Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:6

Surah An-Nisa (The Women): Verse 6

{ وابتلوا اليتامى حتى إذا بلغوا النكاح فإن آنستم منهم رشداً فادفعوا إليهم أموالهم ولا تأكلوها إسرافاً وبداراً أن يكبروا ومن كان غنياً فليستعفف ومن كان فقيراً فليأكل بالمعروف فإذا دفعتم إليهم أموالهم فأشهدوا عليهم وكفى بالله حسيباً }

After commanding the giving of the orphans' wealth to them previously (in verse 2: {وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْ}), this verse clarifies when that wealth should be handed over.

This verse establishes two conditions for returning the wealth to the orphans:

1. Reaching the age of marriage (Bulūgh al-Nikāḥ).
2. Perceiving maturity/sound judgment (Īnās al-Rushd).

Both conditions must be met before their wealth can be legally handed over to them.

Issue 1: The Meaning of "Test (Ibtilā’)" before Puberty

The verse begins with: { وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ } (And test the orphans...). This raises a legal dispute regarding the transactions of a discerning minor acting with the guardian's permission.

• Hanafi View (Imam Abu Hanifa): Transactions (like buying and selling) made by a discerning minor with the guardian's permission are valid.
  • Proof: The phrase { وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغُوا النِّكَاحَ } implies that this testing occurs before puberty. This testing involves examining their capacity for sound transactions (buying/selling). This examination is only possible if the guardian permits them to engage in such transactions. If the testing itself is not the permission, it is encompassed by it, as evidenced by the permissibility of making an exception (Istithnā'): "Test the orphans except in buying and selling." The rule of exception dictates that what would have entered without the exception must be excluded by it. Thus, the verse commands guardians to permit them to buy and sell before puberty, implying the validity of their transactions.

• Shafi'i View (Imam Al-Shafi'i): Transactions made by a minor are not valid.
  • Rebuttal: The command { وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ } does not mean permitting them to transact while they are minors. This is proven by the subsequent clause: { حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغُوا النِّكَاحَ }. The command to hand over the wealth is tied to reaching puberty and perceiving maturity. Since the wealth cannot be handed over during minority based on this verse, their transactions during minority must also be invalid (as no one distinguishes between the two).
  • Response to the Hanafi Proof: The meaning of Ibtilā’ (testing) is to examine the orphan's intellect and disposition—whether they possess understanding and capacity to discern benefit from harm. This is achieved when the guardian buys and sells in the presence of the orphan, and then the guardian probes the orphan's understanding of the benefits and harms involved in those transactions. This is sufficient for testing. Furthermore, even if we concede that the guardian allows the minor to transact, this does not prove the validity of those transactions; rather, the guardian completes the transaction after the minor's intellect has been tested through the process.

Issue 2: Meaning of "Reaching the Age of Marriage (Bulūgh al-Nikāḥ)"

This refers to the emission of semen (Iḥtilām), as mentioned in the verse: { وَإِذَا بَلَغَ الْأَطْفَالُ مِنكُمُ الْحُلُمَ } (An-Nur: 59).

• For the majority of jurists, this signifies the age of manhood, at which point legal accountability (rulings, punishments) applies. It is called Bulūgh al-Nikāḥ because it involves the ejaculation of the fluid associated with sexual intercourse.

Signs of Puberty:

1. Shared (Male and Female): Nocturnal emission (Iḥtilām), reaching a specific age, and the growth of coarse pubic hair.
2. Exclusive to Females: Menstruation (Ḥayḍ) and pregnancy (Ḥaml).

Issue 3: Meaning of "Perceiving Sound Judgment (Īnās al-Rushd)"

This requires defining both Īnās and Rushd.

• Īnās (Perceiving/Knowing): It means "to know" or "to see." Its linguistic root relates to sight (e.g., { نَارًا } in Al-Qaṣaṣ: 29).
• Rushd (Sound Judgment): This does not refer to general righteousness unrelated to wealth. It specifically means the capacity to manage one's wealth judiciously, avoiding extravagance (Isrāf) and being protected from deception by others.

Inclusion of Religious Rectitude in Rushd:

• Shafi'i View: Religious rectitude is a necessary component of Rushd.
• Hanafi View: Religious rectitude is not considered.
• The Preferred View (Al-Rāzī’s preference): Religious rectitude is required.
  1. Linguistically, Rushd means attaining good, and one corrupt in religion is not attaining good.
  2. Rushd is the opposite of Ghayy (misguidance/corruption). Allah says: { قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ } (Al-Baqarah: 256). Since the disobedient Adam was described as having gone astray ({ فَغَوَىٰ }), this indicates that true Rushd requires religious soundness.
  3. Allah negated Rushd from Pharaoh: { وَمَا أُمِرَ فِرْعَوْنُ بِرَشِيدٍ } (Hūd: 97) because he disregarded religious interests.

• Significance of the Difference: Al-Shāfiʿī holds that a morally corrupt person (Fāsiq) should be placed under legal restriction (Ḥajr), while Abu Hanifa does not.

Issue 4: Handling Wealth if Puberty is Reached Without Sound Judgment

If an orphan reaches puberty but is not yet deemed mature (Ghayr Rashīd), his wealth is withheld.

• Hanafi View (Abu Hanifa): The wealth is withheld until he reaches 25 years of age. At this point, the wealth is returned regardless of whether maturity is perceived.
  • Reasoning: The age of male puberty is 18. Adding seven years (a period considered significant for change in human disposition, based on the Prophet's command to order prayer at seven) completes the period where dispositional changes can occur. Therefore, the wealth is returned then.

• Shafi'i View (and Abu Yusuf/Muhammad): The wealth is never returned unless maturity (Īnās al-Rushd) is perceived.

• Argument for Abu Hanifa (by Abu Bakr Al-Rāzī): The verse stipulates a Rushd (indefinite), not all types of Rushd. Since Rushd generally implies intellect, and intellect is present below 25, the verse implies the wealth should be returned.
• Rebuttal (Al-Rāzī): The testing ({ وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ }) relates specifically to the interests of wealth preservation. Therefore, the condition is perceiving maturity in managing wealth. If this condition is absent even after 25, the wealth must be withheld. Furthermore, the reason for withholding wealth from a minor is the lack of intellect guiding wealth management. If this intellect is present in youth or old age, the person should be treated like a minor regarding wealth management if maturity is absent.

Issue 5: Subsequent Folly (Sufah) After Maturity

If an orphan reaches maturity (Rashīd) but later becomes foolish (Safīh):

• Shafi'i View: He is placed under legal restriction (Ḥajr).
• Hanafi View: He is not placed under restriction. (This issue was previously discussed under verse 5 regarding the prohibition of giving wealth to the foolish.)
  • Al-Rāzī's Support for Restriction: The reason for withholding wealth from the immature is to prevent its loss. This reason remains valid when folly occurs later, so restriction is necessary.

Issue 6: Significance of the Indefinite Noun "Rushd"

The author of Al-Kashshāf suggests that the indefinite nature of Rushd points to one of two things:

1. The required maturity is specifically related to transactions and trade.
2. It means that the appearance of any aspect or trace of maturity is sufficient, and one should not wait for complete maturity.

Issue 7: Variant Readings

• Ibn Mas'ud read: { فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم } (If you feel/sense), meaning Aḥsastum.
• Rushdan was read with two fatḥas (RASH-dan) and with two ḍammās (RUSH-dun).

When the two conditions (puberty and perceived maturity) are met, the wealth must be handed over. The verse omits the explicit mention of "complete intellect" because perceiving maturity (Īnās al-Rushd) inherently requires intellect; it is an attribute added to mere intellect.

This means: Do not consume it wastefully (Isrāfan) or hastily (Bidāran) in anticipation of their reaching maturity, saying, "We will spend as we wish before the orphans grow up and take it from our hands."

This leads to the division based on the guardian's financial status:

• { وَمَن كَانَ غَنِيًّا فَلْيَسْتَعْفِفْ } (And whoever is rich, let him abstain). Al-Wāḥidī says Istaʿaffa means to refrain from and abandon something. Al-Kashshāf says Istaʿaffa is stronger than ʿaffa, implying a desire for increased abstinence.
• { وَمَن كَانَ فَقِيرًا فَلْيَأْكُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ } (And whoever is poor, let him eat of it in a fair manner).

There are three main opinions on whether the guardian may benefit from the orphan's wealth:

Opinion 1: Permissible to take what is needed and the wage for service. (Supported by several arguments):

1. { وَلَا تَأْكُلُوهَا إِسْرَافًا } implies that taking what is necessary (non-wasteful) is permissible.
2. The contrast between the rich guardian ({ فَلْيَسْتَعْفِفْ }) and the poor guardian ({ فَلْيَأْكُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ }) shows that the rich guardian is prohibited from consuming the orphan's wealth (not his own), which necessitates that the poor guardian is permitted to consume the orphan's wealth according to fairness.
3. { إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْيَتَامَىٰ ظُلْمًا } (An-Nisā’: 10) implies that consuming the wealth can be done justly or unjustly. If consumption were entirely forbidden, this verse would be meaningless. This supports the right of the needy guardian to eat "by what is fair."
4. Hadith Evidence: A man asked the Prophet (PBUH) about eating from his orphan ward's wealth. The Prophet replied: "Eat of it by what is fair, without accumulating wealth or mixing your wealth with his." He also permitted striking the orphan only as one would strike his own child.
5. Narrative of Umar (RA): Umar (RA) wrote to his governors, placing himself and them in the position of an orphan's guardian, stating: "Whoever is rich, let him abstain, and whoever is poor, let him eat by what is fair." Narrations from Ibn Abbas also detail permissible consumption (e.g., drinking milk if one tends the animals).
6. Analogy to Service: Since the guardian undertakes the responsibility of managing the orphan's affairs, he should be compensated for his work, similar to how collectors of Zakat receive a share.

Opinion 2: Permissible as a Loan. (Said by Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Abul 'Aliyah, and most narrations from Ibn Abbas).

• The guardian may take what he needs as a loan, which he must repay if he becomes wealthy. If he dies without repaying, there is no sin upon him.
• Some scholars limit this loan aspect to principal assets (gold/silver), while allowing the use of livestock products, servants, or riding animals, provided it does not harm the estate.

Opinion 3: Absolutely Forbidden. (Abu Bakr Al-Rāzī's view among his school):

• The guardian may not take anything, neither as a loan nor as compensation, whether rich or poor.
• Proof: Reliance on verses that strictly forbid consuming orphans' wealth unjustly or generally: { وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْ } (An-Nisā’: 2), { إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْيَتَامَىٰ ظُلْمًا } (An-Nisā’: 10), { وَأَن تَقُومُوا لِلْيَتَامَىٰ بِالْقِسْطِ } (An-Nisā’: 127), and { وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ } (Al-Baqarah: 188). These verses are considered muḥkam (unambiguous and binding) regarding the orphan's wealth, while { فَلْيَأْكُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ } is mutashābih (ambiguous) and must be referred back to the clear verses.

• Rebuttal to Opinion 3 (Al-Rāzī): The verses cited by Al-Rāzī are either general (like verse 2, which is superseded by this specific verse) or depend on the definition of "unjustly" or "unfairly," which is the very point of contention. If eating "by what is fair" is indeed fair, then the prohibition against injustice does not apply.

The Ummah agrees that when the guardian hands the wealth to the now-adult orphan, it is best and most cautious to have witnesses.

• Reasons for Witnessing:
  1. If the orphan has proof of receiving the money, he is less likely to make a false claim.
  2. If the orphan makes a false claim, the guardian has witnesses to prove he delivered the wealth.
  3. It demonstrates the guardian's trustworthiness and clears his name. (Analogous to the command to witness when finding lost property).

Dispute: Is the Guardian Accepted on His Word Alone When Returning Wealth?

• Mālik and Shāfiʿī: He is not accepted on his word alone.
• Abu Hanifa and his school: He is accepted on his word alone.

• Shafi'i Proof: The command { فَأَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِمْ } is an obligatory command (Wujūb). Furthermore, the guardian is entrusted by the Law (Sharʿ), not directly by the orphan, implying a need for external verification.

• Rebuttal to Shāfiʿī (by Abu Bakr Al-Rāzī): If the lack of direct trust invalidates acceptance on oath, then a judge should not be accepted on his word when stating he delivered a ruling to a litigant, nor should a father be accepted when stating he returned his son's wealth. This leads to absurdity.
  • Response to the Rebuttal: The analogy to the judge is flawed because the judge is a ruler whose authority requires removal of suspicion to ensure compliance. The father is different due to stronger natural affection. Furthermore, if they agree after maturity that the wealth was destroyed, the father's word should be accepted if he denies negligence, otherwise, people would refuse guardianship. The need for witnessing upon return does not lead to such negative consequences. The preceding verse's warning against hasty consumption confirms the high level of suspicion attached to the guardian's role.

• Further Argument for Witnessing: The command to witness emphasizes protecting the orphan's side, as the requirement for witnesses deters the guardian from injustice, deficiency, or reduction.

• Counter-Argument (from Al-Rāzī): Since the guardian is universally commanded to safeguard the wealth as a trust until the due time, he is like a custodian of a deposit (Wadīʿah). Therefore, he should be accepted when stating he returned the deposit.
• Final Response: The difference between this case and a deposit was already explained by Al-Shāfiʿī, and the previous refutation of Al-Rāzī’s objection stands.

• Linguistic Meaning (Ibn Al-Anbārī and Al-Azhari): Ḥasīb can mean:
  1. Reckoner (Muḥāsib): A threat that Allah will hold him accountable for any injustice.
  2. Sufficient (Kāfī): Meaning, "Allāh is sufficient for you."

• Purpose: This serves as a severe warning to the guardian, informing him that Allah knows his inner intentions as well as his outward actions, ensuring he fulfills his trust perfectly until the wealth is delivered. This purpose is achieved whether Ḥasīb means Reckoner or Sufficient.

• Grammar: The Bā’ in { بِاللَّهِ } is considered superfluous (Zā’idah) in this context, as in other verses like { وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ } (Al-Isrā’: 65). Ḥasībā is in the accusative case (Naṣb) as a circumstantial adverb (Ḥāl), meaning Allah is sufficient while He is Reckoning, or sufficient while He is the Sufficient One.

{ لِّلرِّجَالِ نَصِيبٌ مِّمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ وَلِلنِّسَاءِ نَصِيبٌ مِّمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ مِمَّا قَلَّ مِنْهُ أَوْ كَثُرَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا }

(For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much—a decreed share.)