely excluded from inheritance. However, Kalālah heirs can be entirely excluded.
     • The first two categories relate to the deceased without an intermediary, whereas Kalālah relates through an intermediary. What is established directly is nobler than what is established through mediation.
     • Human association with parents, children, and spouses is more frequent and complete than association with Kalālah heirs. Frequent association suggests affection and compassion, which necessitates greater concern for their welfare.

For these and similar reasons, God Almighty postponed the mention of Kalālah inheritance after the first two categories. How excellent is this arrangement, and how perfectly it conforms to rational principles!

In this verse, there are several issues:

The Almighty established that the share for the male in the cause-based relationship (marriage) is like the share for two females, just as He did in the lineage-based relationship (kinship).

Note that a single heir and multiple heirs are equal in receiving the quarter (rubʿ) or the eighth (thumn). A child, whether from the husband or another, is equal in the Radd (return of surplus) from half to a quarter, or from a quarter to an eighth.

Furthermore, there is no difference between a male child and a female child, nor between a son and a son's son, nor between a daughter and a daughter's daughter. (And God knows best.)

Imam Shāfiʿī (may God have mercy on him) held that a husband may wash his deceased wife. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (may God be pleased with him) held that he may not.

Shāfiʿī’s Proof: After death, she remains his wife, making it permissible for him to wash her. The evidence that she remains his wife is His saying: {And for you is half of what your wives leave} (An-Nisā’ 4:12). He named her a wife while establishing for the husband half of her wealth upon her death. If half her wealth upon death is established for the husband, it must follow that she remains his wife after death. If this is established, then washing her becomes permissible because before the marriage, washing her was not permissible. Upon the establishment of the marriage bond, washing her became permissible. The circularity here appears to indicate causality.

Abū Ḥanīfah’s Proof: She is not his wife, and it is not permissible for him to wash her. The evidence that she is not his wife is that if she were his wife after death, sexual intercourse with her would be permissible, based on the verse: {except from their wives} (Al-Mu’minūn 23:6). If this were true, then the permissibility of washing her would also have to be established. If washing were permissible, it would either be permissible with the permissibility of looking (at her body), which is false based on the Prophet's saying: "Lower your gaze except upon your wife," or it would be permissible without the permissibility of looking, which is false by consensus (ijmāʿ).

The Response: Since the two verses conflict regarding the establishment or negation of the marital status, preference must be given. We say: If she were not his wife, then the phrase {half of what your wives leave} would be metaphorical (majaz). If she were his wife, yet intercourse is not permissible, it necessitates specification (taḵṣīṣ). We have mentioned in Uṣūl al-Fiqh that specification is preferable. Thus, the preference lies on our side.

Moreover, we know that in many situations, the marriage bond exists, but the permissibility of intercourse is suspended, such as during menstruation, post-natal bleeding, during the day in Ramaḍān, while she is occupied with obligatory prayer or obligatory Hajj. Also, we explained in Al-Khilāfiyyāt that the permissibility of intercourse was established contrary to the apparent evidence due to numerous public interests (maṣāliḥ). After death, none of those interests remain, so the ruling reverts to the original prohibition (of intercourse). As for the permissibility of washing, its establishment after death serves many public interests, so its continuation must be affirmed. (And God knows best.)

The verse indicates the preference of men over women because, where God mentions men in this verse, He addresses them directly (as addressees), but where He mentions women, He refers to them in the third person (as absent ones). Furthermore, God addresses the men seven times in this verse, while mentioning the women in the third person fewer times. This indicates the preference of men over women. How well He observed this subtlety! For God favored men over women in their share, and He alluded to their greater merit through this subtlety.

The Kalālah Inheritance (Verses 12b-14)

{If a man dies leaving neither descendants nor ascendants, but has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves. And he will inherit from her if she has no child. If they are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves. And if they are brothers and sisters, then for the male shall be the share of two females...} (The excerpt provided only covers the beginning of the Kalālah ruling for siblings, which is detailed in the following verses, but the commentary here addresses the concept.)

This verse explains the inheritance of the third category of heirs: the Kalālah, those whose relation to the deceased is through an intermediary.

There were many opinions among the Companions regarding the meaning of Kalālah. The choice of Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq (may God be pleased with him) was that it refers to anyone other than the parents and children. This is the preferred and correct view.

However, ʿUmar (may God be pleased with him) used to say Kalālah means anyone other than the children. It is narrated that when he was fatally wounded, he said: "I used to think Kalālah meant one who has no children, but I am too shy to contradict Abū Bakr. Kalālah is anyone other than the parent and the child." Another narration from ʿUmar suggests hesitation; he used to say there are three matters whose clarification by the Prophet (PBUH) would have been dearer to him than the world and all it contains: Kalālah, the Caliphate, and Riba (usury).

The following points support the correctness of aṣ-Ṣiddīq’s view:

1. Derivation of the word Kalālah:
   • It is said: Kallat ar-raḥim (the kinship became distant) between so-and-so, and so-and-so carried (the burden), then kalla ʿanhu (he became distant). Thus, distant kinship is called Kalālah from this perspective.
   • It is said: Kalla ar-rajul (the man became exhausted) when his strength failed. This term was metaphorically applied to kinship not derived from direct birth, as this kinship is established through an intermediary, thus involving weakness. This shows it is unlikely to include the parents, as their relation is direct.
   • In its linguistic root, Kalālah means enclosure or surrounding. From this comes iklīl (wreath) because it surrounds the head, and kull (all) because it encompasses what enters it. Clouds are said to be takallalat when they surround the horizons. Based on this, those other than parents and children are called Kalālah because they are like a circle surrounding the person or a wreath around the head. Kinship by birth, however, is not like this; rather, some branch off from others, and some generate others, like a single entity increasing in a single sequence, as the poet said:

     "A lineage following, father from grandfather, / Like a spear shaft upon a shaft."

   • As for kinship differing from birth kinship (like siblings, paternal uncles/aunts), their relation establishes connection and enclosure around the related person. Thus, these etymological points prove that Kalālah refers to everyone except parents and children.

2. Usage in the Qur'an: The Almighty mentioned the term Kalālah only twice: here, and at the end of the Sūrah: {Say, "Allāh gives you a ruling concerning Kalālah..."} (An-Nisā’ 4:176). ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb used this latter verse to argue that Kalālah means only one who has no children. We respond: This verse proves that Kalālah means one who has neither children nor parents. This is because God ruled that siblings inherit when the deceased is Kalālah, and siblings certainly do not inherit if the parents are present. Therefore, the deceased cannot be Kalālah if the parents are alive.

3. Order of Mention: The Almighty mentioned the rulings for children and parents in the preceding verses, then followed them with the mention of Kalālah. This order implies that Kalālah refers to those other than parents and children.

4. Poetic Evidence: The saying of al-Farazdaq:

   "You inherited the standard of kingship not through Kalālah, / But from the two sons of Manāf: ʿAbd Shams and Hāshim." This verse indicates that they did not inherit the kingship through Kalālah, but from their fathers. This necessitates that the father is not included in Kalālah. (And God knows best.)

The term Kalālah can describe the heir or the deceased. If it describes the heir, it means those other than children and parents. If it describes the deceased, it means the one whose inheritance is taken by those other than parents and children.

The evidence that the term is used for the heir is the narration from Jābir: "I fell ill with an illness that nearly killed me, and the Prophet (PBUH) came to me. I said, 'O Messenger of God, I am a man whose only heir is Kalālah,' meaning he had neither parent nor child.

As for its use describing the deceased, it is the verse from al-Farazdaq, meaning: You did not inherit the kingship from paternal uncles (Kalālah), but from fathers. Here, the paternal uncle is called Kalālah, referring to the deceased heir, not the living heir.

Therefore, what is intended by Kalālah in this verse is the deceased who lacks both parents and children, because this description is relevant to the deceased (the testator) whose status is defined by the absence of parents and children, not the heir whose status is not altered by whether the deceased had children or parents.

It is said: rajulun kalālah, imra’atun kalālah, and qawmun kalālah. It is not dualized or pluralized because it is a verbal noun (maṣdar) like dalālah (indication) or wikālah (agency).

If we consider it a description of the heir or the deceased, it means "possessor of Kalālah," just as one says: fulān min qarābatī (so-and-so is from my kin), meaning "from those possessing kinship." Al-Kashshāf stated that it could be an adjective like al-ḥajājah and al-faqāqah (terms for a foolish person).

There are two possibilities for the word {yūrath}:

1. It is derived from warithahu yarithuhu (a man inherits from him). In this case, the man is the one from whom inheritance is taken (the deceased). The grammatical status of kalālah (accusative) can be explained in several ways:
   • As a circumstantial adverb (ḥāl): Meaning, "he is inherited while being kalālah," where kalālah (a verbal noun) stands in for a circumstantial phrase, meaning "inherited with distant kinship."
   • As the predicate of kāna (if): If {yūrath} is an adjective for the man, then kalālah is the predicate of kāna. The meaning is: "If a man who is inherited from is kalālah."
   • As the object of causation (mafʿūl li-ajlih): Meaning, "he is inherited because he is kalālah."

2. It is derived from awratha yūrithu (to cause someone to inherit). In this case, the man is the heir. The accusative status of kalālah is explained by the same possibilities mentioned above.

Al-Ḥasan and Abū Rajā’ al-ʿAṭṭārdi recited {yūrath} and {yūrrath} (with both light and heavy shaddah on the rā’), indicating the active voice (meaning: he inherits).

Rulings on Siblings (Verse 12b continued)

{...but if he has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they are partners in one-third...}

In this phrase, there are two issues:

A question arises: God said, {If a man dies leaving... or a woman}, then He said, {but he has a brother}, using a pronoun referring only to the man, not the woman. What is the reason?

The Answer: Al-Farrā’ stated that this is permissible. When two nouns are connected by aw (or) with the same meaning, the explanation can be attributed to either one, or to both. You can say: "Whoever has a brother or a sister, let him (referring to the brother) maintain ties," or "let her (referring to the sister) maintain ties," or "let them both maintain ties."

The exegetes unanimously agree that the intended meaning of "brother or sister" here refers to maternal siblings (akhāwāt min umm). Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ used to recite: "And he has a brother or sister from the mother."

The reason for this ruling is that at the end of the Sūrah, God says: {Say, "Allāh gives you a ruling concerning Kalālah..."} (An-Nisā’ 4:176), where He established two-thirds for two sisters and the entire wealth for brothers (in the absence of children/parents). Here, He establishes one-third for brothers and sisters collectively. Therefore, the siblings mentioned here must be different from those in the other verse. Here, it means maternal siblings only, whereas there, it means siblings through the father and mother, or only through the father.

Rulings on Bequests (Wasiyyah) (Verse 11 context)

{...after any bequest he may have bequeathed or debt.} (Referring back to verse 11, as the commentary transitions here.)

The apparent meaning of this verse suggests that bequeathing the entire wealth, or any portion desired, is permissible. This is supported by the Hadith narrated by Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar: "No Muslim who possesses wealth that he wishes to bequeath should spend two nights without his bequest being written down with him." This Hadith also indicates generality regarding how the bequest is made.

However, we state that these general rulings are restricted in two ways:

1. Regarding the amount of the bequest: Bequeathing the entire wealth is not permissible, based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.
   • Qur'an: Verses establishing inheritance, both generally (e.g., {For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave} [An-Nisā’ 4:7])—bequeathing everything would abrogate these texts—and specifically (e.g., {for the male is the share of two females} [An-Nisā’ 4:11]). Also, {Let those fear who, if they left behind them frail offspring, would be anxious for them} (An-Nisā’ 4:9).
   • Sunnah: The famous Hadith: "One-third, and one-third is much. If you leave your heirs wealthy, it is better than leaving them destitute, begging from people."

This Hadith indicates several rulings: * A bequest is not permissible for more than one-third. * It is preferable to bequeath less than one-third, as "one-third is much." * If one leaves little wealth and the heirs are poor, it is best not to make a bequest at all, based on the saying: "If you leave your heirs wealthy, it is better than leaving them destitute, begging from people." * It implies that bequeathing the entire wealth is permissible if there are no heirs, as the prohibition is due to the heirs; in their absence, permissibility must follow.

2. Regarding the Recipient of the Bequest: The generality of this verse is restricted concerning the recipient, as it is not permissible to bequeath to an heir, based on the Prophet's saying: "No bequest for an heir."

Imām Shāfiʿī held that if Zakāh or Hajj is delayed until death, it must be paid from the estate. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah held that it is not obligatory.

Shāfiʿī’s Proof: Obligatory Zakāh and Hajj are debts, and they must be paid according to this verse (which mentions debt before inheritance). We say it is a debt because language indicates it, and the Sharia also indicates it. Linguistically, debt (dayn) means an obligation requiring submission (e.g., "to whom necks submit"). In Sharia, when the Khathʿamiyyah woman asked the Prophet (PBUH) about the Hajj owed by her father, the Prophet asked: "If your father had a debt, and you paid it off, would it suffice?" She said, "Yes." He replied: "Then the debt of God is more deserving of being paid." Since it is established as a debt, it must precede inheritance based on the verse: {after any bequest he may have bequeathed or debt}.

Abū Bakr ar-Rāzī argued that the verse mentions absolute debt, and the Prophet (PBUH) named Hajj a debt of God. An absolute term does not encompass a qualified one.

Our Response: This argument is extremely weak. Since it is established that this (Hajj/Zakāh) is a debt, and the verse establishes that debt precedes inheritance, the intended conclusion is unavoidable. The argument regarding the absolute and qualified terms is irrelevant chatter that does not undermine this conclusion. (And God knows best.)

{...without causing harm} is in the accusative case, functioning as a circumstantial adverb (ḥāl), meaning: the bequest is made while not harming the heirs.

Harm in a bequest can occur in several ways:

1. Bequeathing more than one-third.
2. Acknowledging ownership of all or part of the wealth to a non-heir without factual basis.
3. Acknowledging a non-existent debt against oneself to divert inheritance from the heirs.
4. Acknowledging that a debt owed to him by someone else has already been collected.
5. Selling something below market price or buying something above market price, all with the aim of preventing wealth from reaching the heirs.
6. Bequeathing one-third not for the sake of God, but to diminish the rights of the heirs. This is the essence of causing harm in a bequest.

Scholars stated that it is preferable to bequeath less than one-third. ʿAlī said: "To bequeath one-fifth is dearer to me than one-fourth. To bequeath one-fourth is dearer to me than one-third." An-Nakhʿī said: The Messenger of God (PBUH) died and did not bequeath; Abū Bakr died and bequeathed. If a person bequeaths, it is good; if he does not bequeath, it is also good.

It is best for a person to consider the amount he leaves behind and who he leaves behind, and then make his bequest accordingly. If his wealth is little and his heirs are many, he should not bequeath. If the wealth is abundant, he should bequeath according to the wealth and their needs after him, whether they are few or many. (And God knows best.)

ʿIkrimah narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that causing harm in a bequest is among the major sins (kabā’ir). This is supported by the Qur'an, Sunnah, and reason.

• Qur'an: {These are the limits of Allāh. And whoever obeys Allāh and His Messenger, He will admit him to Gardens...} (An-Nisā’ 4:13). Ibn ʿAbbās said regarding the bequest: {And whoever disobeys Allāh and His Messenger...} (An-Nisā’ 4:14) he said, regarding the bequest.
• Sunnah: ʿIkrimah narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that the Messenger of God (PBUH) said: "Causing harm in a bequest is among the major sins." Ash-Shahr ibn Ḥawshab narrated from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of God (PBUH) said: "A man may perform the deeds of the people of Paradise for seventy years, but he deals unjustly in his bequest, and his deeds end with evil, so he enters the Fire. And a man may perform the deeds of the people of the Fire for seventy years, but he deals justly in his bequest, and his deeds end with good, so he enters Paradise." He (PBUH) also said: "Whoever cuts off an inheritance that God has ordained, God will cut off his inheritance from Paradise." Increasing the bequest beyond the ordained share is clearly cutting off the inheritance.
• Reason: Disobeying God's command when approaching death indicates extreme audacity toward God and great rebellion against submission to His commands, which is one of the greatest major sins.

Conclusion of the Rulings (Verses 13-14)

{These are the limits of Allāh. And whoever obeys Allāh and His Messenger, He will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide eternally. And that is the great attainment. * But whoever disobeys Allāh and His Messenger and transgresses His limits, He will admit him to a Fire, wherein he will abide eternally, and for him is a humiliating punishment.}

There are several ways to analyze the grammatical status of {waṣiyyah} at the end of the verse:

1. It is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid), meaning: "Allāh instructs you concerning this with a bequest," similar to {a decree from Allāh} (An-Nisā’ 4:11).
2. It is connected to the accusative phrase {ghāyri muḍārrin} (without causing harm), meaning: "The bequest of Allāh is that the bequest must not exceed one-third."
3. The implied meaning is: "A bequest from Allāh concerning the children, and that He should not leave them destitute, begging from people, due to extravagance in bequests." This is supported by the recitation of Al-Ḥasan: ghāyri muḍārrin waṣiyyah (with waṣiyyah in the genitive case, linked to ghāyri).

Why did the end of the first verse (regarding children's inheritance) conclude with {a decree from Allāh} (Farīḍah min Allāh), while this verse (regarding Kalālah) concludes with {a bequest from Allāh} (Waṣiyyah min Allāh)?

The Answer: The term Farīḍah (decree/fixed portion) is stronger and more emphatic than Waṣiyyah (bequest). Thus, the explanation of the inheritance of children was concluded with the mention of the fixed decree, and the explanation of Kalālah inheritance was concluded with the mention of the bequest. This indicates that while both require observance, the first category—caring for the welfare of the children—is more prioritized.

Then He said: {And Allāh is All-Knowing, Forbearing}—All-Knowing of who deals justly or unjustly in his bequest, and Forbearing toward the unjust one, not hastening punishment upon him. This is a warning. (And God knows best.)

{These are the limits of Allāh. And whoever obeys Allāh and His Messenger, He will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide eternally. And that is the great attainment. * But whoever disobeys Allāh and His Messenger and transgresses His limits, He will admit him to a Fire, wherein he will abide eternally, and for him is a humiliating punishment.}