مِّنۡہُمَا
Appears 5 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 5 verses containing "مِّنۡہُمَا".
۞ وَالۡوٰلِدٰتُ یُرۡضِعۡنَ اَوۡلٰدَہُنَّ حَوۡلَیۡنِ کَامِلَیۡنِ ۖ لِمَنۡ اَرَادَ اَنۡ یُّتِمَّ الرَّضَاعَۃَ ۚ وَعَلَی الۡمَوۡلُوۡدِ لَہٗ رِزۡقُہُنَّ وَکِسۡوَتُہُنَّ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ ۚ لَا تُکَلَّفُ نَفۡسٌ اِلَّا وُسۡعَہَا ۚ لَا تُضَآرَّ وٰلِدَۃٌۢ بِوَلَدِہَا وَلَا مَوۡلُوۡدٌ لَّہٗ بِوَلَدِہٖ ۚ وَعَلَی الۡوَارِثِ مِثۡلُ ذٰلِکَ ۗ فَاِنۡ اَرَادَا فِصَالًا عَنۡ تَرَاضٍ مِّنۡہُمَا وَتَشَاوُرٍ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَیۡہِمَا ۗ وَاِنۡ اَرَدتُّمۡ اَنۡ تَسۡتَرۡضِعُوۡۤا اَوۡلٰدَکُمۡ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ اِذَا سَلَّمۡتُمۡ مَّاۤ اٰتَیۡتُمۡ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ ۗ وَاتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ وَاعۡلَمُوۡۤا اَنَّ اللّٰہَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ بَصِیۡرٌ
31:15; 46:16.
65:7.
2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.
لَا تُضَآرَّ (La Tudarra) 这一用语, 既是主动又是被动语态; 因此它的意思可以是: (1) 母亲不应使父亲由于他的孩子而受苦; (2) 不应使母亲由于她的孩子而受苦; 这里这两种意义都可同等适用。
这里用 مَوْلُوْدٌ لَهٗ (Mauludun la-hu, 孩子所归属的人) 这几个字, 而不用较简单的 وَالِد (Walid, 父亲) 这个字, 为的是指出, 具有所生的孩子, 是父亲的固有的权利而且有抚养他孩子的天职。
继承一个死者的财产的人, 对他留下的孩子一定要负起抚养成人的责任。
孩子吃奶期至多两年。在这时期结束以前, 如果父母同意, 准许提前断奶。这节经文指示, 如果没有母亲的同意, 孩子不能在两年时期结束前断奶。
یہاں بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ سے مراد باپ کی مَقدرت ہے کہ امیر اپنی طاقت کے مطابق دے اور غریب اپنی طاقت کے مطابق۔ اس جگہ عام دودھ پلانے والیوں کا ذکر نہیں بلکہ ماؤں کا ہے اور یہ ذکر طلاق کے ضمن میں کیا گیا ہے اور کہا گیا ہے کہ اگر دودھ پلانے والی عورت کو طلاق دی جائے تو بچہ کی خاطر عورت کے لئے یہ ضروری ہے کہ بچے کو دودھ مقررہ مدت تک پلائے اور اس کے بدلہ میں خاوند پر فرض ہے کہ عام مزدور عورت کی طرح نہیں بلکہ اپنی توفیق کے مطابق اسے خرچ دے۔ کیونکہ یہ عورت کے جذبات کو ٹھیس پہنچانے والا ہوگا کہ ایک طرف تو اسے مجبور کیا جائے کہ وہ طلاق کے بعد بھی بچہ کو دودھ پلاتی رہے اور دوسری ط
کھانے اور کپڑے سے مراد تمام اخراجات ہیں نہ کہ صرف روٹی اور لباس اور یہ محاورہ ہے تمام ضرورتوں کو پورا کرنے کے متعلق۔
یعنی مرد سے یہ مطالبہ کرنا کہ وہ اپنی طاقت سے زیادہ خرچ کرے یہ بھی نامناسب ہے اور عورت سے مطالبہ کرنا کہ وہ ایک نوکر کی طرح طلاق کے بعد ایک عرصہ گھر میں گزار دے یہ بھی نامناسب ہے۔
یعنی بچہ کو ایک دوسرے پر دباؤ ڈالنے کا ذریعہ نہ بناؤ۔ یہ حکم نہایت لطیف ہے۔ بہت سے نادان اس حرکت کے مرتکب ہوتے ہیں اور نتیجہ یہ ہوتا ہے کہ یا تو بچے ہلاک ہو جاتے ہیں یا ان کی تربیت خراب ہو جاتی ہے۔ اس قسم کا فعل درحقیقت قتل اولاد کے مشابہ ہے اور قرآن کریم نے اس سے روک کر آئندہ اولادوں پر احسان عظیم کیا ہے۔
اس آیت سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ بچے کے متعلق دودھ پلانے یا چھڑانے کا فیصلہ قرآن کریم نے نہ مرد کے اختیار میں رکھا ہے نہ عورت کے اختیار میں۔ بلکہ دونوں کو مشترکہ اختیار دیا ہے شاید تمام شرائع کی تاریخ میں یہ منفرد مثال ہے کہ اس طرح اہلی معاملات میں میاں بیوی کو ایک مقام پر کھڑا کرکے برابر کے اختیارات دئیے گئے ہیں۔ ہاں یہ شرط ضرور ہے کہ دودھ پلانے کی مدت جو قرآن کریم نے مقرر کی ہے اس سے زیادہ دیر تک دودھ پلانے پر نہ خاوند مجبور کر سکتا ہے نہ عورت زور دے سکتی ہے۔ جب طلاق کے بعد بھی عورت کے جذبات کا اس قدر خیال رکھنے پر خاوند کو مجبور کیا گیا ہے تو ظاہر ہے کہ جو عورت نکاح میں ہے
قرآنی الفاظ اٰتَیْتُمْ کے ہیں جن کے لفظی معنے ہیں دے دیا ہے‘ دے چکے ہو۔ لیکن اس طرح ترجمہ کیا جائے تو ترجمہ یہ ہوگا کہ جب تم دے دو۔ جو کچھ تم دے چکے ہو۔ اور ظاہر ہے کہ یہ مراد قرآن مجید کی نہیں ہو سکتی۔ پس ان الفاظ کا ترجمہ کرتے وقت ایک اور قاعدہ کو ملحوظ رکھنا ہوگا جو یہ ہے کہ کبھی ماضی کا صیغہ قطعی فیصلہ پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے استعمال کیا جاتا ہے۔ چنانچہ قرآن کریم میں دوسرے کئی مقامات پر بھی یہ محاورہ استعمال کیا گیا ہے۔ مثلاً آتا ہے اِذَا قُمْتُمْ اِلَی الصَّلٰوۃِ فَاغْسِلُوْا وُجُوْھَکُمْ(المآئدۃ: ۷) یعنی جب تم نماز کے لئے کھڑے ہو تو اپنے مونہوں کو اور ہات
31:15; 46:16.
65:7.
2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.
The expression, la Tudarra, is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause may, therefore, mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally applicable here.
The words Mauludulla-hu (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word Walid (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.
One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind.
The suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of this period, if the father and the mother both agree on this course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.
31:15; 46:16.
65:7.
2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.
Important Words:
یرضعن (give suck) is derived from رضع i.e. he (the babe) sucked. ارضعت means, she (the mother or the wet-nurse) gave suck to the child. استرضع means, he arranged for the suckling of the child; he engaged a wet-nurse for it. The infinitive-noun رضاعة signifies sucking. ھذا اخی من الرضاعة means, he is my foster-brother, both having sucked from the breast of the same woman (Aqrab & Lane).
حولین (two years) is the dual of حول (a year) which is the infinitive-noun from حال meaning, it passed and became complete, or it passed from one state to another, or it turned round. A year is called حول because it is a complete measure of time and turns round and round. حول also means strength and power to do a thing as in the well-known formula لاحول ولاقوة الابالله (Aqrab).
وسعھا (its capacity) is derived from وسع meaning, it was sufficiently capacious. وسعت رحمة الله کل شیء means, God’s mercy extends to, and covers, all things. وسع means capacity or power or strength. The infinitive-noun from it is سعة meaning, breadth; extent, capaciousness; capacity and power. ذوسعة means, a man of means or a man of ample means (Aqrab).
تکلف (is burdened) is derived from کلف. They say کلفه امرا i.e. he imposed on him the task of doing a thing, or he tasked him to do a thing. It also means, he ordered him to do a thing which was difficult or troublesome or inconvenient (Lane).
فصال (weaning the child) is derived from فصل which is both transitive and intransitive, meaning, he separated, he divided, he partitioned; or he got separated, he went forth from. فصلت المرأة رضیعھا means, the woman weaned her child, which is also a sort of separation between the woman and her suckling. ھذایوم الفصل means, this is the day when a decision or a distinction shall be made between the parties, i.e. the doers of good and the doers of evil. فصال means, the weaning of a child from its mother or from the woman who suckles it (Taj).
تشاور (consultation) is derived from شار. They say شارالعسل i.e. he extracted honey from the honey-comb. شارالدابة means, he rode the beast in order to try it and ascertain its worth. اشار besides giving the same meaning as شار, also means, he made a thing known, he pointed to a thing, he gave a word of good counsel to a person. شاوره means, he consulted him, he sought his advice and counsel. تشاور means, mutual consultation. مشورة and شوری give similar meanings, i.e. consultation (Aqrab).
Commentary:
If a woman is divorced while she is pregnant, the question of the suckling of the child and the expense of bringing it up naturally arises. The verse under comment supplies the answer. It points out that the suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of that period, if the father and the mother both agree on that course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.
The expression لاتضار is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause لاتضار والدة بولدھا may therefore mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally good and equitable. The words مولودله (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word والد (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.
The clause, and the same is incumbent on the heir, lays down an important social principle. If a father dies leaving behind a child, it is the duty of his heirs to bring up the child and maintain it until it reaches puberty. This shall not be considered an act of favour on their part, but an act of duty. One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind. He who receives a support from another must be prepared to give the same to him, when he may stand in need of it.
a
31:15; 46:16.
b
65:7.
c
2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.
176
لَا تُضَآرَّ (La Tudarra) 这一用语, 既是主动又是被动语态; 因此它的意思可以是: (1) 母亲不应使父亲由于他的孩子而受苦; (2) 不应使母亲由于她的孩子而受苦; 这里这两种意义都可同等适用。
177
这里用 مَوْلُوْدٌ لَهٗ (Mauludun la-hu, 孩子所归属的人) 这几个字, 而不用较简单的 وَالِد (Walid, 父亲) 这个字, 为的是指出, 具有所生的孩子, 是父亲的固有的权利而且有抚养他孩子的天职。
178
继承一个死者的财产的人, 对他留下的孩子一定要负起抚养成人的责任。
179
孩子吃奶期至多两年。在这时期结束以前, 如果父母同意, 准许提前断奶。这节经文指示, 如果没有母亲的同意, 孩子不能在两年时期结束前断奶。
1
یہاں بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ سے مراد باپ کی مَقدرت ہے کہ امیر اپنی طاقت کے مطابق دے اور غریب اپنی طاقت کے مطابق۔ اس جگہ عام دودھ پلانے والیوں کا ذکر نہیں بلکہ ماؤں کا ہے اور یہ ذکر طلاق کے ضمن میں کیا گیا ہے اور کہا گیا ہے کہ اگر دودھ پلانے والی عورت کو طلاق دی جائے تو بچہ کی خاطر عورت کے لئے یہ ضروری ہے کہ بچے کو دودھ مقررہ مدت تک پلائے اور اس کے بدلہ میں خاوند پر فرض ہے کہ عام مزدور عورت کی طرح نہیں بلکہ اپنی توفیق کے مطابق اسے خرچ دے۔ کیونکہ یہ عورت کے جذبات کو ٹھیس پہنچانے والا ہوگا کہ ایک طرف تو اسے مجبور کیا جائے کہ وہ طلاق کے بعد بھی بچہ کو دودھ پلاتی رہے اور دوسری ط
2
کھانے اور کپڑے سے مراد تمام اخراجات ہیں نہ کہ صرف روٹی اور لباس اور یہ محاورہ ہے تمام ضرورتوں کو پورا کرنے کے متعلق۔
3
یعنی مرد سے یہ مطالبہ کرنا کہ وہ اپنی طاقت سے زیادہ خرچ کرے یہ بھی نامناسب ہے اور عورت سے مطالبہ کرنا کہ وہ ایک نوکر کی طرح طلاق کے بعد ایک عرصہ گھر میں گزار دے یہ بھی نامناسب ہے۔
4
یعنی بچہ کو ایک دوسرے پر دباؤ ڈالنے کا ذریعہ نہ بناؤ۔ یہ حکم نہایت لطیف ہے۔ بہت سے نادان اس حرکت کے مرتکب ہوتے ہیں اور نتیجہ یہ ہوتا ہے کہ یا تو بچے ہلاک ہو جاتے ہیں یا ان کی تربیت خراب ہو جاتی ہے۔ اس قسم کا فعل درحقیقت قتل اولاد کے مشابہ ہے اور قرآن کریم نے اس سے روک کر آئندہ اولادوں پر احسان عظیم کیا ہے۔
5
اس آیت سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ بچے کے متعلق دودھ پلانے یا چھڑانے کا فیصلہ قرآن کریم نے نہ مرد کے اختیار میں رکھا ہے نہ عورت کے اختیار میں۔ بلکہ دونوں کو مشترکہ اختیار دیا ہے شاید تمام شرائع کی تاریخ میں یہ منفرد مثال ہے کہ اس طرح اہلی معاملات میں میاں بیوی کو ایک مقام پر کھڑا کرکے برابر کے اختیارات دئیے گئے ہیں۔ ہاں یہ شرط ضرور ہے کہ دودھ پلانے کی مدت جو قرآن کریم نے مقرر کی ہے اس سے زیادہ دیر تک دودھ پلانے پر نہ خاوند مجبور کر سکتا ہے نہ عورت زور دے سکتی ہے۔ جب طلاق کے بعد بھی عورت کے جذبات کا اس قدر خیال رکھنے پر خاوند کو مجبور کیا گیا ہے تو ظاہر ہے کہ جو عورت نکاح میں ہے
6
قرآنی الفاظ اٰتَیْتُمْ کے ہیں جن کے لفظی معنے ہیں دے دیا ہے‘ دے چکے ہو۔ لیکن اس طرح ترجمہ کیا جائے تو ترجمہ یہ ہوگا کہ جب تم دے دو۔ جو کچھ تم دے چکے ہو۔ اور ظاہر ہے کہ یہ مراد قرآن مجید کی نہیں ہو سکتی۔ پس ان الفاظ کا ترجمہ کرتے وقت ایک اور قاعدہ کو ملحوظ رکھنا ہوگا جو یہ ہے کہ کبھی ماضی کا صیغہ قطعی فیصلہ پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے استعمال کیا جاتا ہے۔ چنانچہ قرآن کریم میں دوسرے کئی مقامات پر بھی یہ محاورہ استعمال کیا گیا ہے۔ مثلاً آتا ہے اِذَا قُمْتُمْ اِلَی الصَّلٰوۃِ فَاغْسِلُوْا وُجُوْھَکُمْ(المآئدۃ: ۷) یعنی جب تم نماز کے لئے کھڑے ہو تو اپنے مونہوں کو اور ہات
a
31:15; 46:16.
b
65:7.
c
2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.
240
Important Words:
یرضعن (give suck) is derived from رضع i.e. he (the babe) sucked. ارضعت means, she (the mother or the wet-nurse) gave suck to the child. استرضع means, he arranged for the suckling of the child; he engaged a wet-nurse for it. The infinitive-noun رضاعة signifies sucking. ھذا اخی من الرضاعة means, he is my foster-brother, both having sucked from the breast of the same woman (Aqrab & Lane).
حولین (two years) is the dual of حول (a year) which is the infinitive-noun from حال meaning, it passed and became complete, or it passed from one state to another, or it turned round. A year is called حول because it is a complete measure of time and turns round and round. حول also means strength and power to do a thing as in the well-known formula لاحول ولاقوة الابالله (Aqrab).
وسعھا (its capacity) is derived from وسع meaning, it was sufficiently capacious. وسعت رحمة الله کل شیء means, God’s mercy extends to, and covers, all things. وسع means capacity or power or strength. The infinitive-noun from it is سعة meaning, breadth; extent, capaciousness; capacity and power. ذوسعة means, a man of means or a man of ample means (Aqrab).
تکلف (is burdened) is derived from کلف. They say کلفه امرا i.e. he imposed on him the task of doing a thing, or he tasked him to do a thing. It also means, he ordered him to do a thing which was difficult or troublesome or inconvenient (Lane).
فصال (weaning the child) is derived from فصل which is both transitive and intransitive, meaning, he separated, he divided, he partitioned; or he got separated, he went forth from. فصلت المرأة رضیعھا means, the woman weaned her child, which is also a sort of separation between the woman and her suckling. ھذایوم الفصل means, this is the day when a decision or a distinction shall be made between the parties, i.e. the doers of good and the doers of evil. فصال means, the weaning of a child from its mother or from the woman who suckles it (Taj).
تشاور (consultation) is derived from شار. They say شارالعسل i.e. he extracted honey from the honey-comb. شارالدابة means, he rode the beast in order to try it and ascertain its worth. اشار besides giving the same meaning as شار, also means, he made a thing known, he pointed to a thing, he gave a word of good counsel to a person. شاوره means, he consulted him, he sought his advice and counsel. تشاور means, mutual consultation. مشورة and شوری give similar meanings, i.e. consultation (Aqrab).
Commentary:
If a woman is divorced while she is pregnant, the question of the suckling of the child and the expense of bringing it up naturally arises. The verse under comment supplies the answer. It points out that the suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of that period, if the father and the mother both agree on that course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.
The expression لاتضار is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause لاتضار والدة بولدھا may therefore mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally good and equitable. The words مولودله (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word والد (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.
The clause, and the same is incumbent on the heir, lays down an important social principle. If a father dies leaving behind a child, it is the duty of his heirs to bring up the child and maintain it until it reaches puberty. This shall not be considered an act of favour on their part, but an act of duty. One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind. He who receives a support from another must be prepared to give the same to him, when he may stand in need of it.
a
31:15; 46:16.
b
65:7.
c
2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.
286
The expression, la Tudarra, is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause may, therefore, mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally applicable here.
287
The words Mauludulla-hu (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word Walid (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.
288
One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind.
288A
The suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of this period, if the father and the mother both agree on this course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.
یُوۡصِیۡکُمُ اللّٰہُ فِیۡۤ اَوۡلٰدِکُمۡ ۖ لِلذَّکَرِ مِثۡلُ حَظِّ الۡاُنۡثَیَیۡنِ ۚ فَاِنۡ کُنَّ نِسَآءً فَوۡقَ اثۡنَتَیۡنِ فَلَہُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَکَ ۖ وَاِنۡ کَانَتۡ وٰحِدَۃً فَلَہَا النِّصۡفُ ۚ وَلِاَبَوَیۡہِ لِکُلِّ وٰحِدٍ مِّنۡہُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَکَ اِنۡ کَانَ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَاِنۡ لَّمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّوَرِثَہٗۤ اَبَوَاہُ فَلِاُمِّہِ الثُّلُثُ ۚ فَاِنۡ کَانَ لَہٗۤ اِخۡوَۃٌ فَلِاُمِّہِ السُّدُسُ ۚ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ وَصِیَّۃٍ یُّوۡصِیۡ بِہَاۤ اَوۡ دَیۡنٍ ۗ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ وَاَبۡنَآؤُکُمۡ لَا تَدۡرُوۡنَ اَیُّہُمۡ اَقۡرَبُ لَکُمۡ نَفۡعًا ۚ فَرِیۡضَۃً مِّنَ اللّٰہِ ۗ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ کَانَ عَلِیۡمًا حَکِیۡمًا
4:177.
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
4:177.
Father and mother both (Lane).
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
4:177.
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
314
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
b
4:177.
494
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
573
Father and mother both (Lane).
574
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
574A
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
۞ وَلَکُمۡ نِصۡفُ مَا تَرَکَ اَزۡوٰجُکُمۡ اِنۡ لَّمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّہُنَّ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَاِنۡ کَانَ لَہُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَکُمُ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَکۡنَ ۚ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ وَصِیَّۃٍ یُّوۡصِیۡنَ بِہَاۤ اَوۡ دَیۡنٍ ۚ وَلَہُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَکۡتُمۡ اِنۡ لَّمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّکُمۡ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَاِنۡ کَانَ لَکُمۡ وَلَدٌ فَلَہُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَکۡتُمۡ ۚ مِّنۡۢ بَعۡدِ وَصِیَّۃٍ تُوۡصُوۡنَ بِہَاۤ اَوۡ دَیۡنٍ ۗ وَاِنۡ کَانَ رَجُلٌ یُّوۡرَثُ کَلٰلَۃً اَوِ امۡرَاَۃٌ وَّلَہٗۤ اَخٌ اَوۡ اُخۡتٌ فَلِکُلِّ وٰحِدٍ مِّنۡہُمَا السُّدُسُ ۚ فَاِنۡ کَانُوۡۤا اَکۡثَرَ مِنۡ ذٰلِکَ فَہُمۡ شُرَکَآءُ فِی الثُّلُثِ ۚ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ وَصِیَّۃٍ یُّوۡصٰی بِہَاۤ اَوۡ دَیۡنٍ غَیۡرَ مُضَآرٍّ ۚ وَصِیَّۃً مِّنَ اللّٰہِ ۗ وَاللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌ حَلِیۡمٌ
4:177.
كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 是 (1) 一个身后没有父母, 也没有子女的人; (2) 一个既没有父亲, 也没有儿子的人。根据伊本•阿巴斯的解释, 他是一个没有儿子的人, 不管他的父亲是否活着。因此这里是该词的第三个词义 (Lane & مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat) Kalalah 的兄弟姐妹归三类: 第一类, 真正的兄弟姐妹--------同父母的子女 (这类兄弟姐妹从法律方面说称之为 اَعْيَانِی --------A‘yani); 第二类, 单属父亲一方的兄弟姐妹, 这类兄弟姐妹 (法律上称之为 عَلَّاتِی --------‘Allati); 第三类, 单属母亲一方的兄弟姐妹, 他 (她) 们的父亲与死者的父亲不是同一父亲 (这类兄弟姐妹法律上称之为 اَخْيَافِی --------Akhyafi)。在本节经文中所列举的指令正是属于上述最后一类;关于前两类兄弟姐妹的法律将在本章的最后一节经文中提到。分配给上述最后一类兄弟姐妹的份额比分配给前二类兄弟姐妹的份额要少, 理由是这一类兄弟姐妹单属母亲一方, 而另两类兄弟姐妹则属于与死者同一父亲的子女。在作为 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 死去的人的财产中, 兄弟姐妹享有相等的分配份额, 在此情况下, 通常不按二比一之比例。
“不要立意损害任何人” 这句话很重要。意思是偿还债务不应由于分配遗产而受到损害。换句话说, 在分配遗产之前要先偿还债务。
کلالہ کے جن بہن بھائیوں کے وارث ہونے کی صورت بیان کی گئی ہے‘ وہ بہن بھائی ہیں جو ماں کی طرف سے ہوں۔
4:177.
Kalalah is (1) a person who leaves behind neither parent nor child, male or female; (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn-e-‘Abbas he is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of the word (Lane & Mufradat). The brothers and sisters of a Kalalah fall under three heads: first, real brothers or sisters—offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as A‘yani): secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as ‘Allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters are technically called Akhyafi). It is to the last mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters having been given i
The words. "without intent to cause injury to any one" are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests.
4:177.
Important Words:
کلالة (one who has neither parent nor child) is derived from کل i.e. he was or became fatigued, tired or wearied and could proceed no further; he was or became one having no child and no parent, the latter meaning being based on the former, as a person having no child or parent becomes, as it were, too fatigued for the racial march. کلالة is (1) a person who leaves behind neither father nor child, male or female; or (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, کلالة is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of کلالة (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).
Commentary:
The first part of this verse determines the share of the husband and the wife in inheritance and needs no comment. The latter part deals with the case of a Kalalah, i.e. one who leaves neither parent nor child and whose property is inherited by his or her brother and sister. Now, if there is only one brother and one sister, each of them will get one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they will be sharers in one-third.
It should, however, be noted that in this respect brothers and sisters fall under three heads; firstly, real brothers or sisters, offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as اعیانی a‘yani); secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as علاتی ‘allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters being technically called اخیافی akhyafi). It is to the last-mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters being given in the last verse of this Surah.
The reader will further note that the shares allotted to the brothers and sisters of the last-mentioned class are smaller than those allotted to the brothers and sisters of the first two classes, the reason being that the brothers and sisters of this class are on the side of the mother only, while the brothers and the sisters of the other two classes are the children of the same father as the deceased.
It is also noteworthy that in the property of a person who dies as a Kalalah, as mentioned in the present verse, both brothers and sisters have equal shares, the usual ratio of two to one not being observed in their case.
The words, "without prejudice to the debt", are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests. It was in compliance with this Quranic injunction that the Holy Prophet used to have the debts paid before the payment of bequests. The rights of other people must be safeguarded before any bequest made by the deceased is complied with. So strict was the Holy Prophet in these matters that he refused to perform the funeral service of the man whose debts were likely to remain unpaid.
It may incidentally be noted here that heirs are divided into two main groups:
1. ذووالفرائض (Dhawul-Fara’id), i.e. persons to whom Islam allots a fixed and definite share (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 or 1/6), or in the estate of a deceased person.
2. عصبات (‘Asabat), i.e. the heirs who receive the residue after the Dhawul-Fara’id have received their allotted shares.
It is, however, not necessary that a member of the first group should always remain a Dhul-Faridah. In certain cases, he may be both a Dhul-Faridah (sharer) and an ‘Asaba (residuary) and in other cases he may be simply an ‘Asaba.
The Dhawul-Fara’id (sharers) are 12 in number, four males and eight females. The males are: 1. father, 2. paternal grandfather, 3. husband and 4. half-brother on the maternal side. The females are: (1) daughter, (2) son’s daughter, (3) mother, (4) wife, (5) full sister, (6) half-sister on paternal side, (7) half-sister on maternal side, and (8) grandmother whether paternal or maternal.
The ‘Asabat (residuaries) are of four kinds: (1) ascendants of the deceased, i.e. father, paternal grandfather, etc. (2) descendants of the deceased, i.e. son, son’s son, etc. (3) descendants of the father of the deceased, i.e. full brother, brother’s son, etc. (4) descendants of the grandfather, i.e. full paternal uncle, paternal uncle’s son, etc.
a
4:177.
315
كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 是 (1) 一个身后没有父母, 也没有子女的人; (2) 一个既没有父亲, 也没有儿子的人。根据伊本•阿巴斯的解释, 他是一个没有儿子的人, 不管他的父亲是否活着。因此这里是该词的第三个词义 (Lane & مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat) Kalalah 的兄弟姐妹归三类: 第一类, 真正的兄弟姐妹--------同父母的子女 (这类兄弟姐妹从法律方面说称之为 اَعْيَانِی --------A‘yani); 第二类, 单属父亲一方的兄弟姐妹, 这类兄弟姐妹 (法律上称之为 عَلَّاتِی --------‘Allati); 第三类, 单属母亲一方的兄弟姐妹, 他 (她) 们的父亲与死者的父亲不是同一父亲 (这类兄弟姐妹法律上称之为 اَخْيَافِی --------Akhyafi)。在本节经文中所列举的指令正是属于上述最后一类;关于前两类兄弟姐妹的法律将在本章的最后一节经文中提到。分配给上述最后一类兄弟姐妹的份额比分配给前二类兄弟姐妹的份额要少, 理由是这一类兄弟姐妹单属母亲一方, 而另两类兄弟姐妹则属于与死者同一父亲的子女。在作为 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 死去的人的财产中, 兄弟姐妹享有相等的分配份额, 在此情况下, 通常不按二比一之比例。
316
“不要立意损害任何人” 这句话很重要。意思是偿还债务不应由于分配遗产而受到损害。换句话说, 在分配遗产之前要先偿还债务。
1
کلالہ کے جن بہن بھائیوں کے وارث ہونے کی صورت بیان کی گئی ہے‘ وہ بہن بھائی ہیں جو ماں کی طرف سے ہوں۔
a
4:177.
495
Important Words:
کلالة (one who has neither parent nor child) is derived from کل i.e. he was or became fatigued, tired or wearied and could proceed no further; he was or became one having no child and no parent, the latter meaning being based on the former, as a person having no child or parent becomes, as it were, too fatigued for the racial march. کلالة is (1) a person who leaves behind neither father nor child, male or female; or (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, کلالة is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of کلالة (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).
Commentary:
The first part of this verse determines the share of the husband and the wife in inheritance and needs no comment. The latter part deals with the case of a Kalalah, i.e. one who leaves neither parent nor child and whose property is inherited by his or her brother and sister. Now, if there is only one brother and one sister, each of them will get one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they will be sharers in one-third.
It should, however, be noted that in this respect brothers and sisters fall under three heads; firstly, real brothers or sisters, offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as اعیانی a‘yani); secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as علاتی ‘allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters being technically called اخیافی akhyafi). It is to the last-mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters being given in the last verse of this Surah.
The reader will further note that the shares allotted to the brothers and sisters of the last-mentioned class are smaller than those allotted to the brothers and sisters of the first two classes, the reason being that the brothers and sisters of this class are on the side of the mother only, while the brothers and the sisters of the other two classes are the children of the same father as the deceased.
It is also noteworthy that in the property of a person who dies as a Kalalah, as mentioned in the present verse, both brothers and sisters have equal shares, the usual ratio of two to one not being observed in their case.
The words, "without prejudice to the debt", are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests. It was in compliance with this Quranic injunction that the Holy Prophet used to have the debts paid before the payment of bequests. The rights of other people must be safeguarded before any bequest made by the deceased is complied with. So strict was the Holy Prophet in these matters that he refused to perform the funeral service of the man whose debts were likely to remain unpaid.
It may incidentally be noted here that heirs are divided into two main groups:
1. ذووالفرائض (Dhawul-Fara’id), i.e. persons to whom Islam allots a fixed and definite share (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 or 1/6), or in the estate of a deceased person.
2. عصبات (‘Asabat), i.e. the heirs who receive the residue after the Dhawul-Fara’id have received their allotted shares.
It is, however, not necessary that a member of the first group should always remain a Dhul-Faridah. In certain cases, he may be both a Dhul-Faridah (sharer) and an ‘Asaba (residuary) and in other cases he may be simply an ‘Asaba.
The Dhawul-Fara’id (sharers) are 12 in number, four males and eight females. The males are: 1. father, 2. paternal grandfather, 3. husband and 4. half-brother on the maternal side. The females are: (1) daughter, (2) son’s daughter, (3) mother, (4) wife, (5) full sister, (6) half-sister on paternal side, (7) half-sister on maternal side, and (8) grandmother whether paternal or maternal.
The ‘Asabat (residuaries) are of four kinds: (1) ascendants of the deceased, i.e. father, paternal grandfather, etc. (2) descendants of the deceased, i.e. son, son’s son, etc. (3) descendants of the father of the deceased, i.e. full brother, brother’s son, etc. (4) descendants of the grandfather, i.e. full paternal uncle, paternal uncle’s son, etc.
a
4:177.
575
Kalalah is (1) a person who leaves behind neither parent nor child, male or female; (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn-e-‘Abbas he is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of the word (Lane & Mufradat). The brothers and sisters of a Kalalah fall under three heads: first, real brothers or sisters—offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as A‘yani): secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as ‘Allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters are technically called Akhyafi). It is to the last mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters having been given i
575A
The words. "without intent to cause injury to any one" are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests.
وَقَالَ لِلَّذِیۡ ظَنَّ اَنَّہٗ نَاجٍ مِّنۡہُمَا اذۡکُرۡنِیۡ عِنۡدَ رَبِّکَ فَاَنۡسٰٮہُ الشَّیۡطٰنُ ذِکۡرَ رَبِّہٖ فَلَبِثَ فِی السِّجۡنِ بِضۡعَ سِنِیۡنَ
شیطان کا لفظ ہر کمزوری پر بولا جاتا ہے۔ اس جگہ یہ نسیان کے لئے بولا گیا ہے۔ مفسر کہتے ہیں کہ اس جگہ یوسفؑ کا ذکر ہے کہ انہوں نے شیطان کی تحریک پر اِنشاء اللّٰہ نہ کہا۔ مگر جو معنے ہم نے کیے ہیں قرآن مجید کے بھی مطابق ہیں اور یوسف علیہ السلام کی جو نبی اللہ تھے ہتک بھی نہیں ہوتی۔
Bid‘ denotes a variety of numbers but is generally understood to mean from three to nine (Lane).
Important Words:
بضع (some) is derived from بضع (bad‘a). They say بضعه i.e. he cut it; or he cut it into pieces. بضع means, a part or portion of the night; a time thereof. The word denotes a variety of numbers but is generally understood to mean from three to nine. بضع رجال means, from three to nine men. The expression فلبث فی السجن بضع سنن means, and he remained in the prison from three to nine years (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
When this prisoner busied himself with the satanic occupation of preparing wine for and offering it to his master, the purifying influence of Joseph’s holy company was gone and he forgot to speak of him to the King.
1
شیطان کا لفظ ہر کمزوری پر بولا جاتا ہے۔ اس جگہ یہ نسیان کے لئے بولا گیا ہے۔ مفسر کہتے ہیں کہ اس جگہ یوسفؑ کا ذکر ہے کہ انہوں نے شیطان کی تحریک پر اِنشاء اللّٰہ نہ کہا۔ مگر جو معنے ہم نے کیے ہیں قرآن مجید کے بھی مطابق ہیں اور یوسف علیہ السلام کی جو نبی اللہ تھے ہتک بھی نہیں ہوتی۔
1546
Important Words:
بضع (some) is derived from بضع (bad‘a). They say بضعه i.e. he cut it; or he cut it into pieces. بضع means, a part or portion of the night; a time thereof. The word denotes a variety of numbers but is generally understood to mean from three to nine. بضع رجال means, from three to nine men. The expression فلبث فی السجن بضع سنن means, and he remained in the prison from three to nine years (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
When this prisoner busied himself with the satanic occupation of preparing wine for and offering it to his master, the purifying influence of Joseph’s holy company was gone and he forgot to speak of him to the King.
1383
Bid‘ denotes a variety of numbers but is generally understood to mean from three to nine (Lane).
اَلزَّانِیَۃُ وَالزَّانِیۡ فَاجۡلِدُوۡا کُلَّ وٰحِدٍ مِّنۡہُمَا مِائَۃَ جَلۡدَۃٍ ۖ وَّلَا تَاۡخُذۡکُمۡ بِہِمَا رَاۡفَۃٌ فِیۡ دِیۡنِ اللّٰہِ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِاللّٰہِ وَالۡیَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ ۖ وَلۡیَشۡہَدۡ عَذَابَہُمَا طَآئِفَۃٌ مِّنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ
The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress.
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Flogging and not stoning to death, according to this verse, is the prescribed punishment. Nowhere in the Qur’an stoning to death has been laid down as punishment for adultery and, for that matter, for any other crime, however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder
Important Words:
الزانی is act. part. from زنی (aor. یزنی inf. n. زنی & زناء). They say زنی بھا i.e. he committed fornication or adultery with her. Thus الزنا means both fornication and adultery. ابن زنی، ولد زنیة and ولد الزنا all mean the same thing, i.e. the offspring of fornication or adultery. الزانی means, fornicator or adulterer, and الزانیة means, fornicatress or adulteress; and applied to a man it has an intensive meaning, i.e. one much addicted to fornication or adultery. The plural of زان is زناة like قضاة which is plural of قاض and the plural of زانیة is زوان (Lane & Aqrab).
جلدة (stripes) is derived from جلد. They say جلدہ i.e. he hit or hurt his skin; he beat his skin; he beat him; he struck him with a whip; he flogged him with a whip. جلدة means, flogging, scourging, whipping; stripe. The word is used both as plural and singular (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Thus flogging and not stoning to death according to this verse is the punishment prescribed by Islam for adultery or fornication. Nowhere in the Quran has stoning to death been laid down as punishment for adultery and for that matter for any other crime however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder, dacoity, treason against the state and disturbing the peace of the land. Though extreme penalty for these crimes is death, yet the payment of blood money in the case of the first offence (2:129) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33-34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Quran where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned (4:26), it is clearly stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman; and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.
So in spite of the fact that the Quran has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down (as in the verse under comment) flogging as the punishment for adultery and has made no discrimination whatever between a married or an unmarried culprit in the matter of awarding punishment (because زانی means both a fornicator and adulterer), and in spite of the fact that the present and other relevant verses were revealed in connection with slander-mongering about ‘A’ishah, the Holy Prophet’s noble consort, who herself was a married lady, it is curious that the misconception has persisted without any justification or linguistic authority among certain schools of Muslim religious thought that the verse under comment deals with punishment for unmarried persons only and that the punishment for a married adulterer and adulteress is stoning to death. The misconception seems to be due to a few cases recorded in Hadith whereby married persons guilty of adultery were stoned to death by the order of the Holy Prophet. One of these few cases was that of a Jew and a Jewess who were stoned to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Bukhari). It was invariably the Holy Prophet’s practice that he abided by the Law of the Torah in deciding cases till a new commandment was revealed to him. In one or two other cases on record in which the punishment accorded was stoning to death, it has not been established whether the crime was committed before or after the verse under comment was revealed. It seems that in cases in which the guilty person was stoned to death, the crime was committed before the revelation of this verse, but by some miscalculation on the part of some chronicler it was believed to have taken place after it. There is no dearth of such historical anachronisms in the books of Hadith. Or there might have been some other aggravating circumstances besides the crime of adultery which made the Holy Prophet award the guilty person or persons the extreme punishment of death and which the chronicler of the incident failed to take into account. Otherwise it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.
Another possible cause for misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be a saying attributed to Caliph ‘Umar. He is reported to have said: "There was a verse in the Book of God about rajm (stoning). We read it, we understood it and we remembered it. The Holy Prophet stoned adulterers to death and we also stoned after him. Were it not that people might say that ‘Umar had added in the Book of God what was not in it, I would have written it down" (Kashful-Ghummah vol.2, p.111). The whole hadith seems to be a pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding or distortion of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Quran what was a part of it could be called an addition to it and how, of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of anybody for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Quran a lost text! It is impossible to attribute such confused thinking and irresponsible talk to a man of ‘Umar’s intellectual and moral calibre and stature. If the saying were to be taken at its face value, the whole claim of the Quran that it enjoys perpetual Divine protection and therefore is quite free from human interference falls to the ground.
‘Ali seems to hold quite a different view from that of ‘Umar regarding this very important religious question. After flogging a woman who had committed adultery and then stoning her to death, he is reported to have said: "I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet" (Bukhari). From this hadith, two inferences clearly emerge:
(1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer or adulteress the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Quran, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to ‘Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to ‘Ali there was no such commandment, it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. It is impossible to reconcile the views of these two great leaders of Islam and equally impossible to believe that they held diametrically opposed views regarding a most important question of religion. And it is indeed very surprising that in the face of quite clear, unambiguous and unequivocal Divine commandments the view should have been held, of all men by ‘Umar and ‘Ali, or by any school of Muslim religious thought that Islam has prescribed stoning to death as punishment for an adulterer. The Quran rejects this view as wholly untenable. Somewhere some misunderstanding must have occurred on the part of a chronicler or narrator of the sayings of the Holy Prophet which has caused all this confusion.
It may be of interest to note that the verse has used the words الزانی and الزانیة (and not زانی and زانیة) which suggest a particular class of adulterers and fornicators such as hardened or habitual culprits or those who are lost to all sense of shame and remorse and having thrown all restraint and constraint to the winds indulge in this hideous crime openly.
The verse further lays down that the beating of the culprit should not be so severe as to cause his death or break his bone but should hurt only the skin as the word اجلدوا used in the verse signifies and as is implied in 4:26.
2592
Important Words:
الزانی is act. part. from زنی (aor. یزنی inf. n. زنی & زناء). They say زنی بھا i.e. he committed fornication or adultery with her. Thus الزنا means both fornication and adultery. ابن زنی، ولد زنیة and ولد الزنا all mean the same thing, i.e. the offspring of fornication or adultery. الزانی means, fornicator or adulterer, and الزانیة means, fornicatress or adulteress; and applied to a man it has an intensive meaning, i.e. one much addicted to fornication or adultery. The plural of زان is زناة like قضاة which is plural of قاض and the plural of زانیة is زوان (Lane & Aqrab).
جلدة (stripes) is derived from جلد. They say جلدہ i.e. he hit or hurt his skin; he beat his skin; he beat him; he struck him with a whip; he flogged him with a whip. جلدة means, flogging, scourging, whipping; stripe. The word is used both as plural and singular (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Thus flogging and not stoning to death according to this verse is the punishment prescribed by Islam for adultery or fornication. Nowhere in the Quran has stoning to death been laid down as punishment for adultery and for that matter for any other crime however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder, dacoity, treason against the state and disturbing the peace of the land. Though extreme penalty for these crimes is death, yet the payment of blood money in the case of the first offence (2:129) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33-34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Quran where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned (4:26), it is clearly stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman; and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.
So in spite of the fact that the Quran has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down (as in the verse under comment) flogging as the punishment for adultery and has made no discrimination whatever between a married or an unmarried culprit in the matter of awarding punishment (because زانی means both a fornicator and adulterer), and in spite of the fact that the present and other relevant verses were revealed in connection with slander-mongering about ‘A’ishah, the Holy Prophet’s noble consort, who herself was a married lady, it is curious that the misconception has persisted without any justification or linguistic authority among certain schools of Muslim religious thought that the verse under comment deals with punishment for unmarried persons only and that the punishment for a married adulterer and adulteress is stoning to death. The misconception seems to be due to a few cases recorded in Hadith whereby married persons guilty of adultery were stoned to death by the order of the Holy Prophet. One of these few cases was that of a Jew and a Jewess who were stoned to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Bukhari). It was invariably the Holy Prophet’s practice that he abided by the Law of the Torah in deciding cases till a new commandment was revealed to him. In one or two other cases on record in which the punishment accorded was stoning to death, it has not been established whether the crime was committed before or after the verse under comment was revealed. It seems that in cases in which the guilty person was stoned to death, the crime was committed before the revelation of this verse, but by some miscalculation on the part of some chronicler it was believed to have taken place after it. There is no dearth of such historical anachronisms in the books of Hadith. Or there might have been some other aggravating circumstances besides the crime of adultery which made the Holy Prophet award the guilty person or persons the extreme punishment of death and which the chronicler of the incident failed to take into account. Otherwise it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.
Another possible cause for misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be a saying attributed to Caliph ‘Umar. He is reported to have said: "There was a verse in the Book of God about rajm (stoning). We read it, we understood it and we remembered it. The Holy Prophet stoned adulterers to death and we also stoned after him. Were it not that people might say that ‘Umar had added in the Book of God what was not in it, I would have written it down" (Kashful-Ghummah vol.2, p.111). The whole hadith seems to be a pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding or distortion of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Quran what was a part of it could be called an addition to it and how, of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of anybody for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Quran a lost text! It is impossible to attribute such confused thinking and irresponsible talk to a man of ‘Umar’s intellectual and moral calibre and stature. If the saying were to be taken at its face value, the whole claim of the Quran that it enjoys perpetual Divine protection and therefore is quite free from human interference falls to the ground.
‘Ali seems to hold quite a different view from that of ‘Umar regarding this very important religious question. After flogging a woman who had committed adultery and then stoning her to death, he is reported to have said: "I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet" (Bukhari). From this hadith, two inferences clearly emerge:
(1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer or adulteress the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Quran, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to ‘Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to ‘Ali there was no such commandment, it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. It is impossible to reconcile the views of these two great leaders of Islam and equally impossible to believe that they held diametrically opposed views regarding a most important question of religion. And it is indeed very surprising that in the face of quite clear, unambiguous and unequivocal Divine commandments the view should have been held, of all men by ‘Umar and ‘Ali, or by any school of Muslim religious thought that Islam has prescribed stoning to death as punishment for an adulterer. The Quran rejects this view as wholly untenable. Somewhere some misunderstanding must have occurred on the part of a chronicler or narrator of the sayings of the Holy Prophet which has caused all this confusion.
It may be of interest to note that the verse has used the words الزانی and الزانیة (and not زانی and زانیة) which suggest a particular class of adulterers and fornicators such as hardened or habitual culprits or those who are lost to all sense of shame and remorse and having thrown all restraint and constraint to the winds indulge in this hideous crime openly.
The verse further lays down that the beating of the culprit should not be so severe as to cause his death or break his bone but should hurt only the skin as the word اجلدوا used in the verse signifies and as is implied in 4:26.
2025A
The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress.
2026
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Flogging and not stoning to death, according to this verse, is the prescribed punishment. Nowhere in the Qur’an stoning to death has been laid down as punishment for adultery and, for that matter, for any other crime, however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder