Exegesis of the verse: ((And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry such women as please you...))

This verse contains several benefits, among which is: the clarification of the mercy of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), where He commanded the care of these orphans, because the orphan is a place of mercy; his heart is broken, he has no father, and perhaps he has no mother either. For this reason, Allah commanded care for him and his wealth. Another benefit is: the obligation to preserve the wealth of orphans. What is the basis for this? It is because giving them their wealth necessitates its preservation, for if one were negligent and the wealth was lost, he would not have given them their wealth. Among its benefits is: that the orphan owns property, and his ownership is complete, as He said: . Branching from this benefit is: that zakah is obligatory upon him, because zakah follows ownership. Allah the Exalted said: And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Mu'adh ibn Jabal when he sent him to Yemen: So, when ownership is established, the obligation of zakah is established. In this is a refutation of the statement of some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) that zakah is not obligatory in the wealth of orphans, because the orphan is a minor and not accountable. We say in response to this: that zakah is not a pure obligation of accountability, but it is an obligation for the right of others, namely the poor. It is similar to a debt. For this reason, it is obligatory in the wealth of orphans and the insane, even though they are not accountable. Among its benefits is: that maintenance is obligatory from the orphan's wealth for those upon whom his maintenance is obligatory. From where is it taken? From the establishment of wealth. Maintenance is obligatory upon every rich person for every poor person. So, if the conditions of maintenance are met and only maturity remains, we say that maturity is not a condition, because Allah established wealth for orphans, and when wealth is established, what follows for those with wealth follows for them. Among its benefits is: the obligation to fulfill the trust, as He said: . Among its benefits is: the application of the name "al-khabeeth" (the bad) to the inferior. Is that correct? On one of the two views in the interpretation of the verse. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) explicitly stated that the inferior is called bad, so He said: He called it bad, meaning He called the inferior bad. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) called onions and the like bad, and said that it is lawful, and said that it is lawful even though the description of "bad" is applied to it. Among its benefits is: the prohibition of mixing the orphan's wealth with the guardian's wealth if the intention is to destroy it. From where do we take this? From His saying: However, if he mixes his wealth with his own not for the purpose of eating and destroying, but for the purpose of preservation and trade, then there is no harm in this; rather, it may become obligatory upon a person. So, if he mixes the orphan's wealth with his own for the purpose of preservation or trade, it is kindness to him and does not fall under the prohibition, because Allah said: He did not say: "Do not mix them." For this reason, Allah said in Surat al-Baqarah: But in the case of mixing wealth with wealth for the purpose of preservation or earning, a person must be cautious in writing down the orphan's wealth that he introduced with his own. The complete caution is to bear witness to it. For example, he says: "I introduced such and such from the orphan's wealth into my wealth, with which I bought land, with which I bought cars, and the like of what is used for earning." Among its benefits is: that encroaching upon the wealth of orphans by taking the good and giving the bad, or eating their wealth, is among the major sins, as He the Exalted said: If someone asks: Why did He (Mighty and Majestic) not say: "And do not eat their wealth," and not say "to your wealth"? The answer is: I say He did not say: "And do not eat their wealth" in a general sense. If He had said: "And do not eat their wealth," it would have been a great sin, and that would have been sufficient. But He said: Because the guardian of the orphan may conceal; he may conceal and mix the orphan's wealth with his own, and who would know about it? For this reason, He said: And on this basis, this — namely — is not a restriction, such that we would say if he ate his wealth without mixing it with his own, it is permissible. No, we do not say that. Rather, we say that Allah mentioned this because some guardians conceal by mixing the orphan's wealth with their own, and no one knows about it.

The questioner : A question is asked: Some scholars said that this verse is abrogated by His saying: ?

The Shaykh : The answer is: That this person erred, he erred greatly, because His saying: is not the eating that Allah prohibited here, such that we would say there is a contradiction between the two verses. Allah says: You mix them in order to eat them. However, if one mixes them for improvement or for a benefit, you have known that there is no harm in that. But some scholars — may Allah pardon us and them — when they are unable to reconcile the two texts, they say this is abrogated. And I say, when they are unable, and there may not be a contradiction between the two texts, each text may be understood according to its meaning. This is a serious issue, very serious, because the meaning of abrogation is the denial of the abrogated. It is not a trivial matter; the meaning of abrogation is that you denied a legislative ruling. So the issue is serious. Therefore, it is not permissible to claim abrogation of a text when reconciliation is possible, ever.