1. Mufti Shafi` has the following to state as an introduction to this passage: People’s rights are of two kinds. First, those which arise out of interactions between them, such as: of trade, contract, labour, and employment. The law can force a defaulter to deliver the rights arising in these affairs. But there is another kind of rights. Those, for instance: of a wife, husband, children, orphans and others. The various rights that are due to these kind of people, in different measures, are of a nature that cannot be taken by force if a man will not deliver them of his own free will. The reliance here, therefore, for the delivery of these rights, is on fear of Allah and His Reckoning in the Hereafter. This fear of Allah - otherwise known as taqwa - is the only law-enforcing authority in this sphere of life. Accordingly, fear of Allah was mentioned twice within the same opening verse of a chapter that deals mainly with the rights of the kin. That could be the reason why we find that the Prophet used to recite this verse at the beginning of his sermons. Razi writes: It will be noticed that these words, “People! Fear your Lord,” occur at the beginning of the fourth chapter of the first half of the Qur’an. Similarly, the fourth chapter of the second half of the Qur’an also starts with the same words (Al-Hajj, surah 22): “People! Fear your Lord.” It will also be noticed that at this point the words that follow draw the attention to man’s ‘beginning’: “Fear ... who created you from a single soul,” while there, in the second half, the attention is drawn to the ‘end,’ in words:

ﭑ ﭒ ﭓ ﭔﭕ ﭖ ﭗ ﭘ ﭙ ﭚ ﭛ

“Fear ... verily the shaking of the Hour will be a great thing.”

2. That is, since Allah has created mankind from a single soul, all the members of the humanity are, one way or the other, related to one another, and hence have their rights on and duties toward each other. People should, therefore, fear Allah, acknowledge the rights of others, be fair with them, not oppress them, and the strong should give the weak his due (Ibn Jarir). Creation From a Single Soul Even basic knowledge of cells leads to the conclusion that all humans have originated from a single pair. If they had not, then, the number, messages and the coding system of the genes would have been so different from person to person that some people would have grown 5 meters tall and others would have had hands as long as apes. Or, if the clocks in a human body were not to be the same as in any other human body, wounds would not have healed within a period common to all, and women could not have been giving birth over ages within the same nine months time. In fact there is so much common at the most basic level that the scientists have been led to the conclusion, although wrong, that not only the human, rather all life originated from a single source. Says J.Z.Young: “Out of the 92 natural elements there are 16 that occur in most (living) organisms while there are a few that occur in some organisms but not others. This is an amazing fact and perhaps even more amazing is that only about 20 amino-acids, out of the many possible, occur in proteins, and further the same 20 in all organisms from bacterial to mammals. Most amazing of all, the instructions that direct the synthesis of proteins depend in every organism on sequences of three of the four nucleotide bases and any given triplet always serves to incorporate the same amino-acid. The instructions for all life forms are written in similar language. Such facts tell us at once that life is a ‘peculiar’, ‘impossible’, condition, and that all surviving life must have a common origin. We shall find this conclusion reinforced when we examine more fully the still more complex units into which the molecules of living systems are organized within the cells” (An Introduction to the Study of Man, ELBS publications, 1979, p.36). To the above we have to add that the differences between one species and another (such as between humans and apes) are nevertheless so tremendous and so completely irreconcilable - although the principles governing the bodies seem to be common - that it is difficult to assume that the two sprang up from the same origin. However, within a species, there is no room for any difference in opinion that they have sprung up from a single base. Indeed, recent researchers state that there might be a few genes in every human being right from the first ancestor, Adam, peace be upon him (Au.).

3. That is, created Hawwa’ from one of the ribs of Adam while he was asleep: Mujahid, Suddi, Qatadah (Ibn Jarir). A hadith in Bukhari and Muslim says:

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اسْتَوْصُوا بِالنِّسَاءِ فَإِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ خُلِقَتْ مِنْ ضِلَعٍ وَإِنَّ أَعْوَجَ شَيْءٍ فِي الضِّلَعِ أَعْلَاهُ فَإِنْ ذَهَبْتَ تُقِيمُهُ كَسَرْتَهُ وَإِنْ تَرَكْتَهُ لَمْ يَزَلْ أَعْوَجَ فَاسْتَوْصُوا بِالنِّسَاءِ.صحيح البخاري.

“Deal with women in a goodly manner for woman has been created from the rib, and the most curved of them is the top most. Therefore, if you go about trying to straighten her up, you will break her. But if you leave it, it will remain curved. Therefore, deal with women in a kindly manner” (Ibn Kathir). Sabuni adds: That in fact is the reason for naming the first woman created as Hawwa’, since she was created from a haiyy (a living). Sheikh Muhammad `Abduh has said in Al-Manar that “there was no point in creating Hawwa’ from the rib of Adam. What was the problem in creating her out of dust?” (Similarly, a contemporary commentator of the Qur’an has said that the hadith about creation from the rib of Adam has not been understood properly, implying that he has understood it correctly after these several centuries: Au). “The answer is, (continues Sabuni), the Qur’anic verse is plainly worded: ‘Mankind has been created from a single soul,’ (implying, obviously, that Hawwa’ was also from that single soul, Adam). Further, the hadith about creation from the rib of Adam is also unambiguous. Finally, the consensus of the Ummah is to the same effect. Now, as to the question why Allah created Hawwa’ by that process, one answer is, to demonstrate that He is capable of all manners of creation, including creating a living from a living: He created Adam from dust, Hawwa’ without a mother and `Isa without a father (Rawa’e`, slightly reworded). With reference to the `iwaj in women, Majid quotes a Western scholar elsewhere: ‘Women will never be able to overcome these handicaps which are deeply rooted in their physical nature .. Anyone familiar with the physiology and biology of woman will be less annoyed and irritated at her sudden changes of mood, allegedly unreasonable flares of temper, her unmotivated acts. Understanding this, man will deeply sympathize with the bearer of the egg cells who, having the same aspirations and claims upon life, are burdened with more difficult biological tasks’ (Nemilow, Biological Tragedy of Women, pp. 187-188).

4. As they say, for instance, “For God’s sake you should do this,” or “In the name of God you ought not to do this,” and, “I beseech you in the name of God,” etc. (Ibn Jarir, Kashshaf, Razi).

5. Two meanings have been ascribed to the statement. First, as in the translation, which is supported by Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Suddi, Qatadah and others. In fact Qatadah has a hadith to relate which says: “Fear Allah and join relations by the womb.” (The hadith is Mursal: Au.). The other meaning is: “Fear Allah and (fear) the wombs in the name of which you plead your rights.” That is, you claim from each other many rights in the name of relationships (by the womb). This meaning is supported by Ibrahim, Mujahid and Hasan (Ibn Jarir). Giving the relations by the womb their right is so important that even differences in creed does not come in the way. A hadith says,

عَنْ أَسْمَاءَ بِنْتِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَتْ قَدِمَتْ عَلَيَّ أُمِّي وَهِيَ مُشْرِكَةٌ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَاسْتَفْتَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قُلْتُ وَهِيَ رَاغِبَةٌ أَفَأَصِلُ أُمِّي قَالَ نَعَمْ صِلِي أُمَّكِ. صحيح البخاري.

Asma’ (Abu Bakr’s daughter) said that, “When my mother came down to me during the time of the Prophet while she was a pagan, and desiring my company, I asked the Prophet whether I should treat her well. He said: ‘Yes, treat your mother well’” (Qurtubi).

6. Hadith books are replete with traditions coming from the Prophet about the rights of relations by the womb, and the virtue in meeting those rights. One hadith of Mishkat says:

مَنْ سَرَّهُ أَنْ يُبْسَطَ عَلَيْهِ فِي رِزْقِهِ وَيُنْسَأَ فِي أَثَرِهِ فَلْيَصِلْ رَحِمَهُ

“Whoever wishes that his provision be increased and his age be extended, might give those related by the wombs their rights.” As against this, he has warned in no less ambiguous words, those that trample their rights. One of the reports, also of Mishkat, says:

لايدخل الجنة قاطع

“He who tramples the rights of the kind will not enter Paradise” (Ma`arif). Muslim has reported that once a people belonging to the Mudar tribe came to Madinah. They were in a terribly dishevelled state because of poverty. The Prophet ascended the mimber after Zuhr Prayers and in his sermon first recited this verse. He followed it up with (59: 18):

ييَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلْتَنْظُرْ نَفْسٌ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لِغَدٍ [الحشر : 18]

“Believers. Fear Allah and let each man examine what he has prepared for tomorrow.” After that he encouraged them to spend in the way of Allah, until people gave what they could (Ibn Kathir).

7. Orphan in Islamic terminology is a minor who has lost his or her father (Ma`arif).

8. Suddi, Sa`id ibn Musayyib and Zuhri have said that in pre-Islamic times trustees of the orphans used to substitute their good quality property with their own despoiled and poor quality ones. They would, for instance, replace a fat and healthy lamb of the orphan with an old and skinny lamb of their own. Allah forbade such acts (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). After this the Companions became so meticulous that they segregated their dishes from those of the orphans in their care until Allah revealed (2: 220):

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْيَتَامَى قُلْ إِصْلَاحٌ لَهُمْ خَيْرٌ وَإِنْ تُخَالِطُوهُمْ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ [البقرة : 220]

“And they ask you about (how to treat) the orphans. Tell them: ‘The best thing (for them) is (promotion of their) welfare. Therefore, if you mingle (your food, drink and other things) with theirs, then, that is alright, (since, after all), they are your brethren’” (Ibn Jarir).

9. Obviously, if separate accounts are not maintained and withdrawals are made from a single account for purposes common to those of the trustee as well as of the orphan then no one would know whose wealth is depleting and at what rate. It might be discovered too late that nothing is left of the wealth of the orphan (Ma`arif).

10. The textual hub has been explained as sin by Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Suddi, Qatadah and others (Ibn Jarir). The Prophet himself used it in that sense. According to a report in Ibn Marduwayh and Hakim, when Abu Ayyub al-Ansari wished to divorce his wife he sought the counsel of the Prophet (saws). He told him:

إن طلاق أم أيوب حوب

“Divorcing of Umm Ayyub would be a great sin (hub).” It is said that Abu Ayyub abandoned the idea (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

11. The words in the parenthesis are based on an opinion of `A’isha who said: “This verse applies to an orphan girl who happens to be in the trust of someone who wants to marry her because of her beauty or wealth, but is not inclined to give her the mahr she deserves. He has been told not to marry her, rather marry others.” There have been other explanations too (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi). The above statement of `A’isha is in Bukhari. However, she has another report in Bukhari itself to the effect that a man had an orphan girl in his care who jointly owned a date-palm grove with him. The man would not let her get married, (fearful that he would lose full control of the grove) - Ibn Kathir, Shawkani.

12. The words in the original are ma taba lakum, and have at least two implications. First, marriage is not a religious obligation. Imam Nawawi has stated that he does not know of any scholar (of the four schools) who has declared marriage obligatory. He mentions four cases. First, in which a man is fearful of falling into sin and possesses the means (to get married and maintain a household). For such a person marriage is mustahab (desirable). Second, he who is not fearful of falling into sin, and has no means to support a family; marriage for such a person is makruh (undesirable). Third, he who is fearful of falling into sins, but does not possess the means to get married; for him too it is makruh. This type should seek solution in fasts (until he can manage the means). And fourth, he who is neither fearful nor has the means. According to Imam Shafe`i, it is preferable for such a person to avoid marriage and busy himself with the affairs of the hereafter. According to the Hanafiyyah, however, it is wajib for a man to marry if he is fearful of falling into sins. Yet, if he cannot afford, then by not marrying he is not sinning. Their opinion is that in general terms marriage is Sunnah Mu’akkadah (emphasized practice of the Prophet) and therefore, not marrying without a valid reason can be sinful. Another implication hidden in the words ma taba lakum is, according to Suyuti, the permission to see the woman one intends to marry. A hadith in Muslim says, in sum, that:

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ كُنْتُ عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَأَتَاهُ رَجُلٌ فَأَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّهُ تَزَوَّجَ امْرَأَةً مِنْ الْأَنْصَارِ فَقَالَ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَظَرْتَ إِلَيْهَا قَالَ لَا قَالَ فَاذْهَبْ فَانْظُرْ إِلَيْهَا فَإِنَّ فِي أَعْيُنِ الْأَنْصَارِ شَيْئً . صحيح مسلم

The Prophet asked a person engaged to a woman if he had seen her. He said he had not. The Prophet told him, “You better do that, for some Ansari women have a defect in their eyes.” Nonetheless, this seeing should be done without the knowledge of the girl. As for her own permission - whether she can be seen without her knowledge or not - there is a difference of opinion among the scholars. Some say her consent is necessary, others that it is not. However, this seeing before marriage is only permissible and not obligatory. In fact, Allah Himself did not state it expressly (Alusi).

13. Some scholars have conjectured that by the addition of the words “women” (apparently redundant, since after all one marries only women), it is implied that marriage to a jinni is disallowed (Alusi). Imam Ibn Taymiyyah has, however, stated in his Risalatu al-Jinn that marriage between jinn and mankind is a possibility. He does not discuss the legality of the affair (Au.).

14. Since the address is to the believers as a whole, the terms used in the original are mathna, wa thulatha, wa ruba`, meaning twos, threes and fours, (or two two, three three, and four four), implying that everyone of the believers can marry two or three or four women (Razi and others). In other words, the permission is to one and all. However, four is the limit, more than that being the exception of our Prophet who married fifteen women, went into thirteen of them, of whom eleven were with him at one time in his life, and nine when he died. (Of them, the Prophet remained married to a single lady - Khadijah - until he was 54, then, after her death, remained with another single lady - Sawda - until he was 58 - adding others only at the end of his life: all but one previously married women: Shafi`). There is consensus of opinion over the figure of four for the believers without any disagreement among the scholars. Traditions supporting this view are as follows. One is in Bukhari and Nasa’i but taken here from Musnad of Ahmad:

عَنْ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَنَّ غَيْلَانَ بْنَ سَلَمَةَ الثَّقَفِيَّ أَسْلَمَ وَتَحْتَهُ عَشْرُ نِسْوَةٍ فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اخْتَرْ مِنْهُنَّ أَرْبَعًا فَلَمَّا كَانَ فِي عَهْدِ عُمَرَ طَلَّقَ نِسَاءَهُ وَقَسَمَ مَالَهُ بَيْنَ بَنِيهِ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ فَقَالَ إِنِّي لَأَظُنُّ الشَّيْطَانَ فِيمَا يَسْتَرِقُ مِنْ السَّمْعِ سَمِعَ بِمَوْتِكَ فَقَذَفَهُ فِي نَفْسِكَ وَلَعَلَّكَ أَنْ لَا تَمْكُثَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا وَايْمُ اللَّهِ لَتُرَاجِعَنَّ نِسَاءَكَ وَلَتَرْجِعَنَّ فِي مَالِكَ أَوْ لَأُوَرِّثُهُنَّ مِنْكَ وَلَآمُرَنَّ بِقَبْرِكَ فَيُرْجَمُ كَمَا رُجِمَ قَبْرُ أَبِي رِغَالٍ

It says that when `Imran b. Ghaylan b. Salamah embraced Islam he had ten wives. The Prophet told him to retain four. (According to one version, he told him to choose four of them and divorce the rest: Alusi). When this same Ghaylan b. Salamah later, during the reign of `Umar, divorced the remaining four wives and divided his wealth among his sons, `Umar warned him in words: “I guess Satan has overheard some news from the heavens and has whispered in your ear that you would not last long. By Allah, you will take back your wives and your wealth (from your children) or I will forcibly give your wives their share and I will order the people to pelt stones at your grave as they used to pelt stones at the grave of Abu Rughal (one of the stray men of Thamud: Tuhfatu ‘l Ahwadhi).” Abu Da’ud and Ibn Majah have a hasan report which says that `Umayrah al-Asadi had eight wives when he embraced Islam. the Prophet told him to choose four and release the rest. Another report in Imam Shafe`i’s Musnad (as also in Bukhari and Muslim) says that Nawfal b. Mu`awiyyah al-Dayli had five wives when he embraced Islam. The Prophet told him to retain four and divorce the fifth (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani). Majid quotes: “When we see thousands of miserable women who crowd the streets of Western towns during the night, we must surely feel that it does not lie in Western mouth to reproach Islam for its polygamy. It is better for a woman, happier for a woman, more respectable for a woman, to live in Mohammadan polygamy, united to one man only, with the legitimate child in her arms surrounded with respect than to be seduced, cast out in the streets - perhaps with an illegitimate child, outside the pale of law - unsheltered and uncared for to become a victim of any passer-by, night after night, rendered incapable of motherhood, despised of all” (Mrs. Annie Besant). A recent article on health says the following: “In Bombay (commercial hub of India) alone there are 100,000 sex workers. Half of them are already infected by the AIDS virus. I asked the women how many men they entertained each night. Three or four, they told me” (Peter Jaret: Viruses, National Geographic, July 1994: Au.). Sabuni adds: In 1948 the “Young Men’s Association” of Germany had counselled its members to marry more than one woman to solve the problem of excessive women as a result of the second world war. Finally, at the time of this writing, in New York alone it is estimated that there are a million women who do not hope to ever get married (Au.). Multiple Wives in the Bible: The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. And, since Jesus Christ constantly referred to the validity of the Law as in the Old Testament, it can be assumed with fair accuracy that he did not have any objection to polygamy. Mormons in fact, a Christian sect, believes in polygamy (Au.).

15. The statutory equal treatment required pertains to matters involving maintenance and provision of material and physical needs. The heart’s inclination is beyond control, and hence forgiven, so long as no injustice is committed, as the Qur’an itself has said (in verse 129 of this chapter),

وَلَنْ تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ [النساء : 129]

“But you will never be able to do absolute justice to the women, even if you were to be eager.” Therefore, it is sufficient if one is not inclined altogether toward one to the neglect of the others, as said the Qur’an in the same verse cited above:

فَلَا تَمِيلُوا كُلَّ الْمَيْلِ [النساء : 129]

“But do not completely incline (toward one)” - Shafi`.

16. This is so because you do not have to give your slave girls dower (marriage itself is their dower because it promises them freedom: Au.), and she is entitled to half the rights as compared to a free woman (Thanwi).

17. Since the ta`ulu of the original has been explained as meaning “incline” by Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Suddi and others, another rendition of the phrase could be: “in order that you might not incline (toward one of them to the neglect of others)” - Ibn Jarir.

18. The general interpretation is that in the pre-Islamic times the dower was taken away by the father or the trustee to the denial of the bride herself. Allah forbid this and ordered that the women (and not others) be given their dower (Zamakhshari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir). Majid quotes: “Sidaq of a wife, ‘a dowry or nuptial gift’ is, in Islamic law, either a sum of money or other form of property to which the wife becomes entitled by marriage. ‘It is not a consideration proceeding from the husband for the contract of marriage, but it is an obligation imposed by the law on the husband as a mark of respect for the wife as is evident from the fact that the non-specification of dower at the time of marriage does not affect the validity of marriage.’ (Abdur Rahim) And, ... Sidaq in Islam is not to be confused with the price of the bride or the purchase-money so customary in the ancient world... ”Notwithstanding the prohibition in the Laws of Manu, marriage by purchase is found to this day even among the high castes, and is frequently practiced among the Sudras" (Westermark, Short History of Marriage, pp. 166-169).

19. The word nihlah has been variously interpreted. One meaning is in the translation. In addition, it has been explained as an “obligation” by authorities such as `A’isha, Qatadah, Ibn Jubayr, as well as “dower” by Ibn `Abbas (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani). Alusi writes: The term nihlah literally means a gift. The dower given to the wife cannot be said to be the price of pleasure that a man draws from sexual union with her, for she has an equal share of it, if not more. So nothing is due to her that way. In fact, she is, in addition, provided for by the husband. Therefore, sidaq can only be a gift, hence the use of the term nihlah, although our Shar` has made such gift-offering obligatory and a condition of marriage: and hence the other interpretations. Further, (as pointed out by other commentators), the words “Hand over to the women their dower” hold the direct implication that sidaq is the woman’s own property over which the parents have no right whatsoever, as against the general concept and practice in some parts of the Arab world today. Asad writes: “The expression nihlah signifies the giving of something willingly, of one’s own accord, without expecting a return for it (Zamakhshari). It is to be noted that the amount of the marriage-portion, or dower, which the bridegroom has to give to the bride has not been circumscribed by the Law: it depends entirely on the agreement of the two parties, and may consist of anything, even a mere token. According to several authentic Traditions recorded in most of the compilations, the Prophet made it clear that ”even an iron ring" may be enough if the bride is willing to accept it, or, short of that, even “the imparting of thy bride of a verse of the Qur’an.” That said, the Qur’an has not set an upper limit either. It says, in this same surah, verse 20:

ﭗ ﭘ ﭙ ﭚ ﭛ ﭜ ﭝ

“... even if you have given them a heap (of gold or property), do not take any of it back (at the time of separation)” - Au.

20. In view of the construction of the sentence, with the words tibna and nafsan occurring in it, many scholars have judged that if a woman demands back a gift she once made, (out of the dower), it has to be returned. In fact, `Umar wrote to his judges across the country: “Women give both out of love as well as out of fear. Therefore, any woman who gives and then wishes that what she gave be returned, then, let it be returned.” Accordingly, when a case was presented to Qadi Shurayh, of a woman who had given a gift and then was demanding it back, he judged that it be returned. The husband remonstrated: “Has not Allah said:

فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَرِيئًا [النساء

: 4] ‘If they are pleased to offer any of it, of their own accord, then you might consume it in good cheer?’” Shurayh replied: “Had she been pleased to give it, she would not be demanding it back.” It is also reported of a man of the Abu Mu`it family that a woman gave back her husband a 1000 Dinars, which was her dower. After a month or so, the man divorced her. The woman went to Marwan b. al-Hakam, demanding back the sum. Marwan b. al-Hakam also ruled that the sum should be returned to her despite the man’s protest that she had given it to him of her own accord and in good cheer (Zamakhshari, Razi). Ibn al-`Arabi has ruled, however, (in the case of a wife returning her dower to the husband), that if he has consumed it and is left with nothing then she cannot demand it back (Qurtubi). As against the above, Alusi quotes Ibn Hubayrah to the effect that there is no difference of opinion among the scholars of the four schools of fiqh that what man and wife gift to each other are theirs and non-returnable. Mufti Shafi` presents a point: In many parts of the world, women are quite certain that they will not get their dower. They also realize that if they insist to be paid it might lead to various family problems. Therefore, they have no choice but to forgive. But such forgiving is null and void. The amount is due to them all the same. In fact, this tib ‘l-nafs is applicable to other areas of life also. For instance, if a man is pressurized into donating for a cause, his money is not lawful to the organization that collects it. It must be returned to him because of the missing tib ‘l-nafs.

21. In the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Hasan, Suddi, Dahhak and others, both women (with no experience in handling finance) and immature orphans are covered by the term “foolish” here (Ibn Jarir).

22. Wealth and property are of such importance in Islam that according to a hadith in Bukhari and Muslim:

يَقُولُ مَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ مَالِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ

“Whoever lost his life in the defence of his property is a martyr.” There is nothing wrong in being rich. A hadith, in Mishkat, says:

لَا بَأْسَ بِالْغِنَى لِمَنْ اتَّقَى اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ

“There is no harm in wealth for him who fears Allah, the Exalted” (Shafi`).

23. The above translation is the preferred meaning. Ibn `Abbas has, however, treated the verse as not specifically addressed to the trustees of the orphans, rather a general piece of advice to the master of a house. It is saying: “Do not hand over your wealth - a means of your subsistence - to your wives and children who might spend it away freely. Rather, hold it with yourself and let yourself be the one to look after their daily needs. Otherwise, a situation will arise when you will have to seek financial help of them” (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

24.It is not being said that the orphan be handed over his property the day he matures; rather, that it should be done only when he evinces soundness of mind and the capability to independently conduct his financial affairs. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Suddi, Qatadah and others. (Ibn Jarir adds: Even if he might prove to be a corrupt person). As for puberty itself, with which he is qualified to be handed back his property (the condition of mental maturity met), it is either the age of fifteen or growth of the pubic hair. The Prophet applied that rule on the day of Uhud. He prevented those boys who were less than fifteen years of age from participating in the battle. There is no difference of opinion among the scholars over this. However, whether the growth of pubic hair is a sign of maturity is a contested point. The majority believe it is. Speaking about the Day when Sa`d b. Mu`adh had judged about the Jews of Banu Qurayzah that the adults be put to death and minors be taken slaves - `Atiyyah al-Qurazi says, in a hadith of Abu Da’ud, Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi, who adjudged it hasan:

عُرِضْنَا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ قُرَيْظَةَ فَكَانَ مَنْ أَنْبَتَ قُتِلَ وَمَنْ لَمْ يُنْبِتْ خُلِّيَ سَبِيلُهُ فَكُنْتُ مِمَّنْ لَمْ يُنْبِتْ فَخُلِّيَ سَبِيلِي.

“We were presented to the Prophet. He ordered that we be checked for our pubic growth. Those who had begun to grow them were put to death and the others spared. I was one of those who were spared.” Similarly, during the reign of `Umar when a boy falsely slandered a girl in his poetry, `Umar ordered the authorities to check if he had grown his pubic hair, in order to determine if he could be administered the Shari`ah punishment for the crime. When the report was negative, he spared him the punishment (Ibn Kathir). According to Abu Hanifah, someone who has achieved maturity might first be tried out with some money (or property) to handle at the age of seventeen. (That according to him is the age of maturity for boys: Qurtubi. Alusi says however that according to Abu Hanifah it is the completion of eighteen years of age for boys and seventeen for girls). Nonetheless, at that age his abilities might be checked. If he fails the test, he might not be handed over his property. However, he must be given the custody of his property whether or not he attains the ability to handle it, once he is twenty-five, after which no significant change is expected in the personality. But his students differed with him and have ruled that if a man does not show maturity, he might never be allowed to handle affairs of his property (Kashshaf). This is also the opinion of Imam Shafe`i (Razi).

25. Sha`bi has said that if the trustee is rich then the property of the orphan is like blood and carrion to him (Ibn Kathir).

26.According to `Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ibn `Abbas, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Sha`bi, and Abu al-`Aliyyah, such taking from the property of the orphan should be treated as loans, payable whenever the trustee can afford. Sa`id ibn Jubayr has added that if he can never repay, let him seek forgiveness of the orphan before death. However, others such as, `A’isha, Ibn `Abbas, Abu al-`Aliyyah, Hasan, `Ata’, and Sha`bi have ruled that the permission here is for such things as are necessary for the trustee’s sustenance such as staples, fruits, vegetables, milk and other dietary articles: one might partake of them to the minimum of his needs, (as his charges for looking after the property), but he is not allowed to take anything else, say gold or silver from the property of the orphan except as loans. This is based on a hadith according to which the uncle of Thabit b. Rifa`ah went to the Prophet enquiring about what was lawful to him of the property of the orphan. The Prophet told him:

كُلْ مِنْ مَالِ يَتِيمِكَ غَيْرَ مُسْرِفٍ وَلَا مُبَذِّرٍ وَلَا مُتَأَثِّلٍ مَالًا وَمِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ تَقِيَ مَالَكَ بماله

“You may partake of the orphan’s wealth without wasting, without overspending, without saving (for yourself) and without sacrificing his wealth for yours.” Accordingly, `Umar ibn al-Khattab, `Ata’ ibn abi Rabah and others have said that what someone in need partakes of the property of an orphan is not returnable, even if he subsequently becomes rich (Ibn Jarir). Imam Shafe`i is also of the opinion that whoever looks after the property of an orphan might draw suitably for himself from it, as his wages, the reimbursement of which is not obligatory. He is supported in this view by `Ata’, `Ikrimah, Ibrahim Nakha`i, `Atiyyah and Hasan al-Busri (Ibn Kathir). Their opinion has in support the hadith (sahih: S. Ibrahim) in Ahmad, Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban in his “Sahih” and Ibn Marduwayh in his “Tafsir,” which says that,

إنِّي فَقِيرٌ وَلَيْسَ لِي شَيْءٌ وَلِي يَتيمٌ ، فقال : كُلْ مِنْ مَالِ يَتِيمكَ عَيْرَ مُسْرِفٍ وَلا مُبَذِّرٍ وَلاَ مُتَأثِّل ومن غير أن تقي مالك

A man enquired the Prophet: “I do not have any means of sustenance. But I have an orphan under my care.” He replied: “You might partake of the orphan’s property without wasting or squandering it, neither spending away the principal itself, nor saving your property at the cost of his.” Nonetheless, as a precaution, if one returns what he had charged, when he comes in possession of the means, it would be better for him’ as `Umar said, according to a report of trustworthy narrators:

إني أنزلت نفسي من هذا المال بمنزلة والي اليتيم، أن استغنيت استعففت، وإن احتجت استقرضت، فإذا أيسرت قضيت.

“I treat what I take from the property of the state on the same basis as I treat the property of an orphan. When I have my own means, I do not draw from it. If I am in dire need, I take from it as a loan. But if I have means, I return it” (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani). Ibn Jarir himself, who was a jurist, prefers the former opinion, i.e., what the trustee takes, even if forced to do so because of poverty, should be treated as loans and returned later (Au.).

27. Hence the Prophet’s advice to Abu Dharr:

يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ إِنِّي أَرَاكَ ضَعِيفًا وَإِنِّي أُحِبُّ لَكَ مَا أُحِبُّ لِنَفْسِي لَا تَأَمَّرَنَّ عَلَى اثْنَيْنِ وَلَا تَوَلَّيَنَّ مَالَ يَتِيمٍ

“Abu Dharr! I perceive weakness in you. Indeed, I approve for you what I approve for myself. (I advise you), not to accept to be an amir over two people and not to take charge of an orphan’s property” (Ibn Kathir). The hadith is in Muslim. (H. Ibrahim) “Allah suffices”: These words imply that although it is desirable to have witnesses on one’s side while the property is being handed over and accounts settled, it is not obligatory since “Allah suffices for a Reckoner” (Alusi, Shabbir).

28. These verses impart knowledge of the Islamic discipline known as “`Ilm ‘l-Fara‘id.” It is a corner stone of the religion of Islam and is considered to be one of the best and mother of all knowledge. Some scholars have said that it is one-third or even half of the knowledge of the Shari`ah. It will also be the first discipline to be lost by the Ummah. Ibn Mas`ud has said: “Why should he, who does not have knowledge of the Fara‘id, Divorce-rules, and Hajj, be not considered a bedouin?” (Qurtubi). Majid writes: “Says MacNaughten, the author of Principles and Precedents of Mohammedan Law in his Preliminary Remarks:- ‘In these provisions we find ample attention paid to the interest of all those whom nature places in the first rank of our affections and indeed it is difficult to conceive any system containing rules more strictly just and equitable.’ And Rumney, the annotator of Sirajiyya, a Muslim book of the law of inheritance, observes:- ‘The Mohammedan Law of Inheritance comprises beyond question the most refined and elaborate system of rules for the devolution of property that is known to the civilized world.’ (Mahmudullah, The Muslim Law of Inheritance, Preface, p. i, Alahabad 1934).” What is to be noted, as a miracle of the Qur’an, that the basis for the whole complicated structure pertaining to the Law of inheritance, which bogs down the mind of even the mathematically educated person of today, has been stated in just three verses: two here and one at the end of the chapter (Au.).

29. In inheritance, the central principle is “nearness” in relationship and not the “need” of the relatives. Hence an orphaned grandson will not get a share in the presence of the sons of the deceased. He is not as near to the grandfather as the sons are. If needy, he is taken care of by other means (Ma`arif).

30. Separate mention of women is for emphasis. Otherwise the verse could also have been worded as “Men and women have their share ...” (Ma`arif).

31. Qatadah and Ibn Zayd have said that among pre-Islamic Arabs only adult males inherited from a deceased, to the exclusion of females and non-adults. Allah (swt) revealed this verse. `Ikrimah has reported that an Ansari woman known as Umm Kuhhah came to the Prophet (saws) to complain that her husband had died, left children behind but she was being denied any share in the inheritance. Her cousin who was accompanying her rejoined:

فقال عم ولدها: يا رسول الله، لا تركب فرسًا، ولا تحمل كلا ولا تنكى عدوًّا، يكسب عليها ولا تكتسب! فنزلت: "للرجال نصيب مما ترك الوالدان والأقربون وللنساء نصيب مما ترك الوالدان والأقربون مما قلَّ منه أو كثر نصيبًا مفروضًا". خرجه الحافظ ابن حجر في الإصابة في ترجمة أم كحة

“O Apostle of Allah, does someone who does not ride a horse, does not carry fodder, cannot fight the enemy, has to be laboured for and cannot labour for herself (should she be given a share)!?” In response Allah revealed: “Men have a share in what the parents and ....until the end of the verse” (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi). This last report is in Ibn Marduwayh as well as Ahmad (Ibn Kathir). Majid adds: “Women and minor males were denied inheritance not only in the pagan Arabia but in the law of the Bible also, ‘women appear to have been universally and in every respect regarded minor so far as the rights of property went ... Only sons, not daughters, still less wives, can inherit’ (EB, cc. 2724, 2728).”

32. This implies that everything, however meagre of value, such as personal belongings, must be divided (unless common consent waives them off: Au.), and not kept back by someone undertaking the division (Ma`arif).

33. If the first verse of this set barred the distant relatives from inheriting a deceased, by the second verse they were again brought in as deserving of at least a gift (Ma`arif).

34. Although there have been several explanations, the most plausible seems to be that even though in Allah’s own division of the inheritance, there is no legal share for the distantly related, the orphans or the poor, but if they happen to drop in at the time of division, in hope of receiving something as a gift, then do not turn them away disappointed. (Ibn `Abbas’ opinion in Bukhari is that the verse is not abrogated, - as some have expressed the opinion - rather it is muhkam: Qurtubi). Further, the verse seems to be saying: ‘While dealing with these people do not be rough, rather be kind and considerate.’ Some of the Salaf used to slaughter a goat and feed the visitors, while others have recommended that articles such as furniture or utensils that cannot be sold off might be gifted to them (Ibn Jarir). Ibn Kathir adds: The inheritors should not behave like the “People of the Orchard” whose story has been narrated (in ch. 68 verses 17-33) who resolved to gather the fruits early in the morning before a destitute would show up. Allah destroyed their fruit as punishment for withholding the right of the poor. Hence it has been said that although no share has been settled by Allah in favour of the distantly related, the orphan or the poor, if they happen to be present at the time of division they should be given something or the other (Ibn Kathir). Nevertheless, such bestowal has to be done out of the share of the adults, since nothing can be taken away from the share of the minor without his or her consent obtained after attainment of maturity alone (Thanwi’s parenthetical note expanded).

35. Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, Suddi, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Dahhak and Mujahid have said that this verse is addressing those who are present around a dying man encouraging him to bequeath his wealth, or a part of it, to charitable works before his death. They are told not to do that and fear for the man’s children what they would fear for their own children, i.e.,, poverty (Ibn Jarir). Accordingly, when the Prophet visited Sa`d at his death-bed, Sa`d asked him if he could bequeath two-thirds of his wealth in view of his daughter being the sole heir. He said no. Sa`d asked whether he could bequeath one half. The Prophet again said no. When Sa`d asked if he could bequeath one third, the Prophet told him: “You could. But even one-third is a lot.” Then he added: “That you leave behind your dependents rich is better than leaving them poor stretching their hands before the people.” The hadith, as in Bukhari, is as follows:

سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ جَاءَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَعُودُنِي وَأَنَا بِمَكَّةَ وَهُوَ يَكْرَهُ أَنْ يَمُوتَ بِالْأَرْضِ الَّتِي هَاجَرَ مِنْهَا قَالَ يَرْحَمُ اللَّهُ ابْنَ عَفْرَاءَ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أُوصِي بِمَالِي كُلِّهِ قَالَ لَا قُلْتُ فَالشَّطْرُ قَالَ لَا قُلْتُ الثُّلُثُ قَالَ فَالثُّلُثُ وَالثُّلُثُ كَثِيرٌ إِنَّكَ أَنْ تَدَعَ وَرَثَتَكَ أَغْنِيَاءَ خَيْرٌ مِنْ أَنْ تَدَعَهُمْ عَالَةً يَتَكَفَّفُونَ النَّاسَ فِي أَيْدِيهِمْ

Therefore, Ibn `Abbas used to say that if the people would remain within one fourth while bequeathing, it would be better for them since the Prophet said: “Even one third is a lot.” The report is in Bukhari and Muslim (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani). But some other scholars have said that it is the opposite that is meant by the verse. That is, a man might be making a will in favour of the poor but those present might discourage him saying, ‘leave it all to your children,’ thus harming the poor. Ibn `Atiyyah has said that the two opinions are reconcilable. Sometimes the situation demands this, sometimes that. One has to fear Allah, and offer the best advice in every situation (Qurtubi). The earlier opinion (of the first generation scholars) could be influenced by the fact that the earliest Muslims cared as much for the poor, the widow and other weak elements of the society, as for their own children, and were likely to even forego the needs of their own children and bequest the maximum the Shari`ah has allowed, in favour of others. But, with the passage of time children became dearer, to the neglect of the weaker elements, and hence the change in the opinion (Au.).

36. Suddi has said that a man who wrongfully devoured the wealth of the orphans will rise from his grave in a condition that flames would be leaping out of his mouth, ears and eyes. Anyone who saw him would know that this man used to devour property of the orphans. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri (ra) has reported the Prophet as having seen (during his mi`raj) some people with lips as large as those of a camel, being pulled by those lips. They were fed with stones of fire that entered the mouth and came out from the rear. He asked Jibril about them. He was told that they were people who used to devour wealth of the orphans (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani). The hadith is as follows:

« انطلق بي إلى خلق من خلق الله كثير ، رجال كل رجل منهم له مشفران كمشفر البعير ، وهو موكل بهم رجال يفكون لحى أحدهم ، ثم يجاء بصخرة من نار فتقذف في في أحدهم حتى تخرج من أسفله ،وله خوار ، وصراخ، فقلت : يا جبريل من هؤلاء ؟ » قال : هؤلاء ( الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما إنما يأكلون في بطونهم نارا وسيصلون سعيرا. (تفسير ابن ابي حاتم)

A hadith in the Sahihayn narrated by Abu Hurayrah reports the Prophet as having said:

« اجْتَنِبُوا السَّبْعَ الْمُوبِقَاتِ ». قَالُوا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا هُنَّ؟ قَالَ :« الشِّرْكُ بِاللَّهِ وَالسِّحْرُ وَقَتْلُ النَّفْسِ الَّتِى حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلاَّ بِالْحَقِّ وَأَكْلُ الرِّبَا وَأَكْلُ مَالِ الْيَتِيمِ وَالتَّوَلِّى يَوْمَ الزَّحْفِ وَقَذْفُ الْغَافِلاَتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ »

“Avoid the seven destructive ones.” He was asked: “What are they?” He replied: “Attributing partners to Allah, magic, murder of a person that Allah has forbidden save by right, partaking of usury, devouring of the orphan’s wealth, running away from the battle-field on a day of heavy fighting and slandering chaste believing women” (Qurtubi in brief, Ibn Kathir).