Exegesis of the verse: “And to you belongs half of what your wives leave behind, if they have no children…”

A woman cannot be considered a wife unless the conditions of the marriage contract are fulfilled. Therefore, a valid marriage contract is necessary. If the contract is not valid, there is no inheritance. An invalid contract includes both defective and void contracts. Scholars classify marriages into three categories: valid, void, and defective. What scholars have agreed is valid is valid; what they have agreed is void is void; and what they have disagreed upon is defective. This is how scholars establish it: marriage is of three types. The valid one is that in which its conditions are met and its impediments are absent, or, if you wish, that which scholars have agreed is valid. The void one is that which they have agreed is defective. The defective one is that in which they have disagreed about its validity. An example of the first is a man marrying a woman with a valid contract free from impediments. An example of the second, the void one, is a man contracting marriage with a woman who turns out to be his foster sister; here the contract is void due to the scholars’ consensus on its defectiveness. Or if he marries a woman during her waiting period, the scholars are unanimous that the contract is defective. An example of the third is marrying a woman without witnesses, or with witnesses who are ancestors or descendants, or without a guardian, or marrying a woman who was breastfed by his mother three times. All these types are subject to disagreement. For example, if a woman was breastfed by his mother three times, she is permissible for him according to many scholars, or the majority of scholars. Why? Because the breastfeeding that creates kinship is five times, while according to some scholars, the kinship-creating amount is three times, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): The implication of this is that anything exceeding these two is kinship-creating. According to this opinion, the marriage would be? It would be void, meaning defective. And if he marries a woman who was breastfed by his mother only once, the marriage is also defective, but its defectiveness is closer to the position of those who say three times, because the opinion that breastfeeding is kinship-creating in any amount is the opinion of… and it is a weak opinion. The important point is that in a defective marriage, there is no inheritance between the spouses, and in a void marriage? Likewise, there is no inheritance. The valid marriage, which scholars have agreed is valid due to the completion of its conditions and the absence of its impediments, is the one that results in inheritance. This is derived from His saying: . This is a negative condition. The reason it is a negative condition is that negation enters its content. Is negation absence or presence? Negation is absence. So, for the husband to inherit half of what his wife leaves behind, there is a negative condition, which is that she has no children. And His saying: includes the singular and the plural, and the male and the female, because the word “child” means the offspring, which is applicable to both males and females. The evidence for this is His saying, the Exalted: This indicates that “children” and “child” include both males and females. This is an explicit statement of the implication of His saying: The implication is that if they have children, the ruling differs, meaning it does not become half for you. What does it become? He clarified this in His saying: If someone asks: What is the wisdom in the fact that with children the husband gets a quarter, and without them he gets a half? We say: Because if she has children, her children are in need of financial support, so three-quarters of the money is provided for them, unlike if she has no children. And the generality of His saying: We said it includes males and females, the singular and the plural, and those who are from her husband and those who are from other husbands. For example, if she dies and has children from a previous husband, her current husband is entitled to only a quarter. And it is a condition for the bequest, which precedes inheritance, that it be a prescribed bequest. This means it must be one-third or less, for whom? For a non-heir, and it must be a bequest that fulfills all conditions. If one of its conditions is lacking and it becomes invalid, it is not considered. If a woman bequeaths some of her wealth to be spent on people of musical instruments and singing, the bequest is void and not considered. This is because we have an important rule that legal terms are understood according to the meaning considered valid in the Shari'ah. So, the bequest that is considered valid in the Shari'ah is one that is one-third or less, for a non-heir, and with the conditions known to the people of knowledge, which, if Allah wills, will come to us in jurisprudence. And His saying: “or” here is a particle preventing absence, not a particle preventing exclusivity. The difference between them is that “or” which prevents absence means that it is required that one of these two matters not be absent, and if both are present, that is even better. The second, which prevents sharing, is one where the ruling applies to one of the two matters. If I say: “Honor Zayd or 'Amr,” and I mean that you should honor one of them, this prevents sharing. If I say: “Honor Zayd or 'Amr,” meaning I have given you the choice, this is called preventing absence, meaning that the situation is not devoid of honoring one of the two men, and honoring one of them is even more so. Here, “or” is it of the type of preventing absence or preventing sharing? It is preventing absence, meaning that debt and bequest may coexist, or one of them may be alone. Inheritance does not occur except after the bequest and the debt. But the bequest, as you know, is one-third or less, while the debt may consume the entire wealth. If the debt consumes the entire wealth, the heirs have no right. Is that correct? Meaning, if he had a thousand dirhams of debt and left a thousand dirhams, here the heirs have nothing, because if we pay the debt from the thousand, nothing remains for the heirs. And if the woman bequeathed a thousand and left only a thousand? Does nothing remain for the heirs? No, why? Because she does not have the right to bequeath more than one-third.
In this verse, Allah the Exalted placed the bequest before the debt, and it was likewise in the first verse. The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) explained the wisdom behind this by stating that a bequest is a voluntary act while a debt is obligatory. Therefore, the bequest was placed first to compensate for its deficiency as a voluntary act compared to an obligation. This is one aspect. The second aspect is that there is someone to demand the debt, unlike the bequest, which is voluntary; if the heirs had wished to deny it, they could have done so. Thus, it was placed first out of concern and care for it. It is said regarding these phrases what was said about those before them. The wisdom in Allah distinguishing between men and women by giving the female half the wealth of the male is that this is the rule in inheritance law: if a man and a woman are of the same category, they are on the basis of difference, meaning the man gets twice the share of the woman, except for those who inherit through the mother alone, in which case the male and female are equal. For example, the children of the mother, where their males and females are equal, and those related by blood (according to the well-known view in the school of thought), where their males and females are equal. So, the son of a sister and the daughter of a sister share the wealth equally. It will be mentioned, if Allah wills, the disagreement on this, and that the correct view is that the inheritance of those related by blood is based on the inheritance of the person through whom they claim it; if they claim it through someone in whom male and female differ, then they differ likewise. Then he said: His statement: It is possible that "was" here is incomplete, and the phrase is the predicate of "was". It is also possible that it is complete, with as the subject, and as a description of . This is closer, because the estimation is: "And if a man who inherits as a collateral relative is found." His statement: This is an absolute object, and the proof that it is an absolute object is that it is valid to estimate the verbal noun before it, and the estimation is: "He inherits an inheritance of collateral relatives." Therefore, it is an absolute object. The inheritance of collateral relatives is that one inherits without the presence of ancestors or descendants, meaning the heir is neither an ancestor nor a descendant, because it is like the crown that surrounds a thing. They are the periphery, meaning those whose heirs are peripheral, and he is one whom no descendant or ancestor inherits from. For this reason, it was reported from the Salaf that a collateral relative is one who has no child and no parent, meaning the periphery inherits from him. So, the one who is inherited from as a collateral relative is one whom only the periphery inherits from. Is that so, Salim? For example, a man who dies leaving brothers is called a collateral relative, leaving uncles is a collateral relative, leaving nephews (sons of uncles) is a collateral relative, leaving nephews (sons of brothers) is a collateral relative. So, anyone who inherits without a descendant or an ancestor is a collateral relative. His statement: is conjoined to , but the word do we say it is conjoined to "man" with its description, or to without its description? With its description, meaning "or a woman who inherits as a collateral relative." The grammarians and also the jurists agreed that if a description follows a phrase, it returns to the whole. If it follows a phrase, it returns to the whole. For example, if I say: "Honor Zayd, 'Amr, Khalid, and Bakr if they strive in their studies," it applies to the whole. But if it stands alone and precedes: "Honor Zayd, 'Amr, and Khalid if they strive, and Bakr," they differed on whether Bakr's honor is absolute or described by what preceded, with two opinions on this issue. The correct view is that it returns to the circumstances in this case, and the circumstances here indicate that is conjoined to considering it described by being one who inherits as a collateral relative. "for him" The pronoun returns to the man who inherits as a collateral relative, and likewise the woman. And it did not say: "And for them a brother or a sister," considering the first description, which is the man. His statement: Here it is general, including a full brother, a brother on the father's side, or a brother on the mother's side. But the scholars agreed that the intended meaning is a brother from the mother or a sister from the mother. A reading was reported in it from some of the Salaf: , and this is very clear, even if this reading was not reported, because the ruling of full brothers on the father's side was mentioned by Allah at the end of the surah: , meaning more than one if they are two? They are partners in one-third. If they are three? They are partners in one-third. Four are partners in one-third. A brother and a sister are partners in one-third. And here, the brother is not preferred over the sister, because Allah said: And the implication of partnership in generality is equality or equalization. We say in it what was mentioned before, that this bequest is a legal bequest within the limits permitted by the Shari'ah. His statement: means or after the debt, and "or" here means absence as mentioned before. But here he said: meaning on the condition that the intended purpose of the bequest is not to cause harm. If it is established that the intended purpose is to cause harm, then it is void, just as if we knew that this deceased who has only brothers from the mother bequeathed one-third in order to restrict the brothers, then this is a bequest of harm and is not executed, because Allah conditioned that a valid bequest must not be one that causes harm. Likewise, if it is assumed that a sick person becomes foolish and incurs a debt that harms the heirs and consumes all his wealth, then in this case it is looked into. It is looked into if he caused harm with it, because harm is prohibited by the Shari'ah. Then he said: is an absolute object, its agent is omitted necessarily, because the intended meaning here is obligation, and the bequest means a firm covenant. All-Knowing of what benefits His servants, Forbearing with those who disobeyed Him, so He does not hasten to punish them. The benefit of concluding this long verse, which included the inheritance of spouses and brothers from the mother, with knowledge and forbearance is that the bequest may be one that causes harm, and Allah does not hasten to punish the person. Therefore, He concluded the verse with these two noble names: Knowledge and Forbearance.