1. When death approaches any one of you and you are
leaving behind some wealth, it is incumbent upon you to make a will in favour of
your parents and relatives according to the conventions [of society]. This is an
obligation imposed upon the God-fearing. Then if anyone changes the will after
hearing it, its sin shall rest on those who change it. Indeed God hears and
knows [all things]. But anyone who fears partiality or wrongdoing on the part of
the person who has made the will, and he makes peace between them, then there is
nothing sinful in this. For Allah is Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. (2:180-182)
The verses of Sūrah Nisā (quoted below) which ascertain a
specific share to each heir and their placement in the Qur’ān clearly show that
the above mentioned directive of making a will for the parents and relatives
according to the conventions of society was revealed earlier. These verses of
Sūrah Nisā also explain that the reason the Almighty has ascertained the shares
of parents and relatives in the legacy of a deceased is that man cannot know who
among his relations is near to him in benefit. Also, in these verses, the
Almighty has called this ascertaining of shares as His will, against which no
Muslim, it is evident, should dare to make his own will. In view of this, it is
clear that the verses of Sūrah Nisā abrogate this directive of Sūrah Baqarah.
However, the purpose of this directive in the words of Imām Amīn Ahsan Islāhī
was:
The directive of making a will in favour of one’s parents
and relatives mentioned in this verse was contingent upon the conventions of the
society, and was given in the interim period when the Islamic society had not
become stable enough to be given the directives which were later revealed in
Sūrah Nisā. It was revealed as a temporary directive before circumstances became
conducive for detailed directives in this regard. It had two basic objectives:
first, to immediately safeguard the rights of those relatives which were being
usurped by influential relatives and second to revive once again the conventions
of the society in this regard which had existed in the nobility of Arabia but
were engulfed in the dust of the age of ignorance (Jāhiliyyah); this revival
would pave the way for the detailed law that was to be revealed later. (‘Tadabbur-i-Qur’ān’,
Vol 1, pps. 439-440)
2. God enjoins you about your children that a boy's share
is equal to that of two girls’. And, if there are only girls among the children
and they are more than two then they shall receive two thirds of the
inheritance, and, if there is only one girl, then her share is half. (4:11)
It is this directive of the sūrah which abrogates the
verse of Sūrah Baqarah quoted before. It first of all mentions the share of the
children:
The sentence Yūsī kumullāhu fī aawlādikum (God enjoins
you about your children) acts as a prelude to Lidhdhakari mithlu hazz al-unthayayn
(that a boy’s share is equal to that of two girls’). The word Aawlād denotes
both the female and male offspring. Hence, the correct sentence analysis in this
writer’s consideration is: Lidhdhakari minhum mithlu hazz al-unthayayn
([among the children] a boy's share is equal to that of two girls’).
If this directive had ended on the words Lidhdhakari
mithlu hazz al-unthayayn, then it would have meant:
(i) If the children of a deceased are only a boy and a
girl, then the boy will receive twice as much as the girl.
(ii) If the number of boys and girls exceed this, then the
inheritance shall be divided among them in a manner that each boy receives twice
the share of a girl.
(iii) If there are only boys or only girls, then the whole
inheritance shall be given to whoever among the two is present.
The third case is also, quite evidently, an essential
outcome of the style and pattern of the verse. If it is said that this money is
to be distributed among beggars and a male beggar is to be given twice the
amount of a female beggar, then this means nothing except that the money is
actually meant for the beggars; hence if all beggars are men, all the money
shall be distributed among them and if all the beggars are women, then also the
same procedure shall be adopted. But the directive does not end here: an
exception immediately follows, thereby amending it.
The sentence Fa inkunna nithā‘an fawqa al-ithnatayni
falahunna thuluthā mā tarak (and if there are only girls among the children and
they are more than two, then they shall receive two thirds of the inheritance)
is an exception to Lidhdhakari mithlu hazzil unthayayn. This means that if
among the children of the deceased there are girls then whether they are two or
more, their share is two thirds. The words Wa in kānat wāhidatan falahā al-nisf
(and if there is only one girl then her share is half) are co-ordinated to this
exception by the copulative particle (Harf-i- ‘atf) waw (and), and do not form
an independent clause.
This writer has interpreted the meaning of fawqa al-ithnatayn
(more than two) as two or more than two. The reason behind this is that before
it, the word ithnatayn (two) has been suppressed, which is due to the style and
pattern of the Arabic language. If, in the language of the Qur’ān, the share of
a girl and of two or more girls are to be stated separately owing to a
difference in their proportions then there can be two ways of doing so. If an
ascending order is adopted, the share of one girl shall be stated first followed
by the share of two girls. If the share of more than two girls is to be the same
as that of two girls, there is no need to mention it in words. After specifying
the share of two girls after that of one, owing to a difference in their amount,
if a silence follows, then this is a clear indication that the share of two or
more girls is equal to that of two girls’. If a descending order arrangement is
employed, then again, the words fawqa al-ithnatayni aaw ithnatayn (more than two
or two) are inappropriate as regards the linguistic style and pattern of Arabic;
so after stating the shares of more than two girls, the share of one girl will
be stated. In this style and arrangement, the commencement of a sentence by
fawqa al-ithnatayn bears evidence to a suppression of the word ithnatayn before
it. A little deliberation shows that the verse readily suggests this fact. The
order of the arrangement demands that ithnatayn should come after fawqa al-ithnatayn
while linguistic the pattern dictates that ithnatayn should come before fawqa
al-ithnatayn. To fulfil both these requirements the Qur’ān has suppressed the
word ithnatayn by adopting an elliptical style of expression in the descending
order arrangement. In the last verse of Sūrah Nisā, these shares are stated in
an ascending order. Accordingly, we observe there that fawqa al-ithnatayn is
suppressed after ithnatayn:
In umru‘un halaka laysa lahu waladun wa lahu ukhtun falahā
nisfu mā taraka wa huwa yarithuhā in lam yakunlahā walad.
Fa in kāna al-itathnatayni fala hum al-thuluthāni mimmā tarak.
(4:176) (If a man dies childless and he has only one
sister, she shall inherit half of what he leaves and if a sister dies childless
then her brother shall be her heir; and if there are two sisters, they shall
inherit two thirds of what he [or she] leaves).
3. And if the deceased has children, the parents shall
inherit a sixth each, and if he has no children and only the parents are his
heirs then his mother shall receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters
then the mother's share is the same one sixth after the payment of any legacies
he may have bequethed and after discharging any debts he may have left behind.
(4:11)
The connective particle waw (and) in wa li abwayhi li
kulli wāhidim minhuma al-sudus mimmā tarak (and if the deceased has children,
the parents shall inherit a sixth each) does not co-ordinate this clause either
to fa in kunna nithā’an fawqa al-ithnatayn (and if there are only girls among
the children and they are more than two) or to wa in kānat wāhidah fa lahā al-nisf
(and if there is only one girl, then her share is half); in fact, it
co-ordinates it to the whole directive above which relates to the shares of the
children. Hence this co-ordination (‘atf) is not copulative (lil jami‘), rather
it is emendative (lil istidrāk) in nature. The reason is that though it is clear
from the words Lidhdhakari mithlu hazz al-unthayayn that a boy’s share is
twice a girl’s, their actual proportion has not been indicated. This linguistic
style can be appreciated from an example: If it is said ‘This money is for the
children. Let each boy receive twice as much as a girl, and let the father
receive half the amount’, any person who has a little linguistic sense will
clearly understand these sentences to mean that the money is actually meant for
the children. If these sentences had ended without a mention of the father’s
share, all the money would have been distributed among the boys and girls in the
proportion indicated. But since the father is also to be given half the amount,
it is imperative that the father should first receive this amount and the what
remains should be distributed among the children.
The verse under discussion is also of the same style.
Consequently, if this is kept in mind, it is not at all difficult to comprehend
that after the clause wa in kānat wāhidah fa lahā al-nisf (and if there is
only one girl then her share is half), the shares of the parents and the spouses
which are co-ordinated to the shares of the children by the connective particle
waw (and) shall all necessarily be distributed first and whatever remains shall
only be distributed among the children. Whether among the children there are
only boys or both boys and girls, the same principle shall apply. Similarly, if
only female offspring are present they shall receive two thirds or half
(whatever the case may be) from the remaining inheritance and not in any case
from the total inheritance.
This is the correct meaning of the verse. Any person, who
after comprehending the implications denoted by the particle waw (and) in wa li
abwayhi (for the parents), and the particle fa (but) in fa in kunna nithā‘an
(and if there are only girls) reads the verse, shall spontaneously reach the
same conclusion.
Consider, next, the remaining part of the verse:
The word ‘walad’ in in kāna lahu walad (if he has
children) and fa in lam ya kun lahu walad (if he does not have children) is used
both for male and female children. In the Arabic language, this connotation is
conventional and customary. Besides being used here, it has also been used
subsequently where the shares of the spouses are stated. In this writer’s
opinion, in all these instances it has the same meaning. There is no contextual
indication, intrinsic or extrinsic, to believe that the word has specifically
been used for male children. Linguists maintain that it is used in the singular
as well as the plural sense and, also, both for the masculine and the feminine
gender. In all the cases mentioned, whether boys and girls in the indicated
numbers are present or absent, these connotations of the word shall be
considered understood.
According to the linguistic principles of Arabic, after
the words fali ummihi thuluth (the mother's share is one third) the words wa li
abīhi thuluthān (and the father's share is two thirds) or words of similar
meaning are suppressed, as is readily suggested by the words wa warithahu
abawāhu (and his parents are his heirs). Hence, this mention is a clear proof of
the suppression. When it is said ‘If the heirs of this money are only Zahid and
Ali, Zahid’s share is one third’, then after this there is no need to say that
‘the remaining two thirds is for Ali’ -- something which is understood by all
requisites of common sense.
Also, in this writer’s estimation, after fa in kāna lahu
ikhwatun fa li ummihi al-sudus (and if he has brothers and sisters then the
mother's share is the same one sixth) the words wa li abīhi al-sudus aaydhan
(and the father's share is also one sixth) or words of similar meaning are
suppressed. The contextual indication for this is also very evident. If brothers
and sisters are present, then the mother’s share is the same one sixth as in the
case when a deceased has children. This also bears witness to the fact that the
father’s share is also the same and that there is no need to express it in
words. If a reader relishes the finer aspects of a language, he instinctively
concludes that if the mother’s share has reverted to its original amount, so
should the father’s share. Thus, the correct analysis of these verses is ‘If
there are children, both the father and the mother shall receive one-sixth. If
there are no children and only parents are the heirs, the mother’s share is a
third, but if there are brothers and sisters, the mother’s share is the same one
sixth’. One can very well see how this style effectively induces the mind to
spontaneously jump to the suppressed words: ‘and the fathers share is also the
same one sixth.’
It is clear from these verses that in the absence of
children, brothers and sisters take their place. This view is endorsed by the
last verses of the sūrah also, but we shall delay an explanation until these
verses shall be discussed.
The word ‘ikhwatun’, in this writer’s opinion, only
signifies the existence of an entity. It merely specifies that in the presence
of brothers and sisters regardless that they are one, two, or more in number,
the parental shares revert to their original amount. Plurality here does not
indicate a numerical amount, rather it only denotes the existence of an entity.
To quote a Hamāsī poet:
Iyyāka wa al-amr alladhī in tawassa‘at
Mawāriduhu dhāqat ‘alayka al-masādiru
[Avoid entangling yourself in a matter in which if the
paths that lead to it (mawarid) are wide, those that come out (masādir) are
narrow.]
The poet has used the words mawārid and masādir. It will
be outright injustice to this literary composition if it is interpreted to mean
that it urges the reader to refrain from getting involved in matters whose
mawārid and masādir are, after all, three or more. The poet only intends to
establish the existence of a mawrid and a masdar and obviously has no intention
to convey their numerical amount. There may be only one way of getting involved
and withdrawing from an affair and there may be several ways to do so.
Similarly, a deceased may leave behind a brother and a sister and they can also
be five or ten. The word ikhwatun encompasses all these different cases. To
convey such meanings, a language employs this style of plurality. If it is said,
‘If you have children, then give these sweets to them’, no one will consider
this to mean that if the addressed person has only one child, he cannot be given
the sweets, merely because the word children has been used by the speaker. Such
a meaning can only be inferred by someone who, instead of appreciating a
language in literary perspectives, starts analysing it on the basis of crude
mathematical axioms.
The words mim ba‘adi wasiyyatin yūsī biha aaw dayn
(after the payments of any legacies he may have bequethed, and after discharging
any debts he may have left behind) at the end of the directive imply that if a
deceased has outstanding debts to his name, then first of all they must be paid
from the wealth he has left behind. After this, a part of his legacy which he
might have bequethed shall be paid, and whatever remains shall be distributed
among the heirs. Though the directive of discharging of debts has been stated at
the end of the verse, it shall be given priority over all payments. The reason
is that a person from whom money is borrowed has a rightful share in the wealth
of a deceased borrower before his death, while an heir becomes a rightful
shareholder in a person's wealth only after his death. As far as the precedence
of the payment of any bequethed legacy in the actual statement of the verse is
concerned, it owes much to a touch of elegance in presentation, a distinctive
feature of Qur’ānic Arabic.
4. You know not who among your children and parents are
nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and
all-Knowing. (4:11)
The reason why this part of the verse is juxtaposed
between the ones which state the shares of the heirs is that it should become
clear to people that, since the Almighty Himself has indicated who the heirs of
a deceased should be, a more just law in this regard could not have been
enacted. Hence, after this Divine Directive, no one has the right to bequeth his
wealth in favour of the heirs designated by the Almighty Himself. This
distribution is based on the immense knowledge and wisdom of Allah, which
encompass all His directives. Man, in spite of his formidable talents, can
neither acquire the vastness of His knowledge nor comprehend the profundity of
His wisdom. If he is a true believer, he must submit to the Word of God.
This is the real meaning of the verse. However, a little
deliberation shows that the right to obtain an inheritance is based on the
underlying cause of Aqrabu naf‘an (the most beneficial in kinship). This benefit
is by nature present in parents, children, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives
and other close relations. Hence, in normal circumstances, they will be
considered the heirs to the legacy of a deceased. However, in certain unusual
circumstances, if an absence of benefit in any of these relationships is
diagnosed by sense and reason, the style and pattern of the verse demands that
such a relative should not become an heir to the legacy. Therefore, in such
cases, if someone is deprived from his share, it would be perfectly in
accordance with the purport of the verse, to which its words so clearly testify.
In view of this, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said about the Idolaters
and the People of the Book of Arabia:
A Muslim cannot be an heir of a Kāfir nor can a Kāfir be a
Muslim's. (Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Farā’id)
In other words, after the Quraysh are left with no excuse
to deny the truth which has been unveiled to them in its ultimate, their enmity
and hostility has become very clear. Consequently, the benefit of kinship
between them and the Muslims has completely been severed. Hence, they cannot
inherit from one another.
A secondary guidance which is also obtained from this
verse is that if in certain cases legacies are left over after distribution and
the deceased has not made anyone an heir in them, then they too should be
distributed to the Aqrabu naf‘an (most beneficial in kinship). This is precisely
what the Prophet is reported to have said:
Give the heirs their share and if something remains, it is
for the closest male [relative]. (Muslim, Kitāb al-Farā’idh)
5. And to you belongs a half of what your wives have, if
they die childless. And if they have children, a quarter of what they leave
shall be yours after payment of any legacies they may have bequethed and after
discharging any [outstanding] debts. Your wives shall inherit one quarter of
what you leave, if you die childless. If you have children they shall inherit
one eighth, after payment of any legacies you may have bequethed, and after
discharging any of your [outstanding] debts. (4:12)
The shares of the spouses are very clearly stated and need
no explanation. After the payment of debts and any bequethed legacy, these
shares shall be given from the total remaining estate of a deceased.
6. If a man or a woman is made an heir on account of his
[or her] kalālah relationship [with the deceased] and he [or she] has one
brother or sister, the brother and sister each shall receive a sixth, and if
they be more than this, they shall be sharers in one third, after payment of any
legacies bequethed and any [outstanding] debts -- without harming anyone. This
is a command from God, and God is Gracious and All-Knowing. (4:12)
The most important word in this verse is kalālah.
Originally, it is a nomen verbum (masdar) in the meaning of kalāl ie,
‘feebleness and frailty’. To quote a line from Aa‘shā’s poetry:
Fa aā laytu lā 'arthī lahā min kalālatin
(Then I swore that I shall not show any mercy on her
because of her feebleness and frailty.)
Mutammim Ibn Nuwayrah says:
Faka annahā ba‘da al-kalālati wa al-surā
‘iljun tughālīhi qazurum mulmi‘ū
(That [she] camel after the night's tiring journey is
indeed like a wild ass whom even a pregnant donkey tries to overtake.)
Figuratively, the linguists attribute the following three
meanings to this word:
i) A person who leaves behind neither parents nor
children.
ii) Any relationship which is not through the parents or
children.
iii) All of one's relatives except the parents and
children.
Zamakhsharī writes in his ‘Kashshāf’:
Kalālah has three meanings: It is an adjective used for a
person who leaves behind neither parents nor children; it also means all the
relatives of a deceased except his parents and children, and it also denotes the
relationships which are not through [the deceased’s] parents or children. The
Arabs say: mā warithal majda ‘an kalālah, ie he could not become an heir to
nobility because of a distant relationship. Likewise, you say: mā samata ‘an
‘ayyin, ie he did not become quiet because he was unable to speak and mā kaffa
‘an jubnin, ie he did not stop because of cowardice. And kalālah is a nomen
verbum (masdar) meaning kalāl. Kalāl means loss of strength because of
weakness. Aa‘shā says: Fa aā laytu lā ’arthī lahā min kalālatin, ie then I swore
that I shall not show any mercy on her because of her feebleness and frailty.
Later, it was figuratively used for the relationship which is not through the
parents and children. The reason for this being that such a relationship is not
as strong as the one through the parents and children. And when it is used as an
adjective of a legatee or a legator it means dhū kalālah. Similarly, you say
falānum min qarābatī ie, falānum min dhawī qarābatī, and it can also be an
adjective like hajājah and faqāqah meaning foolish. (Vol 1, p. 485)
This writer could not find the word used in the first
meaning, ie a person who does not leave behind either parents or children, in
pre-Islamic Arabic poetry though this usage is grammatically correct.
It is used at many instances in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry
in the second meaning, ie the relationship not through the parents or the
children.
To quote Tirmāh:
Yahuzzu silāhan lam yarith hu kalālatan
Yashukku bihī minhā ghumūda al-maghābinī
(He waves his weapon which he did not inherit because of a
distant relationship. Through it he pierces the part concealed in her thighs.)
‘Āmir Ibn Tufayl says:
Wa mā sawwadatnī ‘āmirun `an kalālatin
(And the tribe of ‘Āmir did not make me the chief because
of a distant relationship.)
According to ‘Lisān al-‘Arab’:
The Arabs say Lam yarith hu kalālah, ie owing to his
distant relationship, he did not become an heir, but he inherited the legacy
because of nearness and entitlement to it. (Vol 11, Pg 592)
The third meaning attributed to it, ie all relatives of a
person except his parents and children is verified by many examples in the
pre-Islamic Arabic literature.
A Hamāsi poet, Yazīd Ibn al-Hakam, while admonishing his
son says:
Wa al-mar’u yabkhalu bi’l huqūqi wa li’l kalālati mā yusīm
(Man shows miserliness in discharging his duties and after
his death, his distant relatives take away his animals which graze in the
forests.)
Azharī, has quoted a poet's couplet:
Fa inna abā’ al-mar’i ahmā lahū
Wa mawlā al-kalālati lā yaghdhabū
(If a person is oppressed and persecuted, it is his father
who, in his support, is infuriated the most. Kalālah relatives are not
infuriated to this extent in such a matter.)
To quote a Bedouin's saying:
I have a lot of wealth and my heirs are kalālah, ie
distant relatives. (‘Lisān al-Arab’, Vol 11, p. 592)
Imam Muslim has quoted the following words in a Hadīth
narrated by Jābir (rta):
O Prophet of Allah ! only kalālah are my heirs.
(Kitāb al-Farāid, Ch. 2)
Many Ahādīth, in which Qur’ānic verses are explained,
endorse this meaning. Abū Bakr Jassās writes in his ‘’Ahkām al-Qur’ān’:
In this regard, there are two narrations attributed to Abū
Bakr, ‘Alī and Ibn Abbās. One of them says that all except the father and the
children are kalālah and Muhammad Ibn Sālim reports from Shu‘bah, who reports
from Ibn Mas‘ūd that all except the father and the children are kalālah and Zayd
Ibn Thābit has also reported this meaning. (Vol 2, p. 87)
Now, let us consider the verse under discussion. Though
our jurists have unanimously preferred the first meaning here, yet the verse
itself testifies against this meaning. If we carefully analyze verses 11 and 12
of Sūrah Nisā from yūsī kumullāhu fī aawlādikum (God enjoins you about your
children), it is observed that after a mention of the shares of the children and
the parents, the Almighty has directed us to carry out the distribution of
legacy by the words mim ba‘di wasīyyatin yūsī bihā aaw dayn (after the payment
of any legacies he may have bequethed and after discharging any debts he may
have left behind). The directive is repeated in the shares of the spouses in the
words mim ba‘di wasīyyatin yūsīna bihā aaw dayn and mim ba‘di wasīyyatin
tūsūna bihā aaw dayn. A little contemplation shows that in all these instances
the verb is used in the active voice and the antecedents of yūsī, yūsīna and
tūsūna are clearly stated in each of these sentences. But in the verse of
Kalālah, the verb is used passively. This departure tells us that the subject
(Fā‘il) of the verb yūsā ie, the legator in this verse is not stated.
Therefore, in this verse, the word Kalālah cannot be regarded as an adjective
for the deceased. The change conclusively testifies that the Qur’ān has not used
the word in its first meaning, ie a person who does not leave behind either
parents or children.
As far as the second and third meanings are concerned, any
of the two can be preferred on the basis of a more delicate grammatical
construction, because in both cases the implied meaning remains the same. Hence
in this verse the verb yūrathu, in the opinion of this writer, is from the If‘āl
category used in its passive form and Kalālah is Maf‘ūl lahū (an accusative on
account of which something is done). Kāna here is incomplete (Nāqisah) and
yūrathu is its predicate (Khabr). Rajulun and imra’atun are the nouns (Asmā’) of
Kāna. Keeping in mind this analysis of the verse, it can be translated thus:
‘and if a man or woman is made an heir because of his (or her) Kalālah
relationship...’
Naturally, only the deceased person will have the right to
make someone his heir. Since the second object of the passive verb yūrathu is
not stated, linguistic principles dictate that in the given context the verse
should only mean that a Kalālah relative can be made an heir together with the
rightful heirs as well in cases when a portion of the inheritance remains after
it has been distributed among the rightful heirs and also when none of them is
present.
Wa lahū akhun aaw ukhtun fa li kulli wāhidim minhuma
al-sudus. Fa in kānū akthara min dhālika fa hum
shurakā’u fi al-thuluthi min ba‘di wasīyyatin yūsā bihā aaw dayn, ie if a man
or a woman from the associations of a single relationship is made an heir, then
if the person who is made the heir has one brother or one sister, he (or she)
will be given one sixth of what the heir himself receives and if the heir has
more than one brother or sister then they shall share equally in a third of what
the heir himself receives. After this, there remains no need to say that the
remaining five sixths or two thirds (whatever might be the case) shall be given
to the person whom the deceased had made his heir. If it is said ‘Ahmad has made
your son the heir of his wealth, but if he has a brother then the brother shall
be entitled to a third of his share’, it clearly means that after the brother
receives his share the remaining money should be given to the son who has
actually been made the heir.
This directive of the Qur’ān has a very sound reason
behind it. Naturally, a deceased can choose to make any brother, sister, aunt or
uncle (the Kalālah relatives) his heir. But there can be other brothers or
uncles besides the one who has been made an heir by a deceased. The case is no
different for sisters or aunts also. A person can prefer any uncle or aunt. But
the Almighty does not approve of totally depriving all other associations of the
same relationship of any share. Therefore, if a person, for example, has made
one of his paternal uncles, Saeed, the heir to his remaining estate in the
presence of two other paternal uncles, then the two shall share equally in a
third of what Saeed receives, and Saeed himself shall receive the remaining two
thirds.
Ghayra mudār. Wasīyyatim min Allāh Wa Allāhu ‘Alīmun
Hakīm. These words at the end of the verse serve as a warning that making
someone an heir should not be a source of harm for any of the rightful heirs. To
dispel any element of foul play, the Almighty Himself has fixed the shares of
the real heirs. Since, according to the verse, a person can make any of his
Kalālah relatives his heir, it is emphatically stated that, while exercising
this prerogative, the rights of a rightful heir should not be usurped -- this is
not a piece of advice from an earthling. It is what the Creator of the heavens
and the earth has directed us about. If any of His creation deliberately
deprives a rightful claimant from his share, then he should be aware that God
has knowledge of all his deeds, and, if he errs unintentionally, the Almighty is
Gracious and Merciful. He does not burden a person with a responsibility he
cannot fulfil. All His directives bring ease and facility for His creation and
are not meant to put them through hardship and difficulty.
7. People ask your pronouncement. Say: God enjoins you
about your Kalālah heirs that if a man dies childless and he has only a sister,
she shall inherit half of what he leaves and if a sister dies childless then her
brother shall be her heir; and if there are two sisters they shall inherit two
thirds of what he [or she] leaves. If there are many brothers and sisters, the
share of each male shall be that of two females. God expounds unto you that you
err not and God has knowledge of all things. (4:176)
Since, according to the interpretation given above, all
brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts are Kalālah relatives and a person can make
anyone of them his heir, it is possible that he might prefer an aunt or an uncle
over his brothers and sisters. If a deceased has children, the nature of the
directive is proper in all respects, but if the deceased has no children and has
brothers and sisters, then this authority vested in him stands objected. It is
an unquestionable reality that after one's children, one’s brothers and sisters
among his Kalālah relatives are nearest to him. Common sense demands that in
such a case they should receive a large portion of the legacy. Verses 11-12 of
Sūrah Nisā clearly state that if a deceased has brothers and sisters, the
parents shall receive a sixth each. Since this share is the same as what they
receive in the presence of children, the question arises whether it has still
been left to a person to make the brothers and sisters his heirs, or can he
deprive them of a share in his wealth. While explaining verses 11-12 of Sūrah
Nisā, it was written that the style of the verses is such that in the absence of
children, the brothers and sisters of a deceased should be his heirs. But
obviously, the meaning unfolded by a particular style cannot be as certain and
definite as the one which is directly stated in words. In the absence of
children, the question about the shares of brothers and sisters can even arise
today. It had arisen in the time of the Prophet (sws) as well. Jabīr (rta)
reports:
He says: I was sick and in a state of unconsciousness when
the Prophet of Allah arrived at my place. He performed ablutions and the people
sprinkled some water over me from which the Prophet was performing his
ablutions. When I came to my senses, I said: O Prophet of Allah all my heirs are
Kalālah. At this, this verse of
inheritance was revealed. (Muslim, Kitāb al-Farā‘idh, Ch 2)
From the words ‘O Prophet of Allah all my heirs are
Kalālah. At this, this verse of inheritance was revealed’ of the above Hadīth,
it is evident that among the Kalālah relatives the question particularly
concerned his brothers and sisters and the last verses of Sūrah Nisā were
revealed as a result of this inquiry.
A special style of the Qur’ānic verses is that in them
certain questions are stated in a very concise and compact form. The actual
nature of the question and its background is revealed by the answer which the
verses subsequently give. By not taking into consideration this style, our
commentators have come across many difficulties in understanding Qu’l lilāhu
yuftīkum fī al-Kalālah. Here also, if only the answer is analysed, the meanings
the verse convey are very evident. The verse is of the same style and pattern as
Yūsī kumullāhu fī aawlādikum (God enjoins you about your children). In the
latter case, the directive is about the children as the heirs of a deceased
while in the former case the pronouncement is about Kalālah relatives as the
heirs of a deceased. The article Alif lām defines the word Kalālah in this
verse, which testifies to the fact that the question concerns some specific
relations among the Kalālah relatives and the answer shows that these specific
relations are the deceased’s brothers and sisters. Verse 12 of Sūrah Nisā has
already empowered a person to bequeth a part of his legacy in favour of Kalālah
relatives like uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters. Here, a particular case is
mentioned after the general directive. Considering this, the correct meaning of
the verse is: ‘Say, Allah gives you a pronouncement about brothers and sisters
among the Kalālah relatives’. An example of this Qur’ānic style and construction
can be seen in verse 189 of Sūrah Baqarah.
It should be clear that the words in imru’un halaka laysa
lahū walad.... (if a man dies childless....) do not state the meaning of
Kalālah; they merely impose a condition which must be fulfilled if the brothers
and sisters are to receive a share in a legacy. Just as in the verse Fa in lam
ya kun lahu walad wa warithahu abawāhu (if he does not have children, and his
parents are his heirs) a condition is imposed that if the deceased is childless
and only his parents are his heirs then they shall receive such and such shares.
Similarly, in the given verse, a condition is stated that if a person dies
childless, and he has brothers and sisters, then their share is such and such.
Also evident from the condition in the verse is that brothers and sisters are
heirs of a deceased, only in case he dies childless. If he leaves children, they
do not have any share in his wealth except if a deceased makes a bequest in
their favour according to the general directive mentioned in verse 12 of Sūrah
Nisā.
The shares of brothers and sisters stated here are the
same as those of the children stated earlier. Also, the style of the words In
kānū ikhwatan rijālan wa nisā’an fa lidhdhakari mithlu hazz al-unthayayn (If
there are many brothers and sisters, the share of each male shall be equal to
that of two females’) bears witness to the fact that these shares also shall be
given after the parents and the spouses are handed over their shares. The
relevant arguments are presented in the section which deals with the shares of
the children. Hence, if the deceased only has sisters then two thirds or one
half (whatever the case may be) of the share meant for the brothers and sisters
shall be given to the sister or sisters.
We have indicated earlier that it is evident from verse 12
of Sūrah Nisā that in the absence of children, the brothers and sisters of a
deceased take their place. This particular verse of Sūrah Nisā conclusively
proves the premise. It was possible to misinterpret it from the style of verses
11-12, but here all doubts have been removed as to what the words imply. The
Qur’ān, therefore, says:
God explains to you that you err not and God has knowledge
of all things. (4:176)
________________
|