Allah advises you and commands you regarding your children in the matter of their inheritance with what is just and beneficial. This is a summary of its details: for the male is like the share of two females. If you say: why was it not said: for the two females is like the share of the male? [Maqdud said: "If you say, why was it not said for the two females like the share of the male ... etc."] Ahmad said: because the preference in that case is indicated through implication, not explicitly stated. As for the arrangement of the verse, the preference is explicitly stated and does not need that. Or for the female to have half the share of the male, I say: it begins by clarifying the share of the male for his virtue, just as his share is doubled for that reason. And because his saying: (for the male is like the share of two females) aims to clarify the virtue of the male. And your saying: for the two females is like the share of the male, aims to clarify the deficiency of the female. What is intended to clarify his virtue is more indicative of his virtue than the intention to clarify the deficiency of another. And because they used to inherit males without females. [He returned to his speech. He said: "And because they used to inherit males without females ... etc."] Ahmad said: and according to this, the ruling of the son, if mentioned alone in the verse, would not be applicable, because when he is mentioned, he is meant in the context of being with females specifically, according to the interpretation of Al-Zamakhshari. This can be opposed, which is that the first mentioned is the inheritance of the male in general, whether he is with females or alone. As for the way of receiving his ruling in the case of being together, Al-Zamakhshari has established that. And as for the way of receiving it in the case of being alone, it is because Allah, the Exalted, made for him like the share of two females. If he is with them, that is fine, and if he is alone, He has made for her, in her state of being alone, half. This necessitates that the male, when alone, has twice her share when she is alone, and that is complete. And Allah knows best. This is the reason for the verse's revelation. It was said: it is enough for the males that their share is doubled compared to the females, so they should not persist in their share until they deprive them, while they are related by the same kinship through which they inherit. If you say: then the share of the two females is two-thirds, it is as if it was said to the male two-thirds. I say: I mean in the case of being together, not alone; that is, if the male and the two females are together, he has two shares, just as they have two shares. And as for in the case of being alone, the son takes all the wealth and the two daughters take two-thirds. The evidence that the aim is the ruling of being together is that it is followed by the ruling of being alone, which is His saying: (And if there are women above two, then for them is two-thirds of what he leaves). And the meaning is for the male among them, that is, among your children, so the referent is omitted because it is understood, like their saying: the ghee is two measures for a dirham. And if they are women, if the daughters or born females are entirely women, without a man with them, meaning daughters without a son, above two, it may be a second statement for "if" or it may be an adjective for "women," meaning women exceeding two. (And if there is one) and if the daughter or born female is alone, without another, then for her is half. And it has been read: one in the nominative as a complete verb, and the reading in the accusative is more appropriate for His saying: (And if they are women). And Zaid ibn Thabit read (the half) with a dammah. And the pronoun in (what he leaves) refers to the deceased, because since the verse is about inheritance, it is known that the one leaving is the deceased. If you say: His saying: (for the male is like the share of two females) is a statement made to clarify the share of the male from the children, not to clarify the share of the two females, how is it correct that it is followed by His saying: (And if they are women), which is to clarify the share of the females? I say: although it is made to clarify the share of the male, when the share of the two females with their brother is understood, it is as if it is made for both matters, so it is correct to say: (And if they are women). If you say: is it correct that the two pronouns in "they are" and "she was" are ambiguous, and that "women" and "one" are explanations for them, on the basis that "was" is complete? I say: that is not far off. If you say: why was it said (And if they are women) [He returned to his speech. Maqood said: "If you say, why was it said and if they are women, and it was not said: and if there is a woman ... etc."] Ahmad said:

He means by saying that the ruling of the two daughters when they are together with the son is mentioned in His saying: (For the male is like the share of two females). And that the ruling of the daughters when they are alone is mentioned in His saying: (But if there are women, more than two). And that the ruling of a single daughter is mentioned in His saying: (And if there is one, for her is half). It remains for him that the mention of the son when he is alone is inferred from His saying: (For the male is like the share of two females) when it is combined with His saying: (And if there is one, for her is half) based on the explanation I provided. And he did not say: And if she is a woman? I say: Because the purpose there is to clarify that they are females with no males among them, to distinguish between what was mentioned about their being together with males in His saying: (For the male is like the share of two females) and their being alone. And I want here to distinguish between the daughter being with others and her being alone without a companion. If you say: The ruling of the two daughters when they are together with the son and the ruling of the daughters and the daughter when they are alone have been mentioned, but the ruling of the two daughters when they are alone has not been mentioned, what is their ruling, and why was it not mentioned? I say: As for their ruling, there is disagreement about it. Ibn Abbas refused to consider them as a group. [[He returned to his words. He said in response: 'As for their ruling, there is disagreement about it. Ibn Abbas refused to consider them as a group... etc.' Ahmad said: 'The main point is that Ibn Abbas applied the restriction by description, which is His saying: (Above two), based on its apparent meaning from the concept of opposition. However, the wording does not necessitate that they be limited to half due to the conflict of the two concepts, since the concept of (For them is two-thirds of what he leaves) implies that the female is less than two-thirds, and the concept of (And if there is one, for her is half) implies that the two females are more than half. Thus, their share is uncertain between half and two-thirds to a certain extent. As for others, the restriction appears to have a clear benefit beyond the opposition, and that benefit is to remove the imagined difference between the two females and those above them. Whenever a clear benefit appears for specification beyond the opposition, it is necessary to adhere to it, and the reliance on the concept falls away. It is as if, according to the well-known opinion, when it is known that the two females are entitled to two-thirds by the mentioned methods, and there is a possibility that it may be assumed that those above the two females are entitled to more than the share of the two females, because that is what the analogy implies. This assumption is removed by making two-thirds obligatory for those above the two females just as it is obligatory for them, and Allah knows best.]] For His saying: (But if there are women, more than two), He gave them the ruling of the single one, which is an obvious and clear matter. As for the other companions, they gave them the ruling of the group, and the reasoning behind their saying is that His saying: (For the male is like the share of two females) indicates that the ruling of the two females is the ruling of the male. That is because just as the male may receive two-thirds with one, the two females may also receive two-thirds. So when what indicated the ruling of the two females was mentioned, it was said (But if there are women, more than two, for them is two-thirds of what he leaves) meaning: If they are a group, regardless of how many they are, they have what the two females have, which is two-thirds, and they do not exceed it due to their number, to clarify that the ruling of the group is the same as that of the two without difference. And it was said that the two are closer in kinship to the deceased than the two sisters, so they obligated for them what Allah obligated for the two sisters, and they did not see that they should be limited to a share less than that of one who is more distantly related than them. It was said that since the daughter is entitled to one-third with her brother, she is more deserving of one-third if she is with a sister like her, and her sister would have with her what was also due to her with her brother if she were alone with him. Thus, they are both entitled to two-thirds, and for their parents, the pronoun refers to the deceased. And for each one of them is a substitution for (for their parents) [[Mahamud said: 'For each one of them is a substitution for (for their parents) by repeating the agent... etc.' Ahmad said: 'In its grammatical analysis, there is a consideration for substitution, as it would be, in this case, a substitution of one thing for another, and they are like one eye, and the original speech is:'

And the sixth is for his parents, for each one of them. It necessitates limiting the substitute to sharing between them in the sixth, as He said: (And if there are women above two, for them is two-thirds of what he leaves). This necessitates their sharing in it. Therefore, the substitute - if we were to disregard the first - would require each one of them to have the sixth individually and not share, and this contradicts the reality of this type of substitute. Because in this type, it is required that the outcome of the substitute and the replacement be the same. Its benefit is merely the confirmation with the total of the two names, nothing more, without an increase in meaning. If what is between them of distinction is established, the mentioned substitution becomes impossible. And it is not from the substitute of division according to this interpretation, otherwise, it would necessitate an increase in meaning in the substitute. The correct view - and Allah knows best - is that a deleted subject is to be assumed as if it were said: And for his parents is the third. Then when their share was mentioned in general, it was detailed by saying: (For each one of them is the sixth). And it is permissible to omit the subject because the detail indicates it necessarily. For the entitlement of each one of them to the sixth necessitates their entitlement, and Allah knows best. It is also not appropriate in this way to make it from the substitute of division. Do you not see that if you said: The entire house is for three: For Zayd, and for Amr, and for Khalid: this would be a correct substitution and division. Because if you omitted the substitute and said: The house is for Zayd, and for Amr, and for Khalid, without adding anything in the substitute, it would be correct. But if you said: The house is for three: For Zayd a third of it, and for Amr a third of it, and for Khalid a third of it, the substitute of division would not be correct. Because if you omitted the substitute, the statement would become: The house is for Zayd a third of it, and for Amr a third of it, and for Khalid a third of it. This is a new statement, because you have added a distinguishing meaning for each one of them, and that is not provided by the substitute, nor is there a way in the substitute of something from something to increase in meaning. The benefit of this substitute is that if it were said: And for his parents is the sixth, its apparent meaning would be their sharing in it. And if it were said: And for his parents are two sixths, it would imply the division of the two sixths among them equally or otherwise. If you say: Why was it not said: And for each one of his parents is the sixth? And what is the benefit of mentioning the parents first, then substituting from them? I say: Because in the substitution and detail after the generalization, there is emphasis and strengthening, like what you see in the combination of the explainer and the explanation. And the sixth is the subject, and its predicate is: For his parents. And the substitute is intermediate between them for clarification. Al-Hasan and Nu'aym ibn Maysarah read (the sixth) with a lightening, as well as the third, quarter, and eighth. And the child refers to both male and female, and the ruling of the father differs in that. If it is a male, the father is limited to the sixth. If it is a female, he inherits with giving the sixth. If you say: The ruling of the parents in inheritance has been clarified. [His words returned. Mahmud said: "If you say the ruling of the parents and inheritance... etc." Ahmad said: And the view of Ibn Abbas is that the siblings take the sixth that they have deprived the mother of with the presence of the father. So according to this, the benefit of his saying: (And his parents inherited him) is to guard against what if the siblings inherited him with the parents, then the mother has the sixth at that time. As if it were said: And his parents inherited him and there were no siblings, so for his mother is the third. If he has siblings, for his mother is the sixth. And it cannot be made according to the view of Ibn Abbas restricted by the absence of spouses, because the third of the mother with him does not change with the presence of one of them, and Allah is the guide.] With the child, then their ruling with its absence, why was it not said: If he has no child, then for his mother is the third. And what is the benefit of saying: (And his parents inherited him)? I say: Its meaning is: If he has no child and his parents inherit him alone, then for his mother is the third of what he left, as He said: (For each one of them is the sixth of what he left). Because if his parents inherit him with one of the spouses, the mother has a third of what remains after deducting the share of the spouse, not a third of what he left, except according to Ibn Abbas. The meaning is that if the parents are alone, they share the inheritance: the male has the share of two females. If you say: What is the reason that she has a third of what remains without a third of the wealth?

I said: There are two aspects to this: the first is that the husband only deserves what is allotted to him by right of the contract, not by kinship, so it resembles a bequest in the division of what is beyond it. The second is that the father is stronger in inheritance than the mother, as evidenced by the fact that he is weakened when both are present and he is the owner of a fixed share and a male relative, combining both matters. If he were to assign her a full third, it would lead to reducing his share from her share. Do you not see that if a woman leaves a husband and two parents, the husband receives half, the mother a third, and the remainder goes to the father? The mother would then have two shares and the father one share. The ruling would change to give the female the same share as the two males. If he has brothers, then for his mother is a sixth; the brothers prevent the mother from receiving a third even though they do not inherit with the father. Thus, she has a sixth and the father has five sixths. Two or more brothers are equal in preventing the mother from the third, except in the case of Ibn Abbas. [[He returned to his words. Mahmoud said: 'And two or more are equal in preventing the mother, except in the case of Ibn Abbas... etc.' Ahmad said: 'He has indeed excelled in this explanation, which many skilled jurists have not excelled in. He means that there is a difference in the description of the plural and dual, as the plural includes two and more, while the dual is limited to two. Thus, there is this generality and specificity between them; every dual is a plural, but not every plural is a dual.]] And from him, they take the sixth that they prevented the mother from receiving. If you say: How is it correct that the brothers include two brothers, while the plural is contrary to the dual? I say: The term 'brothers' conveys the meaning of absolute plurality without a specific quantity, while the dual, like the trial and the quadruplication, conveys a specific quantity. This is a point of indication for the absolute plurality, so it is indicated by 'brothers.' And it was recited: 'For his mother,' with the hamzah broken, following the grammatical rule: Do you not see that it is not broken in the saying (And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign)? The phrase 'after a bequest' is related to what has preceded it regarding the division of all inheritances, not just what follows it alone, as if it were said: The division of these shares is after a bequest that is to be made. And it was recited (to bequeath it) with both light and heavy forms. And (to bequeath it) is in the passive form, lightened: If you say: What is the meaning of 'or'? I say: Its meaning is permissiveness: that if one of them or both is present, it is prioritized in the division of the inheritance, as in your saying: 'Sit with Hasan or Ibn Sirin.' If you say: Why was the bequest prioritized over the debt? [[Mahmoud said: 'If you say: Why was the bequest prioritized over the debt... etc.?'] Ahmad said: 'The bequest is of two types: for the unspecified, it is only claimed by the Imam if he finds it. And for the specified, he has the right to claim it. However, they differ in strength between the claim of the creditor for his debt and the one bequeathed to him for his bequest, because the creditor claims a right established in the debt that he has precedence over the debtor, while the one bequeathed only requests a favor that the deceased has granted him, not by prior entitlement. Thus, what the creditor possesses in strength suffices for his mention, and the weakness of the one bequeathed is supported by his mention to assist him in obtaining the favor of the bequest. And there is another way to address it: I say: The order of the verse does not contradict what is legally established, so the question does not arise. That is because the first thing to be addressed is the payment of the debt, then the bequest, and then the division of the heirs. So see how the division of the inheritance comes last, following the payment of the bequest, which follows the debt.

The division of inheritances after the will and the debt is the reality according to Islamic law. If the mention had been omitted and the statement was: 'Distribute the inheritance, the will, and the debt,' the mentioned question would not have been possible, and Allah knows best. And is the debt prioritized over it in the Sharia? I said: Since the will is similar to inheritance in that it is taken without compensation, its distribution is difficult for the heirs and burdensome to them, and their souls do not find comfort in it. Therefore, its fulfillment is likely to lead to negligence, unlike the debt, for their souls are at ease regarding its payment. For this reason, it is prioritized over the debt, encouraging its obligation and hastening its distribution along with the debt. Thus, the word 'or' was used to equate them in obligation. Then this was emphasized and encouraged by His saying: 'Your fathers and your sons,' meaning you do not know which of them is more beneficial to you, those who die, whether one who bequeathed or one who did not bequeath? This means that whoever bequeathed part of his wealth exposed you to the reward of the Hereafter by fulfilling his will is closer to you in benefit and more advantageous than one who left no will. He preserved for you the worldly gain and made the reward of the Hereafter closer and more present than the worldly gain, going towards the reality of the matter. For the worldly gain, although it is immediate and close in appearance, is transient; it is, in reality, the farthest and most distant. And the reward of the Hereafter, although it is delayed, is everlasting; it is, in reality, the closest and nearest. It is said that if the son is of a higher rank than his father in Paradise, he will ask for his father to be raised to him, and he will be raised. Likewise, if the father is of a higher rank than his son, he will ask for his son to be raised to him. So you do not know in this world which of them is closer to you in benefit. It is said: Allah has ordained the obligations based on what is wise with Him. If all of this were entrusted to you, you would not know which of them is more beneficial for you, and you would have placed the wealth without wisdom. It is said: The father is obligated to provide for the son if he is in need, and likewise, if the son is in need, they are both in benefit from the provision, and it is not known which of them is closer in benefit. None of these statements align with the meaning or respond to it, for this sentence is an interjection. It is the right of the interjection to affirm what it interrupts and relate to it. The statement that precedes it is an obligation established as a source of affirmation, meaning that Allah has indeed ordained it as an obligation. Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing of the interests of His creation, Wise in all that He has ordained and divided of inheritances and others.