while we do not inherit? Are we not closer to the deceased?! We are full siblings, connected through two ties, whereas they are connected through only one!” The common people agree with them, but the believers say: “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in their affair.” [al-Ahzab: 36]

Even if there were only one maternal half-brother and ten full siblings, we would say: the estate is divided into six shares: the husband receives one-half, three shares; the mother receives one-sixth, one share; the maternal half-brother receives one-sixth, one share; and the ten [full siblings] receive one share. Were we to apply analogy, we would say that the maternal half-brother’s one-sixth should be added to what remains for the full siblings and divided among eleven, so that the maternal half-brother would receive one of the eleven shares. But this is not the ruling: the maternal half-brother’s share is not combined with the share of the full siblings.

The author called it the Himariyya case, after a donkey, because the full siblings brought the maternal half-siblings before a judge. The judge said: “You full siblings receive nothing, because you are residuary heirs, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Give the prescribed shares to those entitled to them, and whatever remains goes to the nearest male relative.’” They replied: “Suppose that our father was a donkey”—that is, imagine him to have been a donkey. This was a grave act of disrespect, to portray their father as a donkey. Thus, it came to be called the Himariyya case (1).

It also has several other names, including al-Yamiyya, al-Hajariyya, al-Musharraka, and al-Mushtaraka. In any case, all these names have some derivational basis. But the sounder view, without doubt, is that the full siblings cannot share with the maternal half-siblings, for if we were to make them share