the more remote relative. If they are equally near, the heir who reaches the deceased through two lines of connection bars the one whose link is through a single line. In other words, the paternal uncle who is only a consanguine half-brother of the deceased’s father, as well as the cousin whose father is such an uncle, are both excluded.

The jurists are unanimously agreed that full brothers and consanguine paternal half-brothers exclude paternal uncles, for the brothers are the sons of the deceased’s father, whereas the uncles are the sons of his grandfather. Sons exclude their own sons (grandsons); fathers exclude their own fathers (grandfathers). Sons and grandsons exclude brothers; the grandfather, by consensus, excludes any higher grandfather; the father excludes brothers and everyone whom the brothers themselves would have excluded. By consensus the grandfather also excludes paternal uncles and uterine siblings. The sons of full brothers exclude the sons of paternal half-brothers, and daughters together with granddaughters through sons exclude uterine siblings.

The scholars disagreed about a person who dies leaving two paternal cousins, one of whom is also a uterine brother. Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and al-Thawrī ruled that the uterine brother receives one-sixth on account of his uterine relationship, and that the remainder of the estate is taken agnatically by him and the other cousin, divided equally between them. This is also the view of ʿAlī—may Allah be pleased with him—Zayd, and Ibn ʿAbbās.

Another group held that the entire estate goes to the cousin who is also a uterine brother: he takes one-sixth by virtue of the uterine tie and the balance by agnation, because he comes to the deceased through two causes. Among the Companions this opinion is attributed to Ibn Masʿūd; among later jurists to Dāʾūd, Abū Thawr, and al-Ṭabarī; it is likewise reported from al-Ḥasan and ʿAṭāʾ.

Ruling on the Return (al-radd) to the Prescribed Sharers

The scholars also differed about redistributing any surplus of the estate to the Qur’ānic sharers when the prescribed shares do not exhaust the estate and there is no agnatic heir. Zayd rejected the principle of return, placing the surplus in the public treasury (Bayt al-Māl); this was likewise the position of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī. The great majority of the Companions, however, held that the surplus should be returned to the sharers—with the sole exception of the husband and wife—although they differed over the method of calculation. This is also the view of the Iraqi jurists, both of Kūfah and of Basrah.

All of these jurists agree that the return is made in proportion to the original shares: whoever was entitled to one-half receives half of what remains, and so on, fractional share by fractional share.

Their rationale is that a bond combining religion and blood is stronger than a bond of religion alone; these heirs possess two causes of succession, whereas the rest of the Muslims possess only one.

There are other well-known issues of scholarly disagreement connected to the causes of inheritance that must be mentioned here. Among them is the unanimous agreement of the Muslims that a disbeliever does not inherit from a Muslim, in view of the Almighty’s words,

“Allah will never grant the disbelievers any authority over the believers” (Q. 4:141),

and the authenticated statement of the Prophet—blessings and peace be upon him—“A Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever, nor a disbeliever from a Muslim.”

Does a Muslim inherit from a disbeliever or an apostate?

They differed concerning the inheritance of a Muslim from a disbeliever, and concerning the inheritance of