Continuation of the interpretation of the verse: “And to his parents, to each of them, one-sixth of what he leaves behind, if he has children. But if he has no children and his parents inherit from him, then for his mother is one-third…”

Who is meant by the parents? The father and the mother. What is this type of phrasing called? It is called *taghlib* (preponderance). We gave preponderance to the father’s side over the mother’s side, so we said: . His saying: This is a substitution by repeating the preposition that acts as the operator, but on the condition that he has children. And whenever “children” is mentioned, the intended meaning is the descending heirs, namely the son, the daughter, the son’s son, and the son’s son’s son, and so on, descending from any male line where there is no female between them and the deceased. So if a person dies leaving behind a father, a mother, and a son, then for the mother is one-sixth, for the father is one-sixth, and the rest is for the son. And if a person dies leaving behind a daughter, a mother, and a father, then for the daughter is one-half, for the mother is one-sixth, and for the father is one-sixth, because Allah said: We have given the descendants their fixed shares. Now, one-sixth remains. Who do we give it to? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: We have attached the fixed shares to their rightful heirs. We gave the daughter her share, the mother her share, and the father his share. One-sixth remains. We looked among these heirs to see who is the most deserving male? The father. So we give it to the father as a residuary share. We say: for the father is one-sixth as a fixed share, and the rest as a residuary share. This is what the noble verse and the hadith indicate. Is it clear now? So the inheritance of the parents is one-sixth when there is a child, who is a descending heir. Is that right? Then, if the child is male, the mother and father have no more than one-sixth each. And if we have given her her fixed share and something remains after that, it is for the father as a residuary share. Meaning he had no descending heir, no son, no son’s son, no daughter’s son, and no daughter. He had no children. If he has no children. This is the condition. The second condition is The answer: And how much is for the father? The rest, because if the wealth is between two people and a fixed share is assigned to one of them, the entire remainder is for the other. Now, the inheritance is restricted to the parents. For the mother is one-third, and the rest is for the father. How do we know that the rest is for the father? Because Allah said: And He gave her one-third. So the rest is for the father by necessity. So we now know that if a person dies leaving behind a mother and a father, and there is no child with them or anyone else, meaning there is no one with them, no child, no siblings, no husband, and no wife, then for the mother is one-third. Does this follow the rules of inheritance? Yes, it follows the rules of inheritance, because the rule of inheritance is that if the two heirs are a male and a female of the same type and in the same rank, then the male gets the share of two females. Look: a son’s daughter, a full brother and a full sister, a paternal brother and a paternal sister, an uncle and an aunt. Is that acceptable? Why? Because the aunt is among the distant relatives, and no female among the distant relatives inherits except the sisters. And His saying, the Exalted: If the inheritance is restricted, we said that in the case of the parents, the mother gets one-third. So what if there is a husband or a wife with the parents? Does the mother get one-third? We say that the noble verse indicates that she does not get one-third. So what does she get? We look at the matter. A woman dies leaving behind her husband, her mother, and her father. There is no child in the case, correct? She died leaving behind her husband, her mother, and her father. The inheritance is restricted to three people. So let us look: for the husband is one-half, for the mother is one-third of the remainder, and for the father is the remainder. Why did the mother get one-third of the remainder? Because the mother and father inherited what remained after the husband, and Allah, the Exalted, said: Meaning, we treat the remainder after the husband’s fixed share as if it were the entire wealth. So if we treat it as if it were the entire wealth, then for the mother is one-third. And this is very clear. So we treat what remains after the husband’s fixed share as if it were the entire wealth. And it is known by the text of the Qur’an that if the mother and father inherit the entire wealth, then for the mother is one-third, so she gets one-third of the remainder. And at that point, if we were askedThe questioner : Is this division contrary to the text? We say: No, rather it is in accordance with the text, and its aspect is what I told you. Another example: A man died leaving a wife, a mother, and a father. How much does the wife get? One quarter, and the remaining three quarters are for the mother, one-third of the remainder, and for the father, the rest. Because when the wife took her share, the remainder after her fixed share is as if it were the entire estate. If the mother and father inherit the entire estate, the mother gets one-third. Accordingly, the mother gets one-third of the remainder after the wife's fixed share, and the rest is for the father. This is the requirement of the Quranic text that is with us. These two cases: a wife, a mother, and a father; and a husband, a mother, and a father, are called the "Umaris" and the "Ghara'is." They are called the "Umaris" because the first to rule on them was 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), as this scenario did not exist in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or in the time of Abu Bakr. These two scenarios occurred in the time of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), so he ruled on them in this manner, ruling in a way that is undoubtedly correct, so they were named the "Umaris." They were named the "Ghara'is" because in inheritance law, they are like the white mark on a horse's face in their prominence, clarity, and fame. Is the issue clear now? So the mother and father get one-sixth each in the presence of a child, and the mother gets one-third of the remainder in the case of a husband, two parents, a wife, and two parents. He said: This is connected to His saying: meaning when his parents inherit from him. The "fa" here is a conjunction indicating that what follows is dependent on what precedes. It indicates the sequence of what follows upon what precedes. So if a man's parents inherit from him and he has siblings, his mother gets one-sixth. Are the siblings male or female? It includes male or female. Are they full siblings, paternal siblings, or maternal siblings? It includes full, paternal, or maternal siblings. If he has siblings, his mother gets one-sixth. Example: A deceased person left a mother, a father, and two full siblings. A mother, a father, and two full siblings. In this example, does he have siblings or not? Yes. How much does the mother get? She gets one-sixth, and the rest is for the father. Why did we assign one-sixth to the mother? Because of the presence of the siblings. And why did we not assign one-sixth to the father? Because there is no inheriting descendant. So we say the mother gets one-sixth and the rest is for the father. And the siblings? The siblings are excluded. They are excluded by the exclusion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of them, where he said: We have now attached the fixed shares to their rightful owners. Who is the owner of the fixed share in this case? The mother. We gave her her share. We examined and compared the father and the siblings and found that the father is more entitled because the deceased is a part of him. So we said the rest is for the father. Is it clear, everyone? Good. If he has siblings and his parents inherit from him, his mother gets one-sixth. If someone asks: How can the siblings be excluded when they themselves are excluded? We say: Yes, they exclude others while being excluded themselves, because their exclusion here is due to the presence of a barrier, not the absence of a condition. Pay attention! Their exclusion here is due to the presence of a barrier. Who prevented them from inheritance? The father. It is not due to the absence of a condition, so they are among those entitled to inheritance, meaning there is no barrier among the barriers of inheritance that would make us say these people are not originally entitled to inheritance. We say they are entitled if not for the presence of the barrier. Therefore, they are excluded while being excluded themselves. The strange thing in this case is that if the siblings were among those who exclude the mother, they would reduce her from one-third to one-sixth. This is one of the peculiarities of knowledge: that the one who is excluded excludes the one who excluded him, whereas the custom is that the one who is excluded is the one who excludes. But this is the opposite. Is it clear? Does the son exclude the son's son? Why? Because the son is the one who excludes the son's son, and whoever excludes through an intermediary is excluded by that intermediary. Here, the siblings are excluded through the mother, and the mother did not exclude them; rather, they are the ones who excluded the mother, the opposite. But many issues in inheritance law have no room for opinion and no entry for independent legal reasoning. It is a settled matter a settled matter. We have now finished with the inheritance of the two parents So the inheritance of the two parents is: First, if there is a child with them, each of them gets one-sixth. Then, if the child is male, the father gets nothing but one-sixth. If the child is female, the father gets what remains after the fixed shares as a residuary heir. The second case: If his parents inherit from him alone. If the deceased's parents inherit from him alone, meaning no heir exists other than the two parents, no siblings, and no inheriting descendant, what is the mother's inheritance? One-third, and the rest is for the father. The mother's inheritance is one-third by the text, and the rest is for the father because when wealth is between two people, if a share is assigned to one, the rest goes to the residuary heirs. For this reason, if I give you money as a profit-sharing partnership to work with, and I say: You get one-quarter of the profit, what will be for me, the owner of the money? Three-quarters, because when wealth is between two people, if a share is assigned to one, the rest goes to the other. The third case: If the parents inherit from their child and he has siblings, how much does the mother get? One-sixth. And if the siblings are not inheriting, the mother gets one-sixth, the rest is for the father, and the siblings are excluded due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . This verse is regarding the inheritance of descendants and ascendants, and it began by mentioning the descendants before the ascendants. It was expected that the ascendants would be mentioned because they are more deserving of kindness than the descendants. But the descendants were mentioned because they are a part of the deceased, a piece of him. The ascendants are the opposite; the deceased is a part of them. So the one who is a part of him (the deceased) is more entitled than the one of whom the deceased is a part. This is among the wisdoms, otherwise one might ask: Why did Allah the Exalted not begin by mentioning the parents before mentioning the children? And the answer is this. So this verse included the inheritance of whom? The descendants and the ascendants. What remains for us are the collateral relatives and the spouses. The spouses are mentioned immediately after this verse, and the collateral relatives are the heirs of the descendant, because the second verse that follows is exclusively for those of the descendants; it contains no residuary heir. The second verse is specific to the owners of fixed shares; it contains no residuary heirs. It contains the two spouses and whom? And the maternal siblings. All of them are owners of fixed shares. For this reason, it says in it: And here it did not say: "These are the limits of Allah," because this verse contains an unspecified residuary share. The verse that follows it is entirely for owners of fixed shares. And the verse that follows that contains fixed shares and a residuary share. For this reason, it says in it: .