٣. It is evident that this verse_ cannot be applied in the case of the relatives, because they do not inherit when there is a child. How can it, then, be reasonable that the inheritance verse abrogates the injunction about the last will in regard to the rela‌ tives? In any case, since the inheritance verse takes effect in the absence of the last will, it accentuates the ordinance regarding the last will and its effectiveness [in legislating for other heirs]. Consequently, there is no sense in its being the abrogator of the verse on the last. will and testament.
As for the view that the verse was abrogated by the prophetic tradition quoted above, it, too, is invalid, because of the following reasons:

I. The authenticity of the tradition is not established, and even al-Bukhari and Mus‌ lim do not accept it. The author of the Quranic exegesis al-Manar has discussed the problem of the chain of transmission that these two scholars cite for it/ ١
٢. This tradition is in contradiction to the elaborate traditions narrated on the author‌
ity of the ahl al-bayt, indicating that it is permissible to make a last will and testa‌ ment in favor of an heir at law. In a sound tradition reported by MuJ:iammad b. Muslim on the authority of the fifth Imam, MuJ:iammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him), he says:

I asked him regarding the last will for an heir at law. He said, "It is permissible." And then he proceeded to read the verse "If he leaves wealth, that he is to be‌ queath in favor of parents and near relatives in kindness" (Q. ٢:١٨٠).

This point is made by a number of other traditions of the lmams.٢٢
٣. The tradition under consideration, even if sound, and immune from any contrari‌ ety, cannot be admitted as evidence of the abrogation of the verse, because its terms are not incompatible with the substance of the verse. At the most, the terms are re‌ strictive of the generality of the verse. Hence, it is specific about a last will in re‌ gard to the parents if they are prevented, for any reason, from inheriting. So, too, is the case with the relatives who cannot otherwise inherit. By contrast, if it is hypothe‌ sized that there exists incompatibility between the terms of the tradition and the verse, we have already mentioned that a single narration, according to the consensus of the scholars, cannot be admitted as the abrogator of the Quran. Therefore, the verse is precise and not abrogated.
In addition, it is important to explain the Quranic subtlety when it uses the word kitaba. This signifies a "requirement to carry out something." This is the purport of what God, the Exalted, says, "He has prescribed (kataba) for Himself mercy" (Q. ٦:١٢).
Reason dictates the obligation of carrying out the judgment of the Master in all
cases where there is no explicit permission from Him to the contrary. In other words, a last will in favor of the parents and relatives is obligatory, as required by the verse. However, the established practice among the Muslims, the well-attested traditions from the Imams among the ahl al-bayt, and the consensus of the jurists of every generation have provided us with the required permission [regarding the last will]. Hence, what is established on the basis of the verse, in conjunction with this permis‌ sion, is the recommendation regarding the last will and testament. It emphasizes its recommendation for all of humanity. The purport of the "prescription" in this con‌ text is that the decree is intended in the sense of legislation, and not in the sense of compulsion.