Despite its pivotal occurrence in Qur’an 4:12 and 4:176, the Qur’anic term kalālah has long remained one of the most contested concepts in Islamic inheritance law. The exegetical ambiguities surrounding this term have generated extensive juristic divergences among Islamic legal schools, particularly between the Imāmī and Sunni traditions. Employing a descriptive-analytical method within the framework of comparative exegesis, this study seeks to investigate the relationship between the definitional ambiguity of kalālah and the resulting juristic divergences concerning this specific issue. The findings indicate that the origins of these disagreements may be traced to three principal domains. First, the multiplicity of the lexical meanings attributed to kalālah—including encirclement, weakness, and remoteness—which has given rise to various technical definitions, identifying it either as a description of the deceased, a description of the heirs, or a term restricted to siblings. Second, the divergence in the exegetical principles and methodologies employed by the two traditions in interpreting the kalālah verses, particularly with regard to the distinction between Qur’an 4:12, which concerns maternal siblings, and Qur’an 4:176, which concerns full or paternal siblings. Third, the differing role and evidentiary authority accorded to the Sunnah, specifically the statements of the Companions in Sunni scholarship and the traditions transmitted from the Imams (‘a.s.) in Imāmī scholarship. Ultimately, the study confirms the hypothesis that exegetical ambiguity precedes juristic divergence and demonstrates that this complex challenge, rather than leading to interpretive impasse, has become a dynamic arena for ijtihād and for the advancement of inferential methodologies within Islamic inheritance law.
Keywords: Kalālah; Islamic Inheritance Law; Qur’an 4:12; Qur’an 4:176
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Islamic inheritance law constitutes one of the areas of Islamic jurisprudence whose details are articulated in the Qurʾan with remarkable precision. Among its key concepts is the Qurʾanic term kalālah, which appears in two verses of Sūrah al-Nisāʾ (4:12 and 4:176) and has long remained one of the most contested concepts among exegetes, jurists, and Qurʾanic scholars. Generally referring to a case of inheritance involving a person who leaves neither ascendants (parents) nor descendants (children), the term has, owing to ambiguities surrounding its lexical meaning and technical scope, generated profound questions and disagreements since the earliest period of Islam. The difficulty of interpreting kalālah was such that Companions such as ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb openly acknowledged their uncertainty regarding it and repeatedly sought clarification from the Prophet (PBUH), while Abū Bakr refrained from expressing a definitive opinion. This early historical ambiguity, arising from the multiplicity of lexical meanings and the breadth of technical definitions associated with the term, directly influenced the derivation of legal rulings and the development of distinct legal doctrines within the various Islamic schools of law.
Accordingly, the present study undertakes a comparative reappraisal of the exegetical roots of juristic disagreements concerning kalālah and examines how definitional challenges and the interpretive methodologies of Shiʿi and Sunni exegetes have contributed to juristic divergences in Islamic inheritance law. The significance of this inquiry lies in the fact that previous studies, including those of Naṣīrī and his colleagues and of Nassājī and Qurbānī-Niyā, while valuable, have primarily focused on semantic issues or the transmission of scholarly opinions. The gap that this article seeks to address is the absence of a systematic and in-depth comparative analysis of the direct relationship between definitional ambiguities, exegetical methodologies, and juristic divergence. The principal research question is therefore how differences in exegetical foundations and approaches to the Qurʾan—including attention to context, occasions of revelation, lexical indications, and variant readings—as well as differing conceptions of the authority of the Sunnah (the Prophetic Sunnah, the statements of the Companions, and the traditions transmitted from the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a.s.)) have produced divergent understandings of kalālah and, consequently, fundamental disagreements within Islamic inheritance law.
The originality of this study lies in its comparative exegetical approach, which focuses on the roots and processes underlying the formation of disagreement and on the relationship between textual interpretation and legal formulation. The study employs a qualitative methodology based on a descriptive-analytical approach within the framework of comparative exegesis. Data were collected from authoritative exegetical, fiqh al-Qurʾan, ḥadīth, and lexical sources recognized by both traditions. The data were analyzed through a systematic comparison of Shiʿi and Sunni exegetical views concerning the verses related to kalālah.
Research Findings
The first and most fundamental finding of this study is that the ambiguities surrounding kalālah originate in three distinct lexical meanings: encirclement or surroundingness (as a crown encircles the head), weakness and exhaustion (suggesting indirect kinship), and remoteness in genealogical relationship. This multiplicity of lexical meanings gave rise to a range of technical definitions.
On the one hand, the predominant Sunni view understands kalālah as a description of a deceased person who leaves neither offspring nor parents. A legal consequence of this interpretation is that siblings are excluded from inheritance in the presence of the paternal grandfather. On the other hand, Imāmī jurisprudence, relying on explicit traditions transmitted from the Imams (‘a.s), defines kalālah in its Qurʾanic usage exclusively as referring to the brothers and sisters of the deceased. Consequently, the grandfather is placed alongside siblings within the second class of heirs. Other definitions have also been proposed, including understanding kalālah as a description of the heirs themselves or as denoting indirect kinship generally.
The second major finding concerns the nearly unanimous distinction between the two kalālah verses, albeit on different evidentiary grounds. Shiʿi exegetes primarily rely on traditions transmitted from the Imams (‘a.s.), whereas Sunni exegetes rely on the statements of the Companions, non-canonical variant readings attributed to them, and contextual indicators. This divergence in the hierarchy of authoritative sources became a foundational factor in subsequent juristic disagreements.
For example, although both traditions agree regarding the inheritance shares of maternal siblings mentioned in Qurʾan 4:12—namely one-sixth for a single sibling and one-third for two or more siblings, with equal shares for males and females—they differ concerning the inheritance of full or paternal siblings addressed in Qurʾan 4:176, particularly in three areas. First, the inheritance rights of the grandfather alongside siblings: in Imāmī jurisprudence, the grandfather and siblings inherit concurrently, whereas in Sunni jurisprudence the grandfather excludes siblings from inheritance. Second, the coexistence of siblings with a daughter of the deceased: Imāmī jurists, based on the condition laysa lahu walad (“he has no child”), maintain that the daughter inherits the entire estate, whereas Sunni jurists allocate the residue to the sister or brother as an agnatic heir (ʿaṣabah). Third, the issues of ʿawl and radd: Imāmī jurisprudence rejects ʿawl while permitting radd, whereas Sunni jurisprudence accepts ʿawl.
Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the clearer the indication of the Qurʾanic text—as in verse 4:12—the greater the degree of consensus. Conversely, as ambiguity increases, differing exegetical methodologies give rise to greater juristic divergence.
Conclusion
Through a comparative reappraisal of the definitional challenges associated with kalālah and an analysis of the exegetical methodologies employed by the two traditions, this study demonstrates that the historical ambiguity and multivalent nature of this term constituted the principal point of departure for juristic disagreements within Islamic inheritance law. The findings confirm the validity of the hypothesis that exegetical ambiguity precedes juristic divergence in the case of kalālah, since the uncertainties and disagreements among the Companions during the earliest period of Islam predated the emergence of fully developed sectarian identities.
From a theoretical perspective, this case study illustrates how differences in the criteria of authoritative evidence—namely, the statements of the Companions versus the traditions transmitted from the Imams (‘a.s.)—generated distinct exegetical trajectories that ultimately produced divergent legal systems. One limitation of the present study is its focus on the two principal traditions, Imāmī and Sunni, to the exclusion of other juridical schools. Future research employing the comparative exegetical method may fruitfully examine other challenging Qurʾanic concepts and test the causal model identified in this study.
References

ʿAyyāshī, Muḥammad ibn Masʿūd. (1380 AH). Al-Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. Maktabat al-ʿIlmiyyah al-Islāmiyyah. [In Arabic].
Baghawī, al-Ḥusayn ibn Masʿūd. (1420 AH). Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā Maʿālim al-Tanzīl. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī. [In Arabic].
Baḥrānī, Hāshim ibn Sulaymān. (1415 AH). Al-Burhān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Muʾassasat al-Biʿthah. [In Arabic].
Fayḍ Kāshānī, Muḥammad ibn Shāh Murtaḍā. (1415 AH). Tafsīr al-Ṣāfī. Maktabat al-Ṣadr. [In Arabic].
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullah. (1408 AH). Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Dār al-Jīl. [In Arabic].
Jassāṣ, Aḥmad ibn ʿAli. (1405 AH). Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī. [In Arabic].
Qummī, ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm. (1363 SH). Tafsīr al-Qummī. Dār al-Kitāb. [In Arabic].
Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. (1412 AH). Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Dār al-Maʿrifah. [In Arabic].
Ṭūsī, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan. (n.d.). Al-Tibyān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī. [In Arabic].
Zamakhsharī, Maḥmūd ibn ʿUmar. (1407 AH). Al-Kashshāf ʿan Ḥaqāʾiq Ghawāmiḍ al-Tanzīl. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī. [In Arabic].