the female equivalent of two males. This is also the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with them both, and Ishaq, because they equate the siblings from the mother in the kinship through which they inherit; therefore, it is necessary that they be equated in the inheritance. For they are all children of the same mother, and their kinship from the father's side, even if it does not add to their proximity and entitlement, should not cause their exclusion. For this reason, some of the Companions or some of the siblings of both parents said to Umar when he excluded them: "Assume that their father was a donkey," for that did not add to them anything but proximity, so he shared [the inheritance] between them. Some followers of al-Shafi'i formulated an analogy for this, saying: "The inheritance case involves both siblings of both parents and siblings from the mother, and they are both among the heirs. So, if the siblings from the mother inherit, it is necessary that the siblings of both parents also inherit, just as if there were no husband in the case." Our evidence is the saying of Allah, the Exalted: {If a man or woman is inherited as a kalalah and has a brother or a sister, then for each of them is a sixth; but if they are more than that, they are partners in a third} [Surah an-Nisa: 12]. There is no disagreement that what is meant by this verse is the siblings from the mother specifically. Therefore, whoever shares [the inheritance] among them, thereby failing to give each one of them a sixth, is opposing the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. This also necessitates opposition to the other apparent verse, which is His saying: {And if there are brothers and sisters, then for the male is like the share of two females} [Surah an-Nisa: 176]. This verse is intended to apply to all other brothers and sisters, and they [the scholars] treat their males and females as equals in this case. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Give the shares to those entitled to them, and what remains is for the nearest male relative" [Agreed upon]. Whoever shares the inheritance has not given the shares to those entitled to them. Regarding the rationale, the siblings of both parents are agnates who have no fixed share, and the estate has been fully distributed among those with fixed shares; therefore, it is necessary that they be excluded, just as if there were two daughters in place of the siblings from the mother. There is consensus that if there were in this case one sibling from the mother and a hundred from the siblings of both parents, the one would get the sixth, and the hundred would get the remaining sixth, with each of them receiving one-tenth of a tenth. If it is permissible for the one to surpass them by this entire margin, why is it not permissible for two [siblings from the mother] to exclude them? As for their saying that they are equal in maternal kinship, we respond: "Why then did they not equate them in inheritance in this case?" Furthermore, we say: if they equate them in maternal kinship, they still differ from them in that they are agnates who are not among those with fixed shares. This distinction is what necessitates the precedence of the siblings from the mother and the postponement of the siblings of both parents. For the Shari'ah has mandated the precedence of those with fixed shares over the agnates; therefore, the sibling from the mother is given precedence over the siblings of both parents in the amount [of the share] in the aforementioned case and its likeness. Likewise, the sibling from the mother is given precedence, even if the siblings of both parents are excluded, just like anyone else. It would follow from their logic that in the case of a husband, a sister from both parents, and a sister from a father with her brother, the brother should be excluded alone, and his sister would inherit the seventh; because her kinship in his presence is the same as her kinship in his absence, and he did not block her. Why did they not count him as a 'donkey' and have her inherit with his presence the same as her inheritance in his absence? The analogy they mentioned is inconsistent and lacks any real substance. Al-Anbari said: "The analogy is what Ali said, and the 'istihsan' (juristic preference) is what Umar said." Al-Khabri said: "This is a clever mediation and a correct expression." It is as he said, except that 'istihsan' alone is not a proof in the Shari'ah, for it is establishing laws by personal opinion without evidence. It is not permissible to rule by it if it stands alone without a countervailing factor, so how can it be used in our case when it contradicts the apparent Qur'an, the Sunnah, and analogy? It is surprising that al-Shafi'i adopted it here, while he criticized those who used it in other than this place and said: "Whoever uses 'istihsan' has legislated [on his own]." Adhering to the Book and the Sunnah is more worthy.