The author’s statement, “the one responsible for his maintenance,” means the deceased during his lifetime. These are one’s ascendants and descendants. Maintenance is due to one’s parents and children in all cases, whether or not they are heirs. Accordingly, a grandfather must provide for his grandson through his son, even if he is not an heir because the son exists—that is, even though he is excluded from inheritance by the son. Likewise, maintenance is due to a daughter’s son even if he is not an heir; consequently, his shroud is the responsibility of his maternal grandfather.

As for relatives other than ascendants and descendants, maintenance is only obligatory for one who inherits by a prescribed share or as a residuary heir.

Question: Must a brother provide maintenance for his brother?

Answer: If his brother has children, he is not required to provide for him, because he is excluded from inheritance by them. But if he has no children, he must provide for him, because he is an heir.

This principle is the well-known position in the school of Imam Ahmad, though the present context does not call for detailed discussion or weighing of the views.

“Except for the husband: he is not required to provide his wife’s shroud. It is recommended to shroud a man in three white wrapping sheets …”

The author’s statement, “Except for the husband: he is not required to provide his wife’s shroud,” means that if a woman dies and leaves nothing from which she may be shrouded, while her husband is well-off, he is not obliged to shroud her.

They reasoned that a husband’s maintenance of his wife is compensatory maintenance in return for marital intimacy. Once she dies, intimacy with her ceases, even though some marital ties remain, as evidenced by the fact that a husband may wash his wife after her death.

This is the well-known position of the Hanbali school.

The second view is that he is obliged to provide his wife’s shroud.