only one, she receives half.” He thus makes her entitlement to half conditional upon her being the only daughter, implying that she receives it only when this condition is met.

This differs from His words, “If they are daughters.” He uses the pronoun (kunna, “they”) and (wa-nisā’an, “and women”), both plural. It would not have been possible to say “two,” because the plural pronoun is not confined to two, nor is the ruling confined to two. It was therefore necessary to say “more than two,” since the ruling for two was already known, as was the ruling for one.

If a single daughter receives half and more than two receive two-thirds, two daughters cannot receive more than two-thirds. They therefore cannot receive the entire estate, with half going to each. Three daughters receive only two-thirds—so how could three receive more? Nor would half suffice for her, since she is entitled to it only on condition that she is the sole daughter; she therefore does not receive it when she is not the sole daughter.

This implication is apparent in the accusative reading of “And if there is only one.” Here, “one” is the predicate of kāna (“to be”); the understood wording is: “If she is a single daughter,” meaning that she is alone, with no other daughter alongside her, “she receives half.” She therefore does not receive that share when another daughter is alongside her. Half is thus ruled out, as is the entire estate, leaving only two-thirds. This is one indication furnished by the verse.

Furthermore, Allah’s statement concerning sisters—“If there are two, they receive two-thirds of what he leaves”—indicates that two daughters have a stronger claim to two-thirds than two sisters do.

There is also the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “when he gave the two daughters of Sa'd ibn al-Rabī' two-thirds, their mother one-eighth, and their paternal uncle the remainder.”

This is a matter of consensus; no dissent from Ibn 'Abbās concerning it is authentically established.