at puberty, the case remains perplexing and no clarification is expected. The scholars have therefore articulated several approaches to the distribution of the estate—both for the ambiguous intersex and for the co-heirs—under the two possible assumptions:

1. Some hold that only the ambiguous intersex is treated according to the more disadvantageous estimate. He is given whichever of the two shares is smaller: the male share if we suppose him male, or the female share if we suppose him female. Should he be excluded from inheritance under either assumption, he receives nothing at all.

2. Other scholars contend that both the intersex individual and the co-heirs are all treated according to the more disadvantageous estimate. The remainder of the estate is then held in suspense until the intersex’s status becomes clear or the heirs unanimously agree to divide it.

3. A third opinion is that the ambiguous intersex is allotted half the male share and half the female share when he would inherit under both assumptions in differing amounts. If he would inherit under only one of the two assumptions, he is granted half of that share. This ruling applies whether or not there is any realistic hope of the intersex’s condition becoming clear.

4. Yet others differentiate: if the intersex’s status may eventually become apparent, both he and the other heirs are treated according to the more disadvantageous estimate, each taking only what is certainly his, while the balance is reserved until clarity is achieved. If no clarification is expected, the intersex receives half the male share and half the female share whenever he would inherit under both assumptions; and if he would inherit under only one estimate, he is entitled to half of that share. Allah, exalted be He, knows best.