"God instructs you"
He entrusts you and commands you.
"concerning your children"
Regarding the matter of their inheritance, in accordance with what is just and beneficial. This is a summary, and what follows is its detail.
"the male shall have the equivalent of the portion of two females"
If you ask: "Why was it not said, 'The two females shall have the equivalent of the portion of the male,' or 'The female shall have half the portion of the male'?" I say: It begins by stating the male's portion due to his superiority, for which his share was doubled. Furthermore, the statement "the male shall have the equivalent of the portion of two females" intends to highlight the male's status, whereas saying "the two females shall have the equivalent of the male's portion" would intend to highlight the female's deficiency. Intending to state superiority is more indicative of that superiority than intending to state the deficiency of another. Moreover, they used to inherit from males to the exclusion of females—which is the reason for the revelation of this verse—so it was said: "It is enough for the males that their portion is doubled compared to the females, so do not persist in [reducing] their share until they are deprived, despite them being related through the same lineage as the males."
If you ask: "The portion of two females is two-thirds, so is it as if it were said, 'The male has two-thirds'?" I say: It refers to the state of gathering, not isolation. That is, if a male and two females gather, he has two shares just as they have two shares. As for the state of isolation, the son takes the entire wealth, and the two daughters take two-thirds. The evidence that the purpose is the rule of gathering is that it is followed by the rule of isolation: "If there are women more than two, they shall have two-thirds of what he left." The meaning is "the male among them," i.e., among your children; the referent is omitted because it is understood, like the saying, "The ghee is two manns for a dirham."
"If there are women"
If the daughters or the offspring are exclusively female, without a male—meaning daughters without a son.
"more than two"
It may be a second predicate for kāna (if they were), or an adjective for "women," meaning women exceeding two.
"And if there is only one"
If the daughter or offspring is solitary, alone, with no other.
"she shall have half"
It is recited as wāḥidatun (nominative) based on kāna being complete (intransitive), but the reading in the accusative (wāḥidatan) is more consistent with the phrase "If there are women." Zayd ibn Thabit read an-niṣfu (nominative). The pronoun in "what he left" refers to the deceased, for since the verse is about inheritance, it is known that the one leaving the wealth is the deceased.
If you ask: "The statement 'the male shall have the equivalent of the portion of two females' is a discourse directed at stating the male's portion, not the females', so how is it valid to follow it with 'If there are women,' which is for stating the females' portion?" I say: Even though it is directed at the male's portion, once the portion of the two females with their brother is understood and clarified from it, it is as if it were directed at both. Thus, it is valid to say "If there are women."
If you ask: "Is it valid for the pronouns in kunna and kānat to be vague, with 'women' and 'one' acting as their explanations, assuming kāna is complete?" I say: I do not find that far-fetched.
If you ask: "Why was it said 'If there are women' and not 'If there is a woman'?" I say: Because the purpose there is their purity as females, without a male among them, to distinguish between what was mentioned regarding their gathering with males in the phrase "the male shall have the equivalent of the portion of two females" and their isolation. Here, it is intended to distinguish between a daughter being with others and her being alone without a peer.
If you ask: "The rule for two daughters when gathered with a son, and the rule for daughters and a single daughter in isolation have been mentioned, but the rule for two daughters in isolation was not mentioned. What is their rule, and why was it not mentioned?" I say: Their rule is a matter of dispute. Ibn Abbas refused to treat them as a group, based on the verse "If there are women more than two," so he gave them the rule of the single daughter, which is clear and manifest. As for the rest of the Companions, they gave them the rule of the group. The reasoning for their position is that the phrase "the male shall have the equivalent of the portion of two females" indicates that the rule of the two females is the rule of the male; just as the male takes two-thirds with one [female], the two females likewise take two-thirds. When that which indicates the rule of the two females was mentioned, it was said: "If there are women more than two, they shall have two-thirds of what he left," meaning: if they are a group, regardless of their number, they have what the two females have, which is two-thirds—they do not exceed it due to their number—so that it is known that the rule of the group is the rule of the two, without difference. It is also said that the two daughters are closer in kinship to the deceased than the two sisters, so they mandated for them what God mandated for the sisters, and they did not see fit to reduce them below the portion of those who are more distant in kinship. It is also said that since the daughter is entitled to one-third with her brother, she is more entitled to one-third when she is with a sister like herself, and her sister with her has the same as what she would have been entitled to with her brother if she were alone with him, so two-thirds became mandatory for them.
"And for his parents"
The pronoun refers to the deceased. "For each of them" is a substitute for "his parents," by repeating the governing agent. The benefit of this substitution is that if it were said "his parents have one-sixth," the outward meaning would imply they share it. If it were said "his parents have two-sixths," it would suggest a division of the two-sixths between them, either equally or otherwise. If you ask: "Why was it not said 'Each of his parents has one-sixth,' and what is the benefit of mentioning the parents first and then substituting for them?" I say: Because in substitution and detailing after generalization, there is emphasis and reinforcement, like what you see in combining the explainer and the explanation. "One-sixth" is the subject, and "for his parents" is the predicate, with the substitute placed between them for clarification.
"Child" applies to both male and female, and the father's rule differs accordingly. If it is a male, the father is limited to one-sixth. If it is a female, he acts as an agnate (‘aṣaba) while still being given the one-sixth.
If you ask: "The rule for the parents in inheritance with the child has been explained, then their rule without the child, so why was it not said 'If he has no child, his mother has one-third'?" I say: Its meaning is: "If he has no child and his parents inherit from him alone, then his mother has one-third of what he left," as He said: "For each of them one-sixth of what he left." Because if his parents inherit with one of the spouses, the mother has one-third of what remains after the spouse's share is taken, not one-third of what he left, except according to Ibn Abbas. The meaning is that when the parents are the sole heirs, they divide the inheritance.
"the male shall have the equivalent of the portion of two females"
If you ask: "What is the reason that she has one-third of what remains, rather than one-third of the total wealth?" I say: There are two aspects. First, the spouse is only entitled to what is allotted to them by the right of the contract, not by kinship, so it resembles a bequest in the division of what is beyond it. Second, the father is stronger in inheritance than the mother, evidenced by the fact that he doubles her share when they are the sole heirs, and he is both a fixed-share holder and an agnate, combining both. If one-third of the whole were given to her, it would lead to reducing his share below hers. Do you not see that if a woman leaves a husband and parents, the husband gets half, the mother one-third, and the remainder goes to the father? The mother takes two shares and the father one, which would invert the rule so that the female has the equivalent of the portion of two males.
"If he has brothers, his mother has one-sixth"
Brothers exclude the mother from the one-third, even if they do not inherit with the father. Thus, she has one-sixth and the father has five-sixths. Two or more brothers are equal in this exclusion, except according to Ibn Abbas. It is reported from him that they take the one-sixth from which they excluded the mother. If you ask: "How is it valid for 'brothers' to include two brothers, when the plural is different from the dual?" I say: "Brothers" conveys the meaning of absolute plurality without quantity, whereas the dual—like the trial and quadral—conveys quantity. This is a place for indicating absolute plurality, so "brothers" indicates it.
"from after a bequest"
This is connected to what precedes it regarding the division of all inheritances, not just what immediately follows it. It is as if it were said: "The division of these shares is after a bequest that is made."
If you ask: "What is the meaning of 'or'?" I say: It denotes permissibility; if one or both of them [the parents] are present, it is done before the division of the inheritance, like saying "Sit with al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin." If you ask: "Why was the bequest placed before the debt, when the debt is placed before it in the Sharia?" I say: Because the bequest is similar to inheritance in that it is taken without compensation, its extraction is something that burdens the heirs and weighs heavily upon them, and their souls are not pleased with it. Thus, its fulfillment is a place for potential negligence, unlike the debt, for their souls are at ease with its fulfillment. Therefore, it was placed before the debt to urge its obligation and haste in its extraction alongside the debt. For this reason, the word "or" was used to equate them in obligation. Then, He emphasized this and encouraged it by saying:
"Your parents and your children, you do not know"
Meaning: You do not know which of them is more beneficial to you—your parents or your children who die—whether the one who bequeathed or the one who did not. It means that the one who bequeathed part of his wealth, exposing you to the reward of the Hereafter by executing his bequest, is closer in benefit to you and more present in utility than the one who left no bequest, thereby sparing you the fleeting goods of this world. He made the reward of the Hereafter closer and more present than the goods of this world, looking to the reality of the matter; for the goods of this world, even if they are immediate and close in appearance, are fleeting, so in reality, they are the most distant and furthest. The reward of the Hereafter, even if it is deferred, is lasting, so in reality, it is the closest and nearest.
It is said that if the son is of a higher rank than his father in Paradise, he asks that his father be raised to him, and he is raised. Likewise, if the father is of a higher rank than his son, he asks that his son be raised to him. You do not know in this world which of them is closer in benefit to you. It is also said that God has ordained the shares based on what is wisdom in His sight; if He had entrusted that to you, you would not know which is more beneficial to you, and you would have placed the wealth without wisdom. It is also said that the father is obligated to provide for the son if he is in need, and likewise the son if the father is in need; thus, in the benefit of maintenance, one does not know which of them is closer in benefit. None of these sayings are consistent with the meaning or responsive to it, because this sentence is parenthetical, and it is the right of a parenthetical statement to emphasize what it is inserted between and to be appropriate to it. The correct view is what was stated previously.
"an obligation"
It is in the accusative as an emphatic verbal noun, meaning: He has ordained that as an obligation.
"Indeed, God is All-Knowing"
Of the interests of His creation.
"All-Wise"
In everything He has ordained and divided of inheritances and other matters.
