the heir before the bequest is from the original wealth. If he had bequeathed the equivalent of his son's share, and he has one son, then the bequest is for the entire wealth. If he has two sons, then the bequest is for one-half. If there are three, [then the bequest is for one-third] (1). Malik said: If they vary in inheritance, one looks at the [number of their heads] (2), and he is given a share according to their number; because it is not possible to consider their portions due to their variation, so their number of heads was considered. Our position is that he made his heir a root and a base, applying the legatee's share to it and making it an equivalent to it. This requires that neither of the two be increased over the other. Whenever he is given from the original wealth, he is neither given the equivalent of his share nor is equality (3) achieved, and the phrasing requires equality. He was only given (4) the equivalent of the one among them with the least share because that is the certainty, while what is in excess is doubtful, and it cannot be established with doubt. His statement: "He is given a share according to their number," is contrary to what the testator's wording requires; for this is not a share of any of his heirs, and his wording only required the share of one of them. Their variation does not prevent the share of the least among them from being a share of one of them, so it is directed to the legatee according to the testator's statement and by acting upon the requirement of his bequest. This is more appropriate than inventing something that the testator's statement does not require at all. His statement: "Applying the testator's statement became impossible," is incorrect; for it was possible to act upon it by what we have stated. Furthermore, if acting upon it were impossible, it would not be permissible to impose a right upon his wealth (5) that he did not authorize or command. Al-Khiraqi has provided an example in this issue that renders further exemplification unnecessary. If he said: "I have bequeathed the equivalent of the share of the least among them in inheritance," it would be as if he had spoken generally, and that would be an affirmation. If he said: "I have bequeathed the equivalent of the share of the most among them in inheritance," then he has that, added to the issue; thus, in the case of al-Khiraqi, he would have twenty-eight, which is added to the inheritance distribution, making the total sixty shares.