فَمَنْ خَافَ مِن مُّوصٍ جَنَفًا أَوْ إِثْمًا فَأَصْلَحَ بَيْنَهُمْ فَلَآ إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
“But he who feareth from a testator some unjust or sinful clause, and maketh peace between the parties, (it shall be) no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
Taberî transmits different views among exegetes regarding the interpretation of the concepts of 'cenef' and 'ism' in bequest and the expression 'fe-asleha beynehüm': some explain it as the person present at the time of death directing the testator towards justice, others as the executor or guardian converting an unjust bequest to what is right, and still others as intervention with the person who discriminates among heirs. The view that the word cenef means 'error' and the word ism means 'intention/deliberation' is also transmitted. Taberî does not explicitly state his own preference in this passage; he lists the views of various scholars from the generation after the Companions.
وقال بعضهم: بل معنى ذلك: في عطيته عند حضور أجله بعض ورثته دون بعض، فلا إثم على من أصلح بينهم، يعني بين الورثة
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this exegete, the ruling in the expression 'fe men hâfe' indicates that if, after the death of the person making the bequest, an inclination (cenef) or sin is seen in the bequest, it is permissible for the intervening person to correct it. It is stated that this person who has the authority to correct the bequest may be an executor, witness, guardian, or anyone who commands what is good. Furthermore, it is transmitted that the word 'havf' is used here in the sense of 'knowledge,' and that Ibn Abbas, Katade, and Rebî hold this view.
القول الثاني : في تفسير قوله تعالى : { فمن خاف } أي فمن علم والخوف والخشية يستعملان بمعنى العلم وذلك لأن الخوف عبارة عن حالة مخصوصة متولدة من ظن مخصوص وبين العلم وبين الظن مشابهة في أمور كثيرة فلهذا صح إطلاق اسم كل واحد منهما على الآخر
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
In this section, Kurtubî grounds with hadith reports that charity given at the time of death is less meritorious than charity given during life and in good health, that one who does not commit injustice in a bequest will have the abandonment of it atone for the zakat he may have neglected, and that committing injustice in a bequest is counted among major sins. He also transmits that the Prophet became angry at a Companion who freed six slaves who constituted his entire wealth while dying, and that this behavior was an example of injustice in a bequest.
لا خلاف أن الصدقة في حال الحياة والصحة أفضل منها عند الموت لقوله عليه السلام وقد شئل : أي الصدقة أفضل فقال : ( أن تصدق وأنت صحيح شحيح
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Ibn Kesîr, the word 'cenef' means error, and this encompasses every kind of mistake, such as giving one of the heirs an unjust extra share through bequest; this can happen unintentionally due to compassion or deliberately as a sin. In this case, the person executing/applying the bequest (musî ileyh) is permitted to correct the matter according to Quranic principles and to act with justice in a manner closest to and most suitable for the deceased's bequest; this correction and reconciliation is not considered an alteration (tebdil) of the bequest.
فللوصي والحالة هذه أن يصلح القضية وبعدل في الوصية على الوجه الشرعي ويعدل عن الذي أوصى به الميت إلى ما هو أقرب الأشياء إليه وأشبه الأمور به جمعا بين مقصود الموصي والطريق الشرعي وهذا الإصلاح والتوفيق ليس من التبديل في شيء
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Beydâvî, in verse 181, if the witness or executors who hear the bequest alter it, the sin belongs to those who alter it, not to the testator. In verse 182, it is stated that there is no sin upon one who fears an unjust inclination (cenef) of the testator or deliberate sin-committing, and intervenes to reconcile the parties; because this is converting a false alteration to what is right and differs from the (unjust) alteration in the first case.
لأنه تبديل باطل إلى حق بخلاف الأول
Comparison
Common ground
All exegetes agree on the concept of 'cenef' (unjust inclination/error) and the permissibility of intervention aimed at correcting injustice in bequest; there is common emphasis that correcting the bequest to what is right by the intervening person (executor, witness, guardian) is not sinful and that this is considered correction, not invalidation, of the bequest.
Differences
While Taberî transmits the views of scholars from the generation after the Companions without stating a preference, al-Râzî combines linguistic analysis with fiqh-related naskh discussion to show that the word 'havf' means 'knowledge'; Kurtubî addresses the issue hadith-centered and considers injustice in bequest a major sin; Ibn Kesîr interprets cenef broadly as both unintentional and intentional error and performs isnad analysis; Beydâvî separates verses 181 and 182 and, based on variant readings, presents a linguistic framework. The differences stem from the methodological distinction between the hadith-transmission school (Taberî, Kurtubî, Ibn Kesîr) and the school relying on linguistic and jurisprudential analysis (al-Râzî, Beydâvî).
Historical context
While the early period (Taberî) maintains a pluralistic hadith transmission style, mid-period exegetes (al-Râzî, Kurtubî) systematize linguistic analysis and hadith evidence; Ibn Kesîr synthesizes traditions with isnad criticism, and Beydâvî reflects his era's more technical exegetical understanding through concise linguistic interpretation. The fundamental issue—ensuring justice in bequests—has remained constant across all periods; only the methods of explanation have evolved.
Modern connection
This verse points to the importance of observing justice in family distributions and sensitive matters such as inheritance and bequest, and of correcting mistakes with good intention when they are noticed. Within the framework of social solidarity and sincerity, intervening with fairness and reconciling parties rather than silently overlooking a wrongdoing can be considered a constructive approach in family and community relations in our time as well.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar