His saying, exalted and majestic is He:

﴿Your fathers and your sons do not know which of them is closer to you in benefit. It is a duty from Allah. Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise﴾ [An-Nisa: 11]

﴿And for you is half of what your wives leave if they do not have children. But if they have children, then for you is a quarter of what they leave after any bequest they make or a debt﴾.

"Your fathers and your sons" is the subject in the nominative case, and the predicate is implied. Its estimation is: they are the ones to whom it is divided and they are the ones who are given. This is a presentation of the wisdom in that, and a reassurance for the Arabs who used to inherit in a manner other than this description. And "do not know" is a factor in the sentence in meaning and is suspended from action in the wording according to what it is applied to, as the question does not act upon what precedes it. And "in benefit" Mujahid (p-485), Al-Suddi, and Ibn Sirin said: its meaning is in this world, that is, if they are compelled to spend it for need. This is the view of Al-Zajjaj. They may also spend without compulsion. Ibn Abbas and Al-Hasan said: in the Hereafter, that is, by the intercession of the superior for the inferior. Ibn Zayd said: in both, and the wording necessitates that. And "a duty" is in the accusative case as a confirming source, as the meaning of "He enjoins upon you" is: He makes it obligatory upon you. Makkī and others said: it is a confirming state, but that is weak. The acting factor is "He enjoins upon you," and "was" is the incomplete verb. Sibawayh said: when they saw knowledge and wisdom, it was said to them: indeed, Allah has always been like this. And the form of "was" does not give except for the past, and from the meaning, there is a distance known that Allah, the Exalted, has always been like that, and He will be, not from the wording of the verse. Some said: "was" means occurred and happened. And "All-Knowing" is a state, and in this is weakness. And whoever said: "was" is extra, his statement is incorrect. And His saying, exalted and majestic is He: ﴿And for you is half of what your wives leave﴾... the verse. The address is to the men, and the child here refers to the children of the loins and their male offspring, whether they are male or female, one or more, this is by consensus of the scholars.

His saying, exalted and majestic is He: ﴿And for them is a quarter of what you leave if you do not have children. But if you have children, then for them is an eighth of what you leave after any bequest you make or a debt. And if a man is inherited from without direct heirs, or a woman, and he has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than that, then they are partners in a third﴾.

And the child in this verse is as previously mentioned in the verse before it, and "an eighth" is for the wife or wives, they are partners in it by consensus. And the deficiency applies to the shares of the husband and wife, just as it applies to all other specified duties, except in the case of Ibn Abbas, for he said: they are given their share without deficiency. And "without direct heirs" is derived from the encompassing of lineage: that is, it surrounds, for when a man does not leave a parent or child, both ends of his lineage have been cut off, and it remains that those whose lineage surrounds him, that is, those who encompass him from his sides like a crown, inherit him, just as a plant surrounds something, and from it: a garden crowned with flowers, and the crown is the residence of the moon surrounded by stars. And from the "without direct heirs" is the saying of the poet: (p-486)

Indeed, the father of a man is a protector for him, and the patron of those without direct heirs does not become angry.

The father and the son are the pillars of lineage, and the rest of the relatives adorn it. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Abbas, Salim ibn Ubayd, Qatadah, al-Hakam, Ibn Zayd, al-Zuhri, and Abu Ishaq al-Suba'i said: Al-Kalalah is the absence of the deceased from children and parents, and this is the correct view. A group said: It is the absence of the deceased from children only, and this was narrated from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and Umar, then they retracted it. It was narrated from Ibn Abbas, and this is inferred from his saying regarding siblings with parents: They reduce the mother and take what they reduce her.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Thus narrated al-Tabari, and it is necessary according to the saying of Ibn Abbas, when he bequeathed them that the share is al-Kalalah: that he gives them one-third explicitly. A group among them, including al-Hakam ibn Utaybah, said: Al-Kalalah is the absence of the father, and these two sayings are weak, because whoever has a father or a child is certainly inherited by a definite lineage, not by al-Kalalah. The community has now agreed that siblings do not inherit with a son or with a father, and this is how the cities and generations have proceeded.

The majority of people read: 'Yurathu' with a فتح (fatha) on the راء (ra), while al-Amash and Abu Rajaa read: 'Yuwarithu' with a كسر (kasra) on the راء (ra) and its emphasis. Abu al-Fath ibn Jinni said: Al-Hasan read: 'Yurithu' from أورثَ (awras), and Isa read: 'Yuwarithu' with emphasis on the راء (ra) from ورَّثَ (warra). The two objects in both readings are omitted; the implied meaning is: 'He is inherited by his heir his wealth as al-Kalalah,' and 'al-Kalalah' is in the accusative case as a حال (hal).

They differed regarding al-Kalalah in what it refers to in this verse. Umar and Ibn Abbas said: Al-Kalalah is the deceased who is inherited when he has no father, and its accusative case is on the news of كَانَ (kana). Ibn Zayd said: Al-Kalalah is the inheritor in totality; the deceased and all the living are al-Kalalah, and its accusative case is either as a حال (hal) or as a نعت (na'at) for a missing مصدر (masdar) whose implied meaning is: 'Inheritance as al-Kalalah.' It is valid that 'كانَ' (kana) is complete in meaning, and it is valid that it is incomplete with its news being 'Yurathu.' And Ata said: Al-Kalalah is wealth, and it is in the accusative case as the second object.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The derivation in the meaning of al-Kalalah invalidates the naming of wealth by it.

A group said: Al-Kalalah is the heirs, and this is consistent with the reading of 'Yurithu' with a كسر (kasra) on the راء (ra), so it is in the accusative case as the second object. These people used the hadith of Jabir ibn Abdullah, when the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, visited him, and he said: O Messenger of Allah, only al-Kalalah will inherit me, should I bequeath all my wealth? Some of them narrated that al-Kalalah could be the heirs, and its accusative case is on the news of كَانَ (kana), with the omission of a genitive, its implied meaning being: 'This is al-Kalalah,' and all other interpretations are consistent with a كسر (kasra) on the راء (ra).

And His saying, exalted is He: "And for him is a brother or a sister"... The pronoun in "for him" refers back to the man. He sufficed by returning it to him without mentioning the woman, as the meaning in both is the same. The ruling has been established by the first conjunction. The root of "sister" is "sibling," just as the root of "daughter" is "building." The first "sister" is included because the omitted letter from it is a waw, and the first "daughter" is broken because the omitted letter is a ya. This omission and reasoning is not according to analogy.

The scholars have unanimously agreed that the siblings in this verse are siblings from the mother, as their ruling is explicitly stated in this verse in a specific manner. The ruling of other siblings contradicts it, which is the one mentioned in the end of the chapter on inheritance.

Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas read: "And for him is a brother or a sister from his mother." The female and male in this matter are equal. Their share in the third is equal, even if they are many. This is consensus. If a woman dies and leaves a husband, a mother, and full siblings, then for the husband is half, for the mother is a sixth, and what remains is for the siblings. If they are only from the mother, then they have a third. If the deceased left a husband, a mother, and two siblings from the mother, and siblings from the father and mother, this is the case of the hirmariyyah. Some said that for the siblings from the mother is a third, and the full siblings receive nothing, just as if a man dies and leaves two siblings from the mother and leaves a hundred brothers from the father and mother, then the two siblings receive a third, and the hundred receive two-thirds, thus they are preferred by the third over them. Some said that the mother is one, even if their father was a donkey, and they share among themselves in the third, and they also called it: the shared one.

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

This issue does not stand if the deceased was a man, as there remains for the full siblings. Whenever something remains for them, they have nothing except what remains, and the third is for the siblings from the mother.