al-Nisāʾ 4:11

Yūṣīkumu'llāhu fī awlādikum li'l-dhakari mithlu ḥaẓẓi'l-unthayayn, fa-in kunna nisāʾan fawqa'thnatayni fa-lahunna thuluthā mā tarak, wa in kānat wāḥidatan fa-laha'l-niṣf, wa li-abawayhi li-kulli wāḥidin minhuma'l-sudusu mimmā taraka in kāna lahū walad, fa-in lam yakun lahū waladun wa warithahū abawāhu fa-li-ummihi'l-thuluth, fa-in kāna lahū ikhwatun fa-li-ummihi'l-sudus, min baʿdi waṣiyyatin yūṣī bihā aw dayn, ābāʾukum wa abnāʾukum lā tadrūna ayyuhum aqrabu lakum nafʿā, farīḍatan mina'llāh, inna'llāha kāna ʿAlīman Ḥakīmā

"God enjoins upon you concerning your children: to the male the like of the share of two females. If they are women more than two, theirs is two-thirds of what is left; if she is one alone, hers is a half. To his parents, to each one of them, falls a sixth of what he leaves, if he has a child. If he has no child and his parents are his heirs, a third falls to his mother. If he has brothers, a sixth falls to his mother. All this after any bequest made and after any debt. Your fathers and your sons — you do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit. This is an ordinance from God. God is Knowing, Wise."

Inheritance is the most technical discussion in classical jurisprudence, and it produced a discipline of its own (farāʾiḍ).

What will be done in this section is this: 1. The shares given by the verse's own wording are set out in a table. 2. The terms are analysed: ḥaẓẓ, waṣiyya, dayn, kalāla, farīḍa. 3. The order of priority the verse itself lays down is brought to the fore: min baʿdi waṣiyyatin yūṣī bihā aw dayn.

And these will not be done:

• The debates over reckoning will not be entered into. What is to be done when the shares do not reach one whole or exceed it (the matters known in the classical literature as ʿawliyya and raddiyya), which heir is excluded in which case, the position of the grandfather and of the brothers — none of these is the subject of this text.
• No legal ruling will be issued and no preference will be imposed.
• This is not a guide to practice. The division of an actual estate belongs to those competent in it and to the relevant law.

And this record is entered plainly: inheritance is a subject of jurisprudence in which there are differences of detail among the schools of law; nothing related in this section is binding.

The verse does not say yaḥkumu (He rules) or yaʾmurukum (He commands you). It says Yūṣīkum — "He enjoins upon you, He charges you."

The concrete sense of the root و-ص-ي: to join, to attach one thing to another. Arḍun wāṣiya — land whose plants have run together, contiguous ground. And from there waṣiyya: to carry a matter over to another, to attach it to him.

The picture in the root, then, is a joining. And this looks in the same direction as the word al-arḥām (ties) in the sūra's first verse.

I record this as an observation about a word: the ruling on inheritance is given not with the verb "to rule" but with a verb from the root of "joining".

And that the verb is imperfect must be recorded: yūṣīkum — ongoing. The pattern states that the ruling is not a one-time order but a lasting arrangement.

For "share" the verse here uses not naṣīb but the word ḥaẓẓ.

The root ح-ظ-ظ: the portion, the lot that falls to a person. The lexicographers explain the word as "the portion set aside for a person"; maḥẓūẓ — one whose portion is ample.

The distribution of the two words in the sūra is worth recording:

This is an observation about word order, and the places of the words can be counted. Naṣīb names the principle, ḥaẓẓ the reckoning.

The table below shows only the proportions that occur in the wording of the verse. It is not a table for practice; it does no more than arrange the text of the verse.

Every row in the table is in the wording of the verse. No case not found in the verse has been added to the table.

And three things must be recorded that do not appear in the table but can be read from the wording of the verse:

One. The verse names a female heir in three separate places: the daughter (twice), the mother (twice). Most of the rulings, that is, are laid down in order to determine the share of a female heir. This is a countable fact.

Two. The verse states the father's share openly in one case only (a sixth, if there is a child); in the others it does not specify it. The mother's share, on the other hand, is stated openly in two separate cases.

Three. The sentence li'l-dhakari mithlu ḥaẓẓi'l-unthayayn states a proportion, not a ranking of worth. The thing measured in the sentence is the male's share, and that share is defined by reference to the daughter's share — that is, in the sentence the unit of measure is the female share. I record this as an observation about word order, and I draw no ruling from it.

There are explanations transmitted in the classical literature about the ground of this proportion — the distribution of the obligation of maintenance, the obligation of the bridal gift, financial responsibilities within the family, and the like. These explanations are recorded in the language of "it is transmitted"; no preference is imposed, no ruling is established, and current debates are not entered into. The verse itself gives no clause of justification for this proportion.

This qualification is the most often repeated sentence in the verses of inheritance, and it needs to be brought to the fore.

In the eleventh and twelfth verses this qualification is repeated four times, and each time the form of the verb changes:

Four repetitions are a datum of the text.

And the sense of the qualification is this: before the shares are reckoned, two things are taken out — any bequest made and any debt. The estate itself, that is, is what remains.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the repetition itself: while giving the most technical of reckonings, the verse recalls four times what comes before the reckoning. The right of the one who has a share arises after the obligations the deceased has left behind.

It is recorded in the classical literature that the debt comes before the bequest, although in the verse they are joined by the particle aw (or). This is a question of jurisprudence, and no ruling is issued here. What the wording of the verse says is that both come before the shares.

Root د-ي-ن. And the family of words the lexicographers record is worth noting: dayn — debt; dāna — he became indebted, he submitted; dīn — religion, and at the same time "judgement, recompense, obedience"; madīna — a city (a place bound to an order); dayyān — the one who calls to account.

The common core is this, and the lexicographers record it: to be bound by a tie, to be under something. The debtor is under the creditor; the servant under his Lord.

I relate this connection as the lexicographers record it, and I build no interpretation upon it.

The bequest is named in the verse without restriction. But in the twelfth verse a qualification is added: ghayra muḍārr — not causing harm.

The root ض-ر-ر, Form III. The same pattern was treated at al-Baqara 2/231 (ḍirāran li-taʿtadū), and it was recorded there: "the pattern is Form III (mufāʿala): it states reciprocity or intent. That is, 'so that harm should come to her, knowingly.'" I rely on that treatment.

And the function of the qualification must be recorded: a bequest cannot be used as an instrument for depriving an heir of his share. The verse, that is, foresees the misuse of the very power it grants.

The amount of the bequest is not specified in the verse. In classical jurisprudence a limit has been set in this matter, and its ground is transmitted as the sunna, not the verse. This is a question of jurisprudence; no ruling is issued here and nothing is said about the amount.

This sentence stands in the very middle of a technical table of reckoning, and its bearing on the subject is not visible at first sight.

"Your fathers and your sons — you do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit."

I record what the sentence does as my own reading, and its ground is the place where the sentence stands:

At the division of an estate the most natural human objection is this: "he was closer", "he gave more labour", "he will bring more benefit". The sentence is set directly in the path of that objection and ties it to a lack of knowledge.

The shares, that is, are given not by the benefit of persons but by a fixed measure — because the knowledge needed to calculate benefit is not in human hands.

And the verb must be recorded: lā tadrūn — "you do not know". The root د-ر-ي: to know something by searching it out, by following its trace. The verb says that the knowledge is not obtainable.

The pattern looks in the same direction as the pattern treated at al-Baqara 2/216: "It may be that you dislike a thing and it is good for you… God knows and you do not know." And it was recorded there: "the sentence is not a claim to knowledge but the statement of a limit. The place where the decision rests is not what the person sees at that moment." I rely on that treatment, and the same record holds here.

The root ف-ر-ض occurred in the seventh verse (naṣīban mafrūḍā); here it comes again. A bridge of words is built between the two verses: the proclamation of the right and the reckoning of the right are joined by the same root.

And the qualification mina'llāh must be recorded: the source of the measure is stated. The shares, that is, are not a custom or a settlement but a measure that has been laid down — this is the verse's own claim.

Two names side by side: ʿAlīm (Knowing) and Ḥakīm (Wise, the one who puts each thing in its place).

And the verse-ending's link with the verse is direct: a few lines earlier the verse had said lā tadrūna — "you do not know". The verse-ending says where the knowledge is.

The concrete sense of the root ح-ك-م was treated in al-Baqara and at Luqmān 31/12: ḥakama — to put the bit in a horse's mouth; ḥikma — knowledge that does not let a thing shift from its place. I rely on that treatment.