As for the early generations and the majority, they said:

“The abrogating text is the verse prescribing the fixed shares. Allah Most High assigned fixed shares of defined amounts and forbade transgressing His limits. Thus, if the deceased gives (1) an heir more than the amount Allah has allotted to him, he has transgressed Allah’s limit, and this is prohibited. Whatever exceeds the prescribed amount belongs to other heirs or to the residuary heirs. If he takes a residuary heir’s right and gives it to this person, he has wronged (2) that heir.”

For this reason, the scholars differed concerning someone who has no residuary heir (3): should the residue be returned to that person or not?

Those who prohibited its return said:

“The remaining inheritance belongs by right to the public treasury and may not be given to anyone else.”

Those who permitted its return said:

“Property is placed in the public treasury only when no particular person has a claim to it. These heirs, however, possess both a general bond of kinship and a particular one.” As Ibn Masūd—may Allah be pleased with him—said:

“A person allotted a share has a greater claim than one allotted no share.”

The point here is that they cannot establish any evidence whatsoever that the verse includes the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

It may be objected:

“If one of the Prophet’s children—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—died, he would inherit from that child, as his three daughters and his son Abraham died during his lifetime?”

The reply is:

“The address in the verse is directed to the person whose estate is inherited, not to the heir (4). Therefore, if his children are included under the second-person suffix because they (5) are persons whose estates may be inherited (6), it does not follow that they are also included when they are heirs.”