Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/229)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

your children: the share of the male is equal to that of two females. But if there are only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the estate; but if there is only one, her share is one-half.” [al-Nisāʾ 4:11]

Thus, He says: “But if there are only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the estate,” whereas we say that two daughters receive two-thirds, while the verse says, “two or more.” Read the rest of the verse: “But if there is only one, her share is one-half.” Its implication is that two daughters do not receive one-half; they must therefore receive more than one-half. Yet there is no prescribed share greater than one-half except two-thirds. Thus, more than one daughter receives two-thirds, as implied by His saying: “But if there is only one, her share is one-half.”

There remains for us a difficulty concerning the word “more than.” Some scholars said that it is superfluous, but this is highly questionable.

First, there is nothing superfluous in the Quran.

Second, even if we were to concede that some particles in the Quran may be supplementary, such as the letter bāʾ in His saying, Exalted is He, “Is Allah not sufficient for His servant?” [al-Zumar 39:36], it cannot be that there is any superfluous noun in the Quran. This is because a particle derives its meaning from something else, rather than possessing an independent meaning of its own. Therefore, to claim that “more than” is superfluous is mistaken.

Others said that the phrase “more than two” serves a most significant purpose: the prescribed share does not increase as their number increases. For whether there are more than two daughters or even thousands of daughters, their prescribed share is two-thirds; it does not increase with their number. Then we say: Allah has assigned two-thirds to two sisters, so two daughters are even more deserving of this ruling.

His statement, “provided that they are not made residuary heirs by a male relative,” means that the male who makes a female a residuary heir is every male who corresponds to her in degree and category, such as a son with a daughter, or a full brother with a full sister. As for a son and a son’s daughter, the son is not a residuary-making relative here because they differ in

أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنْثَيَيْنِ فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ﴾ [النساء: ١١]، فقال: ﴿فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ﴾، ونحن نقول: الثنتان لهما الثلثان، والآية: ﴿فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ﴾، اقرأ بقية الآية: ﴿وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ﴾ مفهومه أن الثنتين ليس لهما النصف، فلا بد أن يزيد عن النصف، ولا يوجد فرض يزيد على النصف إلا الثلثان، إذاً ما زاد على الواحدة فله الثلثان لمفهوم قوله: ﴿وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ﴾. يبقى عندنا إشكال في كلمة «فوق»، فقال بعض العلماء: إنها زائدة، وهذا فيه نظر كبير. أولاً: ليس في القرآن شيء زائد. ثانياً: لو سلمنا أن في القرآن شيئاً زائداً من الحروف، كالباء في قوله تعالى: ﴿أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِكَافٍ عَبْدَهُ﴾ [الزمر: ٣٦] فإنه لا يمكن أن يكون في القرآن شيء زائد من الأسماء؛ لأن الحرف معناه في غيره وليس معناه في نفسه، فالقول بأن «فوق» زائدة غلط. وقال بعضهم: إن ﴿فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ﴾ لها فائدة عظيمة وهي أن الفرض لا يزيد بزيادتهن؛ لأن ما فوق الثنتين إلى آلاف البنات فرضهن الثلثان، ولا يزيد بزيادتهن، ثم نقول: الأختان جعل الله لهما الثلثين، فالبنتان من باب أولى. وقوله: «إذا لم يعصبن بذكر» الذكر الذي يعصب الأنثى هو كل ذكر مماثل لها درجة ووصفاً، كابنٍ وبنت، وأخ شقيق وأخت شقيقة، أما ابن وبنت ابن، فالابن ليس معصباً هنا لاختلاف