Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, Verse 11

1. The Questions This Verse Raises

The commentators explain the shares through the Sunna, the Companions’ practice and the verse’s wording. The nine questions below bring those explanations together.

Q1. What was the occasion of the verse, and what did it come to correct?

Two events need to be distinguished. In one, the widow of Saʿd b. al-Rabīʿ asked for her daughters' inheritance after their uncle had taken the estate. In the other, Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh رضي الله عنهما asked about his own property while he was ill. Jābir narrates both hadiths, but the widow was asking about a different household.^[1]

The difficulty is that the hadith about Jābir's illness names different inheritance verses in its different wordings. To follow the scholars' explanations, first distinguish the three provisions:

• 4:11 prescribes the shares of children and parents.
• 4:12 prescribes spouses' shares and then the shares of maternal siblings: brothers or sisters related through the mother alone.
• 4:176, the final verse of the sūrah, prescribes the shares of full or paternal siblings in a kalālah estate. In this discussion, kalālah means that the deceased leaves neither a child nor a father.

Thus, “the kalālah verse” can refer to two different provisions. The one in 4:12 concerns maternal siblings; the one in 4:176 concerns full or paternal siblings. That distinction is essential to understanding why the scholars explain Jābir's hadith differently.^[2]

The widow's request: two daughters had received nothing

Saʿd b. al-Rabīʿ رضي الله عنه was killed at Uḥud. His brother took the estate, leaving Saʿd's wife and two daughters without their inheritance. Jābir relates their complaint and the Prophet's ﷺ decision:

The daughters' two-thirds share is the subject of 4:11; their mother's eighth, as the deceased's wife, is prescribed in 4:12. The hadith therefore describes a decision applying both verses. The Ibn Mājah wording quoted here says “the verse of inheritance”; the account in Abū Dāwūd names the opening of 4:11. ^[4] ʿAṭāʾ also relates the widow's request in a mursal report, omitting the Companion from the isnād (Ibn Ḥajar).^[5]

Because this request concerns the very daughters' shares that 4:11 prescribes, Ibn Kathīr and al-Shawkānī prefer it as the occasion of the verse.^[6]

Jābir's illness: which verse answered his question?

Jābir was unconscious when the Prophet ﷺ and Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه visited him. He describes what happened in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

This wording names the opening of 4:11. Yet other versions of the same hadith name 4:176, or simply say “the verse of inheritance.” Muslim records all three forms through different students of Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir, who heard the hadith from Jābir:

Shuʿba then asked Ibn al-Munkadir whether he meant the verse beginning يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ, and received the answer هَكَذَا أُنْزِلَتْ, “Thus it was revealed.” This exchange follows Jābir's account; it is Shuʿba's question to his teacher. Al-Nawawī records the different wordings without choosing between the verse identifications.^[8]

The provision for Jābir’s sisters

Jābir had no child, his father had died, and his question concerned his sisters. The ruling for sisters in 4:176 therefore fits his circumstances directly. On this explanation, the two hadiths concern two occasions: the widow's request occasioned 4:11, while Jābir's own question occasioned 4:176. Ibn Kathīr adopts this distinction, and Rashīd Riḍā also relates Jābir's case to 4:176.^[9]

The reports naming 4:176 and Ibn al-Munkadir's answer to Shuʿba support this explanation. Its difficulty is the wording in al-Bukhārī quoted above, which names 4:11. Some scholars consider that identification a narrator's mistake. Ibn Ḥajar rejects that judgment and gives a different explanation.

Naming a passage by its opening

First, the words “Allah instructs you concerning your children” can identify the whole inheritance passage. Al-Bukhārī's opening chapter in the Book of Inheritance covers the text from 4:11 through the end of 4:12. It includes not only children's shares but also the earlier kalālah provision. Ibn Ḥajar therefore understands the citation of 4:11's opening as capable of referring to the connected passage, including 4:12.

Second, he examines who named the particular verse. Several students of Ibn al-Munkadir give only “the verse of inheritance.” Ibn Ḥajar regards this general expression as the preserved wording from Ibn al-Munkadir. He considers the identification of 4:176 in Ibn ʿUyayna's version to be an explanatory insertion by Ibn ʿUyayna. He also points out that Ibn Jurayj is not the only narrator from whom an identification of 4:11 is reported.

Third, he asks whether the reply to Shuʿba settles the matter. “Thus it was revealed” can be understood as confirming the particular verse that Shuʿba named. Ibn Ḥajar acknowledges that possibility. But he also allows that Ibn al-Munkadir was affirming the account he had just related, which had said only “the verse of inheritance.” He therefore does not treat the reply as decisive proof that Ibn Jurayj was mistaken.

He also answers the argument from the word kalālah. The word has been understood to mean inherited property, the deceased, inheritance itself, or the situation of someone who leaves neither a child nor a father. Ibn Ḥajar argues that its use in Jābir's question, without specifying which meaning is intended, does not by itself identify 4:176.

Finally, he considers the order of revelation. The initial inheritance passage preceded the final kalālah verse. The earlier passage could have answered an inheritance question before the later verse gave further explanation concerning siblings. Ibn Ḥajar concludes that the apparent reference is to the passage beginning with 4:11 and rejects declaring Ibn Jurayj mistaken. Al-Ḥumaydān specifically prefers the kalālah clause in 4:12 as the provision relevant to Jābir.^[10]

There are objections to this account. Al-Bayhaqī adduces another isnād, through Abū al-Zubayr, identifying 4:176. In that hadith, Jābir himself says that this verse was revealed concerning him. Bāshānfar treats Jābir's own identification as a further reason for preferring 4:176. Saʿīd Bāshānfar also questions the reports cited in support of the 4:11 wording: he challenges ʿAmr b. Abī Qays's corroboration and the particular wording attributed to Ibn ʿUyayna through ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd. ^[11] These objections strengthen the case for identifying Jābir’s sisters with 4:176, but they do not require us to call Ibn Jurayj mistaken. Naming the connected passage by its opening preserves his wording without assigning full sisters the maternal siblings’ shares. 

Could one revelation have answered both households?

The question therefore leaves a possibility of two genuine requests. The widow could have asked about her daughters while the Prophet ﷺ awaited revelation, and Jābir could also have asked about his estate before that revelation came. One passage would then answer both requests. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Qurṭubī and Ibn Ḥajar allow this explanation. Ibn Ḥajar states that nothing prevents revelation from answering both cases together.^[12]

Ibn Ḥajar also considers assigning the children's provision to the widow's question and the kalālah provision in 4:12 to Jābir's. Muqbil al-Wādiʿī objects to that particular division: 4:12 concerns maternal siblings, whereas Jābir's sisters were not maternal siblings. He instead allows that the revelation answered both matters together, without assigning those sisters the maternal siblings' shares. He regards Jābir's hadith in the two Ṣaḥīḥs as stronger than the widow's hadith through Ibn ʿAqīl.^[13]

Al-Wādiʿī’s comparison gives the illness account greater certainty, but it does not mean it is the sole request behind the inheritance passage. Al-Tirmidhī grades the widow’s hadith ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ, and its daughters’ shares directly match 4:11. Al-Wādiʿī himself allows that revelation answered both events together. The widow’s request can therefore be the occasion of the children’s provision while Jābir’s question concerns the connected inheritance passage.^[14]

Joint revelation is a possible reconciliation. Another explanation distinguishes the dates of the two revelations. The maternal-sibling provision came first; questions about other siblings were answered later by 4:176. Ibn Ḥajar offers this possibility in his later discussion, which al-Mubārakfūrī quotes.^[15]

The other occasion reports

The accounts about Umm Kujja also describe women being deprived of an estate, but they differ over the husband's name and the number and relationship of the women. Muqātil names Aws b. Mālik; other reports name Aws b. Thābit or ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, the brother of Ḥassān. Some name daughters, others sisters.^[16] Al-Bayḍāwī names Aws b. al-Ṣāmit; al-Ālūsī rejects that identification because Aws lived until ʿUthmān's caliphate.^[17]

What the verse changed

The pre-Islamic practice denied inheritance to women and young children and favoured men who could fight and defend the clan. The verse made women and children heirs whose rights male relatives could no longer withhold. A report from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما through al-ʿAwfī describes objections to giving a girl half her father’s estate when she neither rode nor fought; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn grades its isnād weak.^[18] The protection of women previously excluded from inheritance is also central to the explanations of Abū Ḥayyān and al-Biqāʿī.^[19]

The Prophet ﷺ ordered the uncle to give the daughters and their mother their prescribed shares, leaving him the remainder. Ibn al-ʿArabī draws a point from that order: if the uncle had inherited it under an earlier law approved by Islam, a later change of law would not invalidate his completed inheritance. Requiring him to surrender those shares shows that he had taken property to which he was not entitled, rather than inherited it under an earlier Islamic rule that the new verse repealed.^[20]

A separate change concerned bequests. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما describes an earlier arrangement in which children received the estate and parents received provision through a bequest; Allah then prescribed their inheritance shares. Al-Bukhārī records this athar.^[21] The accounts in al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Mundhir also mention near relatives. This earlier bequest arrangement is distinct from the pre-Islamic seizure of women's property.^[22]

Conclusion: The widow’s request is the occasion of 4:11 (Ibn Kathīr, al-Shawkānī). Ibn Kathīr connects Jābir’s own question to 4:176, while Ibn Ḥajar explains the wording naming 4:11 through the connected kalālah provision in 4:12; the opening can identify that passage without saying Ibn Jurayj was mistaken. The verse ended the exclusion of women and children and replaced the earlier bequest arrangement for parents with prescribed shares.^[23]

And Allah knows best.

Q2. Who falls under أَوْلَادِكُمْ, and who is excluded?

Who inherits as a child of the deceased, and what can prevent that child from inheriting? These are separate questions. Sons and daughters both come within أَوْلَادِكُمْ, “your children.” Grandchildren require further rules about the line and degree of descent. Even a close relative may be barred by an impediment established in the Sunnah (Ibn ʿĀshūr).^[1]

Children and grandchildren: relationship is not the same as entitlement

The verse includes sons and daughters, children and adults. Its next words explain why: “for the male, the share of two females” presupposes that both sexes belong to “your children.” Childhood does not remove that entitlement. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما likewise explained that the male's share applies whether he is young or grown, in the report transmitted through ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa (reported by Ibn Abī Ḥātim).^[6]

The next question is which grandchildren inherit in that class. A son’s descendants may inherit when no nearer son excludes them. A daughter, however, does not exclude all grandchildren through sons. The distinction is important: the absence of an immediate son, rather than the absence of every immediate child, allows some of these grandchildren to inherit (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Qurṭubī).^[7]

Consider a daughter and a son's daughter. The daughter takes one half. The son's daughter takes one sixth, bringing their combined fixed shares to two thirds. With two immediate daughters, the two-thirds share is already complete, so the son’s daughter has no additional fixed share (al-Saʿdī). She may share the residue with a son’s son at her own degree (Ibn Rajab, al-Zuḥaylī), or with a more distant male descendant when she has no fixed share without him (Ibn Rajab). He does not make a female descendant below his degree a residuary heir (Ibn Rajab).^[8]

This last case is disputed. After the immediate daughters have received two thirds, the majority allows the qualifying male descendant and the female with him to share the residue. Ibn Masʿūd's reported position gives that residue to the sons' sons without their sisters (al-Qurṭubī). The basic entitlement of a son's daughter beside one immediate daughter should therefore be distinguished from this further dispute about the residue.^[9]

Descendants through a daughter

The line of descent matters as well as its degree. A son’s descendants enter this descendant-heir class through their paternal line. A daughter’s children belong to their own father’s paternal family, so they do not inherit as the children named in this provision. They may instead inherit as other kindred, outside these fixed shares, when the applicable rules admit them. Exclusion from this class does not deny their descent from their maternal grandfather. Al-Shanqīṭī distinguishes the use of وَلَد in the inheritance verses from broader family terms such as ذُرِّيَّة and نَسْل, “descendants” or “offspring.” His discussion also considers بَنُون, “sons,” and عَقِب, “posterity,” in contexts that include descent through a daughter.^[10] A family term does not always give a right to inherit: someone called a “son” through adoption or suckling does not thereby inherit as a son by birth (Ibn Juzayy).^[11]

This distinction between an inheritance class and wider descent explains the use, and the limit, of the poetic witness about paternal affiliation (al-Marāghī, Rashīd Riḍā):^[12]

The line concerns paternal affiliation: a daughter's son belongs to his own father's paternal family. It does not deny that he descends from his maternal grandfather. Riḍā takes the Prophet’s description of al-Ḥasan as his son as particular to the Prophet ﷺ.^[13] Yet the Prophet ﷺ called al-Ḥasan ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ, “This son of mine is a leader,” although al-Ḥasan was his daughter’s son.^[14] Al-Shanqīṭī uses this hadith to answer those who would make the poem exclude daughters' children from every use of “sons.” The inheritance rule and the wider language of descent are therefore separate matters.

The legal entitlement raises a question about language: when a grandson inherits, is he already included in the ordinary meaning of وَلَد, or does another proof extend the ruling to him?

One answer treats “child” as literal for an immediate child and figurative for a grandchild. Ordinary speech allows someone to say, “He is not his child, but his grandson.” The grandson's exclusion by an immediate son is also used to support the distinction. That is the figurative explanation preferred by Ibn al-ʿArabī and described as the apparent meaning by Abū Ḥayyān, with the Shāfiʿī attribution recorded by al-Qurṭubī.

The other answer includes a son's child literally but distinguishes inclusion from priority. Both generations may belong to the word “children” without both inheriting together: the nearer son excludes the more distant grandson. On this explanation, inclusion in the word does not remove the separate rules of exclusion (al-Qurṭubī; the Ḥanafī attribution is reported by al-Shawkānī).

The figurative interpretation must then explain estates in which an immediate child and a grandchild inherit together. How can one use of “children” refer to both literally and figuratively? One answer establishes the grandchild's entitlement through the Sunnah and analogy. Another applies the verse to grandchildren where there is no immediate child, or where an immediate child does not take the whole inheritance. A third understands “son” to have a shared literal meaning, مُتَوَاطِئ: both a son and a son's son are descendants, while separate rules determine their shares. The prohibition on marrying the wives of “your sons who are from your loins” in 4:23 supports that last interpretation, because it includes sons' sons (al-Rāzī).^[15]

For the basic case of sons' descendants inheriting in the absence of immediate children, the linguistic disagreement does not change the entitlement (al-Shawkānī).^[16]

When a child is barred from inheritance

The general word “children” must also be considered alongside the evidence barring some relatives from inheritance. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ records agreement that a non-Muslim does not inherit from a Muslim, that an enslaved person does not inherit, and that deliberate killing bars the killer. He records disagreement in the opposite direction of the religion rule: whether a Muslim may inherit from a non-Muslim.^[17]

Further restrictions concern the estates of prophets, an accidental killer's claim to the blood money, and relatives whose order of death cannot be established. These require their own evidence; they are not all instances of the same impediment.^[18]

The evidence concerning religion is Usāma b. Zayd's رضي الله عنهما report that the Prophet ﷺ said:

The prohibition also appears in the broader wording “People of two different religions do not inherit from one another,” transmitted by al-Jaṣṣāṣ;^[20] al-Khāzin cites Usāma's report from the two Ṣaḥīḥs.^[21] Al-Rāzī describes the wording “People of two different religions do not inherit from one another” as widely received and accepted by the Muslim community.^[22]

The majority applies the rule in both directions. The exception reported from Muʿādh and others permits a Muslim to inherit from a non-Muslim; it does not permit the reverse. Abū Ḥayyān records Muʿādh’s exception. A permissible bequest is a different legal arrangement and must not be confused with inheritance (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[23]

An enslaved person lacks the independent ownership required for inheritance (Rashīd Riḍā). Abū Ḥayyān records agreement on the exclusion.^[24] A deliberate killer, by contrast, loses an inheritance he would otherwise have received. His exclusion is a punishment for killing the deceased, not a denial of the family relationship (Rashīd Riḍā).^[25]

Conclusion: “Your children” includes sons and daughters and qualifying descendants through an unbroken male line, subject to proximity, fixed shares and the established bars to inheritance. A daughter’s children may inherit as other kindred, but not through this verse’s descendant shares.

And Allah knows best.

Q3. Why does the male take the share of two females, and why is it said that way?

The verse says لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ, “for the male, the share of two females.” This is a rule for dividing the children's portion when sons and daughters inherit together. It states a proportion, not a fixed fraction of every estate. We therefore need to distinguish his proportion from his fraction of the estate, then ask why his portion is larger and why the verse measures it through hers. The proposed explanations from capacity must also be tested against the financial duties.

The proportion and the estate are different things

When sons and daughters are the only heirs, they divide the whole estate at two to one. When daughters inherit without a son, the later clauses assign their fixed shares. A lone son takes the whole estate if there is no other entitled heir, as al-Zamakhsharī and al-Shawkānī state. Ibn al-Munayyir, al-Rāzī and al-Māturīdī explain how the comparison yields that result: twice the lone daughter’s half is the whole.^[4]

When other entitled heirs have fixed shares, those portions are assigned first. The children then divide the residue by the same two-to-one proportion (Ibn al-ʿArabī). The number of sons or daughters does not alter that proportion (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).^[5] The Sunnah establishes the order of fixed shares and residue. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما reports that the Prophet ﷺ said:

Thus “twice a daughter's share” is not a fixed fraction of the whole estate. If a son and a daughter alone inherit, he receives two thirds and she one third. If a son and two daughters alone inherit, he receives one half and each daughter one quarter. His fraction changes; the two-to-one proportion does not.

The financial responsibilities behind the division

The larger share accompanies larger financial obligations. A man is responsible for maintenance and mahr and bears the burdens of earning to meet those duties. A woman retains her own property while her husband is responsible for her maintenance. The division therefore has to be understood alongside the law's allocation of expenditure, not as an isolated comparison of the amounts received (Ibn Kathīr, al-Zuḥaylī, Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[7]

The relevant comparison is therefore not just what each heir receives, but what each must spend. The person charged with greater expenditure needs greater provision (al-Rāzī).^[8] A woman whose maintenance is paid by her husband may retain more of her inheritance for herself, despite receiving the smaller share (Rashīd Riḍā).^[9] Explaining this verse, al-Shanqīṭī points to 4:34: the obligation to maintain another person helps explain the larger allocation needed to meet it.^[10]

Are claims about women's capacity an additional explanation?

Some commentators offer further reasons based on differences of capacity and religious responsibilities. Al-Rāzī includes arguments about men's qualifications for particular offices and women's susceptibility to desire; al-Ālūsī also discusses capacity alongside financial need.^[11]

The objection is that these assertions do not establish why an inheritance share should be smaller. If someone has less ability to earn, that could be a reason to provide more, not less. Nor can unlawful extravagance establish the wisdom of a lawful distribution. Rashīd Riḍā rejects these proposed explanations as reasons for the division.^[12]

The financial explanation does not require those additional premises. It follows from duties imposed by the law itself: maintenance and mahr accompany the larger portion. Neither explanation licenses complete deprivation. A larger male share is not an excuse to deny the female's entitlement (al-Rāzī).^[13]

Why is the female's share the measure?

The verse could have expressed the calculation as “the female receives half the male's share.” Instead, it begins with what the male receives and defines it by the share of two females.

Beginning with “for the male” states his larger share directly. It also limits the preference: he receives twice a daughter's share, not an entitlement to take hers as well. The pre-Islamic exclusion of women cannot continue when both sexes inherit through the same relationship (al-Zamakhsharī, al-Nasafī, Abū Ḥayyān, al-Bayḍāwī).^[14] Ibn al-Munayyir describes the explicit statement of his larger portion as مَنْطُوق: the larger male portion is stated, rather than merely inferred from a statement about the female's portion.^[15] The emphasis is on an increased share for him rather than a reduced share for her (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[16]

The earlier exclusion of women does not by itself explain why this formula was chosen. In a marginal note of his own, Ibn Kamāl objects to al-Zamakhsharī’s reason from the Jāhiliyya practice: “For two females, the share of one male” would also recognise women’s entitlement. That cause alone therefore does not distinguish the actual wording from the alternative.^[17]

The distinction lies in which share becomes the measure. The verse treats the female’s share as the recognised quantity and defines the male’s by it. The alternative also permits her to inherit, but the chosen expression gives prominence to the right previously denied to her. Ibn ʿĀshūr mentions the alternative formulations before explaining this point: Islam calls attention to her entitlement as soon as the words are heard. Al-Marāghī likewise connects the wording with the correction of the earlier practice.^[18]

Ibn Kamāl considers a further ambiguity. “Twice the female’s share,” he argues, could invite comparison with the reduction in other residuaries’ portions when the number of daughters grows. The actual formula directly gives the son the equivalent of two female units.^[19] This is a proportion, not a fixed fraction of the whole estate: his fraction can still change as the number of daughters changes.

Conclusion: When sons and daughters inherit together, each son receives twice a daughter’s share. The larger portion corresponds to the financial duties the law places on him, including maintenance and mahr. By describing his share through hers, the verse both states his larger entitlement and treats her inheritance as the measure of the division.

And Allah knows best.

Q4. What do two daughters take, when the verse names the case of فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ and the case of one?

The verse assigns one daughter a half and more than two daughters two thirds. What, then, is the share of exactly two daughters when there is no son? The adopted ruling is two thirds. The discussion concerns the evidence for that ruling, the meaning of “above two,” and the half-share position reported from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما.

The evidence for two thirds

Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh رضي الله عنهما relates that Saʿd b. al-Rabīʿ's widow brought her two daughters to the Prophet ﷺ after their uncle had taken the estate. The instruction to him was:

The ruling is direct: the two daughters received two thirds. This is the strongest proof identified by al-Qurṭubī, al-Shawkānī, al-Zuḥaylī and Makkī.^[5] The hadith's asanid and differing assessments are explained in Q1.

That assessment of the proof is not universal. Ibn ʿĀshūr questions using the Saʿd report to decide this point because its transmitted forms differ over two daughters or three. He nevertheless adopts two thirds, preferring the argument from the verse's first clause.^[6]

Even without treating the widow’s hadith as the sole proof, the two-person case is stated directly in the provision for sisters:

The comparison is that two daughters, who are nearer to the deceased than sisters, have at least as strong a claim to this collective share. The two passages also complement one another: 4:11 states the share of more than two daughters, while 4:176 states the share of exactly two sisters. The corresponding cases are explained together, rather than treating either passage as an isolated list (al-Zajjāj, al-Zarkashī; al-Māwardī reports the majority's argument).^[7]

The opening ratio in this verse supplies a further comparison. A son and daughter inheriting alone receive two thirds and one third. The verse calls the son's portion “the share of two females.” One argument therefore identifies the two-thirds portion as the share of two daughters (al-Jaṣṣāṣ). A related argument starts from the daughter’s third: if she receives that much beside a brother, each of two daughters has at least as strong a claim to a third beside her sister (Ibn ʿĀshūr prefers this reasoning).^[8] The sources differ in assigning these arguments: al-Zajjāj gives al-Mubarrad and Ismāʿīl b. Isḥāq the first, while al-Qurṭubī and Ibn ʿĀshūr give them the second. Abū Yaʿlā also explains the omission of the two-daughter case by the comparison with a daughter beside her brother.^[9]

The objection is that this transfers an amount between different family combinations. Two daughters beside a son receive one half between them, not two thirds. Their portion in that combination could therefore also be called “the share of two females” (al-Naḥḥās).^[10]

The bare transfer of a fraction cannot answer that objection: the family combination matters. A more specific answer takes the expression “the share of two females” as an unqualified description of the son’s portion. With one son and one daughter, that portion is two thirds. If the description also identifies what two daughters receive, which case can it mean? It cannot mean two daughters with a son, because those daughters receive only one half between them. On this interpretation, it identifies the two-thirds share of two daughters without a son. Ibn Rajab reports this argument from unnamed scholars. It identifies the daughters-only case rather than giving the same fraction to every combination; the direct Prophetic ruling remains the decisive proof, as al-Naḥḥās himself concludes.^[11]

Another inference compares two daughters with one. The half is assigned to a daughter alone; treating two daughters as entitled to the same half would leave that restriction unexplained. Al-Rāzī develops this among his proofs, while Ibn Kathīr and al-Saʿdī use the contrast between the one-daughter provision and the collective share.^[12]

A further Sunnah comparison concerns a daughter and a son's daughter. If the more distant son's daughter can complete their combined shares to two thirds, a second immediate daughter has a stronger claim to do so (Ibn Rajab). Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه explains the Prophetic ruling:

Why does “above two” not establish a half for two?

Against these proofs, the reported half-share position takes the condition literally: two are not “above two,” so the two-thirds provision does not name them. This uses مَفْهُوم الْمُخَالَفَة (mafhūm al-mukhālafa), the inference that a ruling tied to a stated condition excludes cases without it. This is the objection al-Qurṭubī identifies. A further defence compares the two proposed shares: one half and two thirds. Both give the daughters at least one half; the disputed additional sixth, on this argument, should not be awarded without proof. Al-Ālūsī answers that appeal to certainty with the Saʿd hadith: its stated allocation establishes the additional entitlement.^[14]

Yet excluding two from that clause does not establish their entitlement to a half. The following clause also has a condition: “if there is one, she receives a half.” Applying exclusion to both conditions would remove two daughters from both stated shares. A further proof is needed to determine their entitlement. The Sunnah provides that proof. The qualifier “above two” also has a positive purpose: it fixes the collective share however many daughters there are, rather than increasing it with their number (Ibn al-Munayyir).^[15]

This tafsīr retains the half as Ibn ʿAbbās’s reported position; it does not need to deny that attribution in order to follow the two thirds. The evidence for his reported dissent is itself disputed. Al-Zajjāj doubts the attribution, and Ibn Rajab records criticism of its isnād.^[16] Al-Qurṭubī accepts it and therefore rejects an unqualified claim of consensus as proof of the two-thirds share.^[17]

The other scholars are reported to have agreed on two thirds (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿAṭiyya and others).^[18] Ibn ʿĀshūr answers al-Qurṭubī that a later consensus could have formed despite Ibn ʿAbbās’s earlier dissent. The distinction matters: an earlier disagreement does not by itself disprove an agreement reached afterwards.^[19]

A reported retraction offers another explanation for the claims of agreement. Al-Ālūsī quotes al-Armūnī, through Sharḥ al-Yanbūʿ, as saying that Ibn ʿAbbās returned to the two-thirds position.^[20] Al-Wāḥidī describes the agreement with Ibn ʿAbbās excepted.^[21] These accounts distinguish the reported dissent from claims about later agreement. The two-thirds ruling does not rest on choosing one of those historical accounts: its direct Sunnah proof stands before that dispute.

What does فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ mean?

Having established the share of two from its proofs, we can decide what this clause itself says. The phrase فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ has also been explained as “two and above” (Ibn ʿAṭiyya).^[22] There are different grammatical arguments for including two. A plural may sometimes refer to two, or the phrase may be understood as “two, and whatever exceeds two.” Another explanation treats فَوْقَ as صِلَة, an added grammatical element, and compares “above the necks” in 8:12. Makkī records that last explanation.^[23]

The interpretation adopted here retains the ordinary meaning “more than two.” The two-daughter share is then known from the other evidence, rather than by changing “above” into “at least.” Abū Ḥayyān rejects the “two and above” explanation and the claim of redundancy.^[24]

There is a useful reason to retain “above”: three daughters and ten daughters receive the same collective fixed share. Their number does not raise it beyond two thirds (Ibn ʿUthaymīn). Al-Ṭabarī explains the exactly-two case through the Sunnah, while Ibn ʿĀshūr likewise distinguishes that case from the wording about more than two.^[25]

The pronoun is a further objection to making this clause refer to exactly two. The verse says فَلَهُنَّ, “for them,” in the plural; if it meant precisely two, one would expect the dual فَلَهُمَا, “for the two of them.” Ibn Kathīr uses this argument to retain the ordinary meaning of “above two.” He establishes the two-daughter share from the sisters' provision, the Saʿd hadith and the separate half assigned to a single daughter.^[26]

Conclusion: Two daughters without a son receive two thirds, established by the Prophetic ruling and supported by the provision for two sisters. “Above two” keeps its ordinary meaning; the exactly-two case is established by the other evidence. The half for two is Ibn ʿAbbās's reported position, and the rest of the umma hold the two thirds.

And Allah knows best.

Q5. What do the parents take, and what does the mother take when a husband or a wife inherits beside them?

The parents' shares depend on who else survives the deceased. A sixth for each parent is not the rule in every estate. The main distinction here is between an estate with a child, an estate inherited by the parents alone, and the two cases in which a husband or wife inherits beside them.

The parents' shares before considering a spouse

With a child, the verse assigns one sixth to each parent. Without a child, it assigns the mother one third when the parents inherit alone. The later clause concerning siblings must also be considered: two or more qualifying siblings reduce her to one sixth under the adopted ruling explained in Q6, even when the father excludes them from receiving the estate.^[4]

The father can inherit in two capacities. Beside a daughter, he receives his prescribed sixth and may also receive what remains after the fixed shares, as the nearest residuary heir, عَصَبَة. For example, with one daughter and both parents as the only heirs, the daughter receives one half, the mother one sixth, and the father his sixth plus the remaining sixth: one third in all (al-Biqāʿī).^[5]

When the parents alone inherit, the mother's third leaves two thirds for the father. Al-Māwardī explains his entitlement through تَعْصِيب: he receives the residue after the mother's fixed share. Both are parents, but only the father inherits here as a residuary heir.^[6] Al-Qurṭubī understands the father's two thirds in this particular case as a share fixed by the wording itself. He also questions explanations based on masculinity, support and maintenance: those considerations exist when a child is present, yet the verse then assigns both parents a sixth. His preferred answer is تَعَبُّد: the prescribed allocation is obeyed as Allah’s command. Both explanations give the father two thirds; they differ over its legal basis.^[7]

The two spouse-and-parents cases

When a husband or wife inherits beside both parents, the spouse’s share is taken out first. The majority then gives the mother one third of the parents’ remainder and the father the rest. In the husband case, their portions are one sixth and one third of the whole; in the wife case, one quarter and one half. The table shows those divisions:

The husband-and-parents and wife-and-parents cases are the two عُمَرِيَّتَان, associated with ʿUmar's رضي الله عنه rulings. Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه relates his decision in the wife case:

The husband case prompted an exchange between Ibn ʿAbbās and Zayd b. Thābit رضي الله عنهم, related by ʿIkrima:

Giving the mother a third of the whole beside a husband would leave only one sixth for the father. Zayd objects to giving the mother more than the father. When the parents alone inherit, the father receives twice the mother's portion; giving her a third of the whole beside a husband reverses that proportion (Abū Ḥayyān).^[10] The comparison uses the parents-alone division to guide the spouse case whose particular division is not stated. Al-Khaṭṭābī describes this as measuring the unstated case against the stated one.^[11]

The argument for a third of the whole

The objection to that result begins with the verse’s apparent wording: “for his mother, one third.” It does not say “a third of what remains.” The preceding sixth is a portion “of what he left”; why should the following third have a different basis? Al-Ālūsī explains Ibn ʿAbbās's position through this connection: both fractions can be understood as shares of the estate left for inheritance, after its debts and bequests.^[12]

The two spouse cases do not produce the same objection. With a husband, a third of the whole gives the mother twice the father's share. With a wife, however, the wife takes 3/12, the mother 4/12 and the father 5/12. The mother does not receive more than the father. This explains the split position reported from Ibn Sīrīn and held by al-Aṣamm: a third of the remainder with a husband, but a third of the whole with a wife. Al-Ālūsī acknowledges that the objection about preferring the mother cannot by itself answer that position.^[13]

Why the majority takes a third of the remainder in both cases

The majority answers by taking the third together with its condition: وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ, “and his parents inherit him.” If that describes the parents inheriting alone, the one third belongs to that stated case. Where a spouse also inherits, the spouse's share must first be removed before the parents divide their portion (al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[14] The condition identifies the amount inherited by the parents, rather than every amount left by the deceased (al-Zajjāj).^[15]

This answers the split position as well as the husband case. The spouse’s fixed share is separate in both estates, so the rule concerns the parents’ portion even where a third of the whole would not make the mother receive more than the father. Ibn Kathīr adopts this ruling and attributes it to the four imams and the majority.^[16]

The supporting comparisons help explain why the division can remain one to two after the spouse’s separate entitlement is met:

1. The parents-alone case supplies the one-to-two proportion used for their joint portion.
2. When two people share an amount in a settled proportion and a separate entitlement is taken from it, the remainder can still be divided in that proportion.
3. The spouse inherits through marriage rather than kinship. Setting that fixed share aside before dividing the parents' portion is compared with setting aside a bequest.
4. With a husband taking one half, giving the mother one third of the whole leaves the father one sixth: she receives twice his share. This argument applies لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ, “for the male, the share of two females,” to the parents as corresponding heirs and rejects a result that reverses that proportion.

Al-Rāzī distinguishes the legal methods: the first three qualify the apparent generality of “for his mother, one third” through قِيَاس, analogy; the fourth qualifies it through the Qurʾānic male–female proportion. The comparison concerns these corresponding heirs, not a universal rule that every male heir receives twice every female heir.^[17]

A further textual argument asks what “one third” is a third of. The verse says “and his parents inherit him; for his mother, one third,” without repeating “of what he left” here. The absent phrase “of what he left” is the additional textual support: the third need not always be measured against the original estate (Ibn Rajab).^[18]

The recorded wider agreement supports this ruling without erasing the attributed exceptions discussed above (al-Zajjāj, al-Khaṭṭābī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr).^[19]

Conclusion: In the two spouse-and-parents cases, the mother receives a third of the remainder, and the father what remains. When the parents alone inherit, without a child, qualifying descendant or two or more reducing siblings, her third is of the whole estate. With a child or qualifying descendant, each parent receives a sixth; the father also takes any residue when the descendants are female and no qualifying male descendant is present.

And Allah knows best.

Q6. How many siblings reduce the mother to a sixth, which siblings count, and who takes what she loses?

The verse says فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ, “if he has siblings, his mother receives one sixth.” Three matters need separating: how many siblings count, which kinds count, and whether reducing the mother’s share gives those siblings an entitlement of their own. The last two also require us to ask whether siblings whom the father excludes still reduce her.

The last question concerns an estate with a father present. In the simple parents-and-siblings case, without a child or spouse, the majority gives the mother one sixth and the father the remaining five sixths. The siblings reduce her share but receive nothing.

Why does the majority count two?

The majority counts two siblings or more. This is possible linguistically because Arabic sometimes uses a plural expression for two. Al-Qurṭubī illustrates this with al-Khalīl’s answer to Sībawayh about “their two faces.” He also cites a hadith transmitted through a narrator whom al-Bayhaqī calls weak: اثْنَانِ فَمَا فَوْقَهُمَا جَمَاعَةٌ, “two and above are a congregation,” in Ibn Mājah’s wording.^[5] The linguistic argument is also illustrated by poetry.

The poetic witnesses make the usage concrete. The first is a rajaz verse:

The plural ظُهُور, “backs,” is used with two shields. A second witness, cited by al-Akhfash, gives a plural verb for two women:

The verb is فَقُلْنَ, a feminine plural. The third witness contrasts a rich man and a poor man before changing from the dual to plural verbs:

After بَيْنَهُمَا, “between the two,” the verbs مَاتُوا وَصَارُوا are plural. These are the uses al-Qurṭubī cites in explaining how two may be included. He also appeals to Quraysh's practice, as described in ʿUthmān's exchange with Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهم.^[9]

The possibility of using a plural for two does not by itself establish that this verse does so. The majority rule also rests on the inherited legal practice. Al-Ṭabarī relies on the community’s transmitted ruling and a particular Arabic usage: a plural can name one member from each of two people, as in “their backs” or “your hearts” in 66:4. He compares the two siblings with this usage; he does not make two the ordinary minimum of every plural. Ibn al-Jawzī likewise regards three as the ordinary minimum but accepts that other evidence establishes two here. Mālik describes counting two or more as the established Sunnah.^[10]

The objection that two are not a plural

The alternative requires three because إِخْوَة is a plural, not a dual. That objection was put to ʿUthmān by Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهم in the account al-Ṭabarī transmits:

The argument distinguishes the dual from the plural: the verse uses إِخْوَةٌ, not أَخَوَانِ, “two brothers” (Ibn Juzayy).^[12] Ibn Kathīr questions the exchange's isnād because it passes through Shuʿba, the mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās, whom Mālik criticised. He also observes that Ibn ʿAbbās's closest companions did not adopt the reported position. ^[13]

The isnād dispute is not the whole answer. Even if three is the ordinary minimum, it does not forbid an established plural usage for two in a particular context. Zayd رضي الله عنه is reported to have answered that Arabs do call two brothers “brothers” (al-Ālūsī).^[14]

A different argument accepts three as the ordinary minimum but compares the other inheritance rules. Two daughters receive the same two thirds as three; two maternal sisters receive the same one third as three. The proposed analogy therefore treats two sisters like three in reducing the mother’s share, and extends the result to two brothers because no position distinguishes the sexes here.

Al-Rāzī presents that argument but raises an objection: a sound analogy needs a common rationale, and the reason for these exact prescribed fractions cannot simply be assumed. He considers using the repeated pattern as induction instead, then calls that approach very weak.^[15] His further support for the majority ruling is the Successors’ agreement after the earlier disagreement; in his account of uṣūl al-fiqh, such a later agreement is binding.^[16] The adopted ruling therefore does not depend on making analogy fix an unexplained fraction. The transmitted inheritance rule establishes two here, and the Arabic usage permits it; the ordinary minimum of a plural does not overturn those combined grounds.

Sisters and half-siblings also count

Once the number is settled, the same rule must be applied to the kinds of siblings. Under the majority rule, the count includes brothers or sisters, full siblings, paternal half-siblings and maternal half-siblings. Two of one kind or a combination count. The masculine expression includes the feminine by تَغْلِيب (taghlīb), using one form for the combined group (Abū Ḥayyān; al-Qurṭubī and al-Zuḥaylī state the wider inclusion).^[17]

Does reducing the mother give the siblings a share?

A distinct alternative gives the siblings the sixth taken from the mother, a position reported from Ibn ʿAbbās through Ṭāwūs. Its argument starts from an apparent pattern: an heir who does not inherit does not reduce another's share. If the siblings reduce the mother from a third to a sixth, they should receive the sixth removed from her. Ibn ʿĀshūr prefers that result and supports it by comparing the siblings' inheritance with the mother when the father is absent.^[18]

Al-Ālūsī also records a mursal report from Ṭāwūs about the Prophet ﷺ, without naming a Companion: أَعْطَى الإِخْوَةَ السُّدُسَ مَعَ الأَبَوَيْنِ, “He gave the siblings a sixth alongside the two parents.” This is the alternative’s strongest reported support, but the same discussion gives its answer. Ṭāwūs later questioned a son of one of those siblings and was told that the sixth had been a bequest. It would then be no proof that they inherited beside their father; al-Ālūsī treats it as support for the majority, since there is no bequest to an heir.^[19]

The majority answer separates the two effects. The verse mentions the siblings to reduce the mother's portion; it does not assign them a new portion beside the father. Al-Ṭabarī rejects the lost-sixth interpretation because siblings do not inherit alongside their father under the established ruling.^[20] Al-Zajjāj likewise reports the agreement of the jurists of the major cities that they receive nothing in that case.^[21]

Ibn Kathīr accepts its chain as ṣaḥīḥ but calls the position it reports shādh. Al-Sarakhsī raises a different objection: Ibn ʿAbbās agrees with Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه that a grandfather excludes siblings. How, then, could he give them a share alongside the father, who is nearer to the deceased? Al-Ālūsī records this challenge to the attribution.^[22] The adopted answer rests on the father’s established exclusion of siblings: reducing the mother and inheriting beside the father are different effects.

Where the surviving siblings are also the father’s children, their maintenance and marriage expenses may fall on him rather than on the mother. This responsibility explains why the increased portion goes to him in that case. Ibn Kathīr commends Qatāda’s explanation, and Mawdūdī also uses it.^[23]

The same distinction answers the claim that the lost sixth must be theirs. Al-Māwardī adds two objections. First, for full and paternal siblings, the kinship argument is that the father excludes relatives connected to the deceased through him; the paternal grandfather provides another example of that exclusion. Second, residuary heirs do not receive a prescribed fraction simply as residuaries; sons illustrate this. The second objection challenges treating the lost sixth as a prescribed share for the siblings (al-Māwardī).^[24]

The alternative that excluded siblings do not reduce the mother

There is also an alternative application of that principle: instead of giving the siblings the lost sixth, it leaves the mother her third. Ibn Taymiyya applies “one who does not inherit does not exclude” to siblings prevented from inheriting by the father. On that view, their presence cannot reduce the mother’s share. Ibn Rajab distinguishes a relative who is eligible to inherit but excluded by a nearer heir from someone who lacks eligibility because of enslavement or difference of religion.^[25]

Ibn ʿUthaymīn calls the first مَحْجُوب بِالشَّخْص, excluded by another person: the brother is eligible, but the father prevents him from taking a share. The second is مَحْجُوب بِالْوَصْف, excluded by a condition of the person, such as difference of religion or enslavement: an essential condition of eligibility is absent. This is why the first brother can reduce the mother’s share despite receiving nothing himself, while a person lacking eligibility cannot.^[26] A related argument treats the absence of a repeated mention of the father as leaving the siblings the remainder. That does not follow: Ibn Rajab observes that they could be maternal siblings, whose collective share cannot exceed a third.^[27]

Conclusion: Two or more qualifying siblings, whether brothers or sisters and whether full, paternal or maternal, reduce the mother to one sixth even when the father excludes them. In the parents-and-siblings case without a child or spouse, the father takes the remaining five sixths and the siblings nothing. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما is reported to have required three, and the Successors agreed against him.

And Allah knows best.

Q7. Which is paid first, the debt or the bequest, and why does the verse name the bequest first?

The shares are assigned مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ, “after any bequest he makes, or debt.” The bequest is mentioned first, but debts are paid first. The distinction is between the order of the words and the order in which claims on the estate are satisfied. A valid bequest also has limits of amount and beneficiary; naming it first does not remove the heirs’ protected rights.

What is available for inheritance?

An existing debt is an obligation on the deceased. A bequest is a disposition he chooses to make. The obligation must be satisfied before that chosen gift is executed (Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Māwardī).^[3]

The ordinary sequence explained in these commentaries is:

1. Meet the costs of preparing and burying the deceased.
2. Pay the debts.
3. Execute valid property bequests from the remaining amount.
4. Divide the balance among the heirs.

A debt may consume the available estate; in that event neither heir nor legatee receives a share. The debt-before-bequest order is reported as ijmāʿ by the commentators.^[4]

ʿAlī رضي الله عنه relates the Prophetic ruling in the wording al-Ṭabarī transmits:

The objection to this hadith concerns al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar in its chain, not the order in which the estate is distributed. Al-Tirmidhī records criticism of him,^[6] and Ibn Ḥajar grades the isnād weak. Al-Albānī nevertheless grades the hadith ḥasan on its supporting evidence.^[7]

The debt-first rule was also the scholars’ established practice, as al-Tirmidhī records; Ibn Kathīr additionally notes al-Ḥārith’s particular knowledge of inheritance and calculation.^[8] The verse does not require the opposite order: أَوْ, “or,” names the claims that must be settled, but does not say “first the bequest, then the debt” (al-Rāzī).^[9]

Why mention the bequest first?

An heir may resent a gift that reduces what he will receive. A bequest is a gift received without an exchange, whereas paying a debt discharges an existing obligation. It is therefore especially liable to neglect. Naming it first draws attention to its fulfilment without changing the creditor's priority (al-Zamakhsharī).^[10]

The creditor normally knows what is owed and can demand payment. A bequest may be easier to conceal, especially if its beneficiary does not know it exists. Naming the bequest first therefore emphasizes the right more likely to be neglected (Ibn ʿAṭiyya; Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[11]

The difference can also be stated in terms of how the obligations arise. A debt remains due even if the deceased says nothing about it; a bequest depends on his instruction and may provide for vulnerable people.^[12] Mawdūdī instead contrasts an existing debt, which not every person leaves, with the bequest, which he holds everyone should make.^[13]

Another explanation starts with what must happen before the heirs can receive their shares. Their inheritance follows execution of the bequest, and execution of the bequest follows payment of the debt. Read against that established legal order, mentioning the bequest before the debt does not reverse their priority (Ibn al-Munayyir).^[14]

The conjunction is explained as إِبَاحَة (ibāḥa): either claim, or both, may be present before inheritance. The grammatical example is “sit with al-Ḥasan or Ibn Sīrīn”: either is allowed without making one chronologically first. In this verse, a debt, a bequest or both precede the heirs' division (al-Zamakhsharī, al-Māwardī, al-Zuḥaylī, al-Nasafī).^[15]

One third of what?

The bequest limit concerns the estate actually available to give. Wealth owed to creditors must first be paid to them, so the third is calculated from what remains after the prior liabilities, not from the gross estate.^[16] Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ رضي الله عنه asked about bequeathing all his property, then half, then a third. The Prophet ﷺ replied:

This raises a further question: does the third remain the limit when there is no heir to protect? Al-Nawawī and al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ record the majority position that it does. In ʿIyāḍ’s explanation of the two positions, the public treasury can stand as a known heir whose claim limits the bequest.^[18]

The Ḥanafī position permits the whole estate to be bequeathed in that case. Its reason is that the limit protects heirs’ rights; where none exists, that reason no longer restricts the bequest. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ also distinguishes the treasury’s receipt of otherwise unclaimed property from a family heir’s entitlement, while al-Rāzī draws the same permission from the hadith’s concern for the heirs.^[19]

The bequest may therefore include the whole net estate when there is no one entitled to inherit by a fixed share, as a residuary or under the rules for other relatives. Having no children is not enough: a spouse or another entitled relative still has a protected right. This follows the permission applied by IslamQA, which also makes clear that qualifying relatives outside the fixed-share and residuary classes must be considered.^[20]

A bequest to an heir and the heirs' authorization

A bequest is not a means of increasing one heir’s prescribed share at the expense of the others. The ordinary permission is to bequeath within one third to non-heirs, as Saʿīd b. Jubayr explains.^[21] Abū Umāma رضي الله عنه reports the Prophet’s ﷺ explanation:

Allah has already assigned the heir’s entitlement. Giving that heir an additional bequest without the other heirs’ permission would reduce what belongs to them. The general mention of a bequest in the verse must therefore be understood with this restriction from the Sunnah (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).^[23] Al-Qurṭubī quotes a further wording through ʿAlī, with a chain al-Bayhaqī criticizes: الدَّيْنُ قَبْلَ الْوَصِيَّةِ وَلَيْسَ لِوَارِثٍ وَصِيَّةٌ, “Debt precedes the bequest, and there is no bequest to an heir.”^[24]

The heirs may authorize a bequest above the third or to an heir. This tafsīr follows the position that their authorization must be given after death. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ explains why: during the person’s life they have not yet acquired the estate, so their permission cannot surrender a right that has not arisen. After death they may consent concerning the property that has become theirs; al-Saʿdī also states the consent qualification.^[25] The property bequest is also distinct from appointing someone to care for minor children: the latter is a charge, not a gift from the estate (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[26]

Conclusion: The debt is paid before the bequest although the verse names the bequest first, by the agreement of the umma; the bequest is named first because it is the one more easily neglected.

And Allah knows best.

Q8. What kind of benefit does لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا refer to, and why does the verse place this sentence here?

Between the shares and “an obligation from Allah” comes the reminder:

We need to ask both what benefit means and why this reminder appears within the inheritance provisions.

Why the broader interpretation includes both worlds

A parent's benefit to a child is not confined to money, nor is a child's benefit to a parent confined to service. Support and care matter in this life; spiritual benefit may matter in the next. Either generation may bring a benefit the other does not (Ibn Kathīr, al-Zuḥaylī).^[5]

The wording says نَفْعًا, “benefit,” without restricting it to a particular kind. The interpretation adopted here therefore includes both worlds (al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn ʿAṭiyya).^[6]

A narrower explanation concentrates on the Hereafter, a benefit that cannot be measured by what relatives give one another in this life. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما is reported to have said:

The parent may be higher in degree, or the child may be; the other can benefit through intercession. Muqātil describes a believing parent being raised to the child’s degree, or the child to the parent’s; al-Thawrī also explains the benefit as benefit in the Hereafter.^[8] Al-Ḥasan’s explanation, as al-Thaʿlabī records it, includes benefit in religion and this world, whereas Abū Ḥayyān records a Hereafter-only explanation from him.^[9]

The worldly explanation is most evident in times of need. Parents protect and raise their children; children may later support and care for their parents.^[10] Maintenance is the explanation reported from Mujāhid, Ibn Sīrīn and al-Suddī; Abū Ḥayyān also records the wider comparison of parental care with filial obedience and service.^[11] The two narrower explanations identify real forms of benefit, but neither requires us to exclude the other. Because the verse does not name one kind alone, both belong within the broader interpretation adopted here.

Does the sentence instead encourage a bequest?

A different explanation concerns the reminder’s position, rather than only the kind of benefit. It takes the sentence as encouraging fulfilment of the bequest and compares two deceased relatives: one left a bequest and the other did not. Executing the first person's bequest earns the heirs reward in the Hereafter, while the second leaves them more property to retain now. Immediate property is nearer in time, but it passes away; the deferred reward lasts. On this explanation, the lasting benefit is truly nearer.

The argument also depends on placement. A parenthetical sentence should reinforce the passage it interrupts. Since a bequest has just been mentioned, al-Zamakhsharī takes this reminder as encouragement to fulfil it rather than as an unrelated observation about maintenance or intercession.

The answer turns on what the parenthesis interrupts. The verse has named the heirs and their shares, and it goes on to call the division فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ, “an obligation from Allah.” A parenthesis should confirm the surrounding statement. Here the bequest is mentioned as a liability settled before inheritance, while the division of the estate remains the subject. The reminder therefore confirms those prescribed shares: human judgment cannot know their full benefit or replace them with a division it considers more useful (al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥayyān; al-Ālūsī reports this as the choice of many muḥaqqiqūn). Al-Zajjāj likewise explains that leaving the allocation to people would lead them to divide without wisdom; al-Biqāʿī describes this sentence as the confirming parenthesis that urges adherence to Allah’s division.^[12]

A person might favour the child expected to support him, or the parent he thinks has done more for him. But affection, need and usefulness change, and the future is unknown. None provides a reliable measure by which people can replace the prescribed shares with their own division. This is the warning developed by al-Rāzī, al-Qurṭubī, Muftī Shafīʿ, Mawdūdī and Sayyid Quṭb.^[13]

The law instead makes defined family relationships the basis of entitlement. A relative’s right does not depend on another person’s prediction of how useful that relative will be (Ibn ʿĀshūr). Even with their own parents and children, people cannot know which will benefit them most (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[14]

This does not mean that the person with the larger prescribed share must be more useful. The verse challenges the earlier practice of withholding inheritance from those thought less useful: people who cannot know which relative will benefit them most cannot use expected usefulness to justify excluding some and favouring others. It does not make usefulness a scale for ranking the prescribed shares (al-Ālūsī). Without Allah’s guidance, people could give to the wrong recipient or withhold from the rightful one (al-Zajjāj, Ibn al-Anbārī, al-Biqāʿī).^[15]

Conclusion: The shares are fixed by Allah because no one knows whether his parent or his child will bring him more benefit, in this world or the next.

And Allah knows best.

Q9. What does فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ require, and what do the closing Names explain?

The verse closes with فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا, “an obligation from Allah; indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.” The closing words establish that the division is binding and that it rests on Allah’s knowledge and wisdom. The grammatical question is how فَرِيضَةً, “an obligation,” relates to the preceding sentence.

The obligation and its grammatical expression

Allah's instruction here is a prescription, not optional advice. The verb يُوصِيكُمُ is accordingly explained as “He obliges you.” Ibn al-Jawzī also records an unnamed explanation for choosing the language of a charge: it conveys emphatic concern and a right belonging to the One who gives the instruction.^[4]

That obligatory instruction explains the closing noun. The analysis adopted here follows Dār al-Ṣaḥābah: فَرِيضَةً is a confirming verbal noun governed by an understood verb, “He prescribed that as an obligation.” The verb “prescribed” is understood from the preceding instructions. The noun فَرِيضَةً then reinforces their obligatory character (al-Ālūsī; al-Kharrāṭ calls it a مَفْعُول مُطْلَق, mafʿūl muṭlaq).^[5]

Why is the verb not stated? Al-Sāmarrāʾī distinguishes two constructions. A maṣdar used simply to reinforce its own verb requires that verb to be present. Here, however, the noun reinforces the meaning of the whole preceding statement: Allah has prescribed these shares. That is why this analysis allows an understood verb.^[6] Ibn ʿUthaymīn also allows the verbal noun itself to stand in place of its governing verb: it directly confirms the preceding prescription, without needing an omitted verb in that construction.^[7]

A different analysis understands فَرِيضَة as “something prescribed”: the pattern فَعِيلَة has the passive sense of مَفْعُولَة. On that explanation, the word is a confirming حَال, describing the shares as obligatory (Darwīsh).^[8] Al-Qurṭubī considers the ḥāl analysis weak, and al-Shawkānī prefers the maṣdar.^[9] This tafsīr adopts the maṣdar because it confirms the prescription already expressed by the whole division, with the verb understood from that command. Darwīsh’s morphological argument explains why he takes it as a ḥāl; the adopted construction instead follows its function as the confirming noun of the preceding prescription.

There is also a difference in how much of the preceding sentence the word confirms. Al-Ṭabarī permits it to describe the mother’s sixth in particular: that portion is prescribed by Allah. The broader construction relates it to the division as a whole. Neither construction makes the other shares optional; their amounts have already been commanded.

What the prescription requires

The detailed division, including the different portions assigned to different heirs, is prescribed by Allah (Ibn Kathīr). “From Allah” identifies its authority: no angel brought near and no prophet sent fixed these shares; Allah alone did (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[10]

Correctly carrying out the division may require calculation. If an heir cannot be given the right amount without learning the necessary inheritance arithmetic, that learning becomes obligatory. The obligation arises from what is needed to fulfil the duty, rather than from an unconditional requirement that every person study the calculations (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[11]

Why Knowledge and Wisdom close the verse

The two closing Names explain why this authority is trustworthy. A mistaken ruling may arise from ignorance of the circumstances or from an unwise decision despite knowing them. Knowledge answers the first failure; Wisdom answers the second. Ibn ʿUthaymīn explains the two Names together in this way: Allah knows who is entitled and how much, and assigns the right in its proper place.^[12]

The word حَكِيم can also convey مُحْكِم, “the One who makes firm.” The grammatical point is that the pattern فَعِيل can mean مُفْعِل. Ibn ʿUthaymīn illustrates this with a line in which سَمِيع means not “hearing” but “making others hear”:

Here السميع means المسمع: the caller makes his voice heard. The line illustrates the same change of pattern by which حكيم can mean محكم. On this explanation, the closing Name describes both Allah’s wisdom and the firmness of His ruling (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).

The prescribed shares therefore cannot be replaced by a division thought more just by the person administering them. Al-Zuḥaylī applies this principle across the inheritance passage in criticising revisions made on the claim that justice requires equal shares: there is no justice after Allah's justice and no mercy above His mercy.^[14]

Conclusion: These shares are an obligation from Allah. He knows who is entitled and how much each should receive, and His wisdom assigns those rights properly. No one may replace His division with a preferred division of their own.

And Allah knows best.

2. How the Commentators Explain This Verse

The following contributions explore the verse’s wording, the reasons given for particular shares, and the care required in explaining Allah’s law. The table also links to the fuller discussions of the principal inheritance questions.

Al-Zajjāj (d. 311 AH / 923–24 CE)

The two-daughter question also has a comparison with 4:12. Maternal siblings receive one third collectively whether there are two or more. Increasing the group does not continually increase its fixed share. Al-Zajjāj uses that pattern alongside the two sisters' two thirds to explain why exactly two daughters are not left without a determined collective share.^[8]

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370 AH / 981 CE)

The singular “male” and the comparison with “two females” describe classes, not the only numbers to which the provision applies. This is the grammatical basis for applying the proportion to few or many children; Q3 develops its application to the remainder after fixed shares.^[9]

Al-Māwardī (d. 450 AH / 1058–59 CE)

With a child present, each parent receives the same fixed sixth. One explanation is that the capacity they share in this case is parenthood: each is a parent of the deceased. This explains the equality of those prescribed portions, while Q5 separately explains the father's possible additional residue.^[10]

Al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538 AH / 1144 CE)

A plural can express a collection without assigning it a particular number. On this explanation, إِخْوَةٌ expresses unrestricted plurality, whereas the dual and numerals specify a quantity. Two already form a collection, so they satisfy that unrestricted plurality; the argument is for their inclusion, not for excluding them from the word.^[11]

Al-Rāzī (d. 606 AH / 1210 CE)

The distribution can also be considered across the generations. Parents have already passed through more of life, whereas children face the coming years and their need for property. Al-Rāzī offers this contrast to explain the parents’ sixths and the provision made for the children.^[12]

Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745 AH / 1344–45 CE)

Does “Allah instructs you concerning your children” command living people to divide their own property? An inheritance is divided only after its owner dies. If يُوصِيكُمُ means “commands you to divide,” the community is therefore being addressed about “the children of your deceased”: the reference to the deceased is understood. If the verb means “explains,” no such omission is needed. Allah is explaining to living people what their children’s shares will be. Abū Ḥayyān distinguishes these two constructions.^[13]

Al-Ālūsī (d. 1270 AH / 1854 CE)

In the benefit reminder, “fathers” and “sons” represent the ascendant and descendant relationships. The expression accordingly includes mothers, daughters and more distant generations. ^[14]

Ibn ʿUthaymīn (d. 1421 AH / 2001 CE)

The verse includes residuary entitlement whose final amount depends on what remains, whereas the next verse states fixed portions. Ibn ʿUthaymīn relates that difference to the placement of “these are the limits of Allah” after 4:12 rather than at this verse's close.^[15]

The authority of “an obligation from Allah” also teaches restraint in giving fatwā. Aḥmad, despite his extensive knowledge, avoided declaring something obligatory or forbidden without a supporting text. The scholar who explains a duty must identify its evidence rather than make the strength of his own preference stand in its place.^[16]

3. Iʿrāb: Grammatical Structure

The tables follow Dār al-Ṣaḥābah’s Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm.^[1] The discussions below explain meaningful alternatives and their consequences for translation.

Word / Grammar / What it does

Clause / Position

Where the grammar changes the meaning

1. لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (li-l-dhakari mithlu ḥaẓẓi l-unthayayn), "for the male, the like of the portion of two females": is the sentence the explanation of the charge, or its object?

An instruction can be followed by a sentence explaining its content without a conjunction between them. Al-Akhfash compares 5:9: “Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds,” followed by “for them is forgiveness and a great reward.” The second sentence states what was promised. Here, “for the male, the share of two females” states what is instructed. He also cites a poetic example:^[17]

The expression لَها مِنْ سِوانا أَبَوانِ states the content of the wish just mentioned. The share sentence serves a similar explanatory purpose: “for the male, the share of two females” states the content of Allah’s instruction. Al-Zajjāj paraphrases the allocation with the case of one son and one daughter: two thirds for him and one third for her.^[18]

The alternative analysis treats the share sentence as the verb’s object: يُوصِيكُمُ is understood as “ordains for you” or “says to you.” The instruction and its content are unchanged, but the sentence is assigned a grammatical position in naṣb (al-ʿUkbarī and Darwīsh).^[19] Al-Kisāʾī explains the rafʿ of مِثْلُ by an understood أَنْ before لِلذَّكَرِ; Abū Ḥayyān also records the form with أَنْ from Ibn Abī ʿAbla.^[20]

Does the translation change? No: "Allah charges you concerning your children: for the male the like of the portion of two females" renders each of these constructions.

2. إِخْوَةٌ (ikhwatun), "siblings": is the plural said of two?

Arabic has a dual form, so why can إِخْوَةٌ, a plural, include two siblings? One relevant usage concerns a pair of people, each with one of the thing named. Arabs commonly say “their heads” for the heads of two men, or “their backs” for the backs of two brothers, although the dual can also be used (al-Ṭabarī).^[23] The Qurʾānic قُلُوبُكُمَا in 66:4 uses the plural “hearts” with the dual “your,” and أَيْدِيَهُمَا in 5:38 likewise uses the plural “hands.” Al-Akhfash explains the usage as treating two things belonging to two people as a group.^[24] The dual remains possible, as al-Farazdaq’s line illustrates:^[25]

Al-Farazdaq says "our two hearts", and al-Ṭabarī rules that though it is said, "what is in our hearts" is more eloquent, as Allah said "your two hearts have inclined".^[26] Al-Akhfash sets a second of al-Farazdaq's beside it:

The dual فَمَوَيْهِما names one mouth for each of two people. Al-Akhfash also notes a poetic licence by which two can be expressed in the singular.^[27]

Al-Ṭabarī compares the two brothers with the two body parts in these examples: each brother is an individual, just as each person has one head or back. That particular usage permits a plural for the pair. It does not establish that a plural can replace a dual in every construction.^[28]

Does the translation change? The literal "siblings" does not, but a rendering that spells out the number does: "two or more siblings" on the jumhūr's construction, "three or more siblings" on Ibn ʿAbbās's. Q6 rules for the reduction by two on the Companions' practice, and the grammar above is the answer to Ibn ʿAbbās's objection.

3. مِن بَعْدِ (min baʿdi), "after": does the phrase qualify the whole division, or only the share it follows?

The question is grammatical attachment, not whether some heirs receive their shares before the debts are paid. In Dār al-Ṣaḥābah’s analysis, “after any bequest or debt” qualifies يُوصِيكُمُ and therefore the division that Allah commands.^[33]

An understood verb can express the same relationship: “they are entitled to these shares after the bequest and debt.” An understood subject does so as well: “the division of these shares is after the bequest and debt.” These are the alternatives given by al-Kharrāṭ, Darwīsh and al-Durra.

The ḥāl analysis attaches the phrase to the immediately preceding “sixth.” This describes when that share becomes payable; it does not say that only that share follows settlement of the prior claims. Al-ʿUkbarī also permits attachment to an understood verb covering the shares. Darwīsh criticizes these earlier grammatical explanations (the attachment to the whole division, an omitted verb, and especially the ḥāl) before proposing an understood subject.^[34]

Al-Ālūsī makes the broader application clear even under the ḥāl analysis: the same qualification is understood for the preceding shares.^[35] All these constructions can therefore be translated “after any bequest he makes or debt.” The table follows Dār al-Ṣaḥābah’s attachment to يُوصِيكُمُ.

Does the translation change? No: "after any bequest he makes or debt" renders every construction.

4. أَيُّهُمْ (ayyuhum), "which of them": a relative or a question?

The two analyses explain why أَيُّهُمْ has ḍamma here. As a relative pronoun, it is indeclinable: its ending stays the same even though it occupies the position of an object. The meaning is “you do not know the one who is nearer.” As an interrogative, it is the subject of “is nearer,” and the whole question is what remains unknown: “you do not know which of them is nearer.” The first is Dār al-Ṣaḥābah’s analysis; the second changes the grammatical construction, not the uncertainty being expressed.

Does the translation change? No. “You do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit” conveys either construction. Neither limits “benefit” to this world or the Hereafter; that interpretive question is discussed in Q8.

5. أَبَوَيْهِ, “his two parents”: does the expression include grandparents?

The immediate reference is to the deceased’s father and mother. The disagreement concerns whether the wording can also include earlier generations. The dual أَبَوَيْهِ names two parents, whereas the plural أَوْلَادِكُمْ can include further descendants. On that distinction, al-Qurṭubī excludes the grandmother from the expression but records disagreement about the grandfather. Ibn al-ʿArabī includes fathers’ fathers. Abū Ḥayyān challenges the distinction between the dual and the plural: both name the immediate generation literally and can be extended to earlier or later generations figuratively.^[38]

Does the translation change? No: “his two parents” renders the immediate meaning. Whether a grandparent inherits in a particular case still requires its legal evidence; extending the family term does not assign every grandparent the parent’s share.

4. Ṣarf: Roots and Word Formation

The table distinguishes roots from the forms used in this verse. Repeated words and differently inflected forms are accounted for below; particles and pronouns are not assigned roots. كَانَ and its inflected forms are verbs with the root ك و ن, not particles.

Occurrences and inflections. ك و ن occurs six times: كُنَّ once, كَانَتْ once, كَانَ three times and يَكُنْ once. تَرَكَ, وَلَدٌ, فَلِأُمِّهِ and السُّدُسُ each occur twice. Other grouped forms include وَاحِدَةً and وَاحِدٍ; أَبَوَيْهِ in jarr and أَبَوَاهُ in rafʿ; and dual ثُلُثَا alongside singular الثُّلُثُ. Their endings follow the grammatical positions explained in Iʿrāb.

An instruction entrusted to another: و ص ي. A waṣiyya directs someone to do something, with an emphasis on remembering and fulfilling it. The lexical explanations connect the root with things joined together: continuous plant growth in al-Rāghib and al-Samīn, and the binding of things into a bundle in Jabal.^[19]

The verse uses this root for both Allah’s instruction and a deceased person’s bequest. In each, one person is directed to act, but the source and authority of the instruction differ. The noun وَصِيّ can name either the person giving the instruction or the person entrusted with it: the pattern فَعِيل can have an active or passive sense (al-Samīn).^[20]

The two verb forms are أَوْصَى and وَصَّى. Al-Sāmarrāʾī states that every Qurʾānic occurrence of أَوْصَى concerns material affairs and every occurrence of وَصَّى religious instruction. He explains the apparent exception in 19:31 by the pairing of prayer with zakāt, a material duty.^[21] Here the imperfect يُوصِيكُمُ introduces the new instruction after the earlier arrangements (Ibn Juzayy).^[22] Its obligatory force comes from Allah’s command: al-Harawī, quoted by al-Samīn, explains “He instructs you” as “He obliges you,” and al-Zajjāj compares the commands in 6:151.^[23]

Children, both sons and daughters: وَلَد. The noun is on the pattern فَعَل, like أَسَد. It can refer to a son or daughter, and to one child or more; أَوْلَاد is its plural. The dialect form وِلْد is on فِعْل and has a passive sense, comparable to ذِبْح for what is slaughtered (Ibn ʿĀshūr).^[24] The choice of أَوْلَادِكُمْ rather than “your sons” also avoids relying on every broader use of ابْن. That word can describe an adopted son, a son through suckling or a daughter’s son; the name alone does not establish the inheritance entitlement discussed here (Ibn Juzayy).^[25]

The fractions are one pattern with two dialects: the Ḥijāz and Banū Asad say الثُّلُثُ (al-thuluth) and الرُّبُعُ (al-rubuʿ) with two ḍammas, up to the tenth, and Tamīm and Rabīʿa say الثُّلْثُ (al-thulth) with sukūn on the lām, up to the tenth.^[26] النِّصْفُ with kasra and with ḍamma are two dialects, both read,^[27] and the Qirāʾāt section names the readers of each.

One dual for both parents: أَبَوَيْهِ. The masculine dual includes the father and mother by تَغْلِيب, using one of two related terms for the pair. The following mention of the mother makes the intended pair clear. Arabic also uses أَبَوَيْن for a father with an uncle or grandfather in other contexts (al-Rāghib; al-Nasafī explains the father-and-mother usage here).^[28] The broader lexical sense of أَب can extend from “parent” to someone responsible for a thing’s existence, soundness or appearance (al-Rāghib).^[29]

A share fixed and marked out: ف ر ض. The root denotes cutting or making a mark in something hard, such as a notch in a bow or flint (al-Rāghib, al-Samīn and Ibn Fāris).^[30] This helps explain the distinction between two words for obligation: إِيجَاب emphasizes that something is due and binding, whereas فَرْض emphasizes its definite determination (al-Rāghib).^[31]

Inheritance shares are called فَرَائِض because they are fixed for their recipients, with known limits. A person versed in the rules of the shares is a فَارِض or فَرْضِيّ.^[32] Al-Zamakhsharī’s lexicon illustrates the use with Allah prescribing prayer and determining shares.^[33] Thus فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ describes a division that is determined and binding, not one left for the heirs to negotiate.

The opening instruction, يُوصِيكُمُ, and the closing obligation, فَرِيضَةً, describe the same division from two sides: it is entrusted to those who must carry it out, and its shares have already been determined.

5. Balāghah: Rhetorical Analysis

The verse does more than state fractions. Its wording emphasizes the duty to carry out the division, establishes the daughter’s share as the measure, distinguishes each parent’s portion, and reminds the heirs why they cannot substitute their own judgment for Allah’s ruling.

A charge rather than a bare command (العُدُول, ʿudūl)

• Where it is: يُوصِيكُمُ اللَّهُ (yūṣīkum Allāh), "Allah charges you". The verse opens the shares with a solemn charge rather than a bare command.
• The plain way: Abū Ḥayyān states the form that was left: "Allah commands you", يَأْمُرُكُمُ اللَّهُ (yaʾmurukum Allāh).^[1]
• What it does: a solemn charge conveys emphatic concern that the instruction be fulfilled, beyond the bare statement of a command (Abū Ḥayyān).^[2] Al-Zuḥaylī identifies the pair وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي, “a bequest he makes,” as جِنَاس الاشْتِقَاق, jinās al-ishtiqāq.^[3]
• The effect: before any fraction is stated, the heirs are addressed as people responsible for carrying out Allah’s instructions. The later mention of the deceased’s bequest likewise concerns an instruction that must be fulfilled.

The female’s share as the measure (الطِّبَاق, al-ṭibāq)

• Where it is: لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ (li-l-dhakari mithlu ḥaẓẓi l-unthayayn), "the male has the like of two females' share".
• The plain way: the same division could be stated the other way, "the female has half the male's share", which is the form Ibn ʿUthaymīn puts the question in.^[4] The ṭibāq is in the pairing of the male and the two females, and al-Zuḥaylī finds a second in "your fathers and your sons".^[5]
• What it does: the male’s entitlement is stated directly, but measured by the female’s established share. This both specifies his larger portion and rules out the earlier practice of giving property to males alone (al-Zamakhsharī and al-Nasafī; Ibn al-Munayyir explains the importance of stating the rule directly).^[6] “Male” and “female,” rather than “men” and “women,” include children as well as adults (al-Ālūsī).^[7] Making her share the measure gives particular emphasis to an entitlement previously denied to her (Ibn ʿĀshūr).^[8]
• The effect: the daughter’s share is treated as an established right, not a concession to be argued for after the son has inherited. His portion is defined by hers.

The pair, then each parent (التَّفْصِيل بَعْدَ الإِجْمَال, al-tafṣīl baʿda l-ijmāl)

• Where it is: وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ (wa-li-abawayhi li-kulli wāḥidin minhumā l-sudus), "and for his two parents, for each one of them the sixth". The parents are named, and then each is given his share.^[9]
• The plain way: "and for each of his parents the sixth" would fix the same shares. The verse names the two first and then divides.^[10]
• What it does: the inheritance passage develops the unspecified “share” of 4:7 into named heirs and amounts.^[11] Naming the parents together, then referring to them again in “each one of them,” strengthens and confirms the command (al-Zamakhsharī, Abū Ḥayyān). Each is given a sixth. Al-Zamakhsharī treats “for each one of them” as a badal of “for his two parents”, with the preposition repeated.^[12] Ibn al-Munayyir objects that a badal of the whole for the whole should not change the allocation: “for the two parents the sixth” would suggest one sixth shared between them, whereas the completed wording gives each a sixth. He therefore understands an omitted “for his two parents a third”, followed by its division; Darwīsh adopts that construction.^[13]
• The effect: Abū Ḥayyān’s answer removes the need to assume an omitted third. “Each one” is a badal of a part for the whole, not the whole replacing the whole. The sixth belongs to this specifying phrase, not to the parents as an undivided pair. The wording therefore gives each a sixth and confirms the allocation by mentioning the parents twice.^[14]

A reminder within the division (الاعْتِرَاض, al-iʿtirāḍ)

• Where it is: آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا (ābāʾukum wa-abnāʾukum lā tadrūna ayyuhum aqrabu lakum nafʿan), "your fathers and your sons, you do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit", set between "after any bequest he makes or debt" and "an obligation from Allah".
• The plain way: the shares could run straight from the bequest and the debt to "an obligation from Allah". The verse stops between them to say something about the heirs.
• What it does: the reminder interrupts the allocation to reinforce its purpose. Al-Zamakhsharī relates it particularly to the bequest just mentioned; Abū Ḥayyān relates it to the prescribed shares. Q8 explains their arguments and the objection to the bequest interpretation.^[15] On the shares interpretation, the reminder answers people’s uncertainty about which relative will benefit them most: Allah, who knows, has determined the division (al-Zajjāj, Ibn al-Anbārī).^[16]
• The effect: the reader moves from exact fractions to the limits of human knowledge, then back to “an obligation from Allah.” The interruption explains why personal estimates of a relative’s usefulness cannot replace the prescribed shares.

Obligation reinforced at the close (التَّوْكِيد, al-tawkīd)

• Where it is: فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (farīḍatan mina Llāhi inna Llāha kāna ʿalīman ḥakīman), "an obligation from Allah; Allah is Knowing, Wise".
• The plain way: the shares are complete before "an obligation from Allah", and the verse could end there. It adds the confirmation, names Allah twice, and closes on two of His names.
• What it does: فَرِيضَةً reinforces the obligation. Al-Zamakhsharī explains an understood verb, “He prescribed it as an obligation.”^[17] Al-Sāmarrāʾī distinguishes confirmation of a whole statement from a maṣdar reinforcing its own verb,^[18] and al-Ālūsī also explains confirmation of the statement’s meaning.^[19] Abū Ḥayyān lists repetition among the verse’s figures of badīʿ, including فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ and the word كَانَ.^[20] Knowledge and Wisdom explain the authority behind the division, as Q9 develops (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).^[21]
• The effect: the closing words answer the uncertainty described in the parenthesis. The heirs do not know which relative will benefit them most; Allah knows, and His division is wise. The prescribed fractions are therefore duties to fulfil, not suggestions to revise.

6. Qirāʾāt: Variant Readings

The tables below cover differences in three words among the ten readings and forms of three further words outside the ten. None of these differences changes a share. Ibn al-Jazarī's al-Nashr records the ten and Abū Ḥayyān's al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ the rest. The passages below give these readings and their grammatical explanations. The Iʿrāb discussion also records Abū Ḥayyān’s account of a form with أَنْ attributed to Ibn Abī ʿAbla.

Among the ten readings

Forms outside the ten

وَاحِدَةً: rafʿ for the two Madīnans

Ibn al-Jazarī records the rafʿ:

The rest read it with naṣb. On the rafʿ كَانَ (kāna) is complete, "if one occurred and came about", and on the naṣb it is incomplete, "if the heir was one".^[8] Al-Qurṭubī sets a poet's shāhid as the witness for the complete كَانَ, "winter came":^[9]

Here كَانَ means “came” or “occurred” and does not require a predicate. This illustrates the complete-verb construction used with وَاحِدَةٌ.

The argument for naṣb compares the parallel conditions: إِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً, “if they are women,” uses incomplete كَانَ with a predicate. Taking وَاحِدَةً as a predicate gives the next condition the same structure (al-Zajjāj, al-Wāḥidī, al-Zamakhsharī and al-Rāzī).^[10]

Ibn Tamjīd prefers the rafʿ construction. He objects that, with naṣb, the concealed subject must either refer back to the plural “children” or refer to a daughter not yet named. Al-Ālūsī answers that grammarians accept such an understood subject.^[11] Al-Muḥaymīd affirms both readings in his commentary on al-Wāḥidī.^[12] Rafʿ is explained as “if there is one”; naṣb as “if she is one.” Both refer to a single daughter receiving half.

فَلِأُمِّهِ: kasra of the hamza for Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī

Ibn al-Jazarī records the four places, the two in this verse, 28:59 and 43:4:

The original vowel of أُمّ is ḍamma. In فَلِإِمِّهِ, the hamza instead follows the kasra of the preceding lām. Al-ʿUkbarī and al-Zamakhsharī explain the change as assimilation to the preceding kasra. Al-Zajjāj gives the reason: ḍamma after kasra is heavy, and Arabic does not use the pattern فِعُل.^[14] Sībawayh records the kasra under assimilation. Al-Kisāʾī and al-Farrāʾ identify it as the dialect of Hawāzin and Hudhayl, as Abū Ḥayyān reports.^[15] Ibn al-Jazarī’s distinction between starting and continuing recitation concerns his last two examples, 28:59 and 43:4. In both forms here, the person meant is the deceased’s mother.

يُوصِي: the passive for Ibn Kathīr, Ibn ʿĀmir and Shuʿba

Ibn al-Jazarī records the two places, this verse and the last clause of 4:12:

Abū Bakr here is Shuʿba b. ʿAyyāsh. The active يُوصِي states that the deceased makes the bequest; the passive يُوصَى states that the bequest is made. Al-Rāzī prefers the active because the preceding references to the deceased, what he leaves and whether he has a child, already identify the verb’s subject.^[17] The translation above follows the active: “any bequest he makes.” The passive would be “any bequest made”; neither changes the priority of the bequest over distribution to the heirs.

يُوصِيكُمُ: the doubled form outside the ten

Abū Ḥayyān records it:

The form is وَصَّى, Form II, rather than أَوْصَى, Form IV.

النِّصْفُ: ḍamma of the nūn outside the ten

Abū Ḥayyān records it:

Abū Ḥayyān also attributes النُّصْفُ to ʿAlī and Zayd رضي الله عنهما throughout the Qurʾān. Al-ʿUkbarī explains kasra and ḍamma as two dialect forms.^[20] Both mean “half.”

The fractions: sukūn of the middle letter outside the ten

Abū Ḥayyān records the readers and the dialects:

The vowel difference does not change the fractions. Al-Qurṭubī identifies the forms with two ḍammas as the usage of the Ḥijāz and Banū Asad, and the middle-letter sukūn as the usage of Tamīm and Rabīʿa. Al-Zajjāj regards these as one dialect, with sukūn a lighter pronunciation, rather than two distinct tribal usages, as Abū Ḥayyān reports.^[22]

The grammatical differences affect whether “one” is the subject or predicate of كَانَ and whether the bequest verb is active or passive. The other differences concern verb form or dialect pronunciation. The shares stated in the verse remain the same.^[23] And Allah knows best.