parentage, and it is established for the disbeliever just as it is established for the Muslim. It should be said that the matter depends on what serves the greater interest: if giving to the Muslim rather than the disbeliever would lead the disbeliever to draw nearer to Islam and enter it, then he may give to the Muslim. If there is no such interest, then this is not permissible; rather, equal treatment is obligatory.

His statement, “in giving gifts to one’s children”: Are the rest of the heirs to be analogized to them? That is, if a person has two full brothers, may he give to one of them and not the other?

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this is permissible, since he restricted the obligation of equal treatment to children alone. This is correct, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Be mindful of Allah and treat your children fairly” (1). He did not say, “among your heirs.” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was granted concise and comprehensive speech; had equal treatment been obligatory among all heirs, he would have made it clear.

However, if he has two brothers and fears that giving to one of them would cause estrangement from the other, then he may give to him, but he must make the gift discreet, so that estrangement from the second brother does not occur. In this case, what is obligatory is not equal treatment; rather, it is to prevent the severing of kinship ties that is feared, and this can be achieved by keeping it secret.

The author’s view that equal treatment should be in proportion to their shares of inheritance is the stronger opinion. Its evidence is that Allah, Most High, apportioned the children’s inheritance such that the male receives the share of two females.

Some scholars said that equal treatment means giving equally—that is,