وإذا حضر القسمة أولو القربى واليتامى والمساكين فارزقوهم منه وقولوا لهم قولا معروفا
Wa idhā ḥaḍara'l-qismata ulu'l-qurbā wa'l-yatāmā wa'l-masākīnu fa'rzuqūhum minhu wa qūlū lahum qawlan maʿrūfā
"If relatives, orphans and the poor are present at the division, give them something out of it, and speak to them a kindly word."
The seventh verse said that the share exists; the eleventh will give the shares. The eighth verse stands between the two and speaks of those who have no share.
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the position of the verse: before it works out the reckoning of the right, the sūra names those who fall outside the reckoning. A field is left outside the law.
The same structure was treated at al-Baqara 2/237: the leaving of a field beyond the share the law assigns (wa lā tansawu'l-faḍla baynakum). I rely on that treatment. What the two verses have in common is this: a ruling is laid down, and then a door is opened beyond the ruling.
| Group | Who | Share of the estate |
|---|---|---|
| أُو۟لُوا۟ ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ | Relatives — but those who take no share | None |
| ٱلْيَتَٰمَىٰ | Orphans | None in this context |
| ٱلْمَسَٰكِين | The poor | None |
What the three have in common: they are there at the division but are not included in the reckoning.
مِسْكِين — root س-ك-ن: stillness, absence of movement. Sakana — it came to rest; sakīna — calm, tranquillity; maskana — the immobilised condition of poverty. The lexicographers record the picture of the word thus: the person whom poverty itself has made unable to move from his place. The word was treated in al-Balad and al-Māʿūn.
| View | Its ground |
|---|---|
| A binding ruling | The imperative mood (fa'rzuqūhum) |
| Recommended (mandūb) | That no amount is specified; that the verse is not named together with the shares of inheritance |
| That it has lapsed | The view that the ruling changed when the verses of inheritance came later |
This disagreement is real and its outcome differs among the schools of law. I do not impose a preference, I issue no legal ruling, and none of them is binding.
What follows from the wording of the verse and is not in dispute: no amount is stated, and a word is added beside the command.
The same sentence occurred in the fifth verse too. In both verses the party addressed is the one left empty-handed.
And its function here is worth recording: when nothing is given at a division, or too little is given, what breaks the relationship is most often not the amount but the word that is spoken. The verse sets the word to be spoken beside the thing to be given.
I record this as my own reading; its ground is the standing of the two commands side by side in one sentence.