Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, Verse 8

1. The Questions This Verse Raises

The verse moves from the fixed rights of heirs in 4:7 to the treatment of people who receive no share. Four questions determine how that instruction operates: whether it remains in force, whether giving is required, what a guardian may do when heirs are children, and what the gift and the kind word demand in practice.

Q1. Is the verse in force, or did the inheritance verses abrogate it?

النَّسْخ (al-naskh), abrogation, is the cancelling of one ruling of the law by a later one. The question is whether the verse that fixed the shares, 4:11, cancelled this verse's command, and the answer turns on two things: what "the division" is, and who is told to give. Four positions are recorded.

Position 1. The verse is in force; the division is the heirs' division of the estate; and the heirs give the three groups a gift and the kind word.

Who held it. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, ʿĀʾisha رضي الله عنها, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī رضي الله عنه and a number of the Successors, including ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, Mujāhid and Saʿīd b. Jubayr.^[1]

Whether the gift is obligatory is a further disagreement, examined in Question 2.

The evidence for it.

1. Nothing in the Quran or the established sunna shows that the inheritance verse cancelled this one, and a ruling of Allah is not called abrogated without such a proof. Al-Ṭabarī states the general law: no ruling that Allah fixed in His Book or that the Prophet ﷺ made plain may be called نَاسِخ (nāsikh), the cancelling ruling, or مَنْسُوخ (mansūkh), the cancelled one, unless the two cannot stand together at one time and a binding proof establishes the cancellation.^[2]
2. The two rulings go together. The inheritance verse assigns the estate to the heirs; this verse commands a gift to people who are not heirs, out of what the heirs now own. What it gives them is no part of the inheritance, so the inheritance verse had nothing here to cancel. Al-Shawkānī makes this the deciding argument: abrogation could arise only if the relatives meant were the heirs themselves, and they are not.^[3] Al-Zurqānī says the same: the ruling remains as a recommendation so long as those named are not heirs, and there is neither contradiction nor abrogation.^[4]
3. Companions and Successors acted on the verse after the inheritance verses had come down. Abū Mūsā's divisions, ʿUrwa's division of Muṣʿab's estate, and the division of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr's estate in ʿĀʾisha's lifetime all fall long after 4:11, and ʿĀʾisha رضي الله عنها, asked about the last of them, denied the abrogation.^[5] Their continued practice supports applying the verse after the inheritance legislation.
4. Ibn Ḥajar identifies al-Bukhārī's report through ʿIkrima and Saʿīd b. Jubayr as the reliable evidence that Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما denied abrogation.^[6] The bequest explanation is a separate question. Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn preserves three accounts from Ibn ʿAbbās: al-Bukhārī's denial of abrogation;^[7] the account through ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa, whose isnād he grades ḥasan, in which provision comes from a bequest if one was made and otherwise from the inheritance;^[8] and ʿAbd al-Razzāq's account through al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, which explains the verse as an instruction about bequests.^[9] None of these three accounts says that Ibn ʿAbbās held the verse to be abrogated.

An additional argument distinguishes what is certain from what is disputed: the original command is accepted, whereas its alleged repeal is not. Al-Zajjāj therefore retains the accepted command. The wider Qurʾānic pairing of help with kind speech also matters: al-Rāghib compares 17:26–28, which orders giving relatives and the needy their due and speaking gently when one cannot help them.^[10]

Position 2. The inheritance verses abrogated it.

Who held it. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Abū Mālik and other early authorities. Ibn Kathīr reports this as the position of the majority of jurists, including the four imams and their followers. Abrogation is also attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما in reports whose reliability is examined below.^[11]

The evidence for it.

The argument turns on the order of the legislation. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab describes an earlier practice in which something from an estate was given to the orphans, poor people and relatives attending its division. Then the inheritance verses joined each right to its owner, while a bequest became the way to provide for relatives. On this account, the later allocation replaced the earlier command to give from the estate.^[12]

There is also an argument from ownership. The shares are assigned from مِمَّا تَرَكَ, “what he left”: on this reasoning, the heirs acquire their rights at death. Debts and bequests are separately allowed for in 4:11; an additional deduction cannot simply be inserted before the heirs receive their portions. Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ therefore favours abrogation. Al-Ṭurayfī makes the numerical point explicit: deducting a further right before division would leave an heir entitled to a half, third or quarter with less than that fraction of the estate.^[13]

The answers to it.

1. A later verse that assigns the estate to the heirs does not contradict a command to the heirs to give a gift out of what is theirs. The two rulings go together, and abrogation needs a contradiction; that is al-Ṭabarī's law, al-Shawkānī's argument and al-Zurqānī's.^[14]
2. Earlier practice does not by itself prove that the later inheritance verses ended all giving. Ibn ʿĀshūr explains that those who held the former obligation abrogated arrive at the same practical result as those who held giving recommended from the outset: no binding share is due to these attendees.^[15] This is his reconciliation of the two accounts of the law; they still differ over whether an obligation existed earlier.
3. The Companions went on acting on the verse after the inheritance verses, and ʿĀʾisha رضي الله عنها denied the abrogation when it was put to her.^[16]
4. The reports attributing abrogation to Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما come مِنْ أَوْجُهٍ ضَعِيفَةٍ, “through weak asanid.” Ibn Ḥajar therefore relies on the two ṣaḥīḥ asanid in al-Bukhārī, through ʿIkrima and Saʿīd b. Jubayr, in which Ibn ʿAbbās denies abrogation.^[17] Ibn ʿĀshūr also points to اضْطِرَاب, inconsistency among the explanations transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās, as a reason not to prefer those explanations over the majority's interpretation.^[18]

Abrogation was also the position of other early authorities, so its case does not depend solely on the weak accounts from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما. It is reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Abū Mālik and al-Ḍaḥḥāk. Ibn Ḥajar authenticates the account from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and also names ʿIkrima among those who held the abrogation position.^[19] Ibn Kathīr reports abrogation as the majority juristic position, but then explains the verse’s estate setting: those left without a share see others receiving property, so they are given something of middling worth to comfort and assist them.^[20] While his explanation preserves the underlying purpose of the gift, he stops short of formally classifying it as a recommendation rather than an obligation.

Where these arguments leave the disagreement. A gift from an heir’s own share does not reduce anybody else’s prescribed fraction. That answers the ownership objection for the recommendation view. It does not show that a formerly binding payment out of the undivided estate never existed. Al-Zurqānī concedes that removing such an obligation would be abrogation; his conclusion depends on taking the command as recommendation from the beginning.^[21]

Nor can the order of verses settle their order of revelation. Ibn Nūr al-Dīn raises that objection to the proposed repeal, while allowing that a sound Prophetic statement establishing repeal would settle the earlier obligation. A contrary argument infers from “the division” that inheritance legislation already existed; this is an inference about the setting, not a date.^[22]

Position 3. The verse is in force, and the division is the dying man's division of his own property by bequest.

Who held it. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما in the account through al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad; Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab in one account; and Ibn Zayd.^[23] Al-Ṭabarī adopts this interpretation.^[24]

The evidence for it. Al-Ṭabarī reaches the position by his law of abrogation. Nothing shows the verse abrogated, so it must be understood to be in force; the wording admits the bequest; and on that sense the dying man is addressed, and the two commands go to two sets of people, his relatives who will not inherit, to whom he bequeaths, and the orphans and the poor, who are given the kind word.^[25]

The bequest interpretation also has more than one form. In Zayd b. Aslam’s account, those beside the person making a will mention needy relatives and urge generosity without depriving his children. That account connects 4:8 with the advice in 4:9; it is not simply al-Ṭabarī’s explanation of the testator speaking to the recipients.^[26]

The answers to it.

1. The context. Inheritance has just been named in 4:7 and bequest has not, so al-Rāzī holds the first position the stronger,^[27] and Abū Ḥayyān reads the placing of the verse straight after 4:7 as showing that it concerns the heirs and not the dying who make bequests.^[28]
2. The pronouns. فَارْزُقُوهُمْ, “provide for them,” and وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ, “speak to them,” both contain هُمْ, “them.” The same pronoun appears only a few words apart, with nothing between the two commands to identify a new group. Ibn ʿAṭiyya therefore understands both commands to concern the relatives, the orphans and the poor. He calls assigning the gift to one group and the words to another تَحَكُّم, a distinction imposed without evidence;^[29] Abū Ḥayyān gives the same judgment.^[30]
3. The time. Al-Qurṭubī allows that the bequest sense fits the period when the bequest to relatives was obligatory and the inheritance verse had not come down, and rules that the first position is the correct one and the one relied on.^[31] Ibn Kathīr calls al-Ṭabarī's choice a very strange one and open to question.^[32]
4. A practical difficulty. Dividing the inheritance during a person’s lifetime may be premature: an unborn child could alter the eventual shares. Al-Qaṣṣāb raises this against an attempted deathbed division. The objection concerns fixing the heirs’ shares then; it does not by itself prohibit a lawful bequest to a non-heir.^[33]
5. The report. Al-Qāsim's account has a sound isnād, but it establishes a bequest explanation, not a statement that the verse was abrogated. Ibn Ḥajar's preference for al-Bukhārī's account establishes Ibn ʿAbbās's denial of abrogation.^[34] Whether the verse addresses heirs or a person making a bequest must also be considered from its context and wording. Ibn ʿĀshūr prefers the majority's explanation and regards the inconsistent interpretations transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās as weakening the case for the alternatives.^[35]

Position 4. The verse is in force, and its two commands go to two kinds of guardian.

Saʿīd b. Jubayr distinguishes two guardians: the one who inherits gives, while the one who does not inherit offers the kind word.^[36] Al-Jaṣṣāṣ understands فَارْزُقُوهُمْ, “provide for them,” in this account as paying the present heirs their inheritance portions. The absent or minor heirs' property remains with the custodian, who explains to the visitors that he cannot give away what belongs to those owners.^[37]

Al-Rāzī records the same basic division more briefly: inheriting relatives receive the property, while the orphans and the poor receive only the kind word. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ draws from Saʿīd’s explanation a conditional rule for jointly deposited property: a present co-owner may receive his share while the absent co-owner’s share remains with the custodian.^[38] This interpretation changes the recipients of the two commands, not merely the authority of two guardians.

The grammar weighs against that second division. The same object pronoun, “them,” follows both commands, with no marker that transfers the kind word to a different group (Abū Ḥayyān).^[39] The recipient-split explanation is therefore described as far-fetched (al-Ālūsī).^[40] This does not authorize a guardian to give away a child’s property. It keeps the recipients constant while leaving the guardian’s authority as the separate question examined in Question 3. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما also affirms that the verse remains in force, in al-Bukhārī's narration through Saʿīd b. Jubayr.^[41]

The tarjīḥ. The verse remains in force and addresses the heirs dividing an estate. Inheritance is already the subject of 4:7, so the estate setting follows the sequence naturally.^[42] Both commands concern the three groups just named. The later assignment of fixed shares does not prevent heirs from giving from their own property; the gift is not another inheritance share.^[43] For these reasons, the estate division stands as the soundest interpretation.^[44]

Rejecting abrogation does not by itself identify the occasion. The verse may still be applied either to the heirs’ division or to a deathbed bequest. The bequest interpretation has early support, including al-Qāsim’s account, which Ibn Ḥajar judged sound, and it is adopted by al-Ṭabarī.^[45] Al-Bukhārī’s report that Ibn ʿAbbās denied abrogation therefore does not by itself refute it. The context and the shared recipients of the commands are what favour the estate setting.

Nor does Ibn ʿĀshūr's reconciliation make all positions identical. It relates the abrogation view to recommendation by their present result, while leaving their difference over an earlier obligation. The further question, whether giving now is obligatory or recommended, comes next. And Allah knows best.

Q2. Is the giving binding on the heirs, or recommended to them?

A command need not assign an inheritance share in order to require an act. That distinction is the heart of this question. Among scholars who retain the estate-division interpretation adopted in Question 1, the dispute is whether an heir sins by withholding the gift.^[46]

Position 1. The heirs must give something.

Who held it. Mujāhid, ʿAṭāʾ and al-Zuhrī are among the scholars reported to hold this view. Wider lists include other early authorities; some of those names are reported for recommendation as well, so counting names does not settle their reasoning.^[47]

The evidence. The verse says فَارْزُقُوهُمْ, “provide for them.” It is an imperative. The ordinary force of a command is الوُجُوب, obligation; understanding it as النَّدْب, recommendation, therefore requires an indication that changes that force. Al-Shawkānī sets out this argument for obligation.^[48] The rebukes of neglect show that these early scholars held that the verse still applied. They do not, by themselves, decide whether the giving was obligatory or recommended.^[49]

A further argument distinguishes a duty to give from a fixed inheritance share. The verse addresses relatives, orphans and poor people generally, and Islam requires mutual care; the later fractions specify what the heirs own without cancelling that care. On these grounds, Sayyid Quṭb rejects abrogation and holds that the command must be carried out, not merely left to the heirs’ preference. His argument supports an obligation without assigning the visitors a set fraction.^[50]

This view requires an act of giving, not a specified fraction. Leaving the amount to the heirs is therefore compatible with its central claim: they may decide how much, but not whether to give at all.

An unfixed amount need not make the duty unenforceable. Abū Zahra reports the Ẓāhirī position that a judge assesses it in proportion to the estate, the heirs’ circumstances and the recipients’ circumstances. That is a direct answer to the objection that no fraction is stated: the amount is assessed rather than inherited as a fixed fraction.^[51]

The dispute also concerns what ownership permits. If the verse has assigned these people a right, the heirs and their guardians cannot keep that right for themselves. Al-Qaṣṣāb argues for obligation on that basis while leaving the amount open. Al-Ḥarrālī similarly places the verse among texts requiring a person not to withhold a lawful benefit from someone entitled to it.^[52]

Position 2. The heirs are encouraged to give, without a binding payment.

Who held it. Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfa are named for this result by Ibn ʿĀshūr. Among the commentators who prefer recommendation are al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qurṭubī, Abū Ḥayyān, al-Shawkānī and Ibn ʿĀshūr. Recommendation is also reported from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, Saʿīd b. Jubayr and al-Ḥasan, although reports about these early authorities differ.^[53]

The evidence.

1. No amount is assigned. The inheritance legislation specifies what each entitled heir receives. Here, the command gives no measure. The leading jurists take that contrast as an indication of generosity rather than another enforceable entitlement. Al-Rāzī records their argument, and Abū Ḥayyān likewise connects the absence of a fixed amount with recommendation.^[54]

2. A recurring obligation would have been transmitted clearly. Estates were divided repeatedly in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and the Companions. If everyone attending had an obligatory entitlement, its enforcement should have become known as the heirs' shares became known. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ argues from the absence of such established transmission. Al-Rāzī records the further point that the poor would have sought a defined measure of their right, making the rule widely transmitted.^[55]

3. An undefined additional share would create conflict. If the attendees were made co-heirs, one group would have known portions while the other's portion remained unknown. Ibn al-ʿArabī and al-Qurṭubī argue that such an arrangement would lead to quarrelling rather than an orderly division.^[56]

4. The command is understood alongside the distinction between required and voluntary charity. After explaining obligatory zakāt, the Prophet ﷺ was asked, هَلْ عَلَيَّ غَيْرُهَا؟, “Must I give anything else?” He answered, لَا، إِلَّا أَنْ تَطَوَّعَ, “No, unless you give voluntarily.”^[57] Ibn ʿĀshūr applies this distinction between required and voluntary charity to the gift in this verse, understanding it as recommended from the outset and attributing that position to the majority.

Two further objections test what an obligation would require. Whose attendance counts? A closer relative may be absent while a more distant one attends. Does someone qualify by attending the whole division, only its end, or the later collection of the shares? Al-Ṭurayfī asks these questions because an enforceable entitlement would need a clear basis. Can an obligation depend on willingness? Ibn Nūr al-Dīn objects that the heirs may not be willing at all, or may be children unable to give valid consent.^[58]

Those objections have answers as well as force. The obligation view can distinguish willingness about the amount from freedom to refuse altogether. And the interpretation that includes needy people known to the heirs, even when absent, does not accept literal attendance as the sole condition. The disagreement over presence is therefore relevant to the legal argument, not merely to translation; Question 4 sets out the alternatives.

Does this answer the argument from the imperative? It gives the reasons for taking the command as encouragement rather than obligation. But the third argument addresses a fixed inheritance share; it does not by itself answer the view that some gift is obligatory while its amount is left open.^[59] The alternatives must therefore remain distinct. One view requires giving something; the other encourages it without making omission sinful.^[60]

The imperative is the strongest argument for obligation (al-Shawkānī).^[61] He nevertheless prefers continued recommendation because the gift to non-heirs is not part of inheritance, so the later inheritance verses do not cancel this instruction.^[62] Al-Ālūsī gives a further rationale: the heirs receive their assigned portions and are then urged to gladden and assist those present from property they now own.^[63]

The surviving formulations do not speak with one voice. To see this, one need only look to al-Naḥḥās: his Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān objects that recommendation requires evidence, agreement, or an authoritative transmitted indication, whereas his Maʿānī al-Qurʾān describes recommendation as the prevailing scholarly position of its time.^[64]

The tarjīḥ. The giving is recommended, not an additional fixed inheritance share.^[65] The conclusion rests on the combined arguments concerning the unstated amount, the absence of an established transmitted obligation and the heirs' ownership of their allotted property. It is not established merely by counting its supporters. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Zurqānī and al-Zuḥaylī also prefer recommendation;^[66] Ibn ʿUthaymīn leaves obligation and recommendation as possibilities when explaining this command about good conduct.^[67]

The obligation view remains a real alternative. Those who hold this view require a gift while leaving the amount open; the judicial-assessment version answers the objection that an unfixed amount must be unenforceable. The recommendation view is preferred here on the combined evidence, not because every argument for obligation has been eliminated. On the recommendation view, an heir who gives nothing has not thereby incurred sin, though the verse calls him to generosity. And Allah knows best.

Q3. When the heirs are children, may their guardian give from their property?

An adult heir can give away part of what he owns. A guardian administers property that belongs to someone else. The question is whether this verse authorizes him to make a gift from the minor heir's share, or requires him to explain kindly why he cannot.

Position 1. The guardian gives nothing from the children's property and offers the kind word.

Who held it. Saʿīd b. Jubayr and al-Suddī describe words a guardian can use to explain his lack of authority. The leading jurists' rule, recorded by al-Rāzī and Abū Ḥayyān, is that the recommendation to give applies to adult heirs; where the heirs are children, the response is the kind word.^[68]

The evidence. Ownership limits the guardian's freedom to act. The money belongs to the child, not to him. The adult heirs must first know their own shares and give from those shares willingly, leaving the portions of minors and absent heirs protected (Muftī Muḥammad Shafīʿ).^[69] The same distinction also explains the guardian's apology: he can acknowledge the visitor's need without promising money that he has no authority to give. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ takes that apology as evidence that the attendees do not have an enforceable share against every estate, and argues that property assigned to its owners cannot be transferred to others without a lawful basis.^[70]

Position 2. The guardian may give what he considers appropriate.

Even among those who understand giving as recommended, some hold that the verse authorizes a limited gift from the minor’s property. Al-Qurṭubī records this position without identifying the scholars who held it:

فَقَالَتْ طَائِفَةٌ يُعْطَى وَلِيُّ الْوَارِثِ الصَّغِيرِ مِنْ مَالِ مَحْجُورِهِ بِقَدْرِ مَا يَرَى

“A group said that the guardian of the minor heir gives from the property of the child under his guardianship as much as he considers appropriate.”^[71]

The same disagreement is preserved without named proponents in Abū Ḥayyān’s discussion.^[72]

The evidence. Early practice gives the permission view concrete examples. ʿUrwa distributed something from his brother Muṣʿab's estate even though Muṣʿab's sons were small.^[73] ʿAbīda had a sheep bought from orphans' money and a meal prepared for those attending. He explained that, without this verse, he would have preferred to bear the expense himself. Ibn Sīrīn acted similarly.^[74] In these accounts, the verse is the reason for using the estate rather than the guardian's own money.

A stronger position goes beyond permission: the gift is a duty from the property of adult and minor heirs alike, and the guardian pays for the minors. Al-Baghawī and al-Khāzin record that view; al-Maẓharī records it before preferring recommendation.^[75] On that understanding, the guardian would not be making a voluntary donation of another person’s money. He would be paying a right which the verse itself had imposed. The disagreement therefore returns to Question 2: does the command create such a right?

The answer and its limit. The sheep accounts could concern heirs who had grown up and consented to the expense. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ adopts that explanation because he takes the division described in the account to require heirs capable of agreeing to it.^[76] It answers those accounts on his understanding of their circumstances. It does not remove the difficulty posed by ʿUrwa's account, which describes Muṣʿab's sons as small. That remains evidence for the permission view.

Other early accounts instead have the guardian acknowledge the visitors' kinship and explain that he cannot give away the property. They support a distinction between generosity with one's own wealth and authority over a child's wealth.^[77]

Some accounts postpone the response rather than dismiss the visitors’ claim. Saʿīd b. Jubayr describes the guardian promising to tell the children, when they mature, to acknowledge the visitors’ right and follow their Lord’s instruction. Another explanation postpones giving until produce becomes available or the property is sold.^[78] These are more specific than a general promise to speak kindly. They preserve an expectation of later help, though they do not all formulate it as a debt presently payable by the guardian.

The tarjīḥ. The guardian gives nothing from the children's property and offers the kind word instead.^[79] The controlling reason is that, on the recommendation view adopted in Question 2, generosity does not make the guardian the owner of the child’s share. He can show kindness without taking property that is not his to give. The stronger obligation position disputes that starting point: it treats payment as a duty, not a donation. This conclusion therefore depends on the earlier legal preference; ownership alone does not answer that opposing argument.

The permission view remains a genuine alternative. Al-Qurṭubī presents both answers without choosing between them. Abū Ḥayyān records both, then states the jurists’ rule limiting the gift to adult heirs and requiring the kind word where heirs are minors.^[80]

This conclusion concerns a new gift made by the guardian. An existing bequest is different. Al-Qurṭubī states that, if the deceased left the attendee a bequest, it is paid.^[81] And Allah knows best.

Q4. What do فَارْزُقُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “provide for them from it,” and قَوْلًا مَعْرُوفًا, “a kind word,” require?

The verse joins a gift to a way of speaking. The first helps someone who receives no inheritance; the second ensures that the encounter does not leave that person hurt or humiliated. Where the heirs cannot give, they can still speak kindly.

1. Who is included?

The starting point is the list in the verse: relatives who do not inherit, orphans and poor people. The disagreement begins when scholars ask whether poverty limits the earlier groups as well. One restriction requires needy relatives and orphans; its narrower form describes a relative barred from inheritance, an orphan without property or a caretaker, and a poor person without a livelihood (Darwaza; al-Nakhjuwānī; al-Ṣābūnī). A second disagreement concerns family connection. Several commentators understand the orphans and poor people as groups alongside the relatives, so they need not themselves be kin (Ibn ʿAṭiyya; al-Nasafī; Abū al-Suʿūd; Ibn Kamāl). Mawdūdī instead speaks of poor relatives. Even “the relatives” requires a boundary: al-Luḥaymid includes relatives of the deceased and of the heirs, while Sāmī al-Qudūmī argues for nearer kin.^[82] The verse itself names three groups without stating all of these later restrictions and extensions.

2. What counts as presence?

The direct occasion is easy to identify: people are there while an estate is divided. On the narrow interpretation, the command addresses those who actually attend, just as hospitality may be shown to the person who comes without creating an identical rule for someone absent (al-Shāfiʿī). The broader interpretations ask why these people deserve concern. If the relevant grounds are kinship, orphanhood and need, those conditions do not disappear when a person is absent; presence may therefore describe the usual occasion rather than the full reason for giving (Ibn ʿAṭiyya; Ibn ʿArafa). A further explanation treats direct knowledge as a form of presence: the heirs know the people and their need even if they are not literally watching the division (Abū Zahra; al-Khaṭīb).^[83] The verse directly governs the encounter it describes; extending the same concern to known absent people is an interpretation of its reason and reach, not a denial of that immediate setting.

3. Does the principle extend beyond inheritance? Inheritance is the clearest setting because 4:7 has just assigned the heirs their shares. Some scholars nevertheless apply the direction to other divisions: war spoils, the return of an orphan's property after sound judgement, or a bequest. These are argued extensions of the instruction, not reasons to remove inheritance from its principal place (al-Shāfiʿī; Rashīd Riḍā).^[84]

4. The gift: فَارْزُقُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “provide for them from it.”

Giving need not take only one form. Early practice included handing over a small amount and preparing a meal, as ʿAbīda and Ibn Sīrīn did. Al-Ṭabarī connects the difference to the verb: some understood it as فَأَعْطُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “give them from it”; others as فَأَطْعِمُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “feed them from it.”^[85]

The words مِنْهُ, “from it,” also identify where the gift comes from. It can come from the estate itself, rather than only from income the property earns. Ibn ʿUthaymīn contrasts this with وَارْزُقُوهُمْ فِيهَا, “provide for them in it,” in 4:5, which he explains as maintaining the orphans from their property's earnings.^[86] That does not give an adult heir permission to give away anyone else's portion. The safeguard adopted here is to determine the shares first and let willing adult heirs give from their own shares (Muftī Muḥammad Shafīʿ).^[87]

5. When is the gift made, and how much is given?

Many early explanations place the gift قَبْلَ الْقِسْمَةِ, “before the division”: it is made while the estate is being apportioned, not only after the heirs have carried their portions away. This is transmitted from Saʿīd b. Jubayr and stated by al-Baghawī, al-Khāzin and al-Zuḥaylī. A note in al-Kifāya permits either before or after, although its main explanation also says before.^[88]

Timing does not by itself decide whose property may be used. On the recommendation view followed here, a gift made before physical distribution must still protect the shares of minors, absent heirs and any adult who has not consented. The opposing view in Question 3 treats the payment as a duty chargeable even to a minor’s property. The dispute is therefore about the source of authority, not merely the moment at which money changes hands.

The form of the gift can respond to the property being divided. Money, gold and silver allow a direct gift. When the estate consists of land or enslaved people, one early account gives the visitors a gracious word instead (al-Ḥasan; al-Nakhaʿī).^[89] Al-Zuḥaylī similarly distinguishes a plentiful estate from property too small or unsuitable for an immediate gift.^[90]

No fraction is fixed (Abū Ḥayyān).^[91] The amount is left to the heirs’ willing generosity and the circumstances of the estate and recipients (Mujāhid).^[92] Leaving the amount open does not settle whether some gift is obligatory or recommended; that was the disagreement in Question 2. One proposed measure is enough to relieve need without attempting to make the recipients wealthy (Abū Zahra).^[93] It describes an aim for the gift, not a new inheritance fraction.

6. What does قَوْلًا مَعْرُوفًا, “a kind word,” require?

The words must fit what has happened. When a gift is made, they can honour the recipient and pray for blessing: خُذُوا بُورِكَ لَكُمْ, “Take it; may it be blessed for you” (Saʿīd b. Jubayr).^[94] When nothing can lawfully be given, the guardian can explain that the property belongs to absent owners or young orphans.^[95] The explanation can acknowledge the visitor’s kinship and need while making clear that the guardian does not own the money. One early example adds that the guardian would have given had he possessed a share of his own (al-Suddī).^[96]

Kindness governs more than the first sentence. A gift must not be followed by reminders of favour or hurtful speech. When nothing is given, the response may include an apology and a promise of more (al-Rāzī),^[97] or a prayer, promise or another form of comfort (Ibn ʿAṭiyya).^[98] When something is given, modest words should keep it from becoming humiliating: pray for the recipients, speak modestly of the amount, apologise for its smallness and do not remind them of it later (al-Ālūsī).^[99] Gentle speech can ease disappointment whether the gift is small or absent (al-Ṣābūnī).^[100] The circumstances determine whether an apology is needed: one reported view requires a kind explanation when nothing is given but not an excuse when a gift has already been made (al-Qurṭubī).^[101]

The grammar keeps the two duties together. The same people named as recipients of the gift, the relatives, orphans and poor, are then addressed with kind words; nothing in the sentence marks a change of group (Abū Ḥayyān).^[102] A minority explanation reverses the direction of the second command, so that the recipients pray for the heirs who gave to them (al-Māwardī; ʿIzz al-Dīn b. ʿAbd al-Salām).^[103] The interpretation preferred here keeps the addressee constant: the heirs both give and speak, and the three named groups receive both forms of care.

Conclusion. The verse addresses an estate division but refuses to reduce the encounter to arithmetic. Non-inheriting relatives, orphans and poor people who are present are to receive something from willing adult heirs, in an amount and form suited to the property, without taking from anyone else’s share. Whether a gift can be made or not, the same people must be treated with speech that protects their dignity. And Allah knows best.

2. How the Commentators Read This Verse

Al-Marāghī (d. 1371 AH / 1952 CE)

The same gift can meet two different kinds of disappointment. A relative can remain close to the deceased and yet receive no inheritance: a paternal half-brother is excluded by a full brother, and an uncle by the deceased's father. Those are al-Marāghī's examples of the people named here.^[1] Their exclusion from a share does not remove the family relationship.

The gift addresses that relationship, but the accompanying words also need to suit the recipient. One person may find accepting help painful to his dignity. Another may hope for more than he receives. Gentle speech can ease the first person's reluctance and the second person's disappointment. Harshness would make either encounter worse.^[2]

The heirs, meanwhile, have received wealth without earning it. Al-Marāghī therefore connects giving with gratitude, keeping kinship and easing envy: a gift or a meal at the division turns part of that unearned gain into kindness toward those watching it pass to others.^[3]

Al-Saʿdī (d. 1376 AH / 1956 CE)

The kindness is wider than an estate division. Someone present may look longingly at what another person has. Giving a little that can easily be spared can benefit that person without harming the giver. Al-Saʿdī draws this wider lesson from the verse's response to people who watch an estate being divided.^[4]

He relates it to two Prophetic examples. When someone has prepared and brought a person's food, that person's enjoyment of the meal should not make him forget the one who worked over it:

إِذَا أَتَى أَحَدَكُمْ خَادِمُهُ بِطَعَامِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يُجْلِسْهُ مَعَهُ فَلْيُنَاوِلْهُ أُكْلَةً أَوْ أُكْلَتَيْنِ، أَوْ لُقْمَةً أَوْ لُقْمَتَيْنِ؛ فَإِنَّهُ وَلِيَ حَرَّهُ وَعِلَاجَهُ

“When one of you has his servant bring his food, if he does not seat him with him, let him give him a helping or two, or a morsel or two, for he has tended its heat and preparation.”^[5]

The second example concerns the first fruit of the season. Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه relates that the Prophet ﷺ was brought the first fruit, prayed for blessing and then:

ثُمَّ يُعْطِيهِ أَصْغَرَ مَنْ يَحْضُرُهُ مِنَ الْوِلْدَانِ

“He would then give it to the youngest of the children present.”^[6]

Al-Saʿdī connects the child's eagerness for the fruit with the expectation of those attending the division. His point is to notice that expectation and respond with kindness where one can.

The limit is part of the explanation. If the property belongs to people whose wealth must be protected, or a more important claim prevents giving, the person should not take from it merely to satisfy someone watching. What remains is قَوْلًا مَعْرُوفًا, “a kind word”: a gracious response without harshness or insult.^[7]

Ibn ʿUthaymīn (d. 1421 AH / 2001 CE)

Being present does not make someone a co-owner. The verse addresses a division attended by people who do not own a share. Ibn ʿUthaymīn reasons that the command to give them something would be unnecessary if they were already among the owners, since those owners receive their allotted property as of right.

He therefore draws a practical conclusion: shared property may be divided in the presence of people who are not partners in it. Their attendance is permitted, while their receipt of a gift remains distinct from an owner's entitlement.^[8]

3. Iʿrāb: Grammatical Structure

The starting point is Dār al-Ṣaḥābah's Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, which analyses the verse word by word and then places each clause.^[1] The discussion after the tables gives relevant alternative analyses and explains whether they change the meaning or translation.

Word, grammar, what it does

Clause and position

These clause relationships follow Dār al-Ṣaḥābah's analysis.^[2]

Why the command begins with فَ, “then”

The opening إِذَا, “when,” states the occasion; فَارْزُقُوهُمْ, “then provide for them,” gives the response. Ibn ʿUthaymīn explains that the response begins with فَ because it is a command. He quotes a mnemonic for seven kinds of conditional response that require this connection:

اسمية طلبية وبجامد ... وبما وقد ولن وبالتنفيس

“A nominal clause, a request, one with a non-inflecting verb; one with mā, qad, lan, or a future marker.”^[3]

The relevant kind here is طَلَبِيَّة, a request or command. The فَ links the response to the occasion: when these people attend, give to them. Whether the giving is obligatory or recommended is the separate legal question examined above.

Where the grammar changes the meaning

1. مِنْهُ, “from it”: what does “it” refer to?

The command is فَارْزُقُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “provide for them from it.” The ending ـهُ, “it,” is masculine. Yet الْقِسْمَةَ, “the division,” is a feminine noun. The question is how these words fit together.

The answer is that the gift comes from the property being divided, not from the act of dividing. The grammarians explain the connection in three ways:

Maḥmūd Ṣāfī explains the basic connection: the masculine pronoun refers to الْمَقْسُوم, the property divided, which is understood from “the division.”^[4]

Following the meaning rather than the feminine noun. Al-Akhfash explains that الْقِسْمَةَ here means the property and the inheritance, so the pronoun is masculine to match that meaning.^[5] Al-Qurṭubī illustrates the same grammatical principle from 12:76. The pronoun in اسْتَخْرَجَها, “he brought it out,” is feminine because the cup is understood as السِّقَايَة, a feminine word, although it was also called الصُّوَاع, a masculine word.^[6] Al-Durra uses the same comparison.^[7] Al-Wāḥidī, as al-Rāzī reports him, gives the practical reason for understanding the property here: the gift comes from what is divided, not from the act of dividing.^[8]

Referring to property that the action implies. Al-ʿUkbarī understands “it” as the property divided because mentioning a division already implies something to divide.^[9] Makkī gives the same explanation: the pronoun in مِنْهُ refers to the property implied by الْقِسْمَةَ.^[10] He later uses this verse as a grammatical comparison at 5:106.^[11] Al-Samīn uses it at 3:49: a masculine pronoun can refer to the thing formed even though the word “form” is feminine.^[12] Ibn ʿĀdil makes the same comparison there.^[13] These examples explain why a pronoun can follow an understood meaning rather than the grammatical gender of the nearby word.

Referring back to the estate in 4:7. Abū Ḥayyān gives both possibilities: “the division” implies the property, or “it” refers back to مَا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ, “what parents and relatives leave.”^[14] Al-Zamakhsharī gives that second explanation.^[15] Ibn ʿĀshūr makes a related point about الْقِسْمَةَ, “the division”: the definite article points back to a division already understood from the shares named in 4:7. He calls this تَعْرِيفُ الْعَهْدِ الذِّكْرِيِّ, the definite article referring to what has already been mentioned.^[16]

An understood referent. Al-Shanqīṭī illustrates the Arabic construction in which a pronoun refers to something understood from its setting. Among his examples is a line of Ḥātim al-Ṭāʾī:

أماوى ما يغني الثراء عن الفتى ... إذا حشرجت يومًا وضاق بها الصدر

“O Māwiyya, what good is wealth to a man when one day his soul rattles in his throat and his chest tightens around it?”^[17]

Al-Shanqīṭī identifies the unstated referent as النَّفْس, the soul, understood from the death-rattle and the tightening chest. This illustrates the kind of construction Abū Ḥayyān describes here: مِنْهُ, “from it,” can refer to the property understood from the act of division.

Does the translation change? No. All three explanations mean that the heirs give from the estate being divided. “Provide for them from it” remains the English rendering. Al-Zajjāj explains the command as فَأَعْطُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “give them from it”: an actual gift from the estate.^[18]

Abū Ḥayyān prefers to understand الْقِسْمَةَ as a مَصْدَر, a noun naming the act of dividing, while also recording the explanation that it means the property divided.^[19] “The division” remains suitable English for either account; neither makes the gift come from somewhere other than the estate.

2. فَارْزُقُوهُمْ and وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ: are the same people given the gift and the kind word?

Both commands contain هُمْ, “them.” Unlike the previous question, assigning this pronoun to different people changes who receives the gift.

Saʿīd b. Jubayr's account of two guardians raises a different question: who has authority to give? In the wording preserved by al-Jaṣṣāṣ, a guardian who inherits can give, while one who does not inherit offers the kind word. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ then explains the account through paying a present heir and retaining an absent or minor heir's portion.^[23] A distinction between the guardians' authority is not by itself a reason to make the two occurrences of هُمْ refer to different recipients.

The joined interpretation is the one the grammar supports. The three groups have just been named, and nothing between فَارْزُقُوهُمْ and وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ identifies a different group for the second command. The translation should therefore make clear that the same people receive the gift and the kind word. The separate question of a guardian's authority over a child's property is answered in Question 3.

On the recommendation view, the same recipients do not require the same response from every guardian. Where an heir is free to give, he gives; where the property belongs to a child and the guardian cannot give it away, he explains kindly. On this interpretation, the وَ in وَقُولُوا distinguishes the two cases: لِلتَّقْسِيمِ, “for distinguishing the cases.” The difference concerns the giver's authority, not a change in who is addressed (Ibn Ḥajar, recording this explanation).^[24]

3. The opening وَ: a connection to 4:7 or a new sentence?

The Dār al-Ṣaḥābah clause table above joins the whole sentence to the inheritance statement in 4:7. Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh instead calls the opening وَ اسْتِئْنَافِيَّة, introducing a new sentence.^[25] This changes how the sentences are connected grammatically, not what the heirs are told to do. Either way, the verse directs them to give from the estate and speak kindly.

And Allah knows best.

4. Ṣarf: Roots and Word Formation

Nine words of the verse are built on a root. The table gives each one its root, its pattern and its inflection, and what the form adds to the sense; the paragraphs after it give what the lexicons say of the roots that decide the meaning. The particles, the pronouns and أُولُو (ulū) have no root and are not given one.

الْقِسْمَة, the act of dividing. A division sets apart what each person receives. Al-Rāghib illustrates the word through the distribution of inheritance and war spoils: property is apportioned among those entitled to it.^[1] The word in this verse names that act, rather than the property itself, in Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal's explanation.^[2] The related noun qassām names the person who carries out a division, such as dividing houses or land among their co-owners (Ibn Manẓūr).^[3]

The vocabulary of dividing and taking a share. Al-Wāḥidī distinguishes the act of dividing from the portion received. He quotes an unnamed poet through al-Naḍr:

فما لك إلا مِقسمٌ ليس فائتًا ... به أحدٌ فاستَأْخِرَن أو تَقَدَّمَ

“You have only an allotted share that passes no one by; hold back, then, or go ahead.”^[4]

Here مِقْسَم means an allotted portion. The line illustrates a noun from the same root as الْقِسْمَة, without making the two forms identical.

For اقْتَسَمْنَا, “we divided between ourselves,” he quotes al-Nābigha al-Dhubyānī:

إنّا اقتَسَمْنا خُطَّتَينا بيَننا ... فحَمَلتُ بَرَّةَ واحتملتَ فَجَارِ

“We divided our two courses between us: I undertook goodness, and you undertook wickedness.”^[5]

The poet pictures two courses of action as portions divided between two people. Al-Wāḥidī uses the verb as a linguistic witness for division. In the verse, the object being divided is property. He derives the noun الْقِسْمَة from الِاقْتِسَام, while Abū Ḥayyān prefers to explain it as a verbal noun meaning the act of dividing.^[6] Both accounts leave “the division” as the translation here.

حَضَرَ, being present. The root connects bringing something, its arrival and its being witnessed (Ibn Fāris).^[7] In ordinary use it means being present at a place or with a person; al-Rāghib compares “when death comes to one of you” in 2:180.^[8] Here it describes people present at the division. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī connects that circumstance with the instruction that follows: they are there when the wealth is divided, so their feelings should be eased with some part of it.^[9]

الْقُرْبَى, kinship. The noun names the blood relationship itself (Ibn Fāris).^[10] Context identifies which relatives are meant here: those who do not inherit, rather than everyone related to the deceased. Al-Marāghī and al-Ālūsī make that distinction.^[11]

الْيَتَامَى and الْمَسَاكِين, orphans and poor people. Orphanhood in a human child means losing the father before maturity. The lexicons distinguish this from the use of the word for an animal that has lost its mother (Ibn Fāris and al-Rāghib).^[12] For miskīn, al-Rāghib records an explanation in which the person has nothing at all, whereas a faqīr has something insufficient. On that explanation, miskīn expresses the more severe need.^[13]

رِزْق, provision. The word can describe a gift that reaches someone, not only food. Ibn Fāris traces it to giving at an appointed time and explains that the word was extended to giving without a fixed time.^[14] Al-Rāghib distinguishes an ongoing gift, in this world or the next; an allotted share; and what enters the body as nourishment.^[15] Those uses help explain why commentators discuss both handing over property and preparing food under فَارْزُقُوهُمْ, “provide for them.”

مَعْرُوف, what is known to be good. The adjective does more than require polite sounds. It names conduct whose goodness is recognized by reason or revealed law, as opposed to munkar, what is rejected (al-Rāghib).^[16] The word includes obedience to Allah, kindness to people, fair dealing and good company (Ibn Manẓūr).^[17] Ibn Fāris connects the root with the way people feel at ease with what is good.^[18]

Applied to speech, that goodness becomes something a person can hear and receive. At 2:263, al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī gives examples addressed to a poor person: may Allah open His bounty to you, give you ease and keep you from want. He sets such words above a gift followed by reproach.^[19] In 4:8, the adjective therefore directs attention to how the person is treated, not merely to whether words have been spoken.

5. Balāghah: Rhetorical Analysis

“When,” not merely “if”

Where it is: وَإِذَا حَضَرَ الْقِسْمَةَ, “and when they attend the division.”

The plain way: In English, “if” may leave an occasion more open; “when” presents it as an occasion to be expected. This comparison helps explain the choice of the Arabic conditional expression without changing the verse’s wording.

What it does: Ibn ʿArafa gives two explanations for إِذَا rather than إِنْ: it gives greater emphasis to the direction to provide, or it reflects the fact that attendance is the usual, frequent circumstance. On the second explanation, the qualities of kinship, orphanhood and need, not physical presence alone, are what call for help.^[1]

The effect: The division is a foreseeable occasion on which the heirs should be prepared to respond. Ibn ʿArafa also uses the usual-case explanation to include those absent. That legal extension belongs to his interpretation; the word “when” alone does not establish it for every commentator.

The division before those attending it (التقديم, al-taqdīm)

Where it is: حَضَرَ الْقِسْمَةَ أُولُو الْقُرْبَى, “the relatives attend the division.” In the Arabic, “the division” comes after the verb but before the subject, “the relatives,” followed by the orphans and the poor.

The plain way: In an ordinary verb-led arrangement, the subject would follow the verb and the object would follow the subject: the relatives, orphans and poor attend the division. The verse places the object before that extended list.

What it does: Al-Ālūsī explains that the division is the matter under discussion. He also connects its position with the length of the threefold subject and the relation between the sentence's parts. He then records a further explanation:

قدمت لتكون أمام الحاضرين في اللفظ كما أنها أمامهم في الواقع

“It was placed first so that it would stand before those attending in the wording, just as it stands before them in reality.”

He remarks that he had not seen this particular point mentioned by the scholars of ʿilm al-maʿānī, the study of how expression fits its purpose.^[2]

The effect: The division is brought to our attention before the people attending it are listed. Al-Ālūsī's recorded explanation connects that arrangement with the occasion itself: the division is before these people, and the question is how they will be treated there.

A division already understood (تعريف العهد الذكري, taʿrīf al-ʿahd al-dhikrī)

Where it is: الْقِسْمَةَ, “the division,” with the definite article.

The plain way: “A division” would introduce an unspecified occasion. “The division” directs the reader to a division already understood from the preceding words.

What it does: Ibn ʿĀshūr links the definite article to 4:7. Its statements that men and women have a share imply property to be divided. He therefore calls the article تَعْرِيفُ الْعَهْدِ الذِّكْرِيِّ, “definiteness referring back to what has been mentioned.”^[3] The earlier verse need not have used the noun “division”: the allocation of shares has already made the division understood.

The effect: Verse 8 continues the estate discussion of verse 7. The people who inherit have just been named; the instruction now concerns others who attend that same division. This strengthens the connection with inheritance without requiring a new occasion to be introduced.

Giving some of the estate (التبعيض, al-tabʿīḍ)

Where it is: فَارْزُقُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “provide for them from it.”

The plain way: “Provide for them” alone would not identify the source. “From it” directs the heirs to the property being divided, and indicates that something is given from it.

What it does: Abū Ḥayyān explains that مِنْ, min, is partitive here. He also states that no amount is fixed, and includes that lack of a stated measure among the reasons for understanding the command as a recommendation.^[4] Ibn ʿUthaymīn draws a second distinction: here the words are مِنْهُ, “from it,” whereas 4:5 says فِيهَا, “in it.” Here the gift comes from the estate itself; in his explanation of 4:5, maintenance comes from what the protected property earns.^[5]

The effect: The heirs are directed to give something from the property that has reached them. The wording identifies the source and a part of it; it does not set a fraction or an amount. That fits the verse's gift beside the measured inheritance shares that follow.

The orphans before the poor

Where it is: أُولُو الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينُ, “the relatives, the orphans and the poor.”

The plain way: Naming the groups would identify them in either order. The order chosen also permits attention to why one group is mentioned before another.

What it does: Al-Rāzī explains the placement of the orphans before the poor through their greater weakness and more pressing need. On that account, charity to them carries greater merit.^[6] The earlier discussion of kinship explains why relatives head the list: Ibn ʿUthaymīn connects that priority with the greater reward of kindness to one's relatives.^[7]

The effect: The order directs attention both to the claim of kinship and to the particular vulnerability of the orphan. All three groups remain included; the sequence does not remove the poor from either the gift or the kind word.

Provision rather than bare transfer

Where it is: فَارْزُقُوهُمْ مِنْهُ, “provide for them from it.”

The plain way: “Give them” can describe a transfer without indicating what the recipient needs. “Provide for them” directs attention to the benefit of what is given.

What it does: Ibn ʿArafa contrasts the chosen verb with merely saying “give.” He connects it with الرزق الحاجي الذي به قوام الأنفس, “needed provision by which lives are sustained.” He also sees an indication that the gift can be small and easy to give.^[8]

The effect: The giver is asked to think about help that reaches a person, not simply property that leaves his own hands. In Ibn ʿArafa’s explanation, a modest gift can still answer a real need. The word does not state a legally fixed minimum.

The verb echoed in its noun (التجنيس المغاير, al-tajnīs al-mughāyir)

Where it is: وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ قَوْلًا مَعْرُوفًا, “and speak to them a kind word.”

The plain way: A command to speak could be followed by an adverb such as “kindly.” Here the act is named again: “speak … a saying,” followed by the description “kind.”

What it does: Abū Ḥayyān identifies التجنيس المغاير in وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ قَوْلًا: the related verb and noun recur in different forms. The grammatical table explains the noun قَوْلًا as naming the act of speech so that مَعْرُوفًا can describe what kind of speech it must be.^[9]

The effect: The instruction concerns not simply speaking, but the character of the speech. The cognate noun قَوْلًا names the act; مَعْرُوفًا specifies its character. What is required is speech that is kind, not merely words addressed to the visitors.

6. Qirāʾāt: The Readings

Ibn al-Jazarī's verse-by-verse entries do not list a different consonantal or lexical form for 4:8.^[1] Ghayth al-Nafʿ does record canonical differences of pronunciation in الْيَتَامَى, “the orphans,” and الْقُرْبَى, “the relatives.” Its editorial note includes 4:8 among the five occurrences of الْيَتَامَى in this passage and states:

وقد قرأ حمزة والكسائي في الخمسة المواضع بالإمالة، وقرأ ورش فيها بالفتح والتقليل

“Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī recited with imāla in the five places, and Warsh recited them with fatḥ and taqlīl.”^[2]

The following table keeps all ten canonical readers in view while recording only what the inspected sources assign at this verse:

The exact second entry in Ghayth al-Nafʿ is الْقُرْبَى * لَهُمْ وَبَصْرِي, “الْقُرْبَى: for them and al-Baṣrī.” “Al-Baṣrī” names Abū ʿAmr. The pronoun “them” depends on earlier shorthand that the preserved passage does not expand, so the table does not attach additional names to it. Both cited works concern the canonical readings; the inspected sources report no noncanonical form for 4:8. These pronunciation differences do not change the lexical meaning of “orphans” or “relatives.”