twenty-seven. For example, a man dies leaving two daughters, both parents, and a wife. The case is based on twenty-four: the two daughters receive two-thirds, or sixteen; the mother receives one-sixth, or four; the father receives one-sixth, or four; and the wife receives one-eighth, or three. This totals twenty-seven. It is increased only to twenty-seven, once only, and to an odd number.

The proponents of the obligatory-share system cling to every report, sound or weak, that they can cite in support of their view. They say that Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, used to deliver sermons in which he would say: “Praise be to Allah, who judges decisively with the truth and recompenses every soul for what it strives for.” While he was delivering this sermon, they asked him about this case, and he replied, “The woman’s one-eighth has become one-ninth.” (1) But who actually said this?! Glory be to Allah! It so happened that the rhyming prose of the sermon, before he was asked, coincided with the ruling—this is exceedingly far-fetched!

The author did not say, “one-third together with one-eighth,” because the two cannot occur together. One-eighth can only be present when there is an inheriting descendant, whereas one-third cannot be present with an inheriting descendant: one-third is the prescribed share for a number of uterine siblings, who do not inherit when there is an inheriting descendant; or it is the mother’s prescribed share, on condition that no inheriting descendant exists. For this reason, al-Ja'bari said:

“One-eighth and one-third can never share the same abode.”

As for one-quarter together with one-half, they may occur together, as when a woman dies leaving her husband and daughter.

One-quarter and one-eighth likewise cannot occur together.

Thus, the most generous base number with respect to proportional increase is six, then twelve, then four.