In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This first passage of this sūrah begins with a verse which reminds people that they all have one Lord and a single Creator, that they descend from the same origin and belong to one family. It defines the unit of humanity as the individual and makes the family the unit of society. It emphasises the importance of fearing God and fostering ties of kinship in order to build on this basis all the obligations of mutual care and support, as well as compassion within the family and within humanity as a single whole. All the legislation and regulations included in this sūrah take into account the twin obligations of fearing God and of fostering ties of kinship.

In this opening passage of the sūrah, the duties and legal provisions concerning orphans are outlined, thus providing protection for those who are normally weak within both the family and society. These provisions define the way in which orphans and their property should be looked after. They also regulate how inheritance takes place within the family and the various shares of different relatives according to a whole range of situations. All this relates to the fundamental principle stated in this opening verse, reminders of which are given at the beginning, middle or end of other verses. The emphasis being on the relationship between these regulations and legal provisions and the One who enacts them, the Supreme Lord Who alone has the right to legislate.

Mankind, fear your Lord, who has created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the two of them spread abroad so many men and women. Fear God, in whose name you appeal to one another, and be mindful of your ties of kinship.

Indeed, God is ever watching over you. (Verse 1)

This address is made to mankind, in their basic human quality, so that they may all turn to their Lord who has created them “from a single soul”. He further created from this single soul its mate, “and from the two of them spread abroad so many men and women.” (Verse 1)

These simple and basic facts are very profound, having much weight in human considerations. Had people been truly mindful of these facts, it would have brought about great changes in their lives, helping them to move from their state of ignorance to a state of intelligence, whereby they would be able to receive proper guidance and accept the true faith. They would, thus, have been able to build a true civilisation worthy of man, the creature who acknowledges God as his Lord and Creator.

These facts open up a very wide scope for us to reflect upon. Firstly, they remind us of our origins, and of the fact that we belong to our Creator who has established us on this earth. People are often oblivious to this fact, forget everything and, consequently, cannot establish anything in their lives on a sound basis.

Man came into this world after a period of time when the world existed without him. Who, then, brought him into this world? He has not come into it by his own will. Prior to his arrival he had no definite existence, and no will with which to decide whether to enter this world or not. Man’s arrival in this world is, thus, the result of a will other than his own. It is this will which decided to create man, and which chose and defined his way for him. It has given him his existence with all its special characteristics, his talents and potentials. It has given him the ability to deal with the universe into which he has been brought without any prior preparation except that given him by this same will. Needless to say, that will is omnipotent in the sense that it is able to do whatever it may wish and determine. If people would only remember this fact they would be able to recognise the true path from the very outset.

This will, which has brought man into this world, outlined for him his way of life and gave him the ability to deal with the universe. It is the only will which can influence human life in any way it wishes, knows everything about man and can best manage his affairs. It is the only will which has the right to define for man his source of life, promulgate laws and regulations for human life, and lay down values and standards for man to observe. To this will alone people must refer whenever they differ over anything. When they do this, they refer to the one constitution which God wants mankind to implement.

Secondly, these facts suggest that all humanity, which has issued from a single will, share together in a single kinship and have the same origin and lineage:

“Mankind, fear your Lord, who has created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the two of them spread abroad so many men and women.” (Verse 1)

Had people been mindful of this fact, they would have paid little or no attention to all the differences that came into their lives at a later time. Differences which led to discrimination between the descendants of a single soul and to the severance of ties of a single universal kinship. All these differences are purely circumstantial and should never have been allowed to take precedence over the tie of kinship and its claim to be fostered, the tie of belonging to one soul which deserves to be maintained, and the tie of belonging to the one Lord who must be feared.

Had this fact been truly appreciated, it would have ensured that no racial discrimination could ever take place in human society. We know how much mankind has suffered from racial discrimination and continues to suffer even today, in a latter day ignorance that seeks to consolidate its own existence through discrimination between people on the basis of their colour or race. It upholds the ties of race and nationality and totally ignores the ties of a single humanity and a single Godhead.

Had this fact been well established, there would have never been the sort of caste system which we find in pagan India, or the sort of class war which leads to much bloodshed in Communist countries. In modern ignorance, this class war is considered to be a doctrinal basis that legitimises the supremacy of one class and the destruction of all others. It chooses to be totally oblivious to the fact that all human beings have issued from a single soul, and that they all have the same Lord to whom they should all refer.

The third fact stated in this opening verse is that from a single soul God “created its mate”. Had mankind appreciated this fact, they would have spared themselves all those grievous mistakes under which they have long suffered. They would not have coined such absurdities about women, branding them as the source of impurity and the origin of evil. The truth is that in her nature and temperament, the woman is created from the first human soul in order to be its mate and, thereafter, for numerous men and women to issue forth from them both. There is no difference between man and woman, then, in their nature or origin. The only difference is in their abilities and the roles they have to play. Mankind has groped blindly in this maze of absurd beliefs for a very long time. Women were deprived of their human status, all human characteristics together with all the rights to which their humanity entitles them for no other reason than an absurd, groundless belief that temporarily took hold of man’s mind. When mankind recognised its gross mistake and set about correcting it, we find that the other extreme was adopted, one whereby women were left without any check or control. They had forgotten that man and woman are two mutually complementary human beings. They are not identical individuals, but a pair, each part of which complements the other. The Divine constitution brings mankind back to this elementary fact after it has strayed far from it.

This opening verse also suggests that the family is the cornerstone of human life.

God’s will has determined that this new creation on earth begins with one family. He created first a single soul, before creating from it its mate. Together, they formed a family and a married couple. “And from the two of them He spread abroad so many men and women.” Had He so wished, God could from the very outset have created many men and women, and paired them in couples to form different families. This could have been accomplished without any relationship between them except that they all derive their existence from the will of God, the single deity in the universe. He — limitless is He in His glory — has willed, for a definite purpose of His own, to complement man’s tie with his Lord, which is the one from which all ties and relationships are derived, with the tie of kinship. He, therefore, formed the first family from a male and female who came from one soul and shared a single nature.

From this first family He spread a multitude of men and women who all share in their tie with their Lord and in their family tie upon which human life is built. It is for this reason that the Islamic system takes so much care of the family and tries to strengthen its ties. It protects the family structure against all influences that may weaken it. Most prominent of these is deviation from human nature which leads to neglecting the abilities and potentials of both man and woman and the essential harmony that makes of these abilities and potentials a complete and coherent whole.

Emphasis is laid in this and other sūrahs on the numerous aspects of the care the Islamic system takes of the family. Indeed, the family cannot establish its solid foundation when women are treated with the cruelty and degradation they receive in every ignorant society. For this reason, Islam tries hard to remove that cruelty and elevate women to a position of dignity.

Finally, we are called upon to look at that great variety in people’s characteristics and abilities, after they have all spread out of a single soul and a single family. No two individuals are exactly the same although as many generations as we can imagine have come and gone and despite the creation of a great many individuals in every generation. There is a great variety in shapes and features; in habits, temperaments, manners and feelings; as well as in abilities, concerns and functions.

A glance at this great variety exhibited by mankind demonstrates God’s creative ability which is without parallel and which designs its creation on the basis of its knowledge and wisdom. It is enough to cast our minds and eyes around that remarkable living parade of humanity, looking at that ever-renewing multitude of forms which could not have been made except by God. Indeed, no one has dared to attribute his or her creation to anyone other than God. It is only an absolute, limitless will that can achieve such an endless variety from a single source and origin.

To reflect on the creation of people in this way is enough to give a pleasant feeling to our hearts. It strengthens our faith and enhances our sense of fearing God. This is no trifling gain.

At the end of this opening verse, which stimulates all these thoughts, man is given a reminder to fear God in whose name people appeal to one another, and to be mindful of their ties of kinship which makes of them all a single entity: “Fear God, in whose name you appeal to one another, and be mindful of your ties of kinship.” (Verse 1) It is in the name of God that you make pledges and covenants with one another, and in His name you ask one another to fulfil your duties and obligations, and with His name you swear to one another in order to confirm what you are saying. Hence, you must fear Him in your approach to whatever exists between you of relationships, contacts and transactions.

When we speak of fearing God and of being mindful of our duties towards Him, we speak of something we know well because it is frequently mentioned in the Qur’ān. This verse uses the same verb in reference to ties of kinship, as if it says that we must “fear” our ties of kinship. This is a remarkable expression which imparts certain connotations that one can hardly find words to explain. “Fear” your ties of kinship. Enhance your feelings so that you may appreciate the relationships they create and the obligations they constitute. You can then take care never to do any injustice to your kinsfolk and never to treat them badly. Be mindful lest you cause harm to your kinsfolk or offend them. Value your ties of kinship as you value your treasures.

The verse concludes with the statement: “Indeed God is ever watching over you.” (Verse 1) That is enough to give us a feeling of awe when we remember that God, the Creator who knows those whom He has created and who allows no action or feeling to escape His knowledge is the One who is ever watching over us.

This powerful opening to the sūrah is followed with an outline of the foundation upon which the Islamic social system is built: mutual co-operation within the family and the community, care for the weak and vulnerable, protection and honour for women, looking after the property of the community, and the distribution of inheritance among heirs according to a system which ensures justice to individuals and prosperity to the community.

Guardians of orphans are commanded here to hand over to them all their property when they have attained the age associated with sound judgement. Moreover, they are commanded not to marry under-age orphan girls who are in their charge in the hope of absorbing their wealth. As for the weak-minded who, it is feared, will squander their wealth once it is given to them, they should not be handed their property, because it, in fact, belongs to the community which has an interest in it.

Hence, it should not he given up to anyone who may use it improperly. Men are also ordered to maintain justice and fairness in their treatment of women generally.

Give the orphans their property. Do not substitute bad things of your own for their good things, and do not absorb their wealth into your own wealth. That is surely a great crime. (Verse 2) If you fear that you may not deal fairly by the orphans, you may many of other women as may be agreeable to you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be able to maintain fairness between them, then marry only one, or those whom your right hands possess. That makes it more likely that you will not do injustice. (Verse 3) Give women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own accord, choose to give up to you a part of it, then you may take it with pleasure.

(Verse 4) Do not give to the feeble-minded your wealth which God has assigned to you in trust. Make provisions for them and clothe them out of it and speak to them in a kindly way. (Verse 5) Test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them of sound judgement, hand over to them their property, and do not consume it by wasteful and hasty spending before they come of age. Let him who is rich abstain generously [from his wards property] but he who is poor may partake of it in a fair manner. When you hand over to them their property, let there be witnesses on their behalf. God is sufficient as a reckoner. (Verse 6)

These emphatic orders give us an impression of what was common practice in the days of ignorance in pre-Islamic Arabia where the rights of the weak in general, and orphans and women in particular, were either usurped or denied them altogether.

Some of these practices continued to exist in the Muslim community, which was originally carved out of the ignorant Arabian society, until the Qur’ān began to eradicate them altogether. At the same time, the Qur’ān gave the Muslim community new concepts, aspirations, traditions and a whole new face with distinctive features.

“Give the orphans their property. Do not substitute bad things of your own for their good things, and do not absorb their wealth into your own wealth. That is surely a great crime.” (Verse 2)

The Muslims are ordered here to give to the orphans what belongs to them of property that is under their control. They must not exchange any good part of it for something inferior of their own, such as taking their good land, cattle, shares or cash — for even cash may differ a great deal in value — or any other property in which value differences occur. They must not absorb the wealth of the orphans, in whole or in part, by joining it to their own property. Any such action is a great sin which God here warns the Muslim community against.

All these practices were known in the first society to be addressed by this verse.

Their mention suggests that at least some of the addressees practised some of these ways, inherited as they were from the days of ignorance. In every ignorant society such practices are committed. We even see examples of these in our present-day ignorance, in our cities, towns and villages. Orphans’ property is often absorbed or squandered by their guardians in spite of all the legal precautions and safeguards and in spite of the official institutions which are specifically set up to protect the interests and the property of minors. This is a problem wherein legislation and official control cannot seem to make any great headway. Success depends on one element, namely, fear of God. It is this fear that watches over our minds and consciences, and this, in turn, gives to legislation its value and proper effect. This is exactly what happened after this verse was revealed. Guardians began to act with much greater caution, so much so that they separated the property of any orphan in their charge from their own property. Moreover, they even separated the orphans’ food from their own; this to guard against any possibility of committing what God warned them of as a great crime.

Life on earth cannot be set right merely by legal provisions and regulations, unless they are backed by an inner motive to implement them. This can only be provided by a fear of God. This fear of God does not come strongly into action, in relation to regulations and legal provisions, except when these are enacted by the One who knows what is in people’s minds and watches over their consciences. When this occurs, anyone who contemplates violating the law is bound to feel that he is disobeying God and contradicting His will. He also knows that God is aware of his intentions and actions. Once he remembers this, he trembles and is overwhelmed by fear. He remembers that he must abide by God’s law.

God knows very well His servants, their nature and their psychology, since it is He who created them. For this reason, He has made the law and the code of living His own in order to impart to them of His own authority. Thus, they acquire respect that they cannot otherwise have. God is aware that no law is ever obeyed well unless it comes from the One who is genuinely feared, because people know that He is aware of all intentions and feelings. People may obey the law enacted by their fellow human beings when it is backed by force and authority and when there is some form of supervision to ensure the implementation of that law. That supervision, however, cannot monitor what is in people’s minds. People will inevitably try to break the law whenever they have a chance or whenever the supervising authority cannot detect their violation. They will always feel unduly checked, and they will always try to break loose whenever a chance to do so presents itself to them.

`Urwah ibn al-Zubair, a scholar from the generation following that of the Prophet’s Companions, relates that he once asked `Ā’ishah, the Prophet’s wife, about this verse which states: “But if you fear that you will not be able to maintain fairness between them, then marry only one, or those whom your right hands possess. That makes it more likely that you will not do injustice.” (Verse 3) She said: “Nephew, this refers to an orphan girl being brought up by her guardian and she is his partner in his property.

He is attracted to her because of her property and beauty, and he wishes to marry her without being fair to her in her dower and without giving her what someone else would have given. People are therefore not allowed, on the basis of this verse, to marry those orphans unless they treat them fairly and give them the maximum dower girls in their station would have had. They are further ordered to marry other women instead.” `Urwah also relates on the authority of `Ā’ishah that the Prophet’s Companions sought his ruling on the whole question after this verse was revealed. By way of answer and assistance, another verse of this sūrah was revealed: “They ask you for rulings concerning women. Say, God [Himself] gives you His rulings concerning them, as well as what is conveyed to you through this Book about orphan women whom you deny what has been assigned to them, and you are disinclined to marry them; ...” (Verse 127) `Ā’ishah further says: “God’s statement in this other verse, i.e. ‘and whom you are disinclined to marry’, refers to their reluctance to marry orphan girls when they are neither wealthy nor beautiful. They are, therefore, told that they must not marry those orphan girls to whom they are attracted because of their wealth and beauty unless they are fair to them. This is due to the fact that they do not consider marrying them when they lack wealth and beauty.” (Related by al-Bukhārī.)

This ĥadīth, as related by `Ā’ishah, describes some of the practices and traditions of ignorant, pre-Islamic Arabia that continued to be practised in the Muslim community, that is until the Qur’ān had its say about them. The Qur’ān is here forbidding such practices and removing them from the Muslim community, with such wise directives that place the onus for their appropriate observation on people’s consciences. The Qur’ānic verse starts with: “If you fear that you may not deal fairly by the orphans.” (Verse 3) It is, then, a question of taking precautions and making sure to be on the safe side, fearing God’s punishment, when a guardian suspects that he is not extending fair treatment to an orphan girl in his care. The verse is general and does not speak of any particular area where fairness is essential. What it requires is that orphans must be treated fairly, in every sense of the word and in all situations, whether relating to dowry or to any other aspect. If a guardian seeks to marry an orphan girl for her money, then he is motivated by his desire to absorb her property, and not by any affection he has for her or by any feeling that her personality makes her a suitable wife for him. Unfairness also arises when a guardian marries an orphan girl regardless of the wide differences in age between them. This makes a happily married life rather untenable, and does not give due consideration to the girl’s feelings in the matter. Indeed, she may be unable to express her feelings, either out of shyness or because she fears that if she disobeys her guardian, he will squander her wealth. Many other situations and circumstances may make it difficult to maintain fairness. The Qur’ān, therefore, appoints one’s conscience as well as fear of God as the watch guards. The opening verse of this sūrah, which sets the scene for all these legal provisions and directives, is concluded with the reminder: “God is ever watching over you.’’ When guardians are unsure about their ability to maintain fairness with orphan girls in their charge, they should turn elsewhere for marriage. In this way they remove all suspicions of dealing unfairly with their ward: “If you fear that you may not deal fairly by the orphans, you may marry of other women as may be agreeable to you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be able to maintain fairness between them, then marry only one, or those whom your right hands possess. That makes it more likely that you will not do injustice.” (Verse 3)

It is necessary to explain this concession with regard to polygamy. Essentially, the reservation stipulates that if one fears that one cannot maintain fairness between one’s wives, then only one wife should be married, or one should confine oneself to those whom one’s right hand possesses. It is indeed useful to explain this concession because in these modern times of ours, people are often boastful of their acquired knowledge. They claim for themselves an insight into man’s life, nature and interests which surpasses that of their Lord who has created them. They make their judgement on different matters according to their desires and on the basis of their ignorance and blindness. In doing so, they behave as if new circumstances and needs have become more pressing today than when they were taken into consideration by God when He enacted His legislation for mankind. Such a claim combines ignorance and blindness with impudence and bad manners and adds them all to total disbelief.

Such boastful statements are repeated again and again, with no one caring to prevent such ignorance. They represent a very rude affront to God, His law and constitution, without fear of any reproach or punishment. Indeed, those who repeat such affronts receive their wages from those who take it upon themselves to try to undermine Islam.

We need to approach this question of the qualified permission of polygamy in Islam with ease, clarity and decisiveness. We will set clearly all the real and practical circumstances that are relevant to it.

Al-Bukhārī relates that when Ghailān ibn Salamah al-Thaqafī embraced Islam he had ten wives. The Prophet said to him: “Choose four of them.” Abū Dāwūd quotes `Umairah al-Asadī as saying: “I had eight wives when I accepted Islam. I told the Prophet (peace be upon him) of this fact, and he said to me: `Choose four of them.’” Al-Shāfi`ī relates that Nawfal ibn Mu`āwiyah al-Dailamī said: “When I became a Muslim I had five women. God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to me: ‘Choose four of them, any four you like, and divorce the other one.’” When Islam was first revealed, men very often had ten or more wives and this without any limits or restrictions. Islam then made it clear that there is a limit which a Muslim cannot exceed, this being four wives. Furthermore, it imposed a qualification, namely, the ability to maintain fair treatment among all wives.

Otherwise, a man must limit himself to one wife, or to bondwomen. Islam, therefore, set restrictions that were not formerly present. It has not left the matter for men to do as they please. It has made polygamy conditional upon fair treatment. Otherwise, the concession is withdrawn.

The question then arises as to why has Islam allowed this concession.

Islam is a practical and positive system for human life, which is consistent with human nature and with man’s constitution, needs, requirements and changing circumstances in all areas and all generations. It is a system which deals with man as he is, and in the situation it finds him in, elevating him to heights he can never otherwise achieve, without in any way denouncing his natural desires or suppressing his nature or overlooking his practical needs. Moreover, Islam approaches man gently. It does not resort to violent or arbitrary pushing to force him to move in the direction it wants.

Islam does not raise the spectre of hollow idealism, or dreamy theorisation that clashes with man’s nature and the needs of his practical life. It is a system that cares about man’s morality and the purity of society. It does not allow a situation to exist if this is likely to lead to the weakening of moral values and the corruption of society. It works for the creation of a social order that promotes moral values and the purity of society with minimum effort on the parts of both the individual and society.

We have to keep all these essential qualities of the Islamic system in view when we look at the question of polygamy. We see firstly that there have always been many practical cases, in different societies, in the past and in the present, where the number of women of marriageable age exceed the number of men who may get married. It has never been known in history that such an imbalance which can affect certain societies has ever exceeded the ratio of four to one. It is always within that limit. How do we deal with this imbalance which happens from time to time in different ratios and societies and which cannot be overlooked? Do we simply shrug our shoulders and do nothing? Do we leave it without treatment until it settles down according to whatever circumstances may come to prevail?

Shrugging our shoulders does not solve any problem. Leaving society to deal with such a situation at random is something no serious man who respects the human race would contemplate. Action must be taken and a system must be devised. Here we find ourselves facing three alternatives:

1. Each man who is fit to get married marries one woman of marriageable age.

Therefore, one woman or more, according to the ratio of imbalance, will inevitably remain outside marriage, going through her life without ever knowing a man.

2. Every man who can marry gets married to one woman in a healthy, legitimate relationship. He, then, has an affair or a short-term relationship with one or more of the women who do not have legitimate male partners. In this way, these women associate with men in an illegitimate and hypocritical way.

3. Men who are able to get married, or some of them, actually marry more than one wife. In this way, the second woman associates with a man as an honourable wife, in broad daylight, not as a mistress or as an occasional partner in an illegitimate relationship practised under the cover of darkness.

The first alternative clashes with human nature and places a great burden on the woman who is made to go through life without ever having a man with whom to share her life. This fact cannot be ignored even on the basis of idealistic claims that argue when a woman works and earns her own living she does not need a man. The need goes much deeper than such superficiality. Neither a job nor a high income can replace a woman’s natural need to live normally with a man, to satisfy her physical urges as well as her emotional and spiritual needs, and to have a companion with whom to share her life. A man works and earns his living, yet this too is not enough for him. Therefore, he seeks a partner and a companion. Men and women are alike in this regard, because they descend from a single soul.

The second alternative is in sharp conflict with Islam, the religion of purity, and with Islamic society which is based on serious morality and with woman’s human dignity in mind. Those who do not care when immorality spreads in society are the very people who boast that they know better than God and impudently criticise God’s law because there is no one to stop them. Indeed, they find every encouragement and help from those who are keen to undermine the Islamic faith.

It is the third alternative that Islam adopts as a qualified concession to a situation that cannot be dealt with by simply shrugging our shoulders or by espousing hollow idealism. Such a choice is in keeping with Islam’s seriousness and practicality in dealing with man as he is, taking full account of his changing circumstances. It is this approach which fits perfectly with the importance Islam attaches to decency, purity and morality as it tries to elevate man to its great height in an easy, gentle and practical way.

From another point of view, we see in all human societies, ancient and modern, past, present and future, another real problem that cannot be overlooked or brushed aside. The period of a man’s fertility extends to the age of 70, sometimes even beyond. In the case of women, fertility ends at around the age of 50. This means that there are on average 20 years of fertility in a man’s life with no corresponding fertility in a woman. There is no doubt that one of the purposes of joining the two different sexes in marriage is to promote life through procreation and to build the earth through increases in population. It does not fit with this natural situation to prevent humanity from making use of man’s longer period of fertility. What fits with this practical situation is that legislation that is applicable to all societies in all ages should provide this concession, not as an obligation, but as an option to benefit human life in general. This balancing between human nature as it is and the purpose of legislation is always evident in Divine law, while it is generally absent in man- made laws. Left to himself, man cannot take into account all details, he cannot look at a situation from all angles, and cannot provide for all eventualities.

One aspect that relates directly to the second fact is a man’s need at times to satisfy his natural desire while his wife does not care about it, either because of her age or because of illness. Both man and wife, however, are keen to preserve their married life and do not entertain the idea of separation or divorce. So how do we deal with such cases? Do we simply shrug our shoulders and leave the man and his wife to bang their heads against the wall? Or do we resort to hollow idealism and flowery words which have no practical effect? Once again, the shrugging of shoulders solves nothing and hollow idealism has no relevance to serious considerations affecting human life. Here again, we find ourselves faced with three alternatives:

1. We forbid the man from seeking satisfaction of his natural desires by the force of law. We say to him: “Shame on you. What you are thinking of is unbecoming and does not take account of the rights and dignity of the woman who is married to you.

2. We allow the man to have illegitimate relationships with other women.

3. We allow the man to marry again, as the situation requires, without having to divorce his first wife.

The first alternative is in sharp conflict with human nature, and weighs very heavily on man mentally. If we were to impose it by force of law, its immediate result would be to leave the man resenting, if not hating, his married life because of the pressures it imposes on him. Islam, which views the family home as a place of rest and peace and views the married couple as intimate companions, does not approve of this alternative.

The second alternative clashes with Islam’s moral concept as also its method of elevating human life and establishing it on foundations of perfect purity. Only a life of such purity is worthy of God’s honoured creature, man.

The third alternative is the only one which satisfies the needs of human nature and which fits in with the Islamic moral code. It allows the first wife to continue to enjoy married life, satisfies the desire of both man and wife to remain together as intimate companions, and helps to elevate man with ease and practicality.

A situation akin to this occurs when a woman cannot have children while the man cherishes his natural desire to do so. He is then faced with one of two alternatives.

He either divorces his wife to marry another who can give him children, or he keeps his first wife, maintaining his loyalty to her, and marries another. Some men, and even women, will pedantically argue that the first alternative is better. Ninety-nine women out of every hundred will undoubtedly curse anyone who advises a husband to take a course of action that destroys their family life without any practical return.

It is extremely unlikely that a woman known to be unable to bear children will find another husband. On the other hand, many a childless woman will be happy to help look after young children born to her husband by his second wife. Inevitably, such children bring joy and happiness to the family home and this rubs off on the first wife even though there will inevitably be a residue of sadness that the children are not her own.

In contemplating practical life, leaving aside both pedantic arguments and absurdity in trying to solve serious problems, we are bound to appreciate the Divine wisdom that allows this concession. Naturally, it is qualified with the need to maintain fairness: “You may marry of other women as may be agreeable to you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be able to maintain fairness between them, then marry only one.” (Verse 3) Furthermore, this concession not only protects society from deviation into immorality but also protects the wife from being treated unjustly and safeguards her dignity. Moreover, it maintains justice, which helps tolerate a bitter pill.

No one who knows the spirit of Islam will say that polygamy is desired for its own sake, or for no natural or social need. It has not been permitted so as to satisfy carnal desire nor so as to enable a man to move from one wife to another in the same way as an unscrupulous person moves from one mistress to another. Polygamy is necessary so as to counter situations of emergency. Furthermore, it is a well-qualified solution to a problem.

If a certain generation abuses this concession and men utilise it to make married life nothing more than a means to satisfy their carnal desires, creating the notorious harem, the blame should not be put on Islam’s doorstep. Such people do not represent Islam. Indeed, they have sunk so low because they have deviated far away from Islam and have not appreciated its requirements of purity and cleanliness. They do not live in a society where Islam is practised and its law is observed. Their society is not one where an Islamic authority rules according to the Islamic constitution and which implements the laws and directives of Islam observing its moral traditions.

The chaos of the harem and the transformation of married life into a home for carnal desires can only flourish in a hostile society that has broken loose from the laws and constitution of Islam. If we want to reform the situation, we have only to call people to re-adopt Islam and seriously implement its laws and constitution. In this way, we return them to purity, cleanliness and moderation. If we want reform, let us make people return to the implementation of Islam, not only in this particular detail, but in all aspects of life. Islam is a complete system that yields its fruit only when it is implemented in full.

The fairness that needs to be maintained is fairness in treatment, financial support and all practical aspects of married life. Love and feelings are not included in this condition of fairness simply because these are not controlled by man’s will. It is in relation to this aspect that God rules out the possibility of maintaining justice between one’s wives in a later verse in this sūrah which states: “In no way can you maintain equity between your wives, even though you may be keen to do so. Do not, then, be totally partial towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her, as it were, in a state of suspense.” (Verse 129) Some people quote this verse in support of their argument that Islam does not permit polygamy. What we have to remember is that God’s law does not permit something in one verse and then forbid it in another, like one who takes away with his right hand what he has given with his left. The fairness required in the earlier verse is that which relates to treatment, financial support and other practical aspects of married life. It is when one feels unable to maintain this type of fairness that one must not marry more than one wife. What this means is that nothing should be withheld from one wife when it is allowed to another. This is what the Prophet, the noblest and fairest man ever to have walked on this earth, used to maintain at the time when everyone around him, including his own wives, were fully aware that he loved `Ā’ishah most, and felt for her what he did not feel for any of his other wives. Hearts and emotions are not subject to our control. They are governed only by God’s will. The Prophet, who knew his religion well and knew his heart well, used to say: “My Lord, this is my fair allocation in what I control. Do not blame me for that which You control and I do not.” To recap, Islam has not started polygamy but rather restricted it. It does not order its followers to be polygamous, but it allows them a qualified concession to marry more than one wife so as to solve some problems in human life and to satisfy the needs of human nature. Here, we have mentioned some of these needs and problems that are currently recognisable. However, there may be other purposes which will become apparent over the course of time, as happens with regard to every legislation or directive included in the Divine constitution. People in any period of history may not fully appreciate its wisdom and benefits. Nonetheless, wisdom and benefit are presumed to exist in every piece of Divine Legislation, whether they are known or unknown to man.

So far we have given due importance to the condition attached by the Qur’ān to the concession to marry more than one wife, namely, fair treatment. When a man fears that he may not be able to abide by that condition, the Qur’ānic verse stipulates certain options that are open to him: “If you fear that you will not be able to maintain fairness between them, then marry only one, or those whom your right hands possess.” (Verse 3) This means that where fairness cannot be maintained, marriage should be confined to just one wife. The other alternative touched upon by the phrase “those whom your right hands possess” refers to women who are slaves. The statement is expressed in general terms, without specifying formal marriage. We have already spoken about the general question of slavery when we discussed the relevant verses in Sūrah 2, The Cow, or Al-Baqarah. It is pertinent to add here some brief remarks in connection with the present verse.

When a slave woman is married, she regains her human dignity. Such a marriage qualifies her and any offspring by her master for freedom, even if he does not actually set her free when he marries her. On the day when she gives birth, she is elevated to the status of “the child’s mother”. Her master no longer has any right to sell her, and she is free on his death. Her child is free from birth.

Similar conditions apply if her master joins her to himself without marriage. When she gives birth, she gains the status of “the child’s mother” and she cannot be sold.

On her master’s death, she regains her freedom. So does her child by him, if he acknowledges his parenthood as was the general practice.

Both marriage and cohabitation enable a slave woman to gain her freedom. We know that Islam has provided many such methods for slaves to regain their freedom.

Still, some of us may feel uneasy about the notion of cohabiting with a slave woman.

We should, however, remember here that slavery was an answer to an emergency situation; a position imposed on captives, on the basis of equal treatment, after a legitimate war declared by a Muslim ruler who implements God’s law. The same emergency allowed cohabitation with slave women by their masters. When free Muslim women were taken captive, the treatment they received was infinitely worse.

It is also important not to forget that captive women also have desires that must be taken into account by any practical system that caters for man, his natural needs and life situation. Slave women’s desires, then, could be satisfied either through marriage or through cohabitation with their masters. The only other alternative would have meant the spread of immorality and unrestrained sexual chaos whether via prostitution or other illegitimate relationships, as was the case in pre-Islamic days.

During certain generations the number of slave-girls rose very sharply through purchase, kidnapping and the like. Large numbers of them were gathered in palaces where they took part in orgies and other disgusting practices of which we have learnt from both true and exaggerated reports. Nothing of this can be either approved of or encouraged by Islam. It cannot be attributed to the Islamic system or added to its history.

The proper Islamic history is that which comes into existence according to Islamic principles, laws and legal provisions. When something which contravenes Islamic laws and principles takes place in a society that claims to be Islamic, it cannot be attributed to Islam. How could it be when it is in conflict with essential Islamic principles?

Islam has its own independent existence that is separate from that which takes place among Muslims in any generation. What we have to remember is that Muslims have not invented Islam. It is Islam that has brought Muslims into existence. Islam is the origin and Muslims are only its product. What defines the true Islamic system and true Islamic concepts is not what Muslims do or understand, unless this is in full conformity with Islam in its pure form. In other words, Islam is independent from people’s practices and understanding. As for people, their behaviour should be evaluated according to Islamic principles in order to determine how far they are truly Islamic or not.

The situation differs in other systems, which are based on human concepts and on creeds and laws that they formulate for themselves. Here, creed and law change in accordance with how attitude is formulated and applied in society. The Islamic system has not been devised by people. It has been laid down for mankind by their Lord who has created them and who provides them with their sustenance. People can choose to implement this system and conduct their affairs according to its principles, and it is this that makes their society part of practical Islam. Alternatively, they can deviate or turn away from it altogether, which means that their social set-up does not belong to Islam. Indeed, it is a deviation from it.

We have to take this fully into account when we consider Islamic history. It is on the basis of this principle that the Islamic theory of history is founded. It differs with all other historical theories that consider what takes place within the community to be the practical interpretation of the doctrine or the creed it adopts. Such theories trace the “evolution” of the doctrine or the creed in the practices of the community which upholds it and in the changing concepts of the theory itself in the intellectual output of that community. To apply this view to Islam in order to define the true Islamic concept is very hazardous since it clashes with the very nature of Islam which is unlike any other creed or system.

The final comment in this verse refers to the purpose behind all these legal provisions. They all aim at maintaining fairness and avoiding injustice: “That makes it more likely that you will not do injustice.” (Verse 3) All that — including avoiding marrying orphan girls for fear of dealing unjustly by them, marrying other women, including the concession of polygamy on the one hand and limiting oneself to one wife on the other when unfairness if feared, and the legislation concerning slave women — “makes it more likely that you will not do injustice.” Indeed, each one of these provisions helps to prevent injustice.

The achievement of justice is, then, the overriding motive of this system and the aim of its every detail. It is most important that justice should be observed in the family home, since the family is the basic unit of the whole social structure, and the starting point for community life. It is in the family home that the young are brought up in their formative years. If justice, affection and peace are lacking in the family home, they cannot be realised in society at large.

This opening passage of the sūrah now resumes its outline of legal provisions relevant to women, who are indeed the subject matter of much of this sūrah, which derives its title from them: “Give women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own accord, choose to give up to you a part of it, then you may take it with pleasure.” (Verse 4)

This verse gives every woman a clear and personal right to her marriage portion or dowry. It tells us something of the practices of a society of ignorance that undermined this right in a variety of ways. One such method was that a woman’s guardian would receive this dowry and use it as his own, as if he had made a sale of a commodity he owned and received a fair price for it. Another such form, the mutual marriage, meant that a woman’s guardian would give her in marriage to someone in return for the other giving him in marriage a woman under his own guardianship. Here, one woman is exchanged for another in a deal between the two guardians with the interests of both women totally ignored. It is a deal akin to that of exchanging one animal for another. Islam totally forbids this form of marriage. It considers marriage a unity between two souls on the basis of free choice. The dowry belongs to the woman and she should receive it herself, not her guardian. It requires that the dowry be specified so that the woman can claim it as her own and it should be treated as an obligation that must be fulfilled. Islam further requires the husband to pay it willingly to his wife in the same manner as he gives her an absolutely free gift. If subsequently the woman decides, of her own free choice, to give up part or all of her dowry to her husband, she is free to do so without any sort of pressure whatsoever. In this case, the husband is free to accept what his wife willingly gives him. Relations between the married couple must be based on free choice, on the absence of pressure, and on mutual care and affection. Such a basis leaves no room for reluctance or embarrassment.

Thus, Islam has removed altogether what was inherited from the days of ignorance concerning women and their dowries. It has preserved her right to exercise her authority over her money and has preserved her dignity and position. At the same time, it not only established the marital relationship on strict legal formalities but also left enough room for care and affection to play their role in this shared life and to impart to it their own colour.

Having finished with this aspect of the discussion of marriage with orphan girls and other women, the sūrah again picks up the subject of orphans’ inheritance. It provides detailed legislation concerning the handing over of their monies to them, having briefly referred to this in the second verse.

Although this property belongs to orphans, it remains, in essence, the property of the community given by God so that the community may make its best use of it. It is the community, therefore, which is the primary owner of property in general.

Individuals, including orphans and those who have left them this property upon their death, are in charge of it so that they may invest and benefit by it and provide benefit to the community at large. They may undertake this task as long as they are able to prove sound judgement. Individual ownership, with all its rights and restrictions, is based on this principle. Orphans who have property, but who are feeble minded and unable to look after their property wisely, are not given control over it. Although their rights of ownership remain intact and cannot be taken away from them, they are not allowed to administer their property. It belongs, as we have said, to the community. Hence, someone who is able to administer it from the ranks of the community is given charge of it, taking into consideration his degree of kinship to the orphan. Thus, the principle of mutual care within the family, which is the basis of general care within the greater family of the society, is fulfilled. The feeble-minded, however, enjoy the rights of adequate maintenance and clothing out of their property, as well as the right to be treated kindly: “Do not give to the feeble- minded your wealth which God has assigned to you in trust. Make provisions for them and clothe them out of it, and speak to them in a kindly way.” (Verse 5)

Feeble-mindedness and sound judgement can be easily detected after a person has attained puberty. Such matters are easily recognised, and they do not require any specific definition. The community can always recognise a person of sound judgement as also one with a feeble mind. The community evaluates the behaviour of all. The test, therefore, to make sure that the orphan has reached the age of puberty, which is referred to in the Qur’ānic text by the term “marriage”, is the function that can be fulfilled only after the attainment of puberty. “Test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them of sound judgement, hand over to them their property, and do not consume it by wasteful and hasty spending before they come of age. Let him who is rich abstain generously [from his ward’s property], but he who is poor may partake of it in a fair manner. When you hand over to them their property, let there be witnesses on their behalf. God is sufficient as a reckoner.” (Verse 6)

We note in this verse the precise nature of the procedure that culminates with the handing over to orphans of their property when they have come of age. The emphasis here is on the need to hand over such property without any delay, once it has been established that an orphan is of sound judgement. It is right that he should receive his property in full. Again, there is strong emphasis on the need to preserve the property of the orphan when he is still a minor. There must be no attempt to consume an orphan’s property by wasteful and hasty spending, before the orphan reaches the age when the handing over should take place. Moreover, a guardian who is well off must abstain from taking any part of the proceeds or the principal of an orphan’s property in return for administering it. If he is poor, he is allowed to partake of it within the minimum limits. When the handing over is to be effected, witnesses should be present. The verse concludes with a reminder that God witnesses everything and He takes everything into account: “God is sufficient as a reckoner” Such emphasis and detailed legislation coupled with a variety of warnings and reminders give us the feeling that an orphan’s property was frequently absorbed into the property of their guardians during this period of Arabian history. To change such entrenched habits required detailed legislation and emphasis that could leave no room for trickery and deception of any sort.

The Divine method of Islam worked consistently for the eradication of all aspects of ignorance from people’s minds and from society at large. This it did while it was establishing all the various aspects of Islam. Its aim was to replace ignorant social characteristics with Islamic ones. A new society was being moulded with its distinctive characteristics, traditions, laws and values. Its paramount aspect was fear of God and the recognition that He watches over people’s actions. This is the ultimate guarantee that legislation will be obeyed. No legislation can be guaranteed to work in this life without such fear and recognition: “God is sufficient as a reckoner.”

Men shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind, and women shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind; whether it be little or much. It is an apportioned share. (Verse 7)

In the days of jāhiliyyah, or ignorance, in pre-Islamic Arabia, no share of inheritance was given to females, and little, if any, was given to young boys. The reason being that neither group could fight against any aggressor. God’s law, on the other hand, made inheritance due to all kinsfolk, according to their degree of kinship and their shares, which will be detailed later. It is the view of Islam that members of the same family should help and look after one another. Everyone is required to look after his relatives when they are in need, and to share their liability in paying compensation in cases of causing death to or inflicting injury or bodily harm on others. Hence, it is only right that relatives should inherit each other, when they leave behind some property, according to their respective kinship. This gives practical effect to the rule that: “gain is commensurate with liability”. Islam is a complete and perfectly coherent system. This is reflected most clearly in the distribution of rights and obligations.

This is the general rule of inheritance. Some people may question the concept of inheritance, but this only betrays their rudeness towards God, their ignorance of human nature and the requirements of practical life.

It is enough to understand the principles which form the Islamic social system to put an end to such futile arguments. The basic characteristic of this system is mutual care. In order to give mutual care a sound basis, Islam builds its structure on a solid foundation of natural human inclinations that have a basic role to fulfil in human life.

Family ties are genuine and natural. They have not been invented by any generation of humanity, nor indeed by the cumulative wisdom of all generations.

These ties have a profound effect on human life, its preservation and betterment. No argument against the seriousness of these ties and their effect is worth any consideration. In view of this, Islam makes mutual care within the family the cornerstone of its system of social care and security. Inheritance is one aspect of that.

It is also an essential element of the Islamic economic system.

Should this provision fall short of looking after all cases which need help, the next step, which is care within the local community, will complement it. If this also falls short, then the Islamic state will look after all those who need care after the family and the local community have fulfilled their duties. In this way, the burden is not thrown totally on the shoulders of the state. The reason being that care within the family or the local community is bound to create feelings of compassion which, in turn, promote co-operation in a most natural way. Moreover, these feelings of compassion constitute a net gain for humanity which cannot be dismissed by any person who has the interests of humanity at heart. Furthermore, family care in particular is bound to leave certain effects that are in harmony with human nature.

When a person realises that the effort he exerts to improve his situation will also benefit his relatives, especially his offspring, he will have the motive to double his efforts. His increased productivity benefits the community indirectly. Islam does not create barriers between the individual and the community. Whatever an individual owns belongs to the community as a whole when it needs it.

This last rule is enough to make invalid all superficial objections to inheritance, which argue that inheritance gives money to people who have not worked or made an effort for it. The fact is that an heir is an extension of the person from whom he inherits. From another point of view, an heir is the very person to look after his relatives, should he be well off and they be in need. Moreover, all property belongs to the community when it needs it, on the basis of the rules of Islamic social security.

Furthermore, the relationship between testator and heir, especially offspring, is not confined to money and property alone. Relatives, both immediate and extended, also pass on their good and bad tendencies, susceptibility to certain illnesses, physical features, intelligence or the lack of it, and so on. All these inherited aspects stay with those who receive them throughout their lives. They cannot get rid of them, no matter how hard they try. It is only fair, then, that they should also inherit property when they cannot avoid, even with the help of the state and all its power, inheriting illness, evil tendencies and stupidity.

For all these practical and natural aspects of human life, and for many other social interests, God has laid down the general rule of inheritance: “Men shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind, and women shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind; whether it be little or much. It is an apportioned share.” (Verse 7) This is the general principle by which Islam gave women, fourteen centuries ago, the same rights as men to have a share of inheritance and by which it has preserved the rights of youngsters who were treated unfairly during the days of ignorance.

Ignorant society looked at individuals according to their value in war and productivity. Islam, which is a Divine code of living, looks first at the human value of man. This is his intrinsic value of which he cannot be deprived. His duties and obligations within the family and the community take a secondary position.

Under the Islamic system of inheritance, some relatives take precedence over others. This means that certain relatives do not inherit anything because those who are nearer of kin to the deceased take precedence over them. Hence, the sūrah states that if such relatives attend the division of inheritance, they may have an unspecified share by way of compensation; so that they do not feel deprived when they see the division which otherwise may have given them a share. This helps to promote family ties, bringing relatives closer together. The same verse also states that orphans and needy people also have a similar claim: “When other kinsfolk, orphans and needy persons are present at the distribution of inheritance, give them something out of it, and speak to them in a kindly way.” (Verse 8)

Different opinions have been reported as being expressed by early Muslim scholars regarding this verse. One opinion states that it was abrogated by those verses which detail the inheritance shares. Another considers that this verse has definitive import. Some say that its message is obligatory while others consider it as only recommended, if the heirs agree to implement it. We do not, however, find any evidence to support the view that it was abrogated. We feel that it provides a definitive ruling which must be implemented in those cases we have already mentioned. Our view is based on the fact that the verse is expressed in general terms, and that Islam promotes mutual care within society. This is different from the specified shares of inheritance which are outlined later in the sūrah.

Before defining the respective shares of inheritance which are due, the sūrah gives another warning against absorbing orphans’ property. The way the warning is delivered cannot fail to have a strong effect on people’s hearts. It does this by stimulating feelings of love, of compassion for one’s own children, of parental fear for them when they are young and weak, and similarly of fear of God who watches over all our actions. It also arouses fear for one’s safety in the life to come. The fear of burning in the fire is portrayed here in a very vivid and powerful scene: “Let those who, if they themselves had to leave behind weak offspring, would feel fear on their account, be afraid (to wrong the orphans in their charge), let them fear God and speak in a just manner.

Those who devour the property of orphans unjustly, only swallow fire into their bellies. They will be made to endure a blazing fire.” (Verses 9-10)

The first verse touches on parental heartstrings, describing typical parental fear for what may happen to their offspring. They are made to imagine their children, weak, defenceless, left alone with no one to protect or have mercy on them. If they think of their own children in this position, they are bound to sympathise with orphans in their own charge. They cannot know whether their own children would be placed in the care of others, in the same way as they are in charge of orphans. It is further impressed on them that they should fear God in their dealings with those in their charge. This so that God will provide their own children with people who fear Him in the way they deal with such orphans and that they be compassionate and take good care of them. They are also told to speak justly to orphans.

Verse 10 portrays a fearful scene with people swallowing fire into their bellies, and suffering the torment of Hell in the life to come.

Property that belongs to orphans is fire, and guardians devour that fire in the same way as they eat their food. Their ultimate abode is also a blazing fire. It is a blazing fire both inside and out. The way the scene is portrayed shows the fire to be very real, as if its heat is being felt and as if it is seen to burn bellies and skins.

Such Qur’ānic statements are especially effective. They impart their powerful message to Muslims as also eradicate all traces of ignorance from their hearts. They replace such elements with a caution and fear of God. Thus, people are apprehensive lest they misplace any part of an orphan’s wealth. They look at this wealth as though it is the fire that God describes in such very powerful verses. Hence they do not want to touch an orphan’s property in any way. Such indeed was the attitude of the Prophet’s Companions when they heard these verses.

It is authentically reported, on the authority of Ibn `Abbās, that when the verse which begins with “those who devour the property of orphans unjustly, only swallow fire into their bellies” was revealed, each one of the Prophet’s Companions who had an orphan in his charge separated the property of that orphan from his own. They even separated their food and drink. If any part of an orphan’s food was left over, it was kept for him until he ate it or it became unsuitable to eat. This inevitably caused great difficulties. When these difficulties were pointed out to the Prophet, God revealed the verse that states: “They ask you about orphans. Say: to improve their conditions is best.

If you mix their affairs with yours, remember they are your brothers [in Islam]. God knows him who spoils things and him who improves. Had God so willed, He would indeed have overburdened you. Indeed, God is indeed Almighty, Wise.” (2: 220) After this verse was revealed, they mixed their food and drink together.

In this way, the Qur’ān elevates people’s consciences to a sublime horizon, purifying them in the process of all traces of ignorance and its practices.

God has this to enjoin on you with regard to your children: The male shall have a share equal to that of two females. If there are more than two women, they shall have two-thirds of what [their parents] leave behind; and if there is only one, she shall have one-half of it. As for the parents [of the deceased], each of them shall have one sixth of what he leaves behind, in the event of his having a child; but if he leaves no children, and his parents be his heirs, then his mother shall have one-third; and if he has brothers and sisters, his mother shall have one-sixth after (deducting) any bequest he may have made, or any outstanding debt. With regard to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is of more benefit to you. This is, therefore, an ordinance from God. God is All-Knowing, Wise. (Verse 11)

At this point, the sūrah explains the Islamic system of inheritance. It starts with an order, made in the form of a strong recommendation, made by God to parents, to maintain justice among their children. This order shows that God, limitless is He in His glory, is kinder, fairer and more merciful than parents are to their own children.

It also shows that the whole system of inheritance has been laid down by God, who has given His verdict on every issue concerning parents and children, or that may come up among relatives. People have no choice but to receive their orders from Him and to implement His rulings. This is the proper concept of religion which the sūrah, in its entirety, seeks to explain in the clearest of terms.

The opening statement also lays down the general principle which pervades the whole system of Islamic inheritance: “God has this to enjoin on you with regard to your children: The male shall have a share equal to that of two females.” (Verse 11) Details are then provided and shares assigned in the light of the aforementioned general principle. All these details are given in two verses; the first is devoted to inheritance by offspring and by parents from their children, while the second lists the inheritance of husbands and wives, and situations when the deceased has no surviving children or parents. A few other rules of inheritance are also explained in the last verse of this sūrah.

These three verses provide the foundation of the Islamic system of inheritance, which constitutes a branch of Islamic jurisprudence known as that of “decreed shares”. Further elaboration is stated clearly in a number of aĥādīth or has been deduced by scholars on the basis of the principles provided in these verses. It is beyond the scope of this commentary to discuss such elaborate details, for they are more the concern of specialised works on Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, we will limit ourselves here to an explanation of these verses and we will comment on the principles they provide within the perfect Islamic constitution.

“God has this to enjoin on you with regard to your children: The male shall have a share equal to that of two females.” (Verse 11) This beginning to the system of inheritance points to the Originator of these rules and the basis upon which they are founded. It also stresses the fact that God is more merciful to mankind than parents are towards their children. When He assigns shares for them, He gives them better than what parents would normally give to their own children. Both notions are interrelated and mutually complementary. It is God who enjoins and decrees, and it is He who divides inheritance among people in the same way as He enjoins and commands in every respect and distributes everything that people receive in their lives. It is from God that regulations, legal provisions and laws originate, and from Him people learn how to conduct the most personal of their affairs, mainly the distribution of their estates among their children. This is the meaning of religion. People will not have a religion of any sort if they do not receive their instruction, on how to conduct all their life affairs, from God alone. They do not submit themselves totally to God if they receive instructions on any matter, great or small, from any other source. That would be to deny God’s authority, and to drop back into ignorance, the state which Islam worked hard to uproot from human life altogether.

Moreover, what God enjoins and decrees concerning people’s lives, including that which relates to the most private of their affairs, i.e. the sharing out of their wealth among their children, takes much better care of people, and is much more beneficial to them than what they may choose for themselves and their children. People, therefore, cannot say, “we will choose for ourselves,” or “we know better what serves our interests best.” Such statements are not only false, but they combine rudeness with insolence and make a claim of having better knowledge than God.

Such a claim can only be made by one who is completely ignorant.

Al-`Awfī relates a statement on the authority of Ibn `Abbās in relation to the Qur’ānic statement: “God has this to enjoin on you with regard to your children: The male shall have a share equal to that of two females.” (Verse 11) He says: “When the verses that include the decreed shares were revealed, giving details of what God has ordered of shares to be given to male and female offspring and to parents, some people were not happy with them. They said: ‘A woman will be given one-quarter or one-eighth of the whole estate, and a daughter may be given half of it, and a young boy receives a share when none of these can fight in battle or protect possessions. Keep quiet about this whole subject so that God’s messenger (peace be upon him) may forget it, or we may talk to him and he may change these rules.’ They spoke to him and said:

`Messenger of God, a girl is supposed to receive of her father’s estate when she neither rides a horse nor fights the enemy. A boy may receive the whole estate when he is of little value (in war).’ It was their tradition in the days of ignorance not to give any share of inheritance except for those who fight and then they would give according to seniority of age.” (Related by Ibn Abī Ĥātim and Ibn Jarīr.)

This was the logic of Arabian ignorance, which made some people uneasy about what God decreed, and His fair distribution of inheritance. Today’s misguided logic which makes some people uneasy about the same subject may differ greatly or only a little from that same Arabian ignorance. This logic may pose the question: “How do we give wealth to children who have not worked for it and who have made no effort to earn it?” The two kinds of logic are the same. Neither of them appreciates the wisdom behind God’s distribution, and neither shows the minimum degree of politeness that a person should maintain in an approach to God’s legislation. Both combine ignorance with impudence.

“The male shall have a share equal to that of two females.” (Verse 11) When a person leaves behind no heirs other than his own offspring, male and female, they take the whole of his estate, on the basis of one share for a girl and two shares for a boy.

There is no question here of favouring one sex over another. It is all a matter of maintaining balance and justice between the responsibilities of a male and those of a female within the family. In the Islamic social system, the husband is required to support his wife. He is further required to support all his children in all situations, whether he remains married to his wife or he divorces her. A woman, on the other hand, may be required to look after herself, or she may be looked after by a man both before and after her marriage. Under no circumstances is she required to maintain her husband or her children. This means that a man shoulders at least double the burden of a woman within the family and in the Islamic social system. This is how justice is maintained in this wise distribution which achieves perfect balance between rights and duties, claims and liabilities. All objections to this system of distribution betray ignorance on the one hand and impudence with God on the other. They serve no purpose other than to shake the foundations of the whole system, of family and society, to no avail whatsoever.

The division begins with the shares of offspring when they inherit from their parents: “If there are more than two women, they shall have two-thirds of what [their parents] leave behind; and if there is only one, she shall have one-half of it.” If the deceased has no male issue, but has two or more daughters, his daughters share equally two- thirds of his estate. If he leaves behind only one daughter, she inherits half of his estate. The remainder goes to his nearest of kin on his father’s side, i.e. to his father, grandfather or brother, or to his half-brother on his father’s side or to his paternal uncle or the children of his grandfather.

The Qur’ānic verse states: “If there are more than two women, they shall have two-thirds of what [their parents] leave behind.” This statement apportions two-thirds if the deceased leaves behind more than two daughters. The same portion of two-thirds is given when the deceased has only two daughters on the basis of the Sunnah as well as the analogy with the share given to two sisters in the final verse of this sūrah. As for the Sunnah, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Mājah relate, on the authority of Jābir, that the widow of Sa`d ibn al-Rabī` came to the Prophet, saying: “Messenger of God, these are the two daughters of Sa`d whose father fell a martyr in the Battle of Uĥud in which he fought with you. Their uncle has taken their money and left them nothing. They cannot hope to get married unless they have money.” The Prophet said: “God will give His judgement in this case.” Then the verse that outlines shares of inheritance was revealed. The Prophet sent a message to their uncle, saying: “Give Sa`d’s two daughters two-thirds and their mother one-eighth and you take the remainder.” This, then, is the Prophet’s judgement which gives two-thirds to two daughters. It shows that when the deceased leaves two or more daughters but no sons behind, his daughters share two-thirds of his property.

Another basis for this portion is the final verse in the sūrah which states the shares of two sisters: “If there are two sisters, they shall both together have two-thirds of whatever he has left.” (Verse 176) It is only reasonable that two daughters have a stronger claim than two sisters to two-thirds of the deceased’s inheritance. Moreover, in the case explained in the last verse of this sūrah, if there is only one sister, she inherits the same share as that given in the present verse to one daughter.

Having completed the offspring’s shares, the verse goes on to explain the shares given to parents who survive any of their children, whether the deceased has children or not: “As for the parents [of the deceased], each of them shall have one-sixth of what he leaves behind, in the event of his having a child; but if he leaves no children, and his parents be his heirs, then his mother shall have one-third; and if he has brothers and sisters, his mother shall have one-sixth.” (Verse 11)

There are, then, different cases and different ways of sharing a parent’s bequest according to every particular situation. The first is when the deceased leaves behind children of his own in addition to his parents. Here, each of his parents inherits one- sixth and the remainder goes to his son, or to his son and daughter or daughters, on the basis of a son having a share equal to that of two daughters. If the deceased has only one daughter, she inherits one-half of her father’s estate, while each of his parents takes one-sixth and the father takes the last one-sixth on the basis of his being the nearest of kin to the deceased. In other words, the father has one portion as an ordained share and another portion for being the nearest of kin, taking what remains after those who are given appointed shares have taken theirs. If the deceased has two or more daughters, they take two-thirds and each of his parents one-sixth.

The second situation occurs when the deceased has neither children, brothers, sisters nor spouse. His parents, then, are his only heirs. In this case, his mother inherits one-third as her appointed share, and the remainder goes to his father as his nearest of kin. The father’s share in this case is double that of the mother. If the deceased leaves a spouse in addition to his parents, the husband takes one-half in the case of the deceased being a woman, and the wife takes one-quarter if the deceased is a man. The mother takes one-third (and here there is a difference among scholars as to whether the mother’s share is one-third of the whole estate or one-third of what is left after the deceased’s wife or husband have taken their shares) and the father takes what is left after the mother has taken her share, provided that the father’s share is not less than the mother’s.

The third situation occurs when the deceased is survived by his parents and brothers, whether they are full or half brothers on either the father’s or mother’s side.

They do not inherit any share themselves because their father takes precedence over them and he is the nearest of kin to the deceased after his own son. Brothers, however, reduce the mother’s share by half, from one-third to one-sixth. The father takes the remainder if the deceased has no surviving spouse. If the deceased has only one brother as well as his parents, he does not reduce the mother’s share. She receives one-third in the same way as if the deceased had neither children nor brothers.

All these shares, however, are only apportioned after execution of the deceased’s will and payment of any outstanding debts: “after (deducting) any bequest he may have made, or any outstanding debt”. (Verse 11) Ibn Kathīr, the famous Qur’ānic commentator, states: `All scholars, past and contemporary, are unanimous that the deduction of outstanding debts takes precedence over bequests by will.” This is only reasonable because debt is a rightful claim of others. Hence, it must be deducted from the estate of the person who incurred the debt, since he has left enough money to do so. Such payment gives the lender his right and absolves the debtor of his debt.

Islam has taken special care to impress on its followers the need to repay all debts.

This ensures that people’s lives can benefit from people’s clear consciences and transactions can be made on the basis of trust and reassurance. It is for this reason that a debt is not written-off by reason of the borrower’s death. It remains outstanding. Abū Qatādah, a Companion of the Prophet, reports that a man asked the Prophet whether all his past mistakes and sins are written-off if he dies a martyr in the service of God’s cause. The Prophet answered: “Yes. If you are killed fighting willingly, volunteering for God’s cause, pushing forward, not withdrawing backward.” The Prophet then asked him to repeat the question, which he did. The Prophet then said: “Yes, with the exception of your debts. Gabriel, the Angel, has told me that.” (Related by Muslim, Mālik, and others.)

Abū Qatādah also reports that the body of a dead person was brought to the Mosque so that the Prophet may lead the Prayer for the deceased, i.e. Janāzah Prayer, for him. The Prophet said to his Companions: “You pray for your friend because he has an outstanding debt.” I said: “I take over that debt, Messenger of God.” The Prophet asked: “For full settlement?” I answered in the affirmative and the Prophet led the prayer for the deceased.

The will takes precedence over the apportioned shares of inheritance because it represents the deceased’s desire. In fact, provision for making a will is made so that care can be taken of certain cases where some relatives supersede others preventing them from having a share of the inheritance. Those who are thus “screened”, to use the Islamic term, may be poor and in need of help. Making a will in their favour is one way of helping them. There are other cases where the interests of the family are served through cementing relations between the heirs of the deceased and relatives who are not entitled to any share of the inheritance. Bequeathing some money to them by will is certain to remove all causes of envy, grudge and conflict before they can even take root. We have to remember here that no heir may be given by will anything over his apportioned share and that there is a ceiling for what any person may so bequeath. That ceiling is one-third of the whole estate. Limiting the will in this way guarantees against any prejudice to the rights of all heirs.

The verse concludes with a comment that makes three clear points: “With regard to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is of more benefit to you. This is, therefore, an ordinance from God. God is All-Knowing, Wise.” (Verse 11) The first seeks to help people accept these apportioned shares willingly. Some may be motivated by their parental instinct to favour their own children over their parents if division of their estate is left entirely to them. This is understandable because there is a natural weakness in favour of one’s own children. Some people may be able to overcome this weakness if they have a particularly sensitive moral feeling towards their parents.

Others vacillate between their natural weaknesses and their morality. It may happen that the social environment and traditions impose certain considerations similar to those that were voiced by some people when this inheritance legislation was first revealed. We have mentioned some of these earlier in the text. God, therefore, wants to give all people the reassurance generated by submission to His will and to His legislation by reminding them that His knowledge is perfect and absolute, while people do not know who of their relatives is of more benefit to them and which method of sharing out inheritance may best serve their interests: “With regard to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is of more benefit to you.” (Verse 11)

The second point states the principles on which the whole system is based. It is not a question of favouring one person over another or serving a narrow interest. It is all a question of faith and Divine law: “This is, therefore, an ordinance from God.” (Verse 11) It is He who has created parents and children and who has given them all their provisions and properties. It is God who makes the law and decrees the sharing out and promulgates legal provisions. People cannot legislate for themselves or impose their own dictates. After all, they do not know where their interests lie.

“God is All-Knowing, Wise.” (Verse 11) This is the final point which impresses on all people that what God legislates for mankind is not merely something that they cannot contravene; it is also made to serve their interests on the basis of God’s perfect knowledge and complete wisdom. People, on the other hand, have only scanty knowledge and follow their caprice.

These comments are made before the legislation of inheritance is completed so that the whole matter is put in its proper perspective of faith. A faith that defines religion as submission to God’s law and as acceptance of His rulings.

Inheritance of Husbands, Wives, Brothers and Sisters The sūrah goes on to define other apportioned shares: “You shall inherit one-half of what your wives leave behind, provided that they have left no child; but if they have left a child, then you shall have one- quarter of what they leave behind, after [deducting] any bequest they may have made or any outstanding debt. And they (i.e. your widows) shall inherit one-quarter of what you leave behind, provided that you have left no child; but if you have left a child, then they shall have one- eighth of what you leave behind, after [deducting] any bequest you may have made or any outstanding debt.” (Verse 12)

These statements are clear and elaborate. A husband inherits half of his deceased wife’s property if she leaves behind neither a son nor a daughter. If she has one or more sons or daughters, her husband inherits one-quarter of her property. The children of her sons, i.e. her grandchildren, reduce the husband’s share from one-half to one-quarter in the same way as her own children. The same applies to her children from an earlier marriage who also reduce her husband’s share to one- quarter. Her property is divided among her heirs after settling any outstanding debts or executing her will, as mentioned earlier.

A wife inherits one-quarter of the property left by her husband, if he dies without any progeny. If he has a child, a son or a daughter or even more, by her or by any other wife, or even grandchildren of his own, then their presence reduces her share to one-eighth. Again, settlement of debts and the execution of the will take precedence over any sharing out of the property.

The share given to a wife remains the same whether the deceased leaves behind one wife or two, three or four wives. All of them share equally in that portion of one- quarter or one-eighth, as the case may be.

The final rule in this second verse outlining the system of inheritance concerns a person who leaves no direct heirs: “If a man or a woman has no heir in the direct line, but has a brother or a sister, then each of them shall inherit one-sixth; but if there be more, then they shall share in one- third, after [deducting] any bequest which may have been made or any outstanding debt, neither of which having been intended to harm [the heirs]. This is a commandment from God; and God is All-Knowing, Gracious.” (Verse 12) This is the case of a person having heirs whose relationship to him is weaker than that of either parents or children. Abū Bakr was asked to define the Arabic term kalālah that is used in the Qur’ān to refer to such a person. He said: “I can give only my own view. Hit is correct, then I am right only by God’s grace. If it is mistaken, the mistake is mine and caused by Satan. God and His Messenger are not party to it. Kalālah is a person who has no children and no parents.” When `Umar took over, he said in this respect: “I would be ashamed to contradict Abū Bakr in an opinion of his.” In fact, the most eminent scholars among the Prophet’s Companions and those of the next generations as well as the founders of all four major schools of thought and the overwhelming majority of scholars in successive generations, subscribe to this definition.

“If a man or a woman has no heir in the direct line, but has a brother or a sister, then each of them shall inherit one-sixth; but if there be more, then they shall share in one-third.” (Verse 12) What is meant in this verse by the deceased having a brother or a sister is that either of them is only a half-brother or half-sister on his mother’s side. If they are a full brother or full sister, or if they are a half-brother or half-sister on his father’s side, they inherit according to the last verse in this sūrah, which gives them a portion in which a male takes twice as much as a female. The portion mentioned here of one- sixth for either of them, male or female, applies only to half-brothers and sisters on the side of the deceased’s mother. They have an apportioned share that is specified in the Qur’ān. They do not inherit on the basis of being the nearest of kin. Had that been the case, they would have taken all the deceased’s estate, or what is left of it, after those who have apportioned shares took theirs.

“But if there be more, then they shall share in one-third.” (Verse 12) This applies regardless of their number or their sex. The weightier opinion is that they equally share their total portion of one-third, although some scholars maintain that the division of the portion assigned must be on the basis of a male taking twice as much as a female. Equal division seems to be weightier in this case, because it is in line with the principle stated in the same verse, giving the male an equal share of the female: “Each of them shall have one-sixth.” (Verse 12)

This means that half-brothers and sisters on the mother’s side are different from other heirs on three counts:

1. The shares of males and females are equal among them.

2. They have no claim to any part of the inheritance unless the deceased has neither parents nor offspring. If his father, grandfather, child or grandchild survives him, they inherit nothing.

3. Their total share, regardless of their number, has a maximum of one-third of the estate.

“After [deducting) any bequest which may have been made or any outstanding debt, neither of which having been intended to harm [the heirs].” (Verse 12) This is a warning against making a will for the specific purpose of harming any of one’s heirs. Thus, Islam ensures that a will is made to serve justice and the family’s interests. It is worth mentioning again here that settling debts takes precedence over executing the will and both the debt and the will take precedence over any sharing out of the inheritance among heirs.

This second verse concludes with a comment that is similar to the first verse: “This is a commandment from God; and God is All-Knowing, Gracious.” (Verse 12) Thus the import of this comment is emphasised that much more strongly. These apportioned shares are given as “a commandment from God”. They are not the result of any caprice, nor are they swayed by desire. They emanate from perfect knowledge. Hence, they must be obeyed because they are made by the One to whom the right to legislate and apportion belongs totally. They must be accepted because they come from the only Source with absolute and perfect knowledge.

These are the bounds set by God. Whoever obeys God and His Messenger, him will He admit into gardens through which running waters flow, there to dwell forever. That is the supreme triumph. But whoever disobeys God and His Messenger, and transgresses His bounds, him will He commit to the fire, there to abide forever; and shameful torment awaits him. (Verses 13-14)

These two verses serve as further emphasis to the basic rule of Islam that makes it absolutely clear that the authority to legislate belongs to God alone. Any contravention of this rule constitutes disobedience to God and rejection of Islam altogether. This is re-emphasised in these two verses which describe the shares specified for the distribution of the estate of a deceased person among his or her heirs as bounds set by God. These verses serve as a clear definition of relations within the family and social and economic relations in the society at large. The rulings they give on how the estate of the deceased is to be shared out are final. When they are properly respected and God and His Messenger are obeyed in these legal provisions, the reward is great: it is nothing less than Paradise, forever, which is indeed a supreme triumph. When they are contravened by disobedience to God and His Messenger, the result is an everlasting fire and a shameful torment.

But why is such a great and final destiny dependent on obedience or disobedience in a legal provision that tackles an aspect of secondary importance like the provision of inheritance? This provision speaks only of small details and its reward may appear to be out of proportion with its nature.

Several verses in the sūrah clarify this matter and put it into proper perspective.

These verses explain the meaning of religion, true faith and the limits of Islam. We will attempt, however, to give a brief clarification of this issue considering that the two verses we are discussing today, which come as a comment on the legislation of inheritance, are of vital importance.

The central question posed by Islam, and indeed by all Divine faith ever since God sent His first messenger to mankind, is: to whom does Godhead on earth belong?

and to whom belongs the Lordship of mankind? The answer to both parts of this question makes all the difference not only with regard to faith but to human life altogether.

If the answer is that both Godhead and Lordship in the universe belong to God alone, without associating any partners with Him, then that is the essence of true faith and proper submission to God. That is the religion of Islam. If, on the other hand, the answer is that they belong to God’s partners, with or without Him, then that is idolatry, or total rejection of faith.

When Godhead and Lordship in the universe belong to God alone, all creatures must submit to Him and obey all His commandments. This means that they must follow the system and the constitution He has chosen for them. He alone can make that choice and He alone can legislate for people, giving them the values, standards, and the social systems to establish and maintain. No one else, whether an individual or a group, can share that authority with Him except on the basis of His law and constitution. That authority is the total sum and the practical result of Godhead and Lordship. When it is given to someone else, then submission and obedience are offered to beings other than God. The practical effect of that is the implementation of regulations, laws, values, and standards established by human beings without any reference to God’s Book and authority. In such a situation, there can be no proper faith and no Islam. There can only be transgression and a total denial of the faith.

This is the true essence of the whole matter. In this light, transgression of the bounds set by God is the same whether it relates to one aspect of God’s laws or to the whole of Islamic law. In both cases, the transgression represents a rebellion against faith. What makes all the difference is the basic rule that shapes human societies.

That rule seeks a clear and definite answer to the question of whether Godhead and Lordship are given to God alone, or they are being usurped by people. In this context, verbal claims of adherence to Islam count for little unless they are given their proper practical effect.

This is the essential fact stressed in this comment which makes a link between the sharing out of inheritance, obedience to God and His Messenger and the ultimate reward of Paradise, the reward to be enjoyed forever. This principle is the subject matter of many verses in this sūrah, which throw ample light on it, in order to make it totally clear, and absolutely indisputable. Everyone who claims to be a Muslim must understand that basic fact so that he can determine whether he is truly a Muslim who lives his faith.

We still have to add a concluding word about the Islamic system of inheritance. It is a fair system that satisfies the needs of human nature and those of family life. This becomes most obviously apparent when we compare it with any system, old or new, known to man anywhere in the world.

This system takes fully into account the concept of mutual care and security within the family. It apportions shares according to the duty of each member of the family. When heirs of the first degree, such as parents and children, have taken their defined shares, the strongest claim to a portion of the deceased’s inheritance belongs to his nearest relatives on his father’s side. It is those relatives who are also required to take care of him and to contribute to the satisfaction of his liabilities in any emergency. When we consider this aspect, the system appears to be both balanced and perfect.

This system takes into account the fact that all mankind originated from a single soul. Hence, it does not deprive a woman or a child of their shares simply because of their sex or minority. It does not favour one sex over another, except in relation to their respective duties within the concept of mutual care within the family.

It also takes into account all aspects of human nature. It is for this reason that children are given priority in inheritance over all other relatives. The new generation represents human survival and continuation of the family. Hence it is more deserving of care. The Islamic system, however, does not deprive parents or grandparents or other relations of their shares. Each has his or her portion.

Moreover, the Islamic system of inheritance is most suitable to human nature. It satisfies the natural desire of every human being to maintain his relations with his offspring in the sense that his children represent the continuity of his existence. It reassures a man who has exerted his efforts to save a portion of his earnings that his own children will not be deprived of the fruits of his efforts. They inherit him when he dies.

This motivates him to double his efforts which, in turn, benefits society as a whole, without prejudice to the concept of mutual social care and security on which Islam lays strong emphasis.

Finally, the Islamic system of inheritance ensures that wealth accumulated by every generation is divided and redistributed. This ensures that vast wealth does not remain in a few hands, as happens in systems that give all inheritance to the eldest son or appoint very few heirs. From this point of view, it is an effective tool for economic reorganisation within the community for it rids it of excesses without any direct intervention by the authorities. Such intervention is normally received with natural distaste. This continuing process of division and redistribution takes place without ill-feeling because it understands human motives and satisfies them. That is the basic difference between Divine and man-made legislation.