Where the four schools stand
Agreed. The Qur’an makes the mother’s share turn on whether the deceased ‘had brothers and sisters’, not on whether they inherit — “fa-in kana lahu ikhwatun fa-li-ummihi al-sudus” (an-Nisa 4:11) — and all four schools read it that way. Hanafi: al-Haskafi’s matn states the principle and then gives this as its illustration — “the excluded one excludes, by agreement … like the brothers and sisters: the father shuts them out altogether, and they cut the mother from a third to a sixth”; al-Nasafi’s Kanz al-Daqa’iq puts the same case in its own matn. Maliki: al-Dardir — “two brothers or two sisters, of any kind … and his unqualified wording covers the case where the two are excluded by a person”, with al-Dasuqi spelling out the standard case: a man dies leaving both parents and two brothers, “the mother takes a sixth because the two brothers exist, even though the father excludes them”. Shafi‘i: al-Nawawi separates the two grounds of non-inheritance and rules on each — one barred by an impediment “excludes neither wholly nor partially”, while one who simply loses to a nearer heir “may still reduce another’s share” — and his first example is both parents and two brothers. Hanbali: al-Iqna‘ writes it into the mother’s own entitlement — a sixth where she is beside “two, even if excluded, of the brothers and sisters”. Four consequences, the same in every school. (1) The kind of sibling is irrelevant: full, half through the father, half through the mother, males, females, or a mixture — the Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali texts all say mutlaqan in terms, and Malik’s own words in the Muwatta’ run through the list. (2) Two is the minimum. One brother or sister never reduces her; Malik reports “the practice settled that ‘brothers’ means two or more”. (3) The sixth taken from her is not paid to the siblings who took it — it falls to the heir who excluded them, usually the father. The Hanafi books answer a contrary report from Ibn ‘Abbas by saying exactly that: “they reduce her without anything accruing to them”. (4) A sibling barred by an impediment is different and is treated differently. Killing the deceased, difference of religion or slavery puts a person outside the estate altogether: “his existence is as his non-existence”, in al-Buhuti’s words, and the Hanbali matn accordingly requires the two screening siblings to be of full free status. The Hanafis call such a person mahrum and reserve mahjub for one barred by someone else; the Malikis contrast exclusion “by an attribute” with exclusion “by a person”; the Shafi‘is contrast an impediment with losing to a nearer heir. All four then rule the same way: the excluded sibling screens, the barred one does not. One point of detail, recorded because it is a real limit on this research. That an excluded sibling screens is stated by all four schools where the excluder is the father or the grandfather. Where it is another sibling — a half-brother through the father shut out by a full brother — the Hanbali and Shafi‘i books name that configuration expressly, al-Buhuti as “one of them an heir and the other excluded, such as a full brother and a brother by the father” and al-Nawawi as a case he adds in his own voice. The Hanafi and Maliki books state the governing rule in terms that are not confined to ascendants — “the excluded one excludes, by agreement”, “excluded by a person” — and al-Dasuqi warns expressly that the illustration does not narrow the rule; but their own worked examples are all parent-or-grandparent cases. For those two schools the answer on that narrow limb therefore rests on the general rule rather than on a sentence about siblings. We checked this point; the schools do not differ on it.
Shared evidence: Surah an-Nisa 4:11 — “and if he had brothers and sisters, his mother takes a sixth”, the wording every school reads as turning on existence rather than entitlement · al-Durr al-Mukhtar with Ibn ‘Abidin — “the excluded one excludes, by agreement … like the brothers and sisters: the father shuts them out, and they cut the mother from a third to a sixth” (Hanafi) · Kanz al-Daqa’iq with al-Zayla‘i’s Tabyin al-Haqa’iq — the same rule in the matn, and the barred heir excepted from it (Hanafi) · al-Dardir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi — two siblings of any kind, “even if excluded by a person”, but not those barred by an attribute (Maliki) · al-Kharashi with Hashiyat al-‘Adawi — “or excluded by a person, as where a man dies leaving his mother, his father and two full brothers, or brothers by the father” (Maliki) · Malik in the Muwatta’ with al-Baji’s Muntaqa — the practice settled that ‘brothers’ means two or more, and it makes no difference which kind they are (Maliki) · al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Talibin — the impediment excludes nothing, losing to a nearer heir may still reduce a share; both parents and two brothers, and a mother with a full brother and a brother by the father (Shafi‘i) · al-Shirbini, Mughni al-Muhtaj — “one who does not inherit because of an impediment excludes no one, neither wholly nor partially”, and the mother is reduced by the two brothers though the father has excluded them (Shafi‘i) · Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni, mas’ala 4825 — the mother’s three states, siblings “of whichever side they may be”, and ‘Uthman’s answer to Ibn ‘Abbas (Hanbali) · al-Iqna‘ with Kashshaf al-Qina‘ — “or with two, even if excluded, of the brothers and sisters”, and what that covers: exclusion by the father, by the grandfather, or by another sibling (Hanbali) · Kashshaf al-Qina‘ — “whoever does not inherit because of an impediment in himself — slavery, killing, or difference of religion — excludes no one, neither wholly nor partially; his existence is as his non-existence” (Hanbali).
Not covered by this finding: whether the same reasoning holds when the only other survivors are a spouse and both parents — the case the jurists call the ‘Umariyyatan, where the mother takes a third of what is left after the spouse rather than a third of the estate. Two excluded siblings put her on a plain sixth and the question does not arise; what happens where a single excluded sibling survives was not settled by the sources read for this entry, which define that case by the heirs who actually inherit and say nothing about a brother who takes nothing. Nor does this entry settle whether a missing heir, an unborn child, or a child of disputed lineage screens the mother — not yet researched school by school. Treat that as open and ask a scholar of your school.
Researched finding from our madhhab register — issue mahjub-sibling-screening, reviewed 2026-09-06.
Two dissents are recorded in the books, and neither is a school. The first is Ibn ‘Abbas’s: he read “brothers” as a true plural and required three before the mother came down to a sixth. He is reported to have put it to ‘Uthman — “two brothers are not ‘brothers’ in the speech of your people, so why do you screen the mother by them?” — and ‘Uthman answered “I cannot overturn something that was settled before me, has gone out through the lands, and by which people have already inherited.” Both Ibn Qudama and al-Buhuti take that answer as evidence the agreement was complete before Ibn ‘Abbas dissented, and the Hanbali and Maliki traditions each file the point among the five questions on which he stood alone. (The chain of the ‘Uthman report was itself questioned by Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar, as al-Buhuti’s editors note; the four schools’ position does not rest on it.) A second report from Ibn ‘Abbas would have let the excluded brothers keep the sixth they took off her; the Hanafi books answer that the verse on kalala forbids it, so “they reduce her without anything accruing to them”. The second dissent is Ibn Mas‘ud’s, and it runs the opposite way: he let even the barred heir — the killer, the non-Muslim, the slave — reduce a share. The Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia records that the jurists of the schools, “and among them the four imams”, hold otherwise. A page may report all three as Companions’ views; none may be rendered as one of the four schools’ positions.
Full evidence and history: Do brothers and sisters who inherit nothing still cut the mother’s share? — the issue page.
Putting this into a Canadian will
A difference between the schools only reaches an estate if it is written into a will that the province recognises. Which school you follow is your choice; whether the document is valid is not.
Making an Islamic will in Canada — province by province, and what makes one valid where you live →
Citations & sources
Every factual claim on this page traces to a source below. Details change — check the original source before relying on any figure, fee or legal position.
- Surah an-Nisa 4:11 — the parents’ shares and the mother’s screening: “wa li-abawayhi li-kulli wahidin minhuma al-sudusu mimma taraka in kana lahu walad; fa-in lam yakun lahu waladun wa warithahu abawahu fa-li-ummihi al-thuluth; fa-in kana lahu ikhwatun fa-li-ummihi al-sudus” — the word ikhwa here is the whole of the dispute over whether two siblings suffice — al-Qur’an al-Karim
- al-Haskafi, al-Durr al-Mukhtar with Ibn ‘Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar, Kitab al-Fara’id (vol. 6 p. 772) — the mother’s three states: “wa li’l-ummi thalathatu ahwal: al-sudusu ma‘a ahadihima aw ma‘a ithnayni mina’l-ukhuwwati aw mina’l-akhawati fa-sa‘idan, min ayyi jihatin kana wa law mukhtalitayn, wa’l-thuluthu ‘inda ‘adamihima”, with Ibn ‘Abidin’s gloss “sawa’un kana al-ithnani fa-akthara li-abawayni aw li-abin aw li-umm” and “dhukuran wa inathan min jihatin wahidatin aw akthar” — Muhammad Amin b. ‘Abidin (d. 1252 AH) on al-Haskafi (d. 1088 AH)
- Radd al-Muhtar (Hashiyat Ibn ‘Abidin), Kitab al-Fara’id, fasl fi’l-hajb — one page carrying two rules: “(anna man adla bi-shakhsin la yarithu ma‘ahu) ka-ibni al-ibni la yarithu ma‘a al-ibn”; and “wa’l-mahrumu ka-ibnin kafirin aw qatilin la yahjubu ‘indana aslan” — the gloss adding that the Hanafis reserve the word mahrum for one barred by something in himself, such as being a slave or a killer, and mahjub for one barred by someone else — Muhammad Amin b. ‘Abidin (d. 1252 AH)
- al-Durr al-Mukhtar with Radd al-Muhtar, Kitab al-Fara’id (vol. 6 p. 781) — the matn’s own illustration of “the excluded one excludes”: “(ka’l-ikhwati wa’l-akhawat) fa-innahum yuhjabuna bi’l-abi hajba hirmanin (wa yahjubuna al-umma mina’l-thuluthi ila’l-sudusi) hajba nuqsan”; and that hajb nuqsan reaches only five heirs — the mother, the son’s daughter, the sister by the father and the two spouses — Muhammad Amin b. ‘Abidin (d. 1252 AH) on al-Haskafi (d. 1088 AH)
- al-Nasafi, Kanz al-Daqa’iq, with al-Zayla‘i, Tabyin al-Haqa’iq, and Hashiyat al-Shalabi (vol. 6 pp. 239–240) — the matn: “wa’l-mahjubu yahjubu ka’l-akhawayni awi’l-ukhtayni yahjubani al-umma mina’l-thuluthi ila’l-sudusi ma‘a al-ab”, glossed “wa huma la yarithani ma‘ahu”; the report from Ibn ‘Abbas that the excluded brothers should keep the sixth they took off her, answered “fa-yahjubunaha min ghayri an yahsula lahum shay’”; and “la al-mahruma bi’l-riqqi wa’l-qatli mubasharatan wa-khtilafi al-dini awi ’l-dar” with Ibn Mas‘ud’s contrary view and the jumhur’s reason “anna al-mahruma fi haqqi al-irthi ka’l-mayyit” — ‘Uthman b. ‘Ali al-Zayla‘i (d. 743 AH) on al-Nasafi (d. 710 AH)
- Ibrahim al-Halabi, Multaqa al-Abhur, with Shaykhizada, Majma‘ al-Anhur, fasl fi’l-hajb (vol. 2 p. 760) — “(wa’l-mahrumu bi’l-qatli wa nahwihi) ka’l-riddati wa’l-kufri (la yahjubu) ghayrahu aslan la hajba hirmanin wa la hajba nuqsanin, wa huwa qawlu ‘ammati al-sahaba… (wa’l-mahjubu bi-hajbi al-hirmani yahjubu) ghayrahu (wa ka’l-ikhwati wa’l-akhawati yahjubuhumu al-abu wa yahjubuna al-umma mina’l-thuluthi ila’l-sudus)” — ‘Abd al-Rahman Shaykhizada (d. 1078 AH) on Ibrahim al-Halabi (d. 956 AH)
- al-Dardir, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, Bab fi’l-Fara’id (vol. 4 p. 461) — “wa hajabaha li’l-sudusi aydan (akhawani aw ukhtani mutlaqan) ashiqqa’u aw li-abin aw li-ummin aw ba‘dun wa ba‘d… wa shamila itlaquhu ma idha kana mahjubayni bi’l-shakhs… wa ma‘a dhalika yahjubani al-umma mina’l-thuluthi li’l-sudus… wa amma al-mahjubani bi’l-wasfi min riqqin aw kufrin aw qatlin fa-la yahjuban”, with the Tilimsaniyya’s “wa fihim fi’l-hajbi amrun ‘ajab, li-annahum qad hujibu wa hajabu”; al-Dasuqi adding “man mata ‘an abawayni wa akhawayni mutlaqan fa-li’l-ummi al-sudusu li-wujudi al-akhawayni ma‘a hajbihima bi’l-ab” and that the rule is not peculiar to the uterine siblings — Ahmad al-Dardir (d. 1201 AH) with Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dasuqi (d. 1230 AH)
- al-Kharashi, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, with Hashiyat al-‘Adawi, the owners of the fixed shares (vol. 8 p. 201) — the two siblings screen the mother whether “ghayra mahjubina aw mahjubina bi’l-shakhsi ka-man mata ‘an ummihi wa abihi wa akhawayhi shaqiqayni, aw li-ab, wa ka-man mata ‘an ummihi wa akhawayni li-ummin wa jadd; wa amma al-hajbu bi’l-wasfi fa-la yahjubani kama idha kana bihima mani‘un min riqqin aw kufr” — Muhammad b. ‘Abdillah al-Kharashi (d. 1101 AH) with ‘Ali al-‘Adawi (d. 1189 AH)
- al-Zurqani on Mukhtasar Khalil, with Hashiyat al-Bannani, Bab fi’l-Fara’id (vol. 8 p. 366) — “wa hajabaha ‘ani’l-thuluthi li’l-sudusi aydan akhawani aw ukhtani mutlaqan… wa shamila al-itlaqu ma idha kana mahjubayni bi’l-shakhs… fa-huma mustathnayani min qa‘idati man la yarithu la yahjubu warithan… wa amma al-mahjubani bi’l-wasfi fa-la yahjubani kama idha kana bihima mani‘u riqqin aw kufr”, with the Ibn ‘Abbas / ‘Uthman exchange in al-Bannani’s hashiya — ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani (d. 1099 AH) with Muhammad al-Bannani (d. 1194 AH)
- Malik, al-Muwatta’, with al-Baji, al-Muntaqa, Mirath al-ab wa’l-umm min waladihima (vol. 6 p. 228) — Malik: “fa-madati al-sunnatu anna al-ikhwata ithnani fa-sa‘idan”; al-Baji: “wa sawa’un kana al-waladu aw waladu al-ibni dhakaran aw untha, aw kana al-akhawani li-abin wa ummin, aw li-abin, aw li-ummin, aw muftariqayn … fa-inna kulla dhalika yaruddu al-umma mina’l-thuluthi ila’l-sudus”; and the report from Ibn ‘Abbas that only three siblings screen her, with the reply that “lafzu al-ikhwati waqi‘un ‘ala’l-ithnayni fa-za’idan” — Abu’l-Walid al-Baji (d. 474 AH)
- al-Nawawi’s Minhaj with al-Shirbini, Mughni al-Muhtaj, fasl fi bayan al-furud wa ashabiha (vol. 4 p. 18) — the matn’s seven owners of the sixth: “wa’l-sudusu fardu sab‘atin: abin wa jaddin … wa jaddatin wa li-binti ibnin ma‘a binti sulbin wa li-ukhtin aw akhawatin li-abin ma‘a ukhtin li-abawayn wa li-wahidin min waladi al-umm”, glossed “kama fi’l-binti wa banati al-ibn” — the son’s daughter’s own sixth resting on “li-qada’ihi ﷺ … rawahu al-Bukhariyyu ‘an Ibni Mas‘ud” — al-Khatib al-Shirbini (d. 977 AH)
- al-Shirbini, Mughni al-Muhtaj (vol. 4 p. 22) — “tanbih: man la yarithu li-mani‘in min riqqin aw nahwihi la yahjubu ghayrahu hirmanan wa la nuqsanan”; and, on the objection that an excluder should benefit from his own hajb, “mas’alatu abawayni wa akhawayni fa-turaddu al-ummu ila’l-sudusi la bi-wasitati al-abi bal bi-wasitati al-akhawayn … fa-inna al-umma wa in hujibat bi’l-akhawayni lakinnahuma hujiba bi’l-abi fa-‘adat fa’idatu al-hajbi ilayh” — al-Khatib al-Shirbini (d. 977 AH)
- al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Talibin, Kitab al-Fara’id, al-bab al-rabi‘ fi’l-hajb (vol. 6 p. 28) — the controlling far‘: “jami‘u ma dhakarnahu mina’l-hajbi huwa fima idha kana al-hajibu warithan … in kana imtina‘u al-irthi li-naqsin ka’l-riqqi wa ghayrihi mina’l-mawani‘, fa-la yahjubu la hajba hirmanin wa la hajba nuqsan; wa in kana la yarithu li-taqaddumi ghayrihi ‘alayhi, fa-qad yahjubu ghayrahu hajba nuqsan”, with the worked cases — “mata ‘an abawayni wa akhawayni, fa-li’l-ummi al-sudusu wa’l-baqi li’l-abi; li-annahuma yasqutani bih”, “ummun wa jaddun wa akhawani li-ummin, li’l-ummi al-sudus”, and al-Nawawi’s own addition “qultu: wa suratun khamisatun: ummun, wa akhun li-abawayni, wa akhun li-ab” — Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH)
- Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni, Kitab al-Fara’id, mas’ala 4825 (vol. 6 p. 276) — the mother’s three states; the third is hers “bi-la khilafin na‘lamuhu bayna ahli al-‘ilm” where there is neither child nor “ithnayni fa-sa‘idan mina’l-ikhwati wa’l-akhawati min ayyi al-jihati kanu, dhukuran wa inathan, aw dhukuran aw inatha”; the sixth “fi qawli jumhuri al-fuqaha’”, against Ibn ‘Abbas (“la yahjubu al-umma … illa thalatha”, also related from Mu‘adh); and ‘Uthman’s reply “la astati‘u an arudda shay’an kana qabli, wa mada fi’l-buldani, wa tawaratha al-nasu bih”, on which Ibn Qudama rests “annahu ijma‘un tamma qabla mukhalafati Ibni ‘Abbas” — Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)
- al-Mughni, fasl 4835 (vol. 6 p. 283) — “hasala khilafu ’bni ‘Abbasin li’l-sahabati fi khamsi masa’il… wa’l-thalithatu, annahu la yahjubu al-umma illa bi-thalathatin mina’l-ikhwa… fa-hadhihi al-khamsu sahhati al-riwayatu ‘anhu fiha, wa-shtahara ‘anhu al-qawlu biha” — the Hanbali counterpart to al-Baji’s list, placing the number dispute where it belongs, among a Companion’s isolated positions — Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)
- al-Mughni, mas’ala 4871 (vol. 6 p. 310) — arguing that a paternal brother excluded by a full brother may still be counted against the grandfather, Ibn Qudama treats the mother’s case as the settled premise: “fa-jaza an yahjubuhu idha hajabahum ghayruhu, kama yahjubuna al-umma, wa in kanu mahjubina bi’l-ab”; with the contrary view of ‘Ali and Ibn Mas‘ud on the grandfather question — “li-annahu mahjubun bi-waladi al-abawayni fa-la yu‘taddu bih” — Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)
- al-Hajjawi, al-Iqna‘, with al-Buhuti, Kashshaf al-Qina‘, fasl wa li’l-ummi arba‘atu ahwal (vol. 10 p. 359) — the matn writes the rule into her entitlement: “fa-idha kanat ma‘a al-waladi aw ma‘a waladi al-ibni aw ma‘a ithnayni wa law mahjubayni mina’l-ikhwati wa’l-akhawati kamili al-hurriyyati fa-laha sudus”; with al-Hakim’s report of Ibn ‘Abbas to ‘Uthman (“laysa al-akhawani ikhwatan fi lisani qawmik”) and al-Buhuti’s conclusion “wa hadha ‘an ‘Uthmana yadullu ‘ala ijma‘i al-nasi ‘ala dhalika qabla mukhalafati ’bni ‘Abbas” — the editors noting that Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar both questioned the isnad of that report — Mansur b. Yunus al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH)
- Kashshaf al-Qina‘ (vol. 10 p. 360) — unpacking al-Iqna‘’s “wa law mahjubayn”: “wa shamila qawluhu ‘wa law mahjubayni’ ma idha hujiba bi’l-abi, aw bi’l-jaddi ka’l-ikhwati li’l-umm, wa ma idha kana ahaduhuma warithan wa’l-akharu mahjuban, ka-akhin shaqiqin wa akhin li-ab” — the one classical sentence found in this pass that states BOTH limbs, exclusion by an ascendant and exclusion by another sibling; with al-Zamakhshari on ikhwa and the argument that every numerical hajb begins at two — Mansur b. Yunus al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH)
- Kashshaf al-Qina’, Kitab al-Fara’id — “wa man la yarithu li-mani‘in fihi min riqqin aw qatlin aw ’khtilafi dinin, lam yahjub” anyone, neither wholly nor partially, “bal wujuduhu ka-‘adamih” — Mansur b. Yunus al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH)
- al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, entry “Irth” sec. 54 — al-Sirajiyya’s definition of hajb (“man‘u shakhsin mu‘ayyanin ‘an mirathihi imma kullihi aw ba‘dihi bi-wujudi shakhsin akhar”) with the express “wa la takhruju al-ta’rifatu fi’l-madhahibi al-ukhra ‘an hadha al-ta’rif”; the six not reached by total exclusion ijma‘an; the five reduced; and that one barred by an impediment “la yahjubu ghayrahu, la hirmanan kamilan wa la naqisan ‘inda jumhuri al-fuqaha’i, wa minhumu al-a’immatu al-arba‘a, li-anna wujudahu ka’l-‘adam”, against Ibn Mas‘ud — Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait
- al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Irth” sec. 54 cont. and sec. 55 — the worked example: a man dies leaving a non-Muslim son, a wife and a full brother; “fa-li’l-zawjati al-rubu‘u wa’l-baqi li’l-akhi al-shaqiqi bi’ttifaqi al-a’immati al-arba‘a”; and the counterpart rule — “wa’l-mahjubu hajba hirmanin qad yahjubu ghayrahu hajba nuqsan”, so siblings excluded by the father still cut the mother from a third to a sixth; followed by the first two of the three rules of hajb — Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait
- al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaytiyya, entry “Hajb” §8 (vol. 17 p. 22) — “wa’ttafaqa fuqaha’u al-madhahibi wa man sabaqahum min ‘ulama’i al-salafi wa ‘ammati al-sahabati ‘ala anna man la yarithu li-mani‘in fihi ka’l-qatli awi’l-riqqi la yahjubu ghayrahu la hirmanan wa la nuqsanan bal wujuduhu ka’l-‘adam” — Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait
- al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hajb” §8 cont. (vol. 17 p. 22) — Ibn Mas‘ud’s dissent stated (“inna al-mahruma mina’l-irthi yahjubu ghayrahu hirmanan wa nuqsanan”), then “kama ’ttafaqa ha’ula’i ‘ala anna al-mahjuba bi-shakhsin yahjubu ghayrahu hajba nuqsan” — Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait