the number of brothers exceeds two or those who equal them from among the sisters, then assign the grandfather the third, and the remainder to the children of the two parents. This is the school of Zayd. As for Ali and Ibn Mas'ud, they both divide the estate with the children of the two parents and exclude the children of the father, not counting them [as a factor in the division]; because they are excluded by the children of the two parents, so they are not counted just like the children of the mother. They divided this problem between the grandfather and the brother of the two parents in two halves, and excluded the brother from the father. Our position is that the grandfather is a father, and since he is excluded by two inheriting brothers, it is permissible that he be excluded by one inheriting brother and one non-inheriting brother, just like the mother. Furthermore, because the children of the father exclude him if they are alone, they exclude him along with others, just like the mother. They differ from the children of the mother because the grandfather excludes them, so it is not appropriate that they exclude him, unlike the children of the father; for the grandfather does not exclude them, so it is permissible for them to exclude him if someone else excludes them, just as they exclude the mother, even if they are excluded by the father. As for the brother of the two parents, he is stronger in terms of 'asaba (agnatic succession) than the brother from the father, so he does not inherit anything with him, just as if they were both separate from the grandfather; thus he takes his inheritance, just as if a son and a son's son met, he [the son] would exclude him and take his inheritance. If it is said: "The grandfather excludes the children of the mother, yet he does not take their inheritance, and the brothers exclude the mother even if they do not take her inheritance." We say: The cause of inheritance entitlement for the grandfather and the children of the mother differs, as is the case with all those who exclude but do not take the inheritance of the excluded. Here, the cause of the brothers' entitlement to the inheritance is fraternity and agnation; so whichever of them is stronger excludes the other and takes his inheritance. This problem has been illustrated by a case in legacies, which is if someone bequeaths a third of his estate to a man, one hundred to another, and to a third the remainder of the third after the one hundred. If the third of the estate is two hundred, then the beneficiary of the one hundred competes with the beneficiary of the third through the beneficiary of the remainder, so he divides the third into two halves with him, then the beneficiary of the hundred takes it exclusively, and the beneficiary of the remainder gets nothing.

Section: A brother of two parents, two sisters from a father, and a grandfather; the grandfather receives the third, and the remainder is for the brother. According to the view of Ali and Ibn Mas'ud, the estate is between him and the grandfather in two halves. A brother and a sister from two parents, a sister from a father, and a grandfather; the grandfather receives the third, and the remainder is divided among the children of the two parents into three, and it is valid out of nine. According to the view of Ali and Ibn Mas'ud, the estate is divided among the children of the two parents and the grandfather into five.