Three topics that separate beginner faraidh students from advanced ones: the grandfather’s position when he meets siblings (Ibn Uthaymin’s most famous point of tarjih), and two named problems inherited from history — al-‘Umariyyatain and al-Mushtarakah.
Grandfather with siblings: two major opinions
When the deceased leaves a grandfather (father’s father) together with full or paternal half-brothers/sisters — with no father — the Companions already differed:
| Opinion | Figures | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Grandfather = father | Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Ibn Abbas, Ibn az-Zubayr; chosen by Abu Hanifah, Ibn Taymiyyah, as-Sa’di, Ibn Uthaymin | The grandfather excludes all siblings, exactly like a father |
| Grandfather shares (muqasamah) | Ali, Ibn Mas’ud, Zayd ibn Thabit; became the official position of the Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali madhhabs | Siblings still inherit; the grandfather takes whichever is best among: muqasamah (counted as one sibling), 1/3 of the estate, or 1/6 (if there are other ashabul furudh) |
Ibn Uthaymin explains both in ash-Sharh al-Mumti’ (since he is commenting on the Hanbali matn), then favors the first opinion: the grandfather is a “father” in the language of the Qur’an (“the religion of your father, Ibrahim” — even though Ibrahim was a distant grandfather), the core rule al-jaddu ab handed down from Abu Bakr with no Companion of his era disputing it, and the muqasamah calculation drags in complications (base numbers of 18 and 36, the case of al-Akdariyyah) unknown to the texts. His practical conclusion: “The correct view is that siblings — full or paternal half — do not inherit alongside a grandfather.”
Calculation consequence: with this tarjih, every “grandfather + siblings” problem is worked exactly like “father + siblings”: siblings are excluded, and the grandfather takes 1/6 plus the residue, or the whole residue. This bundle applies this tarjih consistently, always noting the madhhab opinion where relevant (chapter 13 compares the impact).
Al-‘Umariyyatain (Umar’s two cases)
Composition: the deceased leaves only a husband/wife + mother + father (both parents, with no children and no siblings).
The problem: if the mother were given a full 1/3, in the husband’s case something odd happens — the mother (1/3 = 2/6) would get twice the father’s share (residue 1/6), even though the general rule between men and women at the same level is 2:1 for the man. Umar ibn al-Khattab ruled — and the majority of Companions and the four madhhabs agreed — that the mother gets 1/3 of the residue (after the spouse’s share), not 1/3 of the estate:
| Heir | With a husband (base 6) | With a wife (base 4) |
|---|---|---|
| Husband/wife | husband 1/2 = 3 | wife 1/4 = 1 |
| Mother | 1/3 of residue = (6−3)÷3 = 1 | 1/3 of residue = (4−1)÷3 = 1 |
| Father | residue = 2 | residue = 2 |
The father:mother ratio stays 2:1 in both cases. Ibn Uthaymin affirms this ruling in Tashil al-Faraidh and his commentaries (Ibn Abbas’s lone opinion — that the mother keeps a full 1/3 — he mentions and then sets aside).
The condition is strict: it only applies when the heirs are exactly a spouse plus both parents. Is there a child? The mother goes straight to the ordinary 1/6. Is the father replaced by a grandfather? According to the faraidh books, the mother returns to a full 1/3 (a grandfather is not “on par” with a mother the way a father is).
Al-Mushtarakah (al-Himariyyah)
Composition: husband + mother (or grandmother) + 2 or more maternal half-siblings + a full brother.
The straightforward calculation: husband 1/2 (3/6), mother 1/6 (1/6), maternal half-siblings 1/3 (2/6) — base 6 is used up entirely, and the full brother (‘ashabah) gets nothing. In Umar’s time, the full brothers protested: “Suppose our father had been a donkey (himar) — isn’t our mother the same one?” — so some Companions included them to share in the maternal half-siblings’ 1/3 (tashrik), and that became the Maliki and Shafi’i madhhab.
The opinion held by the Hanbali madhhab — and affirmed by Ibn Uthaymin, as well as his teachers as-Sa’di and Ibn Baz: the full brother is still excluded (no tashrik). The reasoning goes back to the core hadith: “Give the shares to those entitled to them; what remains goes to the nearest male” — the furudh have already exhausted the estate, so the ‘ashabah simply get nothing; folding the full brother into the maternal half-siblings’ furudh would give the ‘ashabah a furudh share that is not their right.
flowchart LR
classDef furud fill:#1e3a8a,stroke:#3b82f6,color:#dbeafe
classDef gugur fill:#7f1d1d,stroke:#ef4444,color:#fee2e2
classDef hasil fill:#3b0764,stroke:#a855f7,color:#f3e8ff
A["Base 6"]:::hasil --> S["Husband 1/2 = 3"]:::furud
A --> I["Mother 1/6 = 1"]:::furud
A --> M["2+ maternal half-siblings 1/3 = 2"]:::furud
A --> K["Full brother<br/>'ashabah = RESIDUE 0"]:::gugur
K -.->|"tashrik? Maliki/Shafi'i: yes ·<br/>Hanbali & Ibn Uthaymin's tarjih: NO"| M
Pattern from this chapter
All three problems show Ibn Uthaymin’s consistent method: return to the generality of the text even when the result “feels” unsympathetic (al-Mushtarakah), accept a Companion ruling that was agreed upon (al-‘Umariyyatain), and choose the opinion with the strongest evidence even when it departs from his own madhhab (the grandfather). It is this pattern of weighing that students should emulate — not just the final results.
Sources: ash-Sharh al-Mumti’, chapter on Faraidh (grandfather & siblings); Tashil al-Faraidh (Shamela 11095); IslamQA 240582 (tarjih on the grandfather); IslamQA 496015 (history of al-Mushtarakah). Full list in 15-references.