His saying, exalted and majestic is He:

"Indeed, those who consume the wealth of orphans unjustly are only consuming fire in their bellies, and they will be burned in a blazing fire." "Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male is like the share of two females. But if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves behind."

Ibn Zayd said: It was revealed about the disbelievers who did not give inheritance to women and children, and they consumed their wealth. Most people said: It was revealed about the guardians who consume what has not been made lawful for them from the wealth of the orphan. It encompasses every consumer, even if he is not a guardian. The one who takes wealth in all its forms is called a consumer, since the intent is consumption, and it is through this that most destruction of things occurs. In its text regarding the bellies, there is an eloquent indication of their deficiency, and a condemnation of them by the opposite of noble character, due to their greed for the belly, which is the least and most despicable of causes, until they fall under the warning of the fire.

And "unjustly" means: what exceeds the known with the poverty of the guardian. Some people said: The meaning is that since their consumption of wealth leads them to enter the fire, it was said: They consume fire. A group said: Rather, it is true that they are fed fire, and there are hadiths regarding this, including the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said: The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, narrated to us about the night he was taken on a journey, saying: "I saw people who had jaws like the jaws of camels, and it was commanded that they be taken by their jaws and then a stone from fire be placed in their mouths, which would come out from their bottoms. I said: O Gabriel, who are these? He said: They are those who consume the wealth of orphans unjustly."

And the majority of people read: "And they will be burned" attributing the action to them. Ibn 'Amir read with a vowel on the 'ya', and there was a difference from 'Asim. Abu Haywah read: "And they will be burned" in the form of the action for the object, with a vowel on the 'ya' and 'lam', and an opening of the 'sad' and a doubling of the 'lam' for the plural. Ibn Abi 'Ablah read: "And they will be burned" with a vowel on the 'ya' and 'lam', which is weak. The first is more correct, as it has come in the Qur'an in His saying: "The one who denied and turned away" [Al-Lail: 16] and in His saying: "The fuel of the Hellfire" [As-Saffat: 163]. And 'sala' is the warming near the fire or by direct contact with it, and from it is the saying of al-Harith ibn 'Abbad:

I was not among its gardens, Allah knows, and indeed today I am near its heat.

And the one who is burned, who is consumed by the fire, is not 'sali' except at the beginning of his matter, and the people of Hell do not cease; they are in it, burning. And 'sair' is the burning coal.

And this is an ayah from the verses of warning. What the people of the Sunnah believe is that this applies to some of the sinners, so that the news does not contradict its informant. It is not nullified by the will of some of them. The summary of the speech on the matter is that the promise in good and the warning in evil is their known meaning when they are mentioned. The promise may also be used in evil when specified, as He, the Most High, said: "The Fire, which Allah has promised to those who disbelieve" [Al-Hajj: 72]. The Mu'tazilah said: All verses of promise are for the repentant and the obedient, and the verses of warning are for the polytheists and the sinners of major sins. Some of them said: And for minor sins. The Murji'ah said: All verses of promise are for whoever possesses the faith that is affirmation, regardless of whether he is a sinner or obedient. And we, the people of the Sunnah and the community, say: The verses of promise are for the believing obedient and whoever is included by the will from the sinners. The verses of warning are for the polytheists and whoever is included by enforcement from the sinners. The decisive verse regarding what we have said is His saying, the Most High: "Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills" [An-Nisa: 48]. If the Mu'tazilah said: For whom He wills means the repentant, it is responded to them that the benefit in preference would be invalidated, since polytheism is also forgiven for the repentant. This is conclusive regarding the ruling of His saying: "For whom He wills" in that there is one who is forgiven and one who is not forgiven, and the Sunni doctrine is established.

And His saying, the Most High: "He advises you" implies obligation and necessity, just as the word "commanded" implies it, regardless of how it is expressed. As for the form of command without the word, there is disagreement about it, which will be mentioned in its place, if Allah wills. Similar to this verse is His saying, the Most High: "And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right. This has He advised you" [Al-An'am: 151].

And it is said: This verse was revealed because of the daughters of Sa'd ibn al-Rabi'. And Al-Suddi said: It was revealed because of the daughters of Abdur-Rahman ibn Thabit, the brother of Hassan ibn Thabit. It is also said: Because of Jabir ibn Abdullah, when the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, visited him during his illness. Jabir ibn Abdullah mentioned that the people of ignorance used to not inherit except for those who faced wars and fought the enemy. Thus, the verses were revealed clarifying that every female and minor has their share. It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that this was revealed because wealth was for the offspring, and the bequest was for the parents, and this was abrogated by these verses.

And "like" is elevated by beginning or by description, its meaning being: a share like the share. And Ibrahim ibn Abi Abla read: "In your children, that for the male."

And His saying, the Most High: "So if they are women..." The word children includes males and females. When He intended by this verse to specify the females with mention of their ruling, He feminized the verb for the meaning. If He had followed the wording of children, He would have said: They were. And the name of 'were' is implied. And some grammarians of Basra said: Its meaning is: And if the left ones are women.

And His saying: "Above two" means: two and what is above them. This is necessitated by the strength of the words. As for stopping with the wording, the text on the two falls away, and the two-thirds is established for them by the consensus that has passed through the cities and eras, and there has not been preserved in it any disagreement, except what has been narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas that he sees for them the half. This is also established for them by analogy to the two sisters that are explicitly mentioned, and this is established for them by the hadith mentioned by Al-Tirmidhi: "That the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, ruled for the two daughters with two-thirds." And whoever said: "Above" is extra and argued with His saying, the Most High: "Above the necks," meaning: strike their necks, then his saying is incorrect. This is because circumstances and all names may be intended in the speech of the Arabs for other meanings, and because His saying: "Above the necks" is the eloquent expression, and "Above" is not extra but rather it is a precise meaning. For the strike of the neck must be above the bones at the joint, not above the brain, as Duraid ibn Al-Simmah said: "Lower from the brain and raise from the bone, for this is how I used to strike the necks of the heroes."

And there has been an argument for taking the two-thirds in other ways, and all of it is opposed. Ismail the judge said: If the daughter takes with her brother the third when he is alone, then it is more likely that she would take that with her sister; others said: And just as the ruling of the two and what is above them from the brothers for the mother is one, so likewise for the daughters.

And Al-Nahhas said: The language of the people of Hijaz and Banu Asad is: the third and the fourth to the tenth. And Al-Hasan read all of that with the middle letter being silent, and Al-A'raj also read it. And the position of Al-Zajjaj is that it is one language, and that the silence of the 'ain is a softening.

And if the daughters of the root take the two-thirds, then there is nothing after that for the daughters of the son, unless there is a brother with them, or a son of a brother, who will return to them. And Abdullah ibn Mas'ud does not see for them anything even if there is a brother or a son of a brother, and he sees all the wealth for the male alone without them.

**His saying, the Exalted, is: "And if there is one, then for her is the half, and for his parents, for each one of them is the sixth of what he leaves behind if he has a child. But if he has no child and his parents inherit him, then for his mother is the third. But if he has siblings, then for his mother is the sixth after a bequest he bequeaths or a debt."

The seven reciters except for Nafi' read "one" in the accusative as the news of "was"; and Nafi' read: "one" in the nominative as if "was" means occurred and was present. And Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami read: "the half" with a damma on the noon, and likewise Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thabit read it in all of the Qur'an.

And His saying: "child" means a male or female, one or many, for the root or for a male child. For whatever occurs makes the father's share the sixth, and if he takes the half in his inheritance, then he only takes it by way of ta'sib.

And His saying, exalted is He: "So if he has no child..." The meaning is: So if he has no child, nor grandchild, whether male or female. And His saying: "And his parents inherit him" necessitates that both of them are separate from all the heirs of shares, from children and others. Therefore, His saying: "And inherit him" is a ruling for them regarding the wealth. If one of them is mentioned alone afterwards, the share of one takes the share of the other, as you say to two men: This wealth is between you both, then you say to one of them, You, O so-and-so, have a third of it. You have specified for the other two-thirds by your words.

And since their share is free of children and others, the saying of most people comes: That the mother alone has a third of all the wealth. If there is a husband with them, then the mother has a sixth, which is the third in addition to the father. And if the share is free of children only, the saying of Shuraih and Ibn Abbas comes: If the share is free of children, the mother takes a third of all the wealth with the husband, and what remains is for the father. And this is in accordance with His saying: "And his parents inherit him." They are separate or with others.

Hamzah and Al-Kisai read: "For his mother" with a kasrah on the hamzah, and this is a language reported by Sibawayh. Likewise, he broke the hamzah in His saying: "In the wombs of your mothers" [Az-Zumar: 6], "and in her mother" and "in the mother of the book." All of this is if it is connected, following the kasrah or the ya that comes before the hamzah. The others read all of this with a dhammah on the hamzah, and Hamzah broke the meem of "ummahatikum" following the kasrah of the hamzah. Whenever there is no connection and no ya or kasrah, then the dhammah is agreed upon.

And His saying, exalted is He: "So if he has brothers, then for his mother is a sixth." The brothers reduce the mother to a sixth and do not take it, whether they are full brothers or from the father or from the mother. And it was said by one whose words are only considered in rare cases: That they reduce and take what they reduce for themselves with the father. It was narrated from Ibn Abbas, and it was narrated from him a contradiction similar to the saying of the sixth that they exclude the mother from. Qatadah said: The father takes it without them because he has authority over them, and he is responsible for their marriage and their expenses. This is in most cases, and they are all agreed that two brothers and more exclude the mother from it, except for what was narrated from Abdullah Ibn Abbas: That the two brothers are in the ruling of one, and the mother is not excluded by less than three. And all have argued that the least of the group is two, because the dual is a collection of something to its like. The meaning necessitates that it is a collection, and the interpreters have mentioned that the Arabs may come with the word of the group while they intend the dual, as He, exalted is He, said: "And Dawood and Sulayman when they judged concerning the field when the sheep of the people had pastured therein, and we were witnesses to their judgment" [Al-Anbiya: 78], and as His saying in the verse of the dispute: "When they climbed over the sanctuary" [Sad: 21] "When they entered" [Al-Hijr: 52], and as His saying: "And the ends of the day." They used all of this as evidence that the brothers are included under the two brothers.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

These verses all have no proof in my view against this verse. This is because it has become clear in each verse from it by text that the intended meaning is two. Therefore, it is permissible to use the plural form after that. In the first, you have "they judge," and in the second, "Indeed, this is my brother." Also, the judgment may be attributed to the judge and the disputants, and it may include with the disputant others; they are a group. As for "the day" in the third verse, the definite article in it is for the generality, as it intends the two ends of each day. However, if the plural form is mentioned and is not accompanied by something that clarifies the intended meaning, it is taken to mean the plural, and it is not taken to mean the dual, because the term possesses the meaning, and the structure has a right. Some of those who argued for the saying of Abdullah ibn Abbas mentioned that the structure of the dual indicates both the kind and the number, like the structure of the singular, while the structure of the plural indicates the kind and does not indicate the number. Thus, it is not correct for this to include that. Nafi, Abu Amr, Hamzah, and Al-Kisai read: "it is recommended" with a فتح on the صاد and its emphasis, and all of this in both instances. Hafs read from Asim in the first with a فتح, and in the second with a كسر. This verse is intended to prioritize these two actions over inheritance, and it is not intended to arrange them in themselves. Therefore, the recommendation was mentioned first in wording, and the debt is agreed to be prioritized over the recommendation. What I say about this is that he prioritized the recommendation since it is less obligatory than the debt, showing concern for it and encouraging it, as Allah, the Most High, said: "He does not leave small or great" [Al-Kahf: 49]. Also, he prioritized it from the perspective that it includes the recommendation which is like an obligation for every deceased, as the law has urged it. He delayed the debt due to its irregularity, as it may exist and may not exist. So he began by mentioning what is necessary, then he added what may occur sometimes. This is reinforced by the conjunction of 'or,' and if the debt were regular, the conjunction would have been 'and.' The recommendation was also prioritized since it is the share of the poor and the weak, and the debt was delayed since it is the share of a creditor who demands it forcefully, and he is a rightful owner in it, as he, blessings and peace be upon him, said: "Indeed, the owner of the right has a claim." The scholars have agreed that no one may bequeath more than one-third, and many of them preferred that it not reach one-third and that people should limit it to one-fourth.