that combined share among them, allotting the male twice the portion of the female. Some have contended that this ruling is not in fact Zayd’s, and all the jurists have regarded the joint‐allocation (tashrīk) Zayd advocated in this case as weak—though Mālik did adopt Zayd’s opinion.

It is said that the problem was named al-Akdariyyah because Zayd’s verdict concerning it was thought “clouded” (mukaddir). Everything just mentioned, however, is according to the school that accepts ʿawl (proportional reduction); the great majority of the Companions and the jurists of the provinces upheld ʿawl, with the sole exception of Ibn ʿAbbās. It is related that he said:

“ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb introduced ʿawl into the allotted shares. By Allah, had he advanced those whom Allah advanced and deferred those whom Allah deferred, no share would ever have required ʿawl.”

He was asked, “Whom has Allah advanced, and whom has He deferred?” He replied:

“Every prescribed share that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has never reduced except to another prescribed share—that is one He has advanced; and every share that, once deprived of its fixed portion, receives only whatever residue remains—that is one He has deferred. The first category includes the wife and the mother; the deferred category includes the sisters and the daughters.

“When the two categories meet, we begin with those Allah advanced; if anything is left, it goes to those He deferred; otherwise they receive nothing.”

He was then asked, “Why did you not say this to ʿUmar?” He answered, “I stood in awe of him.”

Zayd further held that if, together with the grandfather and full siblings, there are paternal half-siblings, the full siblings “oppose” the grandfather by means of those half-siblings, thereby preventing him from taking a larger share. Those paternal half-siblings, however, inherit nothing alongside the full siblings—unless there is only one full sister. In that case she opposes the grandfather with her paternal half-brothers until she completes her fixed share, namely one-half. If what is secured for her and her paternal half-brothers exceeds one-half of the entire estate, the surplus goes to the paternal half-brothers, the male receiving twice the share of the female; if no surplus remains beyond the half, they get nothing.

As for ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him), he paid no attention here to the paternal half-siblings, for there is consensus that full siblings exclude them. Moreover, such a procedure contradicts foundational principles—namely, accounting for someone who does not inherit.

The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) likewise differed, in this same connection, over the inheritance problem known as al-Kharaqāʾ—where the heirs are a mother, a sister, and a grandfather—producing five opinions:

• Abū Bakr and Ibn ʿAbbās held that the mother receives one-third and the remainder goes to the grandfather, thereby excluding the sister; this accords with their view that the grandfather takes the father’s place.

• ʿAlī held that the mother is given one-third, the sister one-half, and the residue to the grandfather.

• ʿUthmān maintained that the estate be divided into thirds: one-third to the mother, one-third to the sister, and one-third to the grandfather.

• Ibn Masʿūd held that the sister takes one-half, the grandfather one-third, and the mother one-sixth, saying, “God forbid that I should prefer a mother to a grandfather.”

• Zayd held that the mother receives one-third, and whatever remains is divided between the grandfather and the sister, the male taking twice the share of the female.