4-11 Allah enjoins you concerning your children:a for the male is the equal of the portion of two females; but if there be more than two females, two-thirds of what the deceased leaves is theirs;b and if there be one, for her is the half.c And as for his parents, for each of them is the sixth of what he leaves, if he has a child; but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, for his mother is the third; but if he has brothers, for his mother is the sixth,d after (payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt. Your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in benefit. This is an ordinance from Allah. Allah is surely ever Knowing, Wise.e
يوصيكُمُ اللَّهُ في أَولادِكُم ۖ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثلُ حَظِّ الأُنثَيَينِ ۚ فَإِن كُنَّ نِساءً فَوقَ اثنَتَينِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثا ما تَرَكَ ۖ وَإِن كانَت واحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصفُ ۚ وَلِأَبَوَيهِ لِكُلِّ واحِدٍ مِنهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمّا تَرَكَ إِن كانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن لَم يَكُن لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَواهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ ۚ فَإِن كانَ لَهُ إِخوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ ۚ مِن بَعدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يوصي بِها أَو دَينٍ ۗ آباؤُكُم وَأَبناؤُكُم لا تَدرونَ أَيُّهُم أَقرَبُ لَكُم نَفعًا ۚ فَريضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ عَليمًا حَكيمًا (۱۱)
4-11a: أَولاد – It is the plural of وَلد whose meaning without ambiguity is a child that is one who is born. It is the same meaning in singular and plural, and whether young or old (R) or male or female (G). It is permissible to use it for a paternal grandchild as well.
Islamic law of inheritance: This verse gives the shares of the parties in inheritance. In Arabia, the weak, that is women and children, did not get a share in the property that was left behind. Islam has specified the heirs in the estate left behind by a deceased and fixed the share of the estate each will receive. Some of it goes to the spouse, some to the parents and some to the children, and in some circumstances to siblings as well. If there are no near relatives, then distant relatives get a share too. Thus, every person with whom the deceased has had a beneficiary relationship is given a share in the inheritance. The wisdom of dividing the inheritance between all the afore mentioned parties is that all those persons from whom the deceased derived some benefit during his life may receive benefit from the estate he left behind.
Islamic law of inheritance based upon equality of human rights: All the offspring are equal hence all of them should have a share in the estate. It should not be the case that the daughters are deprived of inheritance and the entire estate is given to sons, nor should it be the case that the entire estate is handed to the eldest son while other siblings get nothing as is the case in some countries. Similarly, if the husband can inherit from the wife, why can’t the wife inherit from the husband. In a like fashion, parents too have rights. Thus, Islam has set up a very democratic system of inheritance so that all who have equal rights should get their rights. As far as the criticism of the division of property into smaller parcels is concerned, it can be argued that just as the initial owner created the property, the heirs through their hard work can rebuild their inheritance by adding and expanding it into an economic unit. The rules that Allah has made for one person are the same for another person, and the resources one can use are the same as another can use. The equality that Allah has established in natural laws is thus also reflected in the laws of inheritance He has ordained.
Four principles as the basis of the inheritance law: A little reflection shows that Islam has used four principles in establishing the correct rules for the division of assets in inheritance. If a solution to the existing problem of division of wealth in Europe is ever to be found, it will be in the teachings of Islam. There are two main streams of thought that exist in Europe. One is that an individual can earn as much wealth as he likes through his own ingenuity and hard work and he is the master of whatever he earns. The downside of this system is that it increases selfishness and results in the concentration of wealth in a few hands leaving the common man struggling for existence. The result of this is that the bulk of humanity is deprived of even the normal needs of livelihood while a few people become billionaires. As a reaction to this, a new ideology emerged known as Bolshevism which espouses the principle that all individuals are equally entitled to the wealth of the nation. All individuals should work, and all individuals should get equal share in the fruit of this work. The problem with this approach is that if a person does not have ownership of what he produces through his hard work, then there is no incentive for him to work hard.
Four remedies for maintaining equity in the distribution of wealth: Islam, on the one hand, has established the principle of: لَيسَ لِلإِنسانِ إِلّا ما سَعىٰ (man can have nothing but what he strives for), but on the other hand has proposed some remedies to prevent the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. One of these remedies is zakat under which one-fortieth of the accumulated wealth is paid out yearly by the wealthy to the poor in the society. The second remedy is the prohibition of usury. Indigent people who are forced to borrow on account of their poverty can do so without paying interest. Third, every person is ordered to will some of the property he leaves at his death for charitable purposes. The fourth remedy is the law of inheritance under which the property gets divided among the near relatives of the deceased. Fourteen hundred years ago, an unlettered person in Arabia provided the remedy for the difficulties that civilized nations are facing currently. Is this not a clear sign that Islam and the Holy Prophet are Divinely ordained?
Islam has ordained the following rules for inheritance: First, is nearness to deceased in blood relationship, such as children, parents, and siblings. Second, is marriage, that is spouse. Both these groups are mentioned in the Quran. Third is residuary for a special cause (ولاء قرار ) which is connected with some special circumstance. This is confirmed by the actions of the Holy Prophet, that is, if someone frees a slave, the person freeing becomes an heir of the freed slave. Fourth right is of Islamic brotherhood which takes place if there is none to inherit. In this case, the estate becomes the property of the national treasury for use for the general welfare of Muslims. The discharge of certain responsibilities under special conditions is also the task of the national treasury for which the estate could be used. The basis for this category is from the hadith as the Holy Prophet said: انا وارث من لا وارث له (I am the heir of anyone who does not have an heir).
It is obvious that the real rights vest in blood and marriage relationships and the Quran has given some directions about these. The sequence in which these are mentioned rests on great wisdom. Children are mentioned first, and after them the parents. In terms of nearness of blood relationship, their right has priority. After this the share of the surviving spouse is mentioned. The rights of brothers are kept after that and although the right of the brothers is by virtue of blood relationship but the right of marital ties trumps the right of brothers, who in any case inherit only if the first degree of blood relations do not exist.
4-11b: فَوقَ اثنَتَينِ – It means more than two, but since a command about two is not given separately, the case of two is included with more than two. The example of this is in the Hadith: لا تسافر المرأۃ سفرا فوق ثلاثة ایام الا و معہاز وجہا او ذو محرم لھا (No woman should journey for three or more days unless accompanied by her husband or mehram ) where three is included in the more than three. Further, it is stated in the Quran: فَاضرِبوا فَوقَ الأَعناقِ (So smite above the necks) (8:12) where the meaning is on the trunk of the neck and not above the neck. Thus, the trunk of the neck is included in above the neck. Quite apart from this, the share of two sisters under certain circumstances is given towards the end of this surah as two-third: فَإِن كانَتَا اثنَتَينِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثانِ مِمّا تَرَكَ (But if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves) (4:177). There is no reference here to more than two sisters. Since some verses of the Quran give additional explanations of what is given in some other verses, hence if in one place the mention is of more than two girls and not of two, and in another place the mention is of the share of two sisters and no mention of the share of more than two sisters and other factors are identical, then it becomes quite obvious that the share of two girls cannot be less than that of two sisters, and the share of more than two sisters cannot be more than the share of two girls. The use of an abridged form in the Quran at such places is to draw attention towards the fact that there is a further explanation of this at another place in the Quran itself.
4-11c: The right of progeny in the inheritance: The inheritance rights of the progeny are mentioned first, as it should have been because the responsibility of nurturing the offspring is the responsibility of the parents and it is generally the offspring that inherits from their parents while it is rare for the parents to inherit from their offspring. The first situation taken up is where the only heirs are the deceased’s offspring, both boys and girls who will inherit. The division of inheritance between them is stated to be on the basis of each boy getting twice what each girl gets. This formula is applied to the disposition of the entire estate. There is no mention of a situation where the progeny is only boys because it is clear that each will get an equal share in the entire property. If there are only girls who will inherit, then if there is only one girl, she will get one-half of the property and the rest will go to distant relatives, but if there are two or more girls, they will inherit two-thirds of the estate in equal shares and the remaining one-third will go to other relatives. This distribution is only for a situation where the children are the only ones who will inherit and there is no living spouse or parents.
Right of grandson: Apparently it is only the progeny, sons and daughters, who are mentioned, but the word ولد has a broad meaning and includes grandchildren but for inheritance purposes, the grandchildren are treated separately. First, the children of daughters are not included in inheritance and second, the children of sons are included for inheritance only if there is no living son to inherit. For example, if two sons of the deceased parents are alive but one son who has children is deceased, the children of the deceased will not be included in inheritance with their paternal uncles. However, their deceased grandparent can leave them a share in their will for which a command has come earlier. There is neither any hint in the Quran nor is there any ruling of the Holy Prophet to negate that the children of a deceased son cannot be stand-in for their deceased father in the distribution of their grandfather’s estate. Thus, it can be said that by virtue of being included in the definition of ولد, the children of a deceased son are entitled to receive their father’s share from their grandfather’s estate. There is also a hadith which supports this interpretation. Ibn Masud considered a paternal granddaughter of a deceased son and a living daughter as two daughters and gave them two-thirds of the estate (Bukhari). However, when it came to fixing the shares between the niece and the aunt, the daughter was considered as one and received half the estate and the niece was given one-sixth of the estate. Thus, the combined shares of the two equaled two-thirds of the estate. This provides an argument that if a granddaughter could be considered as a daughter in deciding the inheritance, why can’t the grandson be considered as a son for the same purpose. In the treatment of one another, the only valid argument can be how the Holy Prophet treated another party. When we do not have an example of that, all other ways in which the grandkids and their uncles were treated do not provide a settled argument. In any case, in a situation like this, it becomes necessary to provide for orphaned grandkids in the will under the provisions of the verse: اذا حضر . If such a will has not been made, it is still possible to give the children of a deceased son at the time of the distribution of the estate.
4-11d: In this part of the verse, the share of the parents in inheritance is mentioned and there are three different scenarios that are mentioned. The first case is where both parents of the deceased are alive, and the deceased also has children. In this case, each parent gets one-sixth, and the rest is divided among the children. If the composition of the children is all boys, or boys and girls, or two or more girls and no boys then the entire rest of the estate after the parent’s share will go to the children. If the deceased had only one daughter, then the daughter will get one-half of the estate and the remaining one-sixth of the estate will also go to the deceased’s father as the nearest relative. Since there is only one daughter, she cannot get more than half the estate. The second case is that parents are alive, but the deceased has no children. The mother will get one-third and the father will get two-thirds of the estate of their deceased son.
The third case is that the deceased does not have children but has brothers. In this case, the mother gets one-sixth of the estate and what does the father get? There is a difference of opinion here. According to Jamhur, the presence of brothers is a barrier to giving the mother her one-third share and the brothers get nothing. Ibn Abbas, however, is of the opinion that the mother’s share will be reduced from one-third to one-sixth and the amount of the reduction will go to the brothers. There is no obvious reason why the mother’s share should be reduced to one-sixth from one-third if there are brothers when no new heir has emerged. The result of this is going to be that because of the presence of brothers, the father’s share will increase to five-sixth (and the mother is left with one-sixth. This does not appear to be rational because the general rule of inheritance is that for the share of a person to reduce, there should be someone else who would get that share. The objection to this is that that there is no mention here of what the brothers will get. In my opinion, since there is a mention of this in the verses ahead, there is no need to mention it here. The share of the mother has been reduced because the brothers are being given a share. The words of the Quran also provide testimony to this because in the previous situation where there is no one else besides the parent to inherit, the following additional words are added: وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَواهُ that is only the parents are the inheritors but where the brothers are mentioned, this extension of words is not used which goes to show that now the brothers are also inheritors.
The second question about this section is what is meant by اخوۃ . There is agreement that if there is only one brother, this would not be an impediment for the mother to get one-third of the estate but if there were three brothers, this would become an impediment. However, there is disagreement about two brothers. Some have argued that since اخوۃ is plural, hence the case of two brothers is not included in it, while others have argued that the command for the plural applies to two also, in accordance with a saying of the Holy Prophet: الاثنان فما فوقھا جماعة (Two or more is a congregation). Most of the Companions considered that two is included in the word اخوۃ .
My thinking is that the Quran has used words in its wider sense in the matter of inheritance. Thus, ولد has been used without distinction for singular and plural, and male and female. If the father is not alive, اب will mean paternal grandfather, and if the mother is not alive ام will mean paternal grandmother. Similarly, the word اخوۃ is general and it will include all brothers and sisters whether one or more. Their shares are mentioned later where mention is made of the inheritance from a childless person whose parents are also dead. It is clearly indicated there that if there is only one brother or one sister then he/she will get one-sixth of the estate but if there is more than one sibling then they will collectively get one-third of the estate. If the deceased has parents and siblings, then the distribution of the estate will be:
- Only one sibling whether brother or sister: Mother gets one-sixth, the sibling gets one sixth and the remaining two-third to the father.
- More than one sibling: Mother gets one-sixth, siblings get one-third and the father gets the remaining one-half.
There is no doubt that this is against the practice, but disagreements about the law of inheritance have persisted for a long time. There is not only a difference of opinion on several issues between the sunnis and shias but also among the scholars of the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat and even among the Companions of the Holy Prophet. In some matters, the opinion of Ibn Abbas is different from that of other Companions. If it is correct that کلالة can be a situation where the deceased does not have both parents and offspring, as defined in a narration from Abu Bakar, and can also be a situation where the deceased has parents but no offspring, as in a narration of Umar bin Khattab, then the mention of کلالہ in two different places in the Quran may be catering in one place to one definition of کلالہ and in the other place to the other definition of کلالہ. Because the Quran has specifically referred here to a situation where there is no offspring but there are parents and siblings so the most credible explanation is that this surah should give what the brothers should get in the Quran, and this is in the surah that is followed after زوجین (Surah Baqarah and Surah Al-Imran).
4-11e: Wills and debt: مِن بَعدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يوصي بِها أَو دَينٍ (he may have bequeathed or debt). This term supersedes all provisions in this verse because it is mentioned last after mentioning everything else. Thus, whether the children alone inherit, or parents and children inherit, or parents alone inherit, or siblings are included in the inheritance, in all conditions if there is a bequest or debt, it must be paid first, and whatever is left will be paid out in shares as mentioned aforesaid. Although bequest is mentioned before debt, it does not mean that bequest should be paid before debt because the assets left behind will only be those that remain after the debt has been paid. أَو (or) is not used for sequencing. Bequest is mentioned first because one who bequests will mention the debt in his bequest and so the payment of debt is included in the discharge of the bequest. Debt is mentioned separately as well because if someone has not bequeathed anything but there is a debt outstanding then that must be paid first.
آباؤُكُم وَأَبناؤُكُم لا تَدرونَ أَيُّهُم أَقرَبُ لَكُم نَفعًا (your parents and your children you know not which of them is the nearer to you in benefit): From the point of view of nearness of blood relations, the rightful inheritors are the children and parents. Worldly laws recognize the right of the children to inheritance, but parents are generally ignored for inheritance. So, when Allah gave the parents the right of inheritance, it stressed that the right of parents should not be considered as an inferior right. A person benefits both from his parents as well as his children. So, those from whom the deceased received benefits should in turn be benefitted from the deceased’s estate. The right of the parents, therefore, cannot be ignored.
How much can be bequeathed: Wherever the shares of inheriting parties are mentioned, it is made clear that these shares are to be applied to the estate left after the bequest has been paid. The question that arises is whether a person has the right to distribute his estate as he wants to his heirs giving more to some and depriving others. Such a bequest nullifies the provisions of this verse. It would be incompatible to set up one’s own distribution scheme and at the same time give permission for distribution according to Allah’s ordained scheme. If Allah’s intention had been that the estate should be distributed according to the bequest and the ordained shares should be used only where a bequest is not made, then it would have been clearly stated at the beginning that the shares in the estate are for use where a bequest does not exist. Contrary to this, the Quran first gives the shares of the heirs and then mentions the bequest from which it appears that the bequest is applicable to a portion of the estate. It is proven from an authentic hadith, which has been discussed in the note: 2-180a, that the Holy Prophet did not give permission for bequeathing more than one-third of the estate. Hence, the first condition for the bequest mentioned in this verse is that it should not amount to more than one-third of the estate. The second condition for the bequest is also in a hadith which states: لا وصیة لوارث which means that there is no bequest for a person who receives inheritance under the ordained shares. Even if this hadith had not existed, it is quite clear that no person has the right to negate the shares ordained by Allah by bequeathing more estate to an heir than the share fixed by Allah for that heir. This would be an injustice because some heirs will be getting more than the prescribed share. The correct position is that there can be no bequest benefitting an heir. These two conditions are compulsory for a bequest. First, the bequest cannot be more than one-third of the estate and second, an heir cannot be the beneficiary of a bequest.
Purpose of the bequest: The next question is what is the purpose of the bequest? It becomes apparent from note 2-180a that the purpose is to leave some assets for God ordained work such as propagation of religion, to help a poor and destitute relative, or an orphan. Sometimes there are poor and orphan relatives who fall outside the designated heirs. For example, according to the current practice, the orphaned paternal grandson does not receive inheritance from his deceased grandfather if he has paternal uncles. However, the most common purpose of a bequest is to leave something for charity and propagation of religion as has been shown earlier. The issue of bequeathing to charity is just like many other principles of the Quran which have been abandoned by Muslims but have found home with non-Muslims. There are only a few among Muslims who bequeath a portion of their property for spending in the way of Allah. This is far more common among the Christians where those who have large assets often leave a portion of their assets for the welfare of the nation and other charitable causes. If non-Muslims follow the principles of the Quran, then why would they not benefit from them, and if the Muslims do not make the Quran their guide then how can they be successful.
4-12 And yours is half of what your wives leave if they have no child; but if they have a child, your share is a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and theirs is the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child, their share is the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt.a And if a man or a woman, having no children, leaves property to be inheritedb and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then for each of them is the sixth; but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) a bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt not injuring (others).c This is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.
وَلَكُم نِصفُ ما تَرَكَ أَزواجُكُم إِن لَم يَكُن لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن كانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمُ الرُّبُعُ مِمّا تَرَكنَ ۚ مِن بَعدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يوصينَ بِها أَو دَينٍ ۚ وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمّا تَرَكتُم إِن لَم يَكُن لَكُم وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن كانَ لَكُم وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمّا تَرَكتُم ۚ مِن بَعدِ وَصِيَّةٍ توصونَ بِها أَو دَينٍ ۗ وَإِن كانَ رَجُلٌ يورَثُ كَلالَةً أَوِ امرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَو أُختٌ فَلِكُلِّ واحِدٍ مِنهُمَا السُّدُسُ ۚ فَإِن كانوا أَكثَرَ مِن ذٰلِكَ فَهُم شُرَكاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ ۚ مِن بَعدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يوصىٰ بِها أَو دَينٍ غَيرَ مُضارٍّ ۚ وَصِيَّةً مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَليمٌ حَليمٌ (۱۲)
4-12a: Shares of the spouse: This is a third scenario where the spouse of the deceased is alive. The share of the spouse will depend upon whether the deceased has children or not as follows:
- Wife dies and has children, the husband gets one-fourth of her estate.
- Wife dies and does not have children, the husband gets one-half of her estate.
- Husband dies and has children, wife gets one-eighth of the husband’s estate.
- Husband dies and has no children, wife gets one-fourth of the husband’s estate.
- Husband dies and has more than one wife, the wife share mentioned above will be distributed equally between the wives.
The Quran does not provide the shares for a situation where the deceased has a surviving spouse and also parents. In this situation, some difficulties are encountered in parceling out the estate regardless of whether the deceased has children or not. The following situations that emerge are problematic:
- Deceased wife has no children but has surviving husband and parents: The husband’s share is one-half, the deceased’s mother gets one-third, and this leaves only one-sixth for the father, which is half the share of the mother.
- If the deceased wife is survived by two daughters, parents and husband, then the daughters get two-third, the parents one-third and nothing is left for the husband.
In the case of (a) above where a deceased husband/wife has no children but is survived by spouse and parents, most jurists opine that the surviving spouse should first take his/her share and then out of the rest, one-third of the rest is to be given to the mother and two-third to the father. This is the way to reconcile the shares. Division in this manner is correct and is supported by Umar, Usman, Ali, Ziad bin Thabit, Ibn Masud, the seven jurists, the four Imams, and independent scholars (IK). Their argument for this division is that after the husband/wife is given his/her share, what is left is considered to be the full estate for the purpose of distributing to the parents. The inheritance for their purpose is what is left of the estate after the share of the husband/wife has been paid. The objection cannot be raised here that it is not ما تَرَكَ because ما تَرَكَ is separate for each party. If there is a debt then the debt should be paid first from the inheritance, and if there is a bequest as well, then that should be paid next, then if there is a husband/wife, his/her share should be paid after the bequest, then from what is left, the shares of the parents and children will be paid. The Quran itself provides testimony to this from the way it has set up the shares because the first scenario mentioned was that the survivors are only children and there are no parents, the next scenario was that the parents survive and there may or may not be children. So, in the first scenario, it is the children who get their shares first while in the next scenario it is the parents who get their shares first and the rest goes to the children. The third scenario has the husband/wife also as a survivor, so it is obvious that just as the parents were given first and the rest went to the children, similarly if along with the surviving spouse, there are parents as well then the parents will be given their share only after the surviving spouse has been given his/her share. This manner of distribution that the scholars of the Ummah have adopted to overcome a difficulty, avoids the problem of awl. The adoption of this methodology makes the law of inheritance crystal clear and removes all ambiguities from it.
The issue of awl: The issue of awl which is attributed to Ali arises only if the priority of the share of the surviving spouse is not recognized. The need to bring in awl arises, for example, in a condition where the wife is alive, there are two or more daughters, and the parents are also alive. The wife’s share is one-eighth, the girls get two-third, and the mother and father get one-third. These parts do not add up to one-whole. Ali solved this problem through awl by dividing the estate into twenty-seven shares. The daughters are given sixteen shares, eight shares go to the parents and three to the wife. The shares now do add up to one, but the ordained distribution of two-third, one-third and one-eight is violated. If instead of this distribution, the distribution had proceeded by giving one-eight to the wife, and out of the remainder given one-third to the parents and the remainder to the daughters, then the difficulty of the shares running more than one would not have arisen. Even if the one-eight share of the wife is not taken out first, the daughters still should not be given two-third because the mother/father is present with them, and the daughter’s share is two-third only if there is no one else to inherit the estate. So, after paying one-eighth to the wife, and one-third to the parents of the deceased, the rest should be given to the daughters. If instead of daughters, there were sons, or sons and daughters, they would have been given the rest after the shares of the spouse and parents of the deceased, and in any case, the girls are not entitled to receive more than the boys.
If it is considered an injustice that the spouse gets his/her share first, the parents get one-sixth share each from the remainder of the estate and what is left is given to the children, then, in fact, this is not unjust because whatever the surviving spouse gets will get spent on the welfare of the children. The truth is that the surviving spouse has a kind of partnership interest in the property because both are jointly responsible in building the estate. The wife is a helper in creating the estate of the husband, and the husband is a helper in building the estate of the wife. In this manner, all the difficulties attending the law of inheritance get resolved. There is not a single judgment of the Holy Prophet that goes against this method of distributing property. There is only one narration of a judgment given in the case of the daughters and wife of Saad bin Al-Rabi where the wife was given one-eighth of the estate, the daughters were given two-third and the remainder was given to the deceased’s younger brother. This narration is first not very sound, and second, it does not contain any details which would go against the interpretation of the distribution as given in this discussion.
4-12b: كَلالَة – Its root is کَلّ which means to get tired. According to Raghib, this is the name for heirs who do not fall in the category of father or offspring, and he cites the statement of Ibn Abbas that this is the name for heirs other than the offspring. There is a narration in which the Holy Prophet said that كَلالَة is one who dies but has no surviving offspring or father. So, the deceased is termed کلاله . Imam Raghib says that both the explanations are correct and what makes them correct is that کلاله is a verbal noun which brings together the heir and the progenitor.
The inheritance of کلاله : There are two groups among the commentators. The larger group accepts that كَلالَة is one who has neither living father nor offspring. Ibn Abbas states that کلاله is one who has no offspring. It appears that Caliph Umar was of the same view although there is a narration in which he is stated to have said that since Caliph Abu Bakar took its meaning to be one who does not have a living father and offspring, he will remain silent about its meaning. In another narration, however, he has taken its meaning to be the same as Ibn Abbas, that is one who does not have offspring: و عن عمر رضی اللّٰه تعالیٰ عنه الكَلالَة من لا ولد له فقط (G). There is also a narration of Umar in which he said: I would have loved it more than the whole world if the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings on him, had explained and given more clarity to three things: کلاله ۔ خلافت ۔ ربا (G).
There are two places in the Quran where کلاله has been mentioned. One is here and the other is towards the end of this surah. Here the share of a brother or sister is given as one-sixth but if there are more than one sibling then the share is one-third to be divided among them. In the second mention of the کلاله the shares are given as one-half if there is only one sister, two-thirds if there are two or more sisters of the diseased. If the diseased has one or more brothers only, they get the entire estate. If the surviving siblings include both brothers and sisters, they get the entire estate which in turn is divided among them with the brothers getting twice what the sisters get. The explanation that the commentators have given is that the brothers and sisters mentioned here are uterine brothers and sisters, that is from the mother’s side, and in the second occurrence of کلاله made towards the end of this surah, the mention is of full (both father and mother same) or consanguine (half brother or sister with the father being same). There is no hadith of the Holy prophet in this regard. Therefore, a second explanation of this can be that the purport of کلاله mentioned in the two places is different.
Two types of کلاله : The purport of كَلالَة here is what is mentioned above, that is there is no offspring but there are surviving parents and siblings. The كَلالَة mentioned towards the end of the surah (4:176) is one where the deceased has no surviving offspring or parents. This is the reason why the entire estate is given to the siblings in this second instance as there are no other heirs but not so here. This interpretation is further supported by a scenario mentioned above in which it is stated that there are brothers but no offspring, and in this situation, the mother gets one-third but the shares of the brothers is not mentioned. Their share has been mentioned now otherwise there would have been an objection that a scenario was set up but the share of brothers not mentioned.
Thus, four inheritance situations are discussed, and the division of the estate is given in each. A summary of the situations is:
- The offspring are the only heirs
- Heirs include parents with or without offspring of the deceased
- Heirs include surviving spouse with or without offspring of the deceased
- Heirs are parents, and brothers as the deceased has no offspring
- Heirs are only siblings as there are no surviving parents or offspring. This situation is given later in the surah.
In all of these situations, if there is a surviving spouse, his/her share is taken out first, if there are surviving parents, their share is given next, and offspring get what is left. If there is no offspring, or no parents and offspring then the siblings get their share in the inheritance.
4-12c: Debt not injuring others: غَيرَ مُضارٍّ – The priority in the payment of debt and bequest is given everywhere but here the term غَيرَ مُضارٍّ has been added. Thus, the debt and bequest should be of a kind that is not injurious to others. The reason for this is that in this particular situation, there is no offspring. It is possible when there is no offspring that a person may acknowledge a debt that does not exist or unnecessarily indebts himself or maliciously bequests his estate just to spite his distant relatives who will inherit from him. It is for this reason it becomes necessary to impose this condition here. The term غَيرَ مُضارٍّ applies both to debt and bequests.
4-13 These are Allah’s limits. And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, He will admit him to Gardens wherein flow rivers, to abide in them. And this is the great achievement.
تِلكَ حُدودُ اللَّهِ ۚ وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسولَهُ يُدخِلهُ جَنّاتٍ تَجري مِن تَحتِهَا الأَنهارُ خالِدينَ فيها ۚ وَذٰلِكَ الفَوزُ العَظيمُ (۱۳)
4-14 And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and goes beyond His limits, He will make him enter fire to abide in it, and for him is an abasing chastisement.
وَمَن يَعصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسولَهُ وَيَتَعَدَّ حُدودَهُ يُدخِلهُ نارًا خالِدًا فيها وَلَهُ عَذابٌ مُهينٌ (۱۴)
4-14a: Custom and Quran: In both these verses the emphasis is on the point that although these are temporal matters, but they should not be viewed disdainfully because the orders given in Islam are relevant both for spiritual and temporal welfare. It has also been made clear that those who do not obey these injunctions will be the inmates of hell and the words خالِدًا فيها are added with it to indicate the longevity of the punishment. Despite this emphasis and urging, Muslims generally, and particularly Muslims in the rural areas of South Asia and Punjab have been openly ignoring these orders and some have gone so far as to state in administrative papers that they will not be following the Quranic orders and will instead follow their customs. Is the result of such disregard of Quranic orders not what the Quran has stated as: وَلَهُ عَذابٌ مُهينٌ (and for him is an abasing chastisement)? It is because of the disregard of Quranic injunctions that Muslims today are in an ignominious state.
Bayan-ul-Quran 