His statement, “those below them are excluded unless a male at their level or below them renders them residuary heirs,” means that if the daughters complete the two-thirds—for example, if a deceased person leaves behind two daughters and a son’s daughter—the son’s daughter is excluded unless a male at her level, meaning in the same degree, or below her renders her a residuary heir. Here, due to necessity, the male renders a female of a different degree a residuary heir, for she depends on him: had he not rendered her a residuary heir, she would not have inherited. Thus, according to the view held by the majority, he renders her a residuary heir.

His statement, “The same applies to paternal half-sisters alongside full sisters,” means that when the full sisters exhaust the two-thirds, the paternal half-sisters are excluded.

His statement, “unless their brother renders them residuary heirs”: here he said, “unless their brother renders them residuary heirs,” and did not say, “unless a male at their level or below them renders them residuary heirs,” because sisters can be rendered residuary heirs only by their brother. Thus, if a deceased person leaves behind two full sisters, one paternal half-sister, and a son of a paternal half-brother, the two full sisters receive two-thirds, and the remainder goes to the son of the paternal half-brother. The paternal half-sister inherits nothing, because the author here says, “unless their brother renders them residuary heirs.” This is unlike the case of the son’s daughter with a more remote son of a son, mentioned previously. The majority of scholars agree on this ruling.

“One sister or more inherits, as a residuary heir, what remains after the prescribed share of one daughter or more. A male or female maternal sibling receives one-sixth; and if they are two or more, they receive one-third, divided equally among them.”

His statement, “One sister or more inherits, as a residuary heir, what remains after the prescribed share of one daughter or more”: here, “more” and “or more” have the same meaning, although increase is used for an increase in a single thing, whereas “more” is used for number. But the author varied his expression,