[Ahkam al-Jassas Home]({< relref “projects/Ahkam-jassas/_index.md” >})
[al-Baqarah Home]({< relref “projects/Ahkam-jassas/baqarah/_index.md” >})
[Next Verse]({< relref “projects/Ahkam-jassas/baqarah/verses/v134.md” >}) [Previous Verse]({< relref “projects/Ahkam-jassas/baqarah/verses/v127.md” >})
أَمۡ كُنتُمۡ شُهَدَاۤءَ إِذۡ حَضَرَ یَعۡقُوبَ ٱلۡمَوۡتُ إِذۡ قَالَ لِبَنِیهِ مَا تَعۡبُدُونَ مِنۢ بَعۡدِیۖ قَالُوا۟ نَعۡبُدُ إِلَـٰهَكَ وَإِلَـٰهَ ءَابَاۤىِٕكَ إِبۡرَ ٰهِـۧمَ وَإِسۡمَـٰعِیلَ وَإِسۡحَـٰقَ إِلَـٰهࣰا وَ ٰحِدࣰا وَنَحۡنُ لَهُۥ مُسۡلِمُونَ
بابٌ مِيراثُ الجَدِّ Chapter: The Inheritance of the Grandfather
قالَ اللَّهُ تَعالى: ﴿أمْ كُنْتُمْ شُهَداءَ إذْ حَضَرَ يَعْقُوبَ المَوْتُ إذْ قالَ لِبَنِيهِ ما تَعْبُدُونَ مِن بَعْدِي قالُوا نَعْبُدُ إلَهَكَ وإلَهَ آبائِكَ إبْراهِيمَ وإسْماعِيلَ وإسْحاقَ إلَهًا واحِدًا﴾ فَسَمّى الجَدَّ والعَمَّ كُلَّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما أبًا، وقالَ تَعالى حاكِيًا عَنْ يُوسُفَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: ﴿واتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ آبائِي إبْراهِيمَ وإسْحاقَ ويَعْقُوبَ﴾ [يوسف: ٣٨] وقَدِ احْتَجَّ ابْنُ عَبّاسٍ بِذَلِكَ في تَوْرِيثِ الجَدِّ دُونَ الإخْوَةِ. Allah the Exalted said: {Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, ‘What will you worship after me?’ They said, ‘We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac - one God.’} So He called the grandfather and the uncle, each one of them, a father. And the Exalted said, relating from Joseph, peace be upon him: {And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob} [Yusuf: 38]. And Ibn Abbas argued with that for the grandfather inheriting to the exclusion of the brothers.
ورَوى الحَجّاجُ عَنْ عَطاءٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبّاسٍ قالَ: " مَن شاءَ لاعَنْتُهُ عِنْدَ الحَجَرِ الأسْوَدِ أنَّ الجَدَّ أبٌ واللَّهِ ما ذَكَرَ اللَّهُ جَدًّا ولا جَدَّةً إلّا أنَّهُمُ الآباءُ ﴿واتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ آبائِي إبْراهِيمَ وإسْحاقَ ويَعْقُوبَ﴾ [يوسف: ٣٨] Al-Hajjaj narrated from Ata from Ibn Abbas, he said: “Whoever wishes, I will engage in mutual cursing (mula’ana) with him at the Black Stone that the grandfather is a father. By Allah, Allah did not mention a grandfather or a grandmother except that they are the fathers, {And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob} [Yusuf: 38].”
واحْتِجاجُ ابْنِ عَبّاسٍ في تَوْرِيثِ الجَدِّ دُونَ الإخْوَةِ وإنْزالِهِ مَنزِلَةَ الأبِ في المِيراثِ عِنْدَ فَقْدِهِ يَقْتَضِي جَوازَ الِاحْتِجاجِ بِظاهِرِ قَوْلِهِ تَعالى: ﴿ووَرِثَهُ أبَواهُ فَلأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ﴾ [النساء: ١١] في اسْتِحْقاقِهِ الثُّلُثَيْنِ دُونَ الإخْوَةِ كَما يَسْتَحِقُّ الأبُ دُونَهم إذا كانَ باقِيًا؛ ودَلَّ ذَلِكَ عَلى أنَّ إطْلاقَ اسْمِ الأبِ يَتَناوَلُ الجَدَّ، فاقْتَضى ذَلِكَ أنْ لا يَخْتَلِفَ حُكْمُهُ وحُكْمُ الأبِ في المِيراثِ؛ إذْ لَمْ يَكُنْ أبٌ؛ وهو مَذْهَبُ أبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ في آخَرِينَ مِنَ الصَّحابَةِ، قالَ عُثْمانُ: قَضى أبُو بَكْرٍ أنَّ الجَدَّ أبٌ، وأطْلَقَ اسْمَ الأُبُوَّةِ عَلَيْهِ. وهو قَوْلُ أبِي حَنِيفَةَ. The argument of Ibn Abbas for the grandfather inheriting to the exclusion of the brothers and placing him in the position of the father in inheritance in his absence necessitates the permissibility of arguing with the apparent meaning of His, the Exalted’s, saying: {and his parents inherit from him, then for his mother is one-third} [An-Nisa: 11] regarding his entitlement to the two-thirds to the exclusion of the brothers, just as the father is entitled to it to their exclusion if he is remaining. And that indicated that the absolute usage of the name “father” includes the grandfather. So that necessitated that his ruling and the ruling of the father in inheritance should not differ, when there is no father. And this is the school of thought (madhhab) of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq among others of the Companions. Uthman said: Abu Bakr ruled that the grandfather is a father, and he applied the name of fatherhood to him absolutely. And it is the opinion of Abu Hanifa.
وقالَ أبُو يُوسُفَ ومُحَمَّدٌ ومالِكٌ والشّافِعِيُّ بِقَوْلِ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثابِتٍ في الجَدِّ أنَّهُ بِمَنزِلَةِ الإخْوَةِ ما لَمْ تَنْقُصْهُ المُقاسَمَةُ مِنَ الثُّلُثِ فَيُعْطى الثُّلُثَ ولَمْ يُنْقَصْ مِنهُ شَيْئًا. وقالَ ابْنُ أبِي لَيْلى بِقَوْلِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أبِي طالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ في الجَدِّ أنَّهُ بِمَنزِلَةِ أحَدِ الإخْوَةِ ما لَمْ تَنْقُصْهُ المُقاسَمَةُ مِنَ السُّدُسِ، فَيُعْطى السُّدُسَ ولَمْ يُنْقَصْ مِنهُ شَيْئًا، وقَدْ ذَكَرْنا اخْتِلافَ الصَّحابَةِ فِيهِ في شَرْحِ مُخْتَصَرِ الطَّحاوِيِّ، والحِجاجَ لِلْفَرْقِ المُخْتَلِفِينَ فِيهِ إلّا أنَّ الحِجاجَ بِالآيَةِ فِيهِ مِن وجْهَيْنِ: Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Malik, and Al-Shafi’i held the opinion of Zayd ibn Thabit regarding the grandfather, that he is in the position of the brothers as long as the division (muqasama) does not decrease his share from one-third, so he is given one-third and nothing is decreased from it. And Ibn Abi Layla held the opinion of Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, regarding the grandfather, that he is in the position of one of the brothers as long as the division does not decrease his share from one-sixth, so he is given one-sixth and nothing is decreased from it. And we have mentioned the difference of the Companions regarding it in the commentary on Mukhtasar Al-Tahawi, and the arguments for the differing groups regarding it, except that the argument with the verse regarding it is from two aspects:
أحَدُهُما: ظاهِرُ تَسْمِيَةِ اللَّهِ تَعالى إيّاهُ أبًا، والثّانِي: احْتِجاجُ ابْنِ عَبّاسٍ بِذَلِكَ وإطْلاقُهُ أنَّ الجَدَّ أبٌ، وكَذَلِكَ أبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ؛ لِأنَّهُما مِن أهْلِ اللِّسانِ لا يَخْفى عَلَيْهِما حُكْمُ الأسْماءِ مِن طَرِيقِ اللُّغَةِ؛ وإنْ كانا أطْلَقاهُ مِن جِهَةِ الشَّرْعِ فَحُجَّتُهُ ثابِتَةٌ؛ إذْ كانَتْ أسْماءُ الشَّرْعِ طَرِيقُها التَّوْقِيفُ، ومَن يَدْفَعُ الِاحْتِجاجَ بِهَذا الظّاهِرِ يَقُولُ: إنَّ اللَّهَ تَعالى قَدْ سَمّى العَمَّ أبًا في الآيَةِ لِذِكْرِهِ إسْماعِيلَ فِيها وهو عَمُّهُ ولا يَقُومُ مَقامَ الأبِ، وقَدْ قالَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ: «رُدُّوا عَلَيَّ أبِي» يَعْنِي العَبّاسَ وهو عَمُّهُ The first of them: The apparent meaning of Allah the Exalted naming him a father. And the second: The argument of Ibn Abbas with that and his absolute statement that the grandfather is a father, and likewise Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq; because they are from the people of the language, the ruling of names from the path of language is not hidden from them. And if they stated it absolutely from the perspective of the Shari’ah, then its proof is established, since the names of the Shari’ah, their path is revelation (tawqif). And whoever refutes the argument with this apparent meaning says: Indeed, Allah the Exalted has named the uncle a father in the verse by His mentioning of Ishmael in it, and he is his uncle, and he does not take the place of the father. And the Prophet ﷺ said: “Return my father to me,” meaning Al-Abbas, and he was his uncle.
قالَ أبُو بَكْرٍ: ويُعْتَرَضُ عَلَيْهِ مِن جِهَةِ أنَّ الجَدَّ إنَّما سُمِّيَ أبًا عَلى وجْهِ المَجازِ لِجَوازِ انْتِفاءِ اسْمِ الأبِ عَنْهُ؛ لِأنَّكَ لَوْ قُلْتَ لِلْجَدِّ إنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِأبٍ لَكانَ ذَلِكَ نَفْيًا صَحِيحًا، وأسْماءُ الحَقائِقِ لا تَنْتَفِي عَنْ مُسَمَّياتِها بِحالٍ. Abu Bakr said: And an objection is raised against it from the perspective that the grandfather is only called a father by way of metaphor (majaz), due to the permissibility of negating the name “father” from him. Because if you were to say to the grandfather that he is not a father, that would be a correct negation, and the names of realities (haqa’iq) are not negated from their designata under any circumstance.
ومِن جِهَةٍ أُخْرى أنَّ الجَدَّ إنَّما سُمِّيَ أبًا بِتَقْيِيدٍ، والإطْلاقُ لا يَتَناوَلُهُ، فَلا يَصِحُّ الِاحْتِجاجُ فِيهِ بِعُمُومِ لَفْظِ الأبَوَيْنِ في الآيَةِ، ومِن جِهَةٍ أُخْرى أنَّ الأبَ الأدْنى في قَوْلِهِ تَعالى ﴿ووَرِثَهُ أبَواهُ﴾ [النساء: ١١] مُرادٌ بِالآيَةِ فَلا جائِزَ أنْ يُرادَ بِهِ الجَدُّ؛ لِأنَّهُ مَجازٌ ولا يَتَناوَلُ الإطْلاقُ لِلْحَقِيقَةِ والمَجازِ في لَفْظٍ واحِدٍ. And from another perspective, the grandfather is only called a father with a restriction, and the absolute term does not include him. So it is not correct to argue in this matter with the generality of the word “abawayn” (two parents) in the verse. And from another perspective, the nearest father in His, the Exalted’s, saying {and his parents inherit from him} [An-Nisa: 11] is intended by the verse. So it is not permissible that the grandfather be intended by it, because it is a metaphor, and the absolute usage does not encompass both the reality (haqiqah) and the metaphor (majaz) in a single word.
قالَ أبُو بَكْرٍ: فَأمّا دَفْعُ الِاحْتِجاجِ بِعُمُومِ لَفْظِ الأبِ في إثْباتِ الجَدِّ أبًا مِن حَيْثُ سُمِّيَ العَمُّ أبًا في الآيَةِ مَعَ اتِّفاقِ الجَمِيعِ عَلى أنَّهُ لا يَقُومُ مَقامَ الأبِ بِحالٍ، فَإنَّهُ مِمّا لا يُعْتَمَدُ؛ لِأنَّ إطْلاقَ اسْمِ الأبِ إنْ كانَ يَتَناوَلُ الجَدَّ والعَمَّ في اللُّغَةِ والشَّرْعِ فَجائِزٌ اعْتِبارُ عُمُومِهِ في سائِرِ ما أُطْلِقَ فِيهِ، فَإنْ خُصَّ العَمُّ بِحُكْمٍ دُونَ الجَدِّ لا يَمْنَعُ ذَلِكَ بَقاءَ حُكْمِ العُمُومِ في الجَدِّ ويَخْتَلِفانِ أيْضًا في المَعْنى مِن قِبَلِ أنَّ الأبَ إنَّما سُمِّيَ بِهَذا الِاسْمِ؛ لِأنَّ الِابْنَ مَنسُوبٌ إلَيْهِ بِالوِلادَةِ، وهَذا المَعْنى مَوْجُودٌ في الجَدِّ، وإنْ كانا يَخْتَلِفانِ مِن جِهَةٍ أُخْرى أنَّ بَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَ الجَدِّ واسِطَةٌ وهو الأبُ، ولا واسِطَةَ بَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَ الأبِ؛ والعَمُّ لَيْسَتْ لَهُ هَذِهِ المَنزِلَةُ؛ إذْ لا نِسْبَةَ بَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَهُ مِن طَرِيقِ الوِلادِ. Abu Bakr said: As for refuting the argument of the generality of the word “father” in establishing the grandfather as a father, from the aspect that the uncle was called a father in the verse despite the agreement of everyone that he does not take the place of the father under any circumstance, then this is something that cannot be relied upon. Because if the absolute usage of the name “father” includes the grandfather and the uncle in the language and the Shari’ah, then it is permissible to consider its generality in all other instances where it is used absolutely. So if the uncle is specified with a ruling to the exclusion of the grandfather, that does not prevent the ruling of generality from remaining for the grandfather. And they also differ in meaning, in that the father is only called by this name because the son is related to him by birth, and this meaning exists in the grandfather, although they differ from another aspect, that between him and the grandfather there is an intermediary, which is the father, and there is no intermediary between him and the father. And the uncle does not have this position, as there is no relation between him and him by way of birth.
ألا تَرى أنَّ الجَدَّ وإنْ بَعُدَ في المَعْنى بِمَعْنى مَن قَرُبَ في إطْلاقِ الِاسْمِ وفي الحُكْمِ جَمِيعًا؛ إذْ لَمْ يَكُنْ مَن هو أقْرَبُ مِنهُ، فَكانَ لِلْجَدِّ هَذا الضَّرْبُ مِنَ الِاخْتِصاصِ، فَجائِزٌ أنْ يَتَناوَلَهُ إطْلاقُ اسْمِ الأبِ، ولَمّا لَمْ يَكُنْ لِلْعَمِّ هَذِهِ المَزِيَّةُ لَمْ يُسَمَّ بِهِ مُطْلَقًا، ولا يُعْقَلُ مِنهُ أيْضًا إلّا بِتَقْيِيدٍ، والجَدُّ مُساوٍ لِلْأبِ في مَعْنى الوِلادِ فَجائِزٌ أنْ يَتَناوَلَهُ اسْمُ الأبِ وأنْ يَكُونَ حُكْمُهُ عِنْدَ فَقْدِهِ حُكْمَهُ، وأمّا مَن دَفَعَ ذَلِكَ مِن جِهَةِ أنَّ تَسْمِيَةَ الجَدِّ بِاسْمِ الأبِ مَجازٌ، وأنَّ الأبَ الأدْنى مُرادٌ بِالآيَةِ، فَغَيْرُ جائِزٍ إرادَةُ الجَدِّ بِهِ لِانْتِفاءِ أنْ يَكُونَ اسْمٌ واحِدٌ مَجازًا حَقِيقَةً؛ فَغَيْرُ واجِبٍ مِن قِبَلِ أنَّهُ جائِزٌ أنْ يُقالَ إنَّ المَعْنى الَّذِي مِن أجْلِهِ سُمِّيَ الأبُ بِهَذا الِاسْمِ وهو النِّسْبَةُ إلَيْهِ مِن طَرِيقِ الوِلادِ مَوْجُودٌ في الجَدِّ. Do you not see that the grandfather, even if he is distant, is in the meaning of one who is near in the absolute usage of the name and in the ruling, both; since there is no one who is nearer than him. So the grandfather has this type of specialty, and it is permissible that the absolute usage of the name “father” includes him. And since the uncle does not have this distinction, he is not called by it absolutely, nor is it understood from it except with a restriction. And the grandfather is equal to the father in the meaning of birth, so it is permissible that the name “father” includes him and that his ruling, in the absence of the father, is his ruling. As for one who refutes that from the perspective that calling the grandfather by the name of the father is a metaphor, and that the nearest father is intended by the verse, so it is not permissible to intend the grandfather by it due to the impossibility of a single name being both a metaphor and a reality; this is not necessary, because it is permissible to say that the meaning for which the father was called by this name, which is the relation to him by way of birth, is present in the grandfather.
ولَمْ يَخْتَلِفِ المَعْنى الَّذِي مِن أجْلِهِ قَدْ سُمِّيَ كُلُّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما، فَجازَ إطْلاقُ الِاسْمِ عَلَيْهِما وإنْ كانَ أحَدُهُما أخَصَّ بِهِ مِنَ الآخَرِ كالإخْوَةِ يَتَناوَلُ جَمِيعَهم هَذا الِاسْمُ لِأبٍ كانُوا أوْ لِأبٍ وأُمٍّ، ويَكُونُ الَّذِي لِلْأبِ والأُمِّ أوْلى بِالمِيراثِ وسائِرِ أحْكامِ الأُخُوَّةِ مِنَ الَّذِينَ لِلْأبِ والِاسْمُ فِيهِما جَمِيعًا حَقِيقَةٌ ولَيْسَ يَمْتَنِعُ أنْ يَكُونَ الِاسْمُ حَقِيقَةً في مَعْنَيَيْنِ وإنْ كانَ الإطْلاقُ إنَّما يَتَناوَلُ أحَدَهُما دُونَ الآخَرِ، ألا تَرى أنَّ اسْمَ النَّجْمِ يَقَعُ عَلى كُلِّ واحِدٍ مِن نُجُومِ السَّماءِ حَقِيقَةً، والإطْلاقُ عِنْدَ العَرَبِ يَتَناوَلَ النَّجْمَ الَّذِي هو الثُّرَيّا ؟ And the meaning for which each of them was named has not differed, so it is permissible to use the name absolutely for them both, even if one of them is more specific to it than the other. Like “brothers,” this name includes all of them, whether they are from a father or from a father and mother, and the one who is from the father and mother is more entitled to the inheritance and all other rulings of brotherhood than those who are from the father. And the name for both of them is a reality, and it is not impossible for a name to be a reality for two meanings, even if the absolute usage only includes one of them to the exclusion of the other. Do you not see that the name “Al-Najm” (the star) applies to every one of the stars of the sky in reality, and its absolute usage among the Arabs refers to the star which is Al-Thurayya (the Pleiades)?
يَقُولُ القائِلُ مِنهم: فَعَلْتُ كَذا وكَذا والنَّجْمُ عَلى قِمَّةِ الرَّأْسِ؛ يَعْنِي الثُّرَيّا ولا تَعْقِلُ العَرَبُ بِقَوْلِها " طَلَعَ النَّجْمُ " عِنْدَ الإطْلاقِ غَيْرَ الثُّرَيّا؛ وقَدْ سَمَّوْا هَذا الِاسْمَ لِسائِرِ نُجُومِ السَّماءِ عَلى الحَقِيقَةِ، فَكَذَلِكَ اسْمُ الأبِ لا يَمْتَنِعُ عِنْدَ المُحْتَجِّ بِما وصَفْنا أنْ يَتَناوَلَ الأبَ والجَدَّ عَلى الحَقِيقَةِ وإنِ اخْتُصَّ الأبُ بِهِ في بَعْضِ الأحْوالِ، ولا يَكُونُ في اسْتِعْمالِ اسْمِ الأبِ في الأبِ الأدْنى والجَدِّ إيجابُ كَوْنِ لَفْظَةٍ واحِدَةٍ حَقِيقَةً مَجازًا. A speaker from among them says: “I did such and such while Al-Najm was at the zenith,” meaning Al-Thurayya. And the Arabs do not understand by their saying “Al-Najm has risen,” when used absolutely, anything other than Al-Thurayya. And they have named all the other stars of the sky with this name in reality. Likewise, the name “father,” according to the one who argues with what we have described, is not prevented from including the father and the grandfather in reality, even if the father is specified with it in some circumstances. And in the usage of the name “father” for the nearest father and the grandfather, there is no necessitating that a single word be both a reality and a metaphor.
فَإنْ قِيلَ: لَوْ كانَ اسْمُ الأبِ مُخْتَصًّا بِالنِّسْبَةِ مِن طَرِيقِ الوِلادِ لَلَحِقَ الأُمَّ هَذا الِاسْمُ لِوُجُودِ الوِلادِ فِيها، فَكانَ الواجِبُ أنْ تُسَمّى الأُمُّ أبًا، وكانَتِ الأُمُّ أُولى بِذَلِكَ مِنَ الأبِ والجَدِّ لِوُجُودِ الوِلادَةِ حَقِيقَةً مِنها قِيلَ لَهُ: لا يَجِبُ ذَلِكَ؛ لِأنَّهم قَدْ خَصُّوا الأُمُّ بِاسْمٍ دُونَهُ لِيُفَرِّقُوا بَيْنَها وبَيْنَهُ وإنْ كانَ الوَلَدُ مَنسُوبًا إلى كُلِّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما بِالوِلادِ، وقَدْ سَمّى اللَّهُ تَعالى الأُمَّ أبًا حِينَ جَمَعَها مَعَ الأبِ فَقالَ تَعالى: ﴿ولأبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما السُّدُسُ﴾ [النساء: ١١] ومِمّا يَحْتَجُّ لِأبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ ولِلْقائِلِينَ بِقَوْلِهِ إنَّ الجَدَّ يَجْتَمِعُ لَهُ الِاسْتِحْقاقُ بِالنِّسْبَةِ والتَّعْصِيبِ مَعًا. If it is said: If the name “father” was specific to relation by way of birth, then this name would have applied to the mother due to the existence of birth in her, so it would have been necessary for the mother to be called a father, and the mother would have been more entitled to that than the father and the grandfather due to the existence of birth in reality from her. It is said to him: That is not necessary, because they have specified the mother with a name other than it to differentiate between her and him, even though the child is related to each of them by birth. And Allah the Exalted has called the mother a “father” [in the dual form] when He joined her with the father, so the Exalted said: {And for his two parents (abawayhi), for each one of them is one-sixth} [An-Nisa: 11]. And among what is argued for Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and for those who hold his opinion is that the grandfather combines entitlement through relation (nisbah) and agnatic kinship (ta’sib) together.
ألا تَرى أنَّهُ لَوْ تَرَكا بِنْتًا وجَدًّا كانَ لِلْبِنْتِ النِّصْفُ ولِلْجَدِّ السُّدُسُ وما بَقِيَ بِالنِّسْبَةِ والتَّعْصِيبِ، كَما لَوْ تَرَكَ بِنْتًا وأبًا يَسْتَحِقُّ بِالنِّسْبَةِ والتَّعْصِيبِ مَعًا في حالٍ واحِدَةٍ ؟ فَوَجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ بِمَنزِلَتِهِ في اسْتِحْقاقِ المِيراثِ دُونَ الإخْوَةِ والأخَواتِ ووَجْهٌ آخَرُ: وهو أنَّ الجَدَّ يَسْتَحِقُّ بِالتَّعْصِيبِ مِن طَرِيقِ الوِلادِ، فَوَجَبَ أنْ يَكُونَ بِمَنزِلَةِ الأبِ في نَفْيِ مُشارَكَةِ الإخْوَةِ، إذْ كانَتِ الإخْوَةُ إنَّما تَسْتَحِقُّهُ بِالتَّعْصِيبِ مُنْفَرِدًا عَنِ الوِلادَةِ، ووَجْهٌ آخَرُ في نَفْيِ الشَّرِكَةِ بَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَ الإخْوَةِ عَلى وجْهِ المُقاسَمَةِ، وهو أنَّ الجَدَّ يَسْتَحِقُّ السُّدُسَ مَعَ الِابْنِ كَما يَسْتَحِقُّهُ الأبُ مَعَهُ، فَلَمّا لَمْ يَسْتَحِقَّ الإخْوَةُ مَعَ الأبِ بِهَذِهِ العِلَّةِ وجَبَ أنْ لا يَجِبَ لَهم ذَلِكَ مَعَ الجَدَّ. Do you not see that if he left a daughter and a grandfather, the daughter would have one-half, and the grandfather would have one-sixth and what remains, by relation and agnatic kinship, just as if he left a daughter and a father, he is entitled by relation and agnatic kinship together in a single situation? So it is necessary that he be in his [the father’s] position in being entitled to the inheritance to the exclusion of the brothers and sisters. And another aspect: which is that the grandfather is entitled by agnatic kinship by way of birth, so it is necessary that he be in the position of the father in negating the participation of the brothers, since the brothers are only entitled to it by agnatic kinship separate from birth. And another aspect in negating the partnership between him and the brothers by way of division, which is that the grandfather is entitled to one-sixth with the son just as the father is entitled to it with him. So since the brothers are not entitled [to inherit] with the father for this reason, it is necessary that this should not be necessary for them with the grandfather.
فَإنْ قِيلَ: الأُمُّ تَسْتَحِقُّ السُّدُسَ مَعَ الِابْنِ ولَمْ يَنْتِفْ بِذَلِكَ تَوْرِيثُ الإخْوَةِ مَعَها قِيلَ لَهُ: إنَّما نُصِّفَ بِهَذِهِ العِلَّةِ لِنَفْيِ الشَّرِكَةِ بَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَ الإخْوَةِ عَلى وجْهِ المُقاسَمَةِ، وإذا انْتَفَتِ الشَّرِكَةُ بَيْنَهم وبَيْنَهُ في المُقاسَمَةِ إذا انْفَرَدُوا مَعَهُ سَقَطَ المِيراثُ؛ لِأنَّ كُلَّ مَن ورِثَهم مَعَهُ يُوجِبُ القِسْمَةَ بَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَهم إذا لَمْ يَكُنْ غَيْرُهم عَلى اعْتِبارٍ مِنهم في الثُّلُثِ أوِ السُّدُسِ، وأمّا الأُمُّ فَلا تَقَعُ بَيْنَها وبَيْنَ الإخْوَةِ مُقاسَمَةٌ بِحالٍ، ونَفْيُ القِسْمَةِ لا يَنْفِي مِيراثَهم، ونَفْيُ مُقاسَمَةِ الإخْوَةِ لِلْجَدِّ إذا انْفَرَدُوا يُوجِبُ إسْقاطَ مِيراثِهِمْ مَعَهُ؛ إذْ كانَ مَن يُوَرِّثُهم مَعَهُ إنَّما يُوَرِّثُهم بِالمُقاسَمَةِ وإيجابِ الشَّرِكَةِ بَيْنَهم وبَيْنَهُ.
If it is said: The mother is entitled to one-sixth with the son, and that does not negate the brothers inheriting with her. It is said to him: This reason (illah) is only described to negate the partnership between him [the grandfather] and the brothers by way of division (muqasama). And when the partnership between them and him in division is negated when they are alone with him, the inheritance is dropped. Because everyone who has them inherit with him necessitates the division between him and them if there is no one else, based on their consideration for one-third or one-sixth. As for the mother, no division (muqasama) occurs between her and the brothers under any circumstance, and negating the division does not negate their inheritance. And negating the division of the brothers with the grandfather when they are alone necessitates the dropping of their inheritance with him; since whoever has them inherit with him only has them inherit by division and by necessitating a partnership between them and him.
فَلَمّا سَقَطَتِ المُقاسَمَةُ بِما وصَفْنا سَقَطَ مِيراثُهم مَعَهُ؛ إذْ لَيْسَ فِيهِ إلّا قَوْلانِ: قَوْلُ مَن يُسْقِطُ مَعَهُ مِيراثَهم رَأْسًا، وقَوْلُ مَن يُوجِبُ المُقاسَمَةَ، فَلَمّا بَطَلَتِ المُقاسَمَةُ بِما وصَفْنا ثَبَتَ سُقُوطُ مِيراثِهِمْ مَعَهُ، فَإنْ قالَ قائِلٌ: إنَّ الجَدُّ يُدْلِي بِابْنِهِ وهو أبُو المَيِّتِ، والأخُ يُدْلِي بِأبِيهِ، فَوَجَبَتِ الشَّرِكَةُ بَيْنَهُما كَمَن تَرَكَ أباهُ وابْنَهُ قِيلَ لَهُ: هَذا غَلَطٌ مِن وجْهَيْنِ: So when the division is dropped by what we have described, their inheritance with him is dropped. Since there are only two opinions on this: the opinion of one who drops their inheritance with him entirely, and the opinion of one who necessitates the division. So when the division is nullified by what we have described, the dropping of their inheritance with him is established. If a speaker says: The grandfather is connected through his son, who is the father of the deceased, and the brother is connected through his father, so partnership between them is necessary, like one who left his father and his son. It is said to him: This is a mistake from two aspects:
أحَدُهُما: أنَّهُ لَوْ صَحَّ هَذا الِاعْتِبارُ لَما وجَبَتِ المُقاسَمَةُ بَيْنَ الجَدِّ والأخِ، بَلْ كانَ الواجِبُ أنْ يَكُونَ لِلْجَدِّ السُّدُسُ ولِلْأخِ ما بَقِيَ، كَمَن تَرَكَ أبًا وابْنًا، لِلْأبِ السُّدُسُ والباقِي لِلِابْنِ. The first of them: That if this consideration were correct, division between the grandfather and the brother would not be necessary. Rather, it would be necessary for the grandfather to have one-sixth and the brother to have what remains, like one who left a father and a son; for the father is one-sixth and the remainder is for the son.
والوَجْهُ الآخَرُ: أنَّهُ يُوجِبُ أنْ يَكُونَ المَيِّتُ إذا تَرَكَ جَدَّ أبٍ وعَمًّا أنْ يُقاسِمَهُ العَمُّ؛ لِأنَّ جَدَّ الأبِ يُدْلِي بِالجَدِّ الأدْنى، والعَمُّ أيْضًا يُدْلِي بِهِ؛ لِأنَّهُ ابْنُهُ، فَلَمّا اتَّفَقَ الجَمِيعُ عَلى سُقُوطِ مِيراثِ العَمِّ مَعَ جَدِّ الأبِ مَعَ وُجُودِ العِلَّةِ الَّتِي وُصِفَتْ دَلَّ عَلى انْتِقاضِها وفَسادِها ويَلْزَمُهُ أيْضًا عَلى هَذا الِاعْتِلالِ أنَّ ابْنَ الأخِ يُشارِكُ الجَدَّ في المِيراثِ؛ لِأنَّهُ يَقُولُ: أنا ابْنُ ابْنِ الأبِ، والجَدُّ أبُ الأبِ، ولَوْ تَرَكَ أبًا وابْنَ ابْنٍ كانَ لِلْأبِ السُّدُسُ وما بَقِيَ لِابْنِ الِابْنِ.
And the other aspect: That it would necessitate that if the deceased left a great-grandfather and a paternal uncle, that the uncle would share with him in division. Because the great-grandfather is connected through the grandfather, and the paternal uncle is also connected through him, because he is his son. So since everyone agreed on the dropping of the paternal uncle’s inheritance with the great-grandfather despite the existence of the described reason (illah), this indicates its invalidity and corruption. And it would also be binding upon him, based on this reasoning, that the brother’s son participates with the grandfather in the inheritance. Because he would say: I am the son of the son of the father, and the grandfather is the father of the father. And if he left a father and a son’s son, the father would have one-sixth and what remains would be for the son’s son.
[Next Verse]({< relref “projects/Ahkam-jassas/baqarah/verses/v134.md” >}) [Previous Verse]({< relref “projects/Ahkam-jassas/baqarah/verses/v127.md” >})