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

Continuation of the benefits of the noble verse: . We now return to the benefits of the noble verses, which are numerous. First among them is that inheritance is a compulsory ownership in which a person has no choice. The evidence for this is: that Allah has made it our property and established it as a legislated ruling. So if a husband were to say, “I do not want my share from my wife,” we would say to him, “No, it is included in your ownership compulsorily, and you have no option in it.” If he said, “I want to be generous with it to her in a charitable project, or if she has children, I want to be generous with it to her children,” we would say to him, “This is a gift given from the outset.” Based on this, if he has a debt that requires him to spend this inherited money, then his donation of this money is not valid. This benefit is derived from our statement that it is compulsory ownership. Branching from this is also the following: if the deceased owned a share in a jointly owned piece of land, does the partner have the right of pre-emption? Did you not understand? Well, the woman owns half of a piece of land, and the other half of the land belongs to another man who is a stranger. So she died, and her heirs inherited her share of this land, which is the half. Does the partner have the right of pre-emption? No, why? Because it is compulsory ownership. But if she had sold her share during her lifetime, the partner would have the right of pre-emption. Among its benefits is that it is a condition in inheritance that the heir be free. Where is this taken from? From the letter lam indicating ownership, and a slave does not own. So if the husband of a free woman is a slave, then if she dies, he does not inherit anything from her, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . Among its benefits is that inheritance includes tangible assets, debts, and rights. Tangible assets are like dirhams, currencies, and real estate. Debts are those in the obligations of people. The third is rights, such as the right of pre-emption, the right to benefit from a dog whose benefit is permissible, the right to benefit from a dirty saddle, and the right to benefit from dirty oil if we say that benefiting from it is permissible, and the like. The important point is that His saying: is general and includes all of them: tangible assets, debts, and rights. Among its benefits is also the establishment of the marital relationship, due to His saying: And the marital relationship is not established except with a valid contract. Among its benefits is that inheritance is established even if she dies before consummation. How is that? Because she becomes a wife by the mere contract, whether consummation occurs or not. Among its benefits is that if a wife is divorced, there is no mutual inheritance. Where is this taken from? From His saying: Because if she is divorced, she is no longer a wife. So if he divorces her and her waiting period ends, and then she dies, he has no inheritance from her, because she has become a stranger to him. And if they divorce with a final divorce and she dies during the waiting period, he has no inheritance from her. Why? Because when she is divorced from him, she is no longer a wife, as evidenced by the fact that she is not lawful for him except with a new contract or after another husband if it is a major divorce. The scholars have excluded from this one issue, which is if he divorces her during his terminal illness, suspected of intending to deprive her. Four conditions: if he divorces her during his terminal illness, suspected of intending to deprive her, they said that if the matter is so, she inherits from him even if her waiting period ends, as long as she does not marry or do something that contradicts the marital relationship, such as apostasy… until the divorce, when did she become divorced from him by three divorces or by the completion of the waiting period, the mutual inheritance is cut off except in one case in the divorce, which is if he divorces her during his terminal illness, suspected of intending to deprive her. Four conditions: illness, death, dangerous, suspected of intending to deprive. If the four conditions are met, then she inherits from him. If he divorced her in health with a final divorce, and then died before the waiting period ended? Then she does not inherit, because he divorced her in health. And if he divorced her in a dangerous illness, and then recovered from it, and then an accident happened to him and he died, does she inherit? She does not inherit, because he did not die from the illness. And if he divorced her in an illness, but the illness was not dangerous, and after that the illness increased until he died, then she does not inherit. And if he divorced her in his terminal dangerous illness at her request, then she does not inherit. Why? Because he is not suspected of intending to deprive her. So the mutual inheritance between spouses is cut off by the divorce, except if he divorced her in his terminal dangerous illness, suspected of depriving her.
As long as she does not marry another husband? Yes. And if you inherit from her in this state, her inheritance extends until she marries or apostatizes. That is, if you inherit in the state of final divorce under the conditions we mentioned, she inherits as long as she does not marry or apostatize. Among its benefits is that the husband gets half under a negative condition, which is the absence of a child, based on His saying: . Among its benefits is that there is no difference between the child being one or multiple, male or female. The indication in this verse is that the word is indefinite in a context of negation, so it includes all. Is the child of a child like a child? The answer is yes. So if she has a daughter’s son, the husband does not get half, because the children of sons are like direct children. Among its benefits is Allah’s (Glorified and Exalted is He) care for inheritance, as the verses came with this detail, based on His saying: . Among its benefits is that inheritances are built on wisdom. The point is that if the wife has no child, the husband gets half, and with a child, a quarter, so that the wealth is available for whom? For the child. Among its benefits is that there is no inheritance except after debt and bequest, based on His saying: . Among its benefits is that the wife is free to dispose of her wealth, based on His saying: , so He attributed the action to her. If she could not dispose of it except with the husband’s permission, the husband might prevent her from making a bequest, which would harm him. Examples are built on this benefit: If a person dies and leaves a thousand and has a thousand in debt, do the heirs get anything? No, because debt takes precedence over inheritance. But how is the bequest prior to inheritance? How is that, when a bequest is not permissible for more than one-third? This is clarified by an example. If a person dies leaving a husband and a full sister, the husband gets half due to the absence of a descendant and ascendant heir, and the full sister gets half due to the fulfillment of the conditions for her half inheritance. If we assume the wealth is sixty thousand, the husband gets thirty thousand and the sister gets thirty thousand. If the deceased woman had bequeathed one-third, the situation changes. We say: the bequest is one-third, which is twenty thousand. The husband gets half of the remainder, and the full sister also gets half, which is twenty thousand. So you see now that the bequest was given its full right. How much did the beneficiary of the bequest take? One-third, twenty thousand. And you find that the inheritance, instead of being half for the husband, is now only one-third for him, and likewise for the full sister. Do you understand now? It is now clear that the bequest is prior to inheritance. If we assumed the bequest was like the inheritance, the ruling would differ. We would say we have one-third in addition to the whole, so the problem would be from nine: the bequest gets three, the husband gets three, and the sister gets three. But it appears we made a mistake. We say: the problem is... half is three and the full sister’s half is three, and the one-third is two, returning to eight. So the share of the one-third is now a quarter, even though we gave it a full third according to the first division... Is that clear? If we assume the bequest is prior to inheritance... he bequeathed one-third, and the deceased was female in the example we mentioned, leaving a husband and a full sister. If we say the one-third is prior, we give the beneficiary of the bequest twenty thousand from the sixty thousand estate, leaving forty thousand. We give the husband twenty thousand and the full sister twenty thousand. The twenty thousand, which is half, is actually now a third. The husband’s right decreased and the full sister’s right decreased. Did the bequest decrease or not? It did not decrease. The beneficiary of the bequest was given a full third, and his third now equals half. If we said the bequest is not prior, the problem would be from six: the husband gets half, which is three; the full sister gets half, which is three; and the bequest gets one-third, which is two, returning to eight. So the share of the bequest is now how much? Just as the husband’s share is a quarter and the sister’s share is a quarter, the result is now clear that the bequest is prior to inheritance, because the beneficiary of the bequest is given his full share, and then the remainder is divided among the heirs according to their shares. Do you understand that the bequest is prior to inheritance? It is clear. Among its benefits is the wisdom in the distribution of inheritance, where the female of the same kind as the male is given half the male’s wealth, as indicated by the mention of the wives’ inheritance. Among its benefits is the clarification of justice, the clarification of justice in Islamic religion, where the woman’s right in inheritance was not cut off, contrary to what they did in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, where they deprived her of inheritance. Justice is shown by the fact that it is a male, or by expressing the wife’s inheritance in the same way as the husband’s inheritance. Among its benefits is that when speaking about women and men, the wisdom is to mention men first, because he began with the inheritance of wives before the inheritance of husbands. This is in accordance with the innate natural disposition, contrary to those who distorted Allah’s innate disposition and sound nature, so they mention women before men. In Western broadcasts and those who imitated them, they say "Ladies and gentlemen", and those who write in the bathroom take from that and write "For Ladies" next to it "Men’s Restroom", and do not say "For Gentlemen." That is, instead of the female demanding her right, now we demand our right, where women are made "ladies" and men are described only by manliness, not by lordship. All of this indicates weakness of character, as the wise historian Ibn Khaldun said in his Introduction, which is all philosophy as they say, even if... it is above their level, it is very great. He says: "The custom of nations is that the weak nation imitates the strong nation, even if it is false". And now we have weakened ourselves and become imitators of those whom Allah... and stripped them of religion in such matters—may Allah protect us and you. Among its benefits is that the inheritance of siblings from the mother is... one-third if they are two or more, or one-sixth if they are one or fewer. If it says "two or more," or "one-sixth if they are one or fewer"? Is there less than one? The hermaphrodite with ambiguous inheritance is the same, because the inheritance of siblings from the mother is equal for males and females. But if it is assumed to be partial, if it is partial, it does not inherit one-sixth. And on this basis, our saying "one-sixth for one or fewer" is never correct. So for one, it is one-sixth, and for a group of two or more, it is one-third. Among its benefits is that it is a condition for the inheritance of siblings from the mother that the inheritance be by collaterals, meaning there are no descendants or male ascendants. As for female ascendants, the siblings from the mother inherit with them. Among its benefits is the equality between males and females in the inheritance of siblings from the mother, taken from His saying: . The principle of partnership requires equality, just as the phrase "between them" indicates equality. If I say to two men: "This hundred dirhams is between you," each gets fifty. And likewise, when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said regarding the inheritance of siblings from the mother: , and did not mention the preference of the male over the female, that indicates they are equal. Does anyone else participate in the equality between male and female? The answer is no, except for a concurrent factor. For example, if a person dies leaving two daughters and parents (mother and father), here the father and mother are equal, because the two daughters take two-thirds, the mother takes one-sixth, and the father takes one-sixth. But this naming is for a concurrent factor, because nothing remained after the fixed shares for the father to take. Second, some scholars say that relatives by blood (dhawi al-rahim) do not distinguish between their males and females. ... A person died leaving a full sister’s son and a full sister’s daughter, so they inherit their mother’s share equally. The correct view in this issue is that they—meaning relatives by blood—if they cite evidence that prefers their males over their females, their males are preferred over their females. If they cite evidence that does not prefer their males over their females, their males are not preferred over their females. An example of this is a full sister’s son and a full sister’s daughter. Full siblings: the rule of inheritance is that the male is preferred over the female... So we say in this example, in the case of a full sister’s son and a full sister’s daughter, the male gets the share of two females. And in the case of a maternal uncle’s son and a maternal aunt’s daughter, we say the inheritance is between them equally, because they cited a relative who does not prefer his male over his female. Among its benefits is Allah’s (Mighty and Majestic) care for bequest and debt, as whenever He mentioned inheritance, He said: "after a bequest or debt." In the chapter of descendants and ascendants in the previous verse... , and in the inheritance of spouses, He said after the inheritance of each spouse: , and in the siblings from the mother here, He said: . Among its benefits is that a bequest involving harm is void, based on His saying: . A bequest involving harm is forbidden and contains great sin, to the extent that it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "A man or a woman may do good deeds, then be unjust in their bequest, and they will be punished." This is evidence that injustice in bequest is among the major sins. Among its benefits is the obligation to act according to what Allah the Exalted has prescribed in..., based on His saying: . And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) does not advise except what is true. Allah the Exalted said: . Among its benefits is that this bequest is built on two things: knowledge and forbearance, based on His saying: . Among its benefits is the affirmation of these two names for Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which are: the All-Knowing and the Forbearing. Do they indicate two attributes? The All-Knowing is a name and the Forbearing is a name. Do they indicate two attributes? Yes. What are they? Knowledge. Where is knowledge derived from? And the Forbearing? So they indicate knowledge and forbearance. The principle with us is that every name of Allah includes an attribute, but not every attribute is derived from a name. Therefore, the attributes are broader than the names.