that it be in accordance with it, just as the one who hastens the payment of Zakah before it becomes due performs it in the manner of its performance after it becomes due; the same applies to expedited expiations. Furthermore, the male is more in need than the female, for when both marry, the dower, support, and the support of the children are upon the male, while the female is entitled to that. Thus, he is more deserving of preference due to his increased need. Allah the Almighty has divided inheritance, and He prioritized the male, which is linked to this meaning, so it is used as a cause for it, and it extends to gifts during life. The hadith of Bashir is a specific case and a narration of a situation that lacks generality; its ruling is established only for what is similar to it. We do not know the state of Bashir's children; was there a female among them or not? Perhaps the Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him - knew that he had no children except a male son. Furthermore, equality is interpreted as division according to the Book of Allah the Almighty. It is also possible that he meant equality in the principle of giving, not in its manner, for division does not necessitate equality in every respect. The same applies to the other hadith (19), and the evidence for this is the statement of Ata: 'They would not distribute except according to the Book of Allah the Almighty.' This is a report about all of them, noting that the correct view regarding the report of Ibn Abbas is that it is mursal (a report with a missing link in the chain).

Section: He is not required to observe equality among his other relatives, nor to give them according to the measure of their shares of inheritance, regardless of whether they are from one side, such as brothers and sisters, paternal uncles and cousins, or from different sides, such as daughters and sisters and others. Abu al-Khattab said: What is prescribed regarding gifts to children and other relatives is to give them according to the measure of their shares of inheritance (20). If he opposes this and does otherwise, he is obligated to retract and include them all in the gift, because they are in the same category as children, so the same ruling as theirs applies to them. Our position is that this is a gift to others than children during his health, so equality is not obligatory upon him, just as if they were not heirs. Furthermore, the fundamental principle is the permissibility of a person's disposal of his wealth as he wishes. Equality among children was only made obligatory by report, and others are not in the same category as them; because they are equal in the obligation of righteousness toward their father, thus they are equal in