Exegesis of the verse: (( Allah bequeaths to you concerning your children: for the male, the share of two females. If they are women, more than two, then for them is two-thirds of what he left behind. And if she is one, then for her is half... ))

Then Allah the Exalted said: A bequest is a covenant regarding a matter of importance, a covenant made to you, meaning that something important has been entrusted to you. This is a bequest, and it takes effect after death. As for what happens before death, it is an agency. It should be known that the one who manages property other than his own has different titles according to the function he performs. Sometimes we call him an agent, sometimes a guardian, sometimes a supervisor, and sometimes an executor. If he manages the property of another without the owner's permission, but by the permission of the Shari'ah, he is called a guardian, such as the guardian of an orphan. If he manages the property of another after his death, he is called an executor. If he manages an endowment, he is called a supervisor. If he manages on behalf of a living person, he is called an agent. Here we said that the origin of a bequest is a covenant regarding a matter of importance. And His saying: is connected to meaning that the bequest is regarding the children themselves. "Children" is the plural of "child" and includes both males and females, as evidenced by His saying: meaning that if males and females are present among the children, we give the male the share of two females. Reflect on how the phrase was used, without saying: "for the female is half of the male," because a share and a portion imply a benefit and an increase, whereas half implies a decrease. Therefore, He said: and did not say: "for the female is half of the male's wealth," because the word "half" implies a decrease, unlike "share" which implies an increase, so it is a better expression than if He had said: "for the female is half of the male's wealth." If a man dies leaving five sons and one daughter, how much does the daughter get? One out of eleven, because the five sons represent ten shares, and if he dies leaving seven sons and three daughters? One out of seventeen, because the seven sons represent fourteen shares and the three daughters represent three shares, so the total is seventeen shares, and so on. Here He said: and did not say: "if they are women," meaning the children, although that is permissible. It is permissible for a pronoun, if it is preceded by both a masculine and a feminine noun, to be made masculine based on what preceded it if the preceding noun was masculine, or feminine based on what followed it. So here He said: Did He make the pronoun feminine or masculine? He made it feminine, based on what followed it. If this were not in the Qur'an and it was said: "if they are women," it would be permissible based on what preceded it. So the pronoun in such a construction can refer to what preceded it or to what followed it. The exegetes differed regarding His saying: It was said that it is superfluous, and that the meaning is: "if they are two women," because the two-thirds is due to two women and more. The apparent meaning of the noble verse is that two women do not receive two-thirds. Why, O 'Abd Allah? Because He said: Because He said: so its apparent meaning is that two women do not receive two-thirds, even though the ruling is contrary to that. Therefore, some scholars said that it is superfluous. But the correct view is that it is not superfluous, but rather it is beneficial and original, to make it clear that what is more than two does not increase the share, whether they are ten or twenty, for the fixed share does not increase with their increase. We are left with the two women. Regarding the two women and the establishment of the two-thirds for them, there are several perspectives. The first perspective is that He said: "one, then for her is half." The implication is that what is more than one does not have the half. And we do not know a fixed share for daughters other than the half or the two-thirds. If she does not have the half, then what remains for her is the two-thirds, because there is no fixed share between the half and the two-thirds. Second: Allah made the two sisters receive two-thirds at the end of the surah. Allah Blessed and Exalted is He said: And the bond of the two daughters with their father is stronger than the bond of the two sisters with their brother. And on this basis, the two daughters receive two-thirds, just as the two sisters receive two-thirds. Is that clear? The third perspective, although it is outside the scope of the Qur'an, is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the two daughters of Sa'd ibn Rabi' the two-thirds, and they were two. And on this basis, we say: Allah made clear in this noble verse that the children are either males and females, or females only. A third category remains, which is that they are males only. Did Allah make clear the ruling for these three categories? The answer is: we look. If they are males and females, Allah has made the ruling clear. What is it? That for the male is the share of two females. If they are women only, Allah has made the ruling clear that for one is the half, and for more than one is the two-thirds. He was silent regarding male children only, which indicates that they inherit without a fixed share and that they inherit equally. Because if there had been a fixed share, He would have specified it, just as He specified the fixed share... And if they had differed, He would have specified that, just as He specified the difference between one daughter and two or more. And on this basis, if they are males only, they inherit by number. And what is their problem? It is from the number of heads. Note that if the heirs are residuary heirs, their problem is not established from a base, but their base is from the number of their heads. If they are one hundred paternal uncles, from what is the problem? From one hundred. Always? Always, yes. If they are residuary heirs, it is from the number of their heads, however many they are. And if they are one hundred paternal uncles and fifty paternal aunts? You have fallen into the trap. Why one hundred? Because paternal aunts do not inherit. Paternal aunts do not inherit. If they are one hundred paternal uncles and fifty paternal aunts, the fifty paternal aunts do not inherit, because the rule passed to us recently is that none of the collateral female relatives inherit except sisters. Paternal aunts, daughters of a brother, daughters of an uncle, have no inheritance. He the Glorious and Exalted says: Well, there is a reading: And on this reading, "was" is complete, and "was" the complete one is that which is sufficient with its raised noun without its predicate, because it does not require anything else, so it is complete with it. And the incomplete one is that which needs a predicate because it is not complete except with it. For this reason, it is called "was" If it is sufficient with its raised noun, it is called complete, it does not need completion. So there are two readings: . Whose parents? The parents of the deceased, and they will not have been mentioned before, but the context requires it. By what evidence does it require it? By His saying: Because a person does not leave his wealth except after his death. Meaning his father and his grandfather? His parents, O brothers? The father is the male, the mother is the mother. He says: and his mother, for example? By way of predominance. So the parents are the father and the mother. And here it is attached to the dual or is it dual? Attached, yes. Meaning the parents of the deceased His saying: This is a substitute for His saying: by repeating the operator. The substitute is known to have the grammatical status of the substituted word, but here we dispense with the dependency in grammar because we repeated the operator. meaning one-sixth for each of the parents if they have a son or a daughter as well. meaning the deceased has a child. And His saying: includes the male and the female. So if the deceased has parents and children, then for each of the parents is one-sixth, not more than this. Well If the child is a male, then for the mother is one-sixth, for the father is one-sixth, and the rest is for the son. And if it is a female, her fixed share is for her. Her fixed share is the half if she is one, or the two-thirds if she is more. And the rest? The rest is for the father as a residuary heir, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): So the inheritance of the parents with a child is either a fixed share or a residuary share. As for the mother, it is a fixed share, and she has no residuary share at all, and her fixed share is one-sixth with the presence of a child, whether male or female. As for the father, if there are males among the children, he has only one-sixth. And if the heirs are females, he has one-sixth as a fixed share, and the rest, if any remains, is as a residuary share. And at that time we say: either the child with the parents is males only, or females only, or males and females. If they are males only, then for the father and the mother is only one-sixth. And if they are females only, then for the mother is only one-sixth, and likewise the father is given one-sixth as a fixed share, and if anything remains, he takes it as a residuary share. And if they are males and females, then for the father is only one-sixth, like the mother, because there is no residuary share for the father with the presence of any of his sons or their sons, because the sons or their sons are more entitled to the residuary share than the father.