Continuation of the benefits of the verse: “Allah commands you regarding your children: for the male, a share equal to that of two females…”

Additional benefits of the noble verse: . Among its benefits is that inheritance does not take place until after debts and bequests are settled, based on His saying: . However, a debt may consume the entire estate, leaving nothing for the heirs, whereas a bequest cannot consume the entire estate, because the maximum permissible is one-third, and anything exceeding one-third belongs to the heirs. Consequently, there is a distinction between debt and bequest: a debt may consume the wealth, leaving nothing for the heirs, while a bequest cannot consume the wealth, because anything exceeding one-third is contingent upon the heirs' approval. Thus, if a person dies leaving one hundred thousand and having a debt of one hundred thousand, the heirs receive nothing. If a person dies having bequeathed one hundred thousand, and we find he left one hundred thousand, do the heirs receive nothing? We say: we reduce the bequest to one-third unless the heirs approve. Among its benefits is that the lesser in virtue may be mentioned before the greater for other considerations. Where do we derive this? From His saying: . Debt is more obligatory and prior to bequest, yet bequest is mentioned first for other considerations, such as mentioning Harun before Musa in certain places. In Surat Ta-Ha, Harun is mentioned before Musa for considerations regarding the rhyming endings. Otherwise, there is no doubt that Musa is superior to Harun and precedes him in all places in the Qur'an. Thus, we derive from this that the lesser in virtue may be mentioned before the greater for other considerations. Among its benefits is the limitation of human knowledge. Where is this derived from? From His saying: . Yes, the people closest to a person are his parents and children. If he does not know which of them is more beneficial, what can he say about those who are distant? This undoubtedly returns to the limitation of human knowledge. And Allah the Exalted said: . The spirit between your two sides, you do not know it, because you have been given only a little knowledge. Among its benefits is the obligation to give the heirs their shares of inheritance, and that it is an obligatory right. Where is this derived from? From His saying: . Consequently, learning the calculation of inheritance shares is an obligation. Pay attention, everyone! Is it an individual obligation or a collective obligation? Yes, or let us explain: if giving every person with a share their share depends on it, it is an individual obligation; if it does not depend on it, it is not an individual obligation. What do you say? The first? Is learning calculation in inheritance the objective or the means? If it is the means, we look: if we need it, we take it; if we do not need it, we do not. But usually, we need it. If a person comes and says, "Divide the estate among a husband, a mother, and a brother from the mother," we say: the husband gets half, the mother gets one-third, and the brother from the mother gets one-sixth. It is not necessary to say the problem is from six: the husband gets half (three), the mother gets one-third (two), and the brother from the mother gets one-sixth (one). This is not required. But sometimes, the division and giving every person with a share their share depends on knowing the calculation. If it depends on knowing the calculation, then knowing the calculation becomes an obligation like the original matter. Among its benefits is that the matter of inheritance shares is with Allah, based on His saying: . I say this even though the matter is known, but for the sake of etiquette, for the sake of etiquette in issuing fatwas. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), despite his vast knowledge, did not declare something an obligation or forbidden unless there was an explicit text for it. Otherwise, you would find him saying: "I do not do it," "I dislike this," "I do not like it," and the like. All this is from the category of scrupulousness. As for us, the husks of the walnut, you find one of us saying: "This is forbidden by the Shari'ah," "the entire Shari'ah," "this is forbidden in the Shari'ah." Glory be to Allah! If you investigate with this man the most basic issue, he does not know it, yet he says, "This is forbidden in the Shari'ah," and it is one of the issues of independent legal reasoning, and the correct ruling may be that it is not forbidden. Then it is added to the entire Shari'ah by a person who is not qualified for independent legal reasoning. This is problematic. But if a questioner asks you: "What do you say about carrion?" Can you say it is forbidden? You say, "It is forbidden." I can say this because it is so in the Qur'an. Therefore, a person must be cautious. Often, some people force us into a situation where the issue is not clearly forbidden in our view, and then we say, "Do not do it." Then he asks, "Is it forbidden?" It is easy, but we insist on saying, "Do not do it." This is sufficient for us, brothers; it is sufficient as a proof before Allah the Mighty and Majestic: "Do not do it." If he insists, is it forbidden or not? We say, "Just do not do it," because some people force you, meaning if it is forbidden, what do we do, and if it is not forbidden, I want to do it even if there is a doubt. This is the meaning of his statement. This is confusion, so it is not necessary to say "forbidden." If it is not clear to me, it is not obligatory for me. Indeed, some people, glory be to Allah, I tell them, "The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it," and he says, "But is the prohibition for prohibition?" Glory be to Allah! The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it, so leave it. You are bound by it if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it. That is it, stop it. If it is for prohibition, you are safe from its sin; if it is for dislike, you have returned with its virtue, because leaving what is disliked is considered asceticism, since asceticism is leaving what does not benefit in the Hereafter, and scrupulousness is leaving what harms. Which is higher? Scrupulousness. Does blind following benefit? Asceticism? Listen to the definition? Asceticism is what does not benefit in the Hereafter, and scrupulousness is leaving what harms in the Hereafter. Asceticism is higher, because there is a rank between what does not benefit and what harms. The one in which there is neither benefit nor harm, the ascetic leaves it. The ascetic leaves from the matters of this world what has neither benefit nor harm. Scrupulousness does not leave what is forbidden. If the level of the one who leaves what is disliked is higher than the level of those who leave what is forbidden, because leaving what is forbidden is from the category of scrupulousness, and leaving what is disliked is from the category of asceticism. Among its benefits is affirming two of the names of Allah, namely: the All-Knowing and the Wise, based on His saying: . Among its linguistic benefits is that "was" may strip its indication of time, because if it indicated time, if it indicated time, the Lord, Mighty and Majestic, would not be All-Knowing or Wise now. "Was," but sometimes it strips its indication of time, and its meaning becomes merely the event or merely the description if it is an attribute. Therefore, some of the Salaf said, and I think it was Ibn Abbas, he said: , and He has always been Forgiving and Merciful, out of fear of this misconception that "was" is for what? For the past. Therefore, if you ask a man, "Was so-and-so wealthy?" you say, "He was wealthy." What is the meaning? And now he is poor. You ask about a student, "Is he diligent?" and you say, "He was diligent," and now? Not diligent. You ask, "Does he sleep in the lesson?" and you say, "He used to not sleep in the lesson," and now? Now he sleeps. In any case, "was" originally indicates a past time, but sometimes it strips its indication of time and becomes for the mere description with its predicate. Among its benefits is that it necessitates complete submission to the divine decree of Allah, both cosmic and legislative. Where from? If you believe that Allah is All-Knowing and Wise, you will be at peace and know that He did not decree a legislative decree except that wisdom necessitates it, and He did not decree a cosmic decree except that wisdom necessitates it. So a person submits to his Lord, Mighty and Majestic, with complete submission, and his chest opens to His decree and destiny, and his chest opens to His Shari'ah and judgment, and no hesitation remains in him. Therefore, look at how the Companions accepted the Shari'ah. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said to the women: What did he curse? One woman began to take her ring, take her bracelets, and say, "Come, Bilal, give us your garment," and they began to throw that into Bilal's garment, their jewelry with which they adorned themselves for their husband, they removed it because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) ordered them to give charity. Strange compliance. And the man from whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) removed his ring from his finger, and it was gold, and gold is forbidden for men, and he threw it away, he threw it. It was said to the man: "Take it." He said, "I will not take a ring thrown away by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)." A strange example. When he said to the Companions after their return from the Battle of the Trench, "No one should pray except in Banu Qaynuqa," the Jews, because of fighting them, because they broke the covenant, did they delay? Never. They packed their saddles and walked. They did not say, "By Allah, we are tired, let us take a week as a rest." They walked. And what did they do? Some of them took the apparent wording and said, "I will not pray the 'Asr prayer except in Banu Qaynuqa, even if it is in the middle of the night," and they continued until they reached Banu Qaynuqa and prayed. The others said, "No, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) intended that we hasten, he did not intend that we delay the prayer." And they said, "We have two texts, one is ambiguous and the other is clear. What is the ambiguous one? This allows the meaning to be delaying the prayer or the meaning to be postponing the prayer and walking. But the obligation of prayer in its time is clear. So we must return the ambiguous to the clear and pray the prayers in their times, even if we do not reach Banu Qaynuqa.