| An-Nisa (The Women): (33) And for everyone We have appointed heirs...

Issues in the Verse:

There are two main ways to interpret the verse regarding the relationship between the heirs and those from whom inheritance is left:

First Interpretation: The parents and relatives (al-wālidayn wa-l-aqrabūn) are the heirs (mawāli) of what is left.

• The structure implies: "And for everyone [person] We have appointed heirs (mawāli) from what [that person] left."
• Then, it is implicitly asked: Who are these heirs? The answer is: The parents and relatives.
• Under this view, a pause must occur after the phrase: {مما ترك} (from what [he/she] left).

Second Interpretation: The parents and relatives are the ones from whom the inheritance is left. This interpretation has two sub-views:

1. Rearrangement: The intended order is: "And for everything that the parents and relatives left, We have appointed heirs (mawāli)." In both these views, the verb {جعلنا} (We made) is intransitive (does not take two objects) because its meaning is taken as khalaqnā (We created).
2. Omission: The intended meaning is: "And for every people, We appointed them heirs (mawāli) a share from what the parents and relatives left."
   • In this view, {موالى} (heirs) is an adjective, and the noun it describes is omitted.
   • The pronoun referring back to {ولكل} (And for everyone) is also omitted.
   • The predicate, {نصيب} (a share), is also omitted.
   • Under this structure, {جعلنا} (We made) takes two objects.

Conclusion: The first two interpretations (under the Second Interpretation) are preferred due to the frequent use of omission (iḍmār) in the latter structure.

The word Mawlā is polysemous (a shared term) with several meanings:

1. The one who freed a slave (al-mu‘tiq): Because he is the source of the favor (walī ni‘matihi) in freeing the slave, hence called Mawlā an-Ni‘mah (Lord of Favor).
2. The freed slave (al-‘abd al-mu‘taq): Due to his connection to the master's favor upon him. This is analogous to how the creditor is called gharīm (debtor) because he has the right to demand payment, and the debtor is also called gharīm because the debt is incumbent upon him.
3. The ally by oath (al-ḥalīf): Because the one who enters into an alliance (muḥālif) manages his affairs through the covenant of the oath.
4. The paternal cousin (ibn al-‘amm): Because he is the one who supports (is walī) due to the kinship between them.
5. The protector/helper (al-walī): Because he supports through aid. Allah says: {That is because Allah is the Protector (Mawlā) of those who believe, and the disbelievers have no Protector (Mawlā)}. (Muhammad: 11)
6. The ‘aṣabah (agnatic male relatives): This is the intended meaning in this verse, as only this meaning suits the context. This is supported by what Abu Salih narrated from Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "I am closer to the believers than themselves. Whoever dies and leaves wealth, his wealth belongs to the Mawālī (the ‘aṣabah), and whoever leaves dependents (kallan), I am his guardian." He (PBUH) also said: "Divide this wealth, and whatever remains after the shares, it belongs to the nearest male ‘aṣabah."

Then Allah Almighty said: {وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ} (And those with whom you have made firm oaths, give them their share). This phrase contains several issues:

• ‘Āṣim, Ḥamzah, and Al-Kisā’ī recited it as {عَقَدَتْ} (without alif, and with takhfīf—lightening).
• The rest recited it as {عَاقَدَتْ} (with alif and takhfīf).
• {عَقَدَتْ} (without alif) attributes the making of the covenant to one party.
• The preferred reading is {عَاقَدَتْ} (with alif), as the form mufā‘alah (reciprocal action) indicates the covenant was made between two parties.

Al-Aymān is the plural of yamīn (oath), which can mean either hand or oath/swearing.

If Yamīn means Hand: There are three metaphorical interpretations:

1. The covenant is attributed to the hands in outward expression, but in reality, it is attributed to the swearers. This metaphor arises because they used to seal sales contracts with their oaths and grasp each other's hands to confirm the promise and adherence to the covenant.
2. It implies an omission: "And those whom you covenanted with by their oaths (bi-ḥalifihim aymānakum)." The object (muḍāf) is omitted, and the muḍāf ilayhi takes its place, which is acceptable due to contextual indication.
3. It implies an omission: "And those whom you covenanted with (‘āqadtuhum)," but the pronoun referring back from the relative clause to the relative pronoun is omitted.

If Yamīn means Oath/Swearing: The covenant is attributed to the oath in outward expression. This is acceptable because the oath was the cause of the covenant, making the attribution appropriate. The other metaphorical interpretations follow similarly.

Some scholars hold that this verse is abrogated, while others hold it is not.

Those who argue for Abrogation: They interpret the verse in ways that imply inheritance based on the oath:

1. Pre-Islamic Alliances (Ḥulafā’ in the Jāhiliyyah): A man would ally with another, saying: "My blood is your blood, my peace is your peace, my war is your war, you inherit from me and I inherit from you, and you pay blood money for me and I pay for you." This ally was entitled to one-sixth of the inheritance. This was abrogated by Allah's saying: {And those of kin are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah} (Al-Anfāl: 75) and {Allah instructs you concerning your children...} (An-Nisā’: 11).
2. *Adopted Sons (Ad‘iyā’):* A person would adopt a stranger as his son, and they would inherit from each other based on this adoption, which was then abrogated.
3. Brotherhood established by the Prophet (PBUH): The Prophet (PBUH) established brotherhood between every two companions, and this brotherhood served as a basis for inheritance.

Conclusion for Abrogation: In all three cases, the covenant/alliance was a basis for inheritance, as implied by {وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا} (And for everyone We have appointed). Allah then abrogated this with the verses mentioned above.

Those who argue the Verse is NOT Abrogated: They offer several interpretations:

1. The Mawāli are the Heirs: The verse means: "And for everyone—from what the parents, relatives, and those with whom you made firm oaths left—We have appointed heirs (mawāli), so give them their share." Here, {وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} is coordinated with {الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ}. The meaning is that what those allied with have left has an heir who is prioritized. Allah named the heir Mawlā. The instruction is not to give the wealth to the ally, but to the Mawlā (heir). Thus, there is no abrogation. (This is the view of Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā’ī).
2. Spouses: The intended meaning of {وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} refers to the husband and wife, as marriage is called a covenant (‘aqd), as in: {And do not resolve upon the knot of marriage} (Al-Baqarah: 235). Allah mentioned parents and relatives, and included the spouses with them, similar to the verse on inheritance where, after mentioning the shares of children and parents, the shares of the spouses are mentioned. Thus, there is no abrogation. (This is the view of Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī).
3. *Inheritance due to Loyalty (Walā’):* The meaning refers to the inheritance resulting from the bond of loyalty (walā’). Thus, there is no abrogation.
4. Support and Sincerity (Not Inheritance): The meaning of {وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} refers to the allies, but {وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا} refers to support, sincere advice, cordiality in association, and honesty in dealings—not inheritance. Thus, there is no abrogation.
5. Specific Incident involving Abu Bakr (RA): It is narrated that the verse was revealed concerning Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (RA) and his son ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. Abu Bakr had sworn not to spend on or bequeath anything to his son. When ‘Abd al-Raḥmān embraced Islam, Allah commanded him [Abu Bakr] to give his son his due share. Thus, there is no abrogation.
6. A Small Share as a Gift: Al-Aṣamm stated that the share mentioned is merely a small portion given as a token of honor or a gift, similar to the instruction given to those present at the division of spoils to set aside a share for them (as previously mentioned). All these interpretations are sound and plausible. And Allah knows best His intent.

Those who hold that {وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} is the subject (mubtada’) and {وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا} is the predicate (khabar) argue that the predicate is introduced with the particle fa (so/then) because the relative pronoun {الَّذِي} implies a conditional meaning. Therefore, its predicate is correctly introduced with fa. Alternatively, it could be in the accusative case, similar to saying: "Zayd, strike him!" (Zaydan fa-ḍribhu).

The majority of jurists hold that the lower Mawlā (the freed slave) does not inherit from the higher Mawlā (the one who freed him).

• However, Al-Ṭaḥāwī narrated from Al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād that he said the Mawlā does inherit. This is based on the narration from Ibn ‘Abbās that a man freed a slave, and the emancipator died leaving only the freed slave. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) assigned the inheritance to the freed slave, arguing that he falls under the scope of: {وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ}.

• The Rebuttal to the Hadith: Perhaps that wealth, upon the emancipator's death without heirs, went to the Public Treasury (Bayt al-Māl), and the Prophet (PBUH) gave it to the freed slave due to his need and poverty, as wealth without an heir should be spent on the poor.

• Al-Shāfi‘ī and Mālik (may Allah be pleased with them) said: If a person embraces Islam at the hand of another, becomes his ally (wālāhu), and then dies without any heir other than that ally, the ally does not inherit; rather, the inheritance goes to the Muslims.
• Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: He inherits.

• Argument for Abū Ḥanīfah: We have established that the meaning of the verse is: "And for everything that the parents, relatives, and those with whom you made firm oaths left, We have appointed heirs (mawāli)." Thus, We have appointed heirs for them, who are the ‘aṣabah. These ‘aṣabah are either specific heirs or general ones (the community of Muslims). Therefore, this wealth must be directed to the general ‘aṣabah unless the specific ‘aṣabah exists. Abū Bakr Ar-Rāzī argued for his position by saying the verse mandates inheritance for the one allied with, but Allah abrogated it with: {And those of kin are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah} (Al-Anfāl: 75). This abrogation only takes effect if the blood relatives exist; if they do not exist, the original ruling remains.

• The Rebuttal: We have already shown that the verse does not indicate that the ally inherits; rather, we showed that the verse indicates he does not inherit. Furthermore, the argument for this specific abrogation is invalid.

Then Allah Almighty said: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدًا} (Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, a Witness).

This is a word of promise for the obedient and a word of warning for the disobedient. Ash-Shahīd (The Witness) means the one who observes and is observed.

The meaning is either:

1. Allah’s knowledge encompasses all particulars and universals (In this case, Ash-Shahīd means The Knower).
2. Allah’s testimony over creation on the Day of Judgment regarding everything they did (In this case, Ash-Shahīd means The Informer).

7 < { Rijal are maintainers over women because of what Allah has favored some of them over others and because of what they spend of their wealth. So the righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear disloyalty, [first] advise them and [then] refuse to share their beds, and [finally] strike them. But if they obey you, then seek no way against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Great. } > 7

<