Do the siblings block the mother? ... The disagreement of the Shaykh al-Islam with the four Imams

The Shaykh : ... and this is the stronger position, necessitated by the apparent meaning of the verse, and it is the position of the four Imams. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) differed on this and said that the mother in this case inherits one-third, because the siblings are blocked, and a blocked person does not block.
However, there is a consideration in his statement, because the verse is very clear that this clause is dependent on what came before it. If Allah the Exalted had said: "And if he has siblings," there would have been a possibility for what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said. But He said: So the clause is dependent on what precedes it.
Accordingly, we say that the stronger position is what the majority of the Ummah held, which is that the siblings block the mother from one-third to one-sixth, even if they do not inherit.
Some scholars sought a wisdom in their statement that if the deceased has siblings, the father will spend on these siblings because they are his sons, so he needs more money. We say this is refuted by the case of siblings from the mother; if they are siblings from the mother, the father does not spend on them because they are the children of the maternal uncles.
Then it is also refuted by the case where they are wealthy; the sons who are the siblings of the deceased, the father does not spend on them because of their wealth.
But we say: there is no need for the reasoning, because if the cause is refuted, it is annulled and invalidated.
Rather, we say that in the issues of inheritance, Allah the Exalted has cut off the entry of reason, and He said: , and He said in the other verse: , and He said in the third: . So if we find an apparent cause, that is what is required. If we do not find one, there is no need to reason with causes that are refuted, because if you reason with a cause that your opponent refutes, you are defeated. Therefore, a person should avoid reasoning with what can be refuted during a debate. Why?
Because if it is refuted against you, your position is weakened.
So the summary is: the mother gets one-sixth with the presence of a child, and the mother gets one-sixth with the presence of a group of siblings, due to His saying: . And she gets one-third with two conditions: that he has no siblings, and that no one inherits from him except his parents.
Therefore, the jurists of inheritance said: the mother inherits one-third with three conditions:
That there is no inheriting descendant, and no number of siblings (brothers and sisters), and that the case is not one of the two 'Umraniyyah cases.
Then Allah the Exalted said, after mentioning the fixed shares and what surrounds them of residuary inheritance: Who makes the bequest? The deceased. That means this inheritance is after the bequest. Accordingly, if the deceased bequeaths something, we consider it as non-existent from the money, and we make the division after deducting the bequest. The apparent meaning of the verse: is the generality of the bequest, meaning that the bequest takes precedence over the inheritance, whether it is small or large. But this generality was restricted by the Sunnah with two restrictions: the first restriction is that the bequest does not exceed one-third, and the second restriction is that it is not for an heir.
Did you understand? So was restricted by the Sunnah. It is known that the Sunnah restricts the Qur'an and specifies the Qur'an, and clarifies its generalities. So requires what? Two conditions: that it be one-third or less, and that it not be for an heir.
He said: A debt in the estate of the deceased. The debt is not the concept understood by the general public, which is what is taken by way of tawarruq. Rather, the debt includes everything established in the estate of the deceased, such as a loan, the price of a sale, the rent of a house, or a guarantee for a destroyed item. Anything established in his estate is a debt.