Ala-Maududi
(4:12) And to you belongs half of whatever has been left behind by your wives if they die
childless; but if they have any children then to you belongs a fourth of what they have left
behind, after payment of the bequest they might have made or any debts outstanding against them.
And to them belongs a fourth of what you leave behind, if you die childless; and if you have any
child then to them belongs one-eighth of what you have left behind,[22] after the
payment of the bequest you might have made or any debts outstanding against you.[18]
And if the man or woman has no heir in the direct line, but has a brother or sister, then each
of these shall inherit one-sixth; but if they are more than two, then they shall inherit
one-third of the inheritance,[23] after the payment of the bequest that might have
been made or any debts outstanding against the deceased, providing that the bequest causes no
injury.[24] This is a commandment from Allah; Allah is All-Knowing,
All-Forbearing.[25]
22. Whether a man has one wife or several wives the share of the wife/wives is one-eighth of the
inheritance when the deceased has issue, and one-fourth when he has no issue. The share of the
wives, whether one-fourth or one-eighth, will be distributed equally among them.
23. The remaining five-sixths or two-thirds of the inheritance goes to the legal heirs, if any.
Where there are no legal heirs, the person concerned is entitled to make a bequest with regard
to the remaining part of the inheritance. Commentators are agreed that the sisters and brothers
mentioned here mean half-brothers and half-sisters, i.e. those who have kinship with the
deceased on the mother’s side. Injunctions affecting full brothers and sisters, and
half-brothers and half-sisters on the father’s side are mentioned towards the end of the present
surah. See (Surah An-Nisa, ayat 176)
note 219.
24.’Bequests which cause injury’ are those that entail depriving deserving kin of their
legitimate rights. Similarly, the debt which causes injury is the fake debt which one falsely
admits to owing, and any other device to which one resorts merely in order to deprive the
rightful heirs of their shares in inheritance. This kind of injury has been declared to be a
major sin in a tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him). According to another tradition the
Prophet (peace be on him) said that even if a man worked all his life, like the men of Paradise,
yet ended his life’s record by making a wrongful bequest, he would be consigned to Hell. (Ibn
Kathir, vol. 2, p. 218.) Such an act of deliberate injury and calculated effort designed to
deprive people of their due rights is always a sin, but it is mentioned by God particularly in
the case of kalalah (the person who leaves behind neither parents nor descendants). (For kalalah
see nn. 219 ff. below – Ed.) The reason for this seems to be that a man who has neither issue
nor parents is often prone to squander his property and somehow prevent his distant relatives
from receiving any share in the inheritance.
25. God’s knowledge is referred to here for two reasons. First, to stress that if a man violates
God’s Law he will not be able to escape from the grip of God, for He is Omniscient. Second, to
emphasize that the shares in inheritance fixed by God are absolutely sound, for God knows better
than His creatures where their true interests lie. Reference is also made to God’s forbearance.
This is in order to point out that harshness could not characterize the laws laid down by God in
respect of inheritance since He Himself is not harsh. On the contrary, the aim of God’s laws is
to prevent people suffering inconvenience and hardship.
25a. This is a terrifying verse in which those who either tamper with God’s laws of inheritance
or violate the legal bounds categorically laid down by God in His Book are warned of unending
punishment. It is lamentable that, in spite of these very stern warnings, Muslims have
occasionally been guilty of breaching God’s laws with the same boldness and insolence as that of
the Jews. Disobedience to God’s law of inheritance has occasionally assumed the proportion of
open rebellion against Him. In some instances, women have been disinherited altogether. In
others, the eldest son has been declared the only legal heir. There are also instances where the
entire system of inheritance distribution has been replaced by the system of joint family
property. In still other instances, the shares of women have been made equal to those of men. In
our time a few Muslim states, in imitation of the West, even contrived a new form of
disobedience. This consists of imposing death duties so that governments, too, become one of the
heirs of the deceased, an heir whose share God had altogether failed to mention! This is despite
the fact that under Islamic dispensation governments may assume control of a dead man’s
inheritance only if it is either unclaimed or if the person concerned has specifically so
bequeathed part of his inheritance.
26. In these two (Surah An-Nisa, ayat
15-16) the first, preliminary directives for the punishment for unlawful sexual
intercourse are stated. The first verse deals with women. The punishment laid down was to
confine them until further directives were revealed. The second verse (Surah An-Nisa, ayat 16) relates to
both sexes. The injunction lays down that they should be punished – that is, they should be
beaten and publicly reproached. Later, another injunction was revealed see (Surah Nur, ayat 2) which laid down that
both the male and female should be given a hundred lashes. These injunctions are necessarily of
a preliminary nature since the people of Arabia were neither used to obeying the orders of any
established government, the verdicts of any courts of law nor to following any legal code; it
would therefore have been unwise to try to force acceptance of a penal code upon them so soon
after the establishment of the Islamic state. In due course, the punishments for unlawful sexual
intercourse, for slanderous accusations of unchastity against women, and for theft were laid
down in their definitive form and served as the basis of that detailed penal code which was
enforced by the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Rightly-Guided Caliphs.
The apparent difference between the contents of the two verses led al-Suddi to the misconceived
belief that the first verse lays down the punishment for married women, and the second that for
unmarried men and women. This is a tenuous explanation unsupported by any serious evidence and
argument. Even less convincing is the opinion expressed by Abu Muslim al-Isfahani that the first
verse relates to lesbian relations between females, and the second to homosexual relations
between males. It is strange that al-Isfahani ignored the basic fact that the Qur’an seeks
merely to chart a broad code of law and morality and hence deals only with fundamental
questions. It is inconsistent with the majestic style of the Qur’an to discuss secondary details
which have been left to people to decide through the exercise of their legal judgement. It is
for this reason that when the problem of fixing a punishment for sodomy came up for
consideration after the time of the Prophet (peace be on him), none of the Companions thought
that the above-mentioned verse contained any relevant injunction.