As for the case where he is not suspected of intending to deprive her of her inheritance, the majority hold that she does not inherit. On this basis, the woman in question does not inherit, because a divorce of this kind, in which he did not specify which wife he was divorcing, does not indicate an intention to deprive her of her inheritance. For those who hold that she inherits unconditionally—as Ahmad does according to one of the two reports from him—the ruling is likewise as stated.

Where an irrevocably divorced woman inherits, one view is that she must observe whichever of the two waiting periods ends later. This is the apparent position of Ahmad’s school and the view of Abū Hanīfa and Muhammad.

Another view is that she observes only the waiting period for divorce. This is Mālik’s view and the well-known view of al-Shāfiʿī; it is also one report from Ahmad and one opinion of al-Shāfiʿī.

As for the case where the identity of the divorced wife remains unknown, one of the two women must observe the waiting period following a husband’s death, and the other the waiting period for divorce. Each is therefore obliged to observe one of the two waiting periods, but it is unclear which obligation applies to which woman. Thus, the stronger view here is that each must observe both waiting periods, since only in this way can each be certain of having discharged her obligation.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

“A man died, leaving a slave woman who had borne him a child. She subsequently died, leaving a son and two daughters. Do the daughters share the right of patronage with the son? And do they inherit anything alongside him?”