its legacy. The second [opinion] is that he has nothing but the third which he had in the case of permission for both of them, because whatever exceeded that was a right of the owner of the wealth, which the heirs took by rejecting it against him, so the two heirs take it. If they permit [only] for the owner of the entirety alone, he has eight-ninths according to the first opinion, and the ninth is for the other. According to the second opinion, he has only the two-thirds he had in the case of permission for both of them, and the two-ninths are for the heirs. If one of the two sons permits [the legacy] for both of them without the other, the one who permits has nothing, the other has a third, and the two-thirds are divided between the two legatees in four parts. If one of them permits for the owner of the entirety alone, the other has a ninth, the other son has a third, and the remainder is for the owner of the entirety in one of the two opinions. In the other [opinion], he has four-ninths, and the remaining ninth is for the one who permitted. If he permits for the owner of the half alone, he gives him half of what completes the half, which is a ninth and half of a sixth, according to one of the two opinions. According to the other, he gives him the ninth, so he gets two-ninths, the owner of the entirety gets two-ninths, the one who permitted gets two-ninths, and the third is for the one who did not permit. It is valid from nine. According to the first opinion, it is valid from thirty-six: twelve for the one who did not permit, five for the one who permitted, eleven for the owner of the half, and eight for the owner of the entirety. This is because the issue of rejection is from nine; the owner of the half has one share of it. If both sons had permitted for him, he would have had the completion of the half, which is three and a half. So if one of them permits for him, he becomes liable for half of that, which is one share and three-quarters of a share. Thus, the denominator of the quarter is multiplied by nine, making it thirty-six.

965 - Issue: He said: "If he bequeaths to the child of someone, it is for the male and female equally. If he says: 'To my sons (baniyya)', it is for the males to the exclusion of females." As for when he bequeaths to his child (walad) or the child of someone, it is for males, females, and hermaphrodites. There is no disagreement on that, because the noun encompasses everyone.