What is the ruling when one bequeaths an amount equal to the share of one of their heirs without specifying which heir?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Bequests
Primary text
If the bequest is for the equivalent of the share of one of the heirs without specification, it is interpreted as being like the share of the heir who receives the smallest portion, added beyond the statutory shares (*farīḍah*). This applies when heirs have unequal shares, such as in the case where the heirs are sons and four wives. For example, if the shares result in a base division of thirty-two shares (the wives receiving one-eighth, which is four shares, and the son receiving the remainder), the division is adjusted to thirty-three shares. The legatee receives one share, each wife receives one share, and the son receives the rest. If the heirs have equal shares, such as only sons, the bequest is fulfilled by treating the legatee as an additional heir of equal standing to the existing ones, increasing the total shares accordingly.
Supporting text
Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, Zufar, and Dawud maintain that the legatee should receive the equivalent of the specified heir's share without increasing the principal estate division. The remaining estate is then divided among the heirs. They argue that the heir's portion is taken from the original estate. For instance, if he bequeathed the equivalent of his only son's share, the bequest consumes the entire estate. If he had two sons, the bequest is for half. Malik further argued that if shares differ, the reference should be to the number of heirs, giving the legatee one share out of their total count, as direct comparison of portions is impossible due to disparity. They argue the majority view does not satisfy the testator's wording demanding equivalence.