SUCCESSION UNDER MUSLIM LAW

Introduction
Succession in Muslim law may be (1) testate or (2) intestate,
depending on whether the deceased died leaving a valid last will or
not. These modes of succession have to be dealt with separately.
Generally speaking, there could be several impediments to
inheritance under the sharia at law, namely, (1) slavery, which is no
longer important, (2) nationality, which is diminishing in importance
due to the phenomenon of globalization which has engulfed the
whole world, (3) differences of religion, which ironically are becoming
more and more acute, (4) homicide, which is a common problem
everywhere, and (5) illegitimacy, which even in modern times
remains a major cause of concern.

As far as difference of religion is concerned, the general rule is that a

non-Muslim does not inherit from a Muslim or vice versa. Similarly,
there is consensus amongst Islamic jurists that a murderer is not
entitled to benefit from his act, and is not competent to inherit from
the person he or she killed, though there is some disagreement as to
whether this applies where the killing was unintended or accidental.
Illegitimacy can be an important impediment to inheritance.
According to the sharia at, blood relationship, or nasab, which grounds
a right of inheritance, must be a legal relationship, and since there is
no legal tie of nasab between a putative father and his illegitimate child, or
between their respective legal relatives, the root cause simply does not
exist. Just as partners in an invalid marriage are not husband and
wife, so a person and his illegitimate off-springs are not father and
child for the purpose of inheritance . However, some divergence of
juristic opinion is discernible in this field. For instance, Sunni law,
while accepting that there is no ground for inheritance between an
illegitimate person and his or her putative father, or between their
respective blood relatives, does recognize the existence of a legal
relationship between an illegitimate child and its mother for all
purposes. An illegitimate person may therefore inherit from his/her
mother and from her blood relations. Shia law differs radically, in that
under that system of law, an illegitimate person has no legal
relationship with his/her father or mother, and mutual inheritance is
impossible.
In regard to inheritance from illegitimate persons, the Sunni schools
differ among themselves. According to Hanafi, Maliki and Shaffie
schools the mother and her relatives inherit from the illegitimate
person according to the normal principles. Hanbali law allows male
agnates of the mother to inherit from an illegitimate person. Shiah
law, on the other hand, does not allow even the mother and her
relations to inherit from an illegitimate person.

Under all the above system, the surviving spouse, if any, and the
legitimate descendants of an illegitimate person inherit his/her
property according to the law of the school concerned. The legal
position of an adopted child in regard to inheritance is discussed in an
interesting article penned by me entitled,
Adoption of Children in Islam and the Muslim Law of Sri Lanka , [2008]
Meezan 1), a copy of which will be made available to you for your
ready reference.
An important feature of succession, whether testamentary or
intestate, under shariaat law is the general rule of the distribution of
the estate per capita and not per stirpes. An estate is distributed per
stirpes, if each branch of the family is to receive an equal share of an
estate. When the heir in the first generation of a branch predeceased
the testator (executant of the last will), the share that would have
been given to the said heir would be distributed among the heirs
issue in equal shares. Under this system, the heir of a predeceased is
given a right of representation in the distribution of the estate of the
testator, and this differs from distribution per capita under which the
share of the predeceased heir will go to the surviving heirs, who may
then inherit different amounts.

Inheritance or Testamentary Succession

Inheritance is the succession that takes place under a
testament or last will.
The Holy Quran, in Surah Al Baqarah (2: 180) encourages every
Muslim to write a last will (Al-wasiyya), although this is in no
way obligatory.
In Surat al-Maaidah, 5:106, it is provided that a testament
requires as witnesses, two witnesses, just men from among
you, or two others from outside. It has been suggested that the
above verse has been abrogated by Surat al-Baqarah, 2:282,
which insists that one should get two witnesses, out of your own
men, and if there are not two men (available), then a man and
two women, such as you agree for witnesses. There is no
requirement that the will should be executed in writing, and it
can even be made orally, although generally Islam always
prescribes writing in matters of importance.
Similarly, Islamic jurisprudence is abundant with clear rules as
to who is entitled to devise, bequeath or dispose by will, and
who is entitled to benefit from any such disposition.
In regard to the question whether a testator is free to dispose
of his estate to any one, a shariaat rule of particular
importance is the one that prevents a Muslim testator from
bequest more than one-third of his net estate, the balance of
two-thirds being reserved to be distributed among the lawful
heir or heirs.
According to the rules of inheritance, unless the excess is
rendered valid by the consent given after the death of the
testator of the heir or heirs whose rights are thereby infringed

or by the fact of there being no such heir or heirs. This rule

does not apply where there are no legal heirs at all, or the other
heirs consent to the bequest; and also, where the only legal
heir is the surviving spouse who gets his or her legal share.
Another shariaat rule is that a testator cannot make a bequest
in favour of a legal heir, so as to increase or decrease his
entitlement under rules of intestate succession, nor can he
deprive an heir of such entitlement by his last will.

Intestate Succession
Principles of intestate succession come into play when a person
dies without leaving a last will.
The heirs according to the Muhammadan Law are divided into
three classes. The first class is called the Zav-il-Furuz or the
Sharers, the second class is called the Asabah or residuaries
or agnates and the third class is called the Zav-il-Arham or
the Distant Kindred (uterine relations).
Assigning these classes of heirs their respective shares, if any,
is done in the following manner:
Firstly, the Sharers get the Quranic shares they are entitled to
according to the Holy Quran or the traditions (sunnah) of the Holy
Prophet (PBUH). These shares are shown in Table I.
Secondly, if there be any residue after assigning the Sharers their
respective shares, the Residuaries become entitled to certain shares
in the manner set out in Table II.
Thirdly, if there are no Sharers and no Residuaries, the Distant
Kindred take according to Table III.

The Sharers or Zav-il-Furuz

The first rule of intestate succession is that the Quranic Sharers
must first (before all others) be assigned their Quranic shares. The
Sharers, then are the most important class of heirs who take primacy
in that they are entitled before all others, the shares allotted to them
either by the Holy Quran, or by the traditions. As an example,
reference may be made to the Holy Quran, Surat Nisaa, 4:11 in which
it is ordained as follows: God(thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a
portion equal to that of two females: if only Daughters, two or more, their share
is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share Is a half. For parents, a
sixth share of the inheritance to each, If the deceased left children; If no
children, and the parents Are the (only) heirs, the mother Has a third; if the
deceased Left brothers (or sisters) The mother has a sixth.... These are Settled
portions ordained. By God, and God is all-knowing, All-wise.
This list of Sharers is well-defined and there is no difference
whether the intestate was a Shaffie, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbli or a
Shiah, although each school of thought might have slight

differences in the application of the rules. The Sharers (Zav-ilFuruz), are twelve in number. Their shares are liable to
variation, according to circumstances. Four of the Sharers are
males and there are eight females, which clearly explodes the
theory advanced by some critics of Islam that our great religion
discriminates against women.
The four males are (a) the father; (b) the grandfather or
lineal male ascendant (when not excluded); (c) the
uterine brothers; and (d) the husband.
The females are: (a) the widow, (b) daughter, (c) sons
daughter or the daughter of a lineal male descendant how
low-so-ever, (d)mother, (e) true grandmother, (f) full
sister, (g) consanguine sister, (i.e.,) half-sister on the
fathers side, and (h) uterine sisters, (i.e.,), half-sisters on the
mothers side.

TABLE I
(1)

The father

The orthodox lawyers attribute to the father three characters (a)

the character of a simple Sharer when the deceased happens to leave a
lineal male descendant; (b) the character of a simple residuary when
he co-exists with a person who is only a sharer as a husband, a
mother or a grand-mother when he takes the residue of the estate
after the allotment of the share or shares ; and (c) the character of
both a Sharer and a residuary, as when he co-exists with a daughter or
the daughter of a son or of any other lineal male descendant. In this
case he takes first his share, and then becomes entitled to any
residue after allotment of the daughters or grand-daughters share. For the
sake of simplicity in the latter two cases, he may be said to take
simply as a residuary.

(2) The fathers father

The fathers father or any other lineal male ascendant (who is not excluded by
the father or a nearer ascendant) takes the same share as the father, viz,
1/6. The Sunnis divide the ascendants for purposes of succession into two
classes, viz., true and false. A true grandfather is an ascendant in whose
line of relationship to the deceased to female intervenes. For example, a fathers
father is a true grandfather; whereas a mothers father is a false grandfather. A
true grandmother is a female ancestor in whose line of relationship with the
deceased no false grandfather intervenes; thus a mothers mother or a fathers
mother or fathers mother is a false grandmother. None of these distinctions
exist in the Shariah Law.

(3)

The uterine brother

The uterine brother (when only one, and no child, or the child of a son (1)
how low soever, father, or true grandfather), 1/6. When two or more, and
no child or the child of a son how low so ever, or father or true
grandfather, 1/3.

(4)

The husband (when the deceased leaves a child or the child of

a son, how low so ever), . When the deceased leaves no child or a child
of a son, how low so ever, the share of the husband is .

(5)

The widow, when the deceased has left no child or the child of a
son, how low so ever, . When co-existing with a child or child of a son
how low so ever, the widow gets 1/8. In consequence of the limited and
qualified recognition of polygamy or more properly speaking, polygyny,
by the generality of the schools, it sometimes happens that the deceased
leaves him surviving more than one widow. In such circumstance the
widows take the or 1/8, as the case may be, between them. A husband
or widow co-existing with a daughters child, (who is an uterine relation),
takes his or her full share.

(6)

The daughter, when she has no surviving sisters and has no

son, so as to render her a residuary, gets . Where there are two or more
daughters and there is no son, the daughters are entitled to a share of
2/3.

(7)

The daughter of a son (or daughter of a sons son, how low so

ever), when only one, and there is no child or sons son or other male
descendant, will get . When two or more and no child or sons son other
lineal male descendant, she will get 2/3. When daughter of a son co-exists
with one daughter and no son or sons son or other lineal male descendant
she will get (2/3 ) = 1/6. It must be noted that when there are two
daughters, the sons daughters are excluded unless there happen to be with
them a lineal male descendant of the same or lower degree. It is also
noteworthy that the sons daughter or the daughters of any lineal male
descendant are excluded by a son or by a lineal male descendant nearer
in degree than themselves.

(8)

The mother, when co-existing with a child of the deceased

intestate, or a child of his or her son, how low so ever, or two or more
brothers and sisters, whether consanguine or uterine, is entitled to a
share of 1/6. When none of the above coexist with the mother, the mothers
share would be 1/3. But she is entitled to 1/3 of remainder, after deducting
husbands or wifes share, when she is with the father. However, when she
is with the grandfather, she will get a share of 1/3 of the whole.

(9)

The true grandmother, how high so ever (when not

excluded by a nearer true female ancestor), gets 1/6. It may be noted
that every one into whose line of relationship to the deceased a mother enters

between two fathers is a false grandmother. The mother share of the true
grandmother, on the fathers or mothers side, is a sixth, whether there be one or
more.
(10) The full sister is entitled to when only one and there is no son, sons son
how low so ever, father, true grandfather, daughter, sons daughter or brother.
However, when there are two or more full sisters and there is no such excluder, the
sisters will collectively be entitled to a share of 2/3.

(11)The consanguine sister,

when only one and no excluder as

above or full sister, gets of the estate, but if co-existing with one full
sister only 1/6 of the estate. Where there are two o r more consanguine

sisters, and no such excluder they will collectively get a share of 2/3. When there
are two or more full sisters, the consanguine sister takes nothing unless there is a
consanguine brother with her.
(12)The uterine sister (when only one, and no child, or the child of a son how

low so ever, father, or true grandfather), 1/6. When two or more, and no
child or the child of a son how low so ever, or father or true grandfather,

1/3.

The Sharers take primacy in the allotment of shares. Hence, the first
rule of allocation is that the Sharers must be given their shares as
specified in Table I above.

The Residuraries or Asabah (agnates)

The second rule of intestate succession is that if any balance is left
after assigning the shares of the Sharers, the residue should go to the
heirs of the second class, namely the Asabah or Agnates, also known
as the Residuaries, because they take the residue of the estate of the
deceased person. Again, simply for reasons of convenience.

TABLE II
The Residuaries or asabah are divided into two groups, namely, asabah by
nasab or kinship to the deceased, and asabah by Sabha or the special cause
of wala.
The former group again is divided into three classes
(1) Residuaries in their own right;
(2) Residuaries in anothers right; and
(3) Residuaries together with another.
The first class includes all agnatic male relations that is in whose line of
relationship to the deceased no female enters. These are the asabahbenafsihi or agnates proprio jure.

(1)

Residuaries in their own right

are divided

into four sub-classes:-

(a)The offspring of the deceased, meaning thereby the

deceaseds sons or lineal male descendants; His root, i. e.,
the ascendants; in other words, his father and true grandfather, how high so ever;
(b)The offspring of his father, viz., full brothers and consanguine
brothers and their lineal male descendants;
(c) The offspring of the true grand-father how high so ever;
in other words, lineal male descendants, however
remote of lineal male ascendants however removed.

(2)

The residuaries in anothers right are those

females who become residuaries only when they co-exist with
certain males, that is, when there happen to be males of the
same degree, or who though of a lower degree, would take as
such.
These are four in number, viz.:(a)Daughters (with sons);
(b)Sons daughters (with a sons son or a male descendant still

further removed in the direct line).

(c) The full sister (with her own or full brother).
(d)The sister by the same father, or, in other words, a
consanguine sister (with her brother).

(3)

The residuaries with other are

(a)Full sisters, with daughters or sons daughters,
(b)Consanguine sisters, with daughters or sons daughters.

It is this table that gives trouble to the beginner, and it therefore

requires a careful examination. It will be seen that this table is
divided into three sub-clauses, the first sub-class consists of all males
and the second and third all of females. It is more convenient to
explain the second and third sub-classes first.
The second sub-class is headed Residuaries in another s right and is made
up of four groups of female relations who take only when they co-exist
with the male relations of the first sub-class specified with each
group.
For instance daughters take only when they co-exist with sons. Let us
take a simple example, e.g. A dies leaving a son and a daughter. If we
keep in mind the three rules outlined above and have Table I and
Table II given above before us, the problem is very easily solved.
According to the first rule we look at the table of sharers. It will be
noticed that the son is not mentioned at all, but the daughter is
mentioned in item 6. But she is not a sharer according to item 6 for
she is excluded by the co-existence of the son. We must therefore
look for the solution of the problem at the second class. A son comes
in the first sub-class of the table of residuaries and a daughter in the
second sub-class, as she co-exists with a son. The son and daughter
therefore inherit as residuaries. According to the third rule the uterine
relations get nothing because the existence of a sharer or residuary
prevents a uterine relation sharing in the estate. Now comes the
question as to how the estate should be divided between the son and
daughter. The general rule is the rule given in the Holy Quran that
each male is to get double the share of each female of equal rank.
The son will therefore get 2/3 and the daughter 1/3.
This is illustrated by Section 7 of the Muhammadan Code of 1806. A
husband dies leaving his wife and a son and one daughter. According
to the first table the wife gets the reduced share of 1/8 leaving a
balance of 7/8 which goes to the son and daughter as residuaries in
the proportion of two to one i.e., 7/12 to the son and 7/24 to the
daughter.
To take another simple example, suppose A dies leaving two half
brothers or sisters of one mother and another father and one full
brother and one full sister. The two half brothers or sisters being
uterine brothers or sisters come within items 3 and 12 of the first

class and they take 1/3 between them. The full sister according to
item 10 is excluded from the class of sharers owing to the existence
of her full brother. One-third is therefore allotted to the two half
brothers or sisters and the balance 2/3 has to be distributed among
the heirs of the second class. A full brother comes in clause (c) of the
first sub-class of residuaries there being no one of clause (a) and
clause (b) and a full sister come sunder clause (c) of the second
sub-class of residuaries. The full brother and full sister therefore take
the balance 2/3 in the proportion of two to one, that isthe brother gets
4/9, the sister gets
2/9,
the two half brothers 1/3.
(see Section 40 of the Muhammadan Code)

To take another example for the purpose of explaining Table II,

suppose A dies leaving two daughters and two sisters, that is to say,
the problem given in Section 35 of the Code. According to item 6 of
the table of sharers the two daughters get 2/3. According to item 10
of the same table the full sister is excluded from the table of sharers
by the existence of the daughters. Turning to the second class, i.e.,
the class of residuaries, we find the sisters in clause (a) of the third
sub-class. The two sisters therefore take the balance 1/3.
The principal rule that must be kept in mind when one is dealing with
residuaries is that the estate must be divided according to the order
specified in the first sub-class of the table of residuaries. Suppose A
dies leaving a son, a father and a brother. The father as a sharer
under item 1 of the table of sharers
will be entitled to 1/6. Neither the son nor the brother come in the
first class. If we turn to the second class or class of residuaries, we
find the son in clause (a), the father in clause (b) and the brother in
clause (c) of the first sub-class. As already noted each clause of the
first sub-class excludes all the others coming after it. Therefore the
son is the only residuary who will inherit. The shares will be as
follows:father,
1/6; son,
5/6;
brother nothing.

The Distant Kindred or Zav-il-Arham (uterine

relations)
Zav-il-Arham, which means uterine relations constitute the third
major class of heirs, who simply are distant kindred.

TABLE III
There are four categories of Distant Kindred, which are:

(1)

The offspring of the deceased viz:-

(a)

The children of daughters and their descendants how low so

ever.

(b)

(2)

(3)

The children of sons daughters and their descendants how low so ever.

The root of the deceased or his ascendants, viz:- (a) Male ancestors
however remote in whose line of relation to the deceased there occurs a
female and who are therefore called false grand-fathers; (1) e. g., mothers
fathers mother.
The offspring of his parents, viz:-

(a)

The daughters of full brothers and of full brothers sons, and th eir
descendants.

(b)

The daughters of consanguine brothers (i.e., by the same

father only) and of consanguine brothers sons and their descendants.

(c)

The children of half brothers by the same mother only and heir
descendants.

(d)

The children of all sisters and their descendants.

(4)

The offspring of grandparents and other ascendants however

removed, viz :-

(a)

The daughters of full paternal uncles and of their sons; The

daughters of half paternal uncles by the father (i.e. fathers consanguine brothers)
and of their sons;
(b)Paternal aunts, full consanguine or uterine and their children;
(c) Maternal uncles and aunts and their children;
(d)Paternal uncles by the mother, that, is, the fathers half brothers by the
same mother only and their children and their respective
descendants however removed.

As already mentioned the principal rule relating to the Distant

Kindred is that, subject to one exception, they come into contention
as heirs only where there are no sharers and no residuaries.
According to the primitive Shaffie rules of inheritance, Distant
Kindreds were not recognized as heirs at all (see Minhaj-ut-Talibin
quoted by Amir Ali at page 121), but the modern Shaffie law follows
the Hanafi law on the point and the rule stated herein is now followed
even amongst Shaffie Muslims.
The one exception above referred to is the case of the husband or
wife co-existing with the Distant Kindred. If the rule had stood without
the exception the uterine relations would get nothing because the
husband or wife is a sharer. But this is not so, and the uterine
relations always take when they co-exist with either the husband or
wife.

The three tables given above, namely Table I, Table II and Table III
should be carefully preserved to facilitate the solutions of complex
issues that can arise in regard to intestate succession from time to
time.

The Doctrine of Rudd (Return)

Where there are sharers only and no residuaries, it often happens
that after allotment of the specified shares to the sharers, there is still
a balance or residue left. To whom does this balance go? It cannot go
to the residuaries, because there are none; nor can it go to the
distant kindred (uterine relations), because according to the third rule
already noted, the distant kindred do not get anything so long as
there is a Sharer or Residuary alive. In such a case this rule of Rudd
applies, which simply means that the residue will be divided amongst
the Sharers to the proportion of their shares. According to the early
orthodox law this return was not allowed in the case of a husband or
a wife but the later lawyers have allowed the return to a husband or
wife when there are no other heirs and this claim has been
recognized in India in M. A. Chowdry v. S. Banoo (1878) I. L. R. 3
Calcutta p. 702., and Bafatun v. B. Khanum (1903) I. L. R. 30 Calcutta
(683).
For clarity, the rule may be summarized as follows: In the case of all
Sharers, when there are no Residuaries, any balance left after
allotment of the shares of the Sharers is apportioned amongst them
in the proportion of their shares, excepting in the case of a husband
or a wife who only take by return when there are no other heirs.
Suppose a man leaves a widow, 3 daughters and his mother.
All these persons are Sharers and figure in the Table I above.
According to this table the 3 daughters get 2/3, the widow gets 1/8
and the mother 1/6.
We first give the widow her 1/8 share leaving 7/8. This 7/8 has to be
divided between the 3 daughters and the mother in the proportion of
2/3 to 1/6 i. e. in the proportion of 4/6 to 1/6 i.e. in the proportion of 4
to 1. Therefore the 3 daughters get 4/5 of 7/8 or 7/10 and the mother
gets 1/5 of 7/8 or 7/40. That is to say the widow get 1/8 or 30/240,
the 3 daughters get 7/10 or 168/240 and the mother gets 7/40 or
42/240 (see a similar example in Section 52 of the Code).
It will be noticed from what is explained above, that the persons who
get by return, excluding the case of a husband or wife, are eight in
number, viz: the mother, grand-mother, daughter sons daug hter, full
sister, consanguine sister uterine brother, and uterine sister. The
father need not be included here for the obvious reason that
according to Table I and II, the father partakes of the character both
of a Sharer and a Residuary, so when the father survives with other
sharers or alone, after the Sharers have taken the shares allotted to
them by Table I, the balance goes to the father as a Residuary and

there is no question of Rudd or return in this unique case.

It must be noted here that Section 13 of the now repealed
Muhammadan Code is erroneous, and if a woman dies leaving a
husband and three daughters, the husband and the three daughters
are Sharers. From Table I
The husband is entitled to
1/4 and the three
daughters, to 2/3.
There is balance of 1- 1/4 - 2/3 or 1/12.

This 1/12 (the Code wrongly gives 1/16) the Code says is to be given
to the poor, which can here only mean the three daughters by return.
Therefore the shares of the Sharers are as follows:The husband 1/4.
The three daughters .

The Supreme Court in the case of Sapoor Umma v. Omerdeen 19 NLR

342 thought that the word poor is used in the Muhammadan Code
Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 21, 24, 39, 52, 54, 56 etc. to refer to
Residuaries, but there is a
great deal of confusion in this usage. In the course of that decision,
Justice de Sampayo, rightly rejected (if I may say so respectfully) the
argument of the appellants counsel that the sister was entitled to the
residue by way of return, for the simple reason that there can be no return
if there is a Residuary.

The Doctrine of Aul (Increase)

Sometimes a case may arise where several Sharers co-exist and their
fractional shares when added together amount to more than one
(unity). In such a case the Arabian lawyers make a proportionate
abatement in all the shares, by increasing the common divisor. Hence
this doctrine was called the doctrine of Aul or increase. It is, however,
a very simple mathematical process and can be best illustrated by
examples. Suppose (to take the example given in Amir Ali) a woman
dies leaving her husband, two daughters and her mother; they are all
Sharers and their shares are as follows:Husband 1/4
2 daughters
2/3 Mother
1/6
1/4+2/3+1/6 is equivalent to 3+8+2/12 or 13/12.

Hence according to the doctrine of Aul, the common divisor 12 is

increased to 13 and the shares are given as follows:Husband 3/13
2 daughters
8/13 Mother
2/13

Mathematically, too, this is correct. The Estate is divided between the

husband, the 2 daughters and the mother in the proportion of 1/4 to
2/3 to 1/6.
i.e., of 3/12: 8/12;
2/12 i.e., of 3:8:2

In other words-

the husband gets 3/13

the 2 daughters get
8/13 and the mother
gets 2/13

Another example of the application of the doctrine of Aul was found in

Section 37 of the now repealed Muhammadan Code. Under that
section a woman dies leaving the following :- husband; a daughter, sons
daughters, mother, brothers and sisters. All these heirs are Sharers
except the brothers and sisters, who belong to the second class. It
will be remembered that the existence of a brother or daughter
displaces the sister from the first class to the second. The sharers
take as follows:Husband 1/4
Daughter 1/2
Sons daughter 1/6
Mother 1/6

These fractions when added amount to 13/12 or in other words the

brothers and sisters will not get anything, but worse still even the
shares of the Sharers
exceed the available estate. The application of the doctrine of Aul
becomes handy in such a situation to increase artificially the estate
by equating the denominator to the numerator so as to fit in to the
estate the respective shares of the Sharers by proportionately
reducing the shares. The result will be worked out as follows:Husband 1/4 = 3/12 reduced to
3/13 daughter 1/2 = 6/12
reduced to 6/13
sons daughters 1/6 = 2/12 reduced to
2/13 mother 1/6 = 2/12 reduced to
2/13
total allocation to Sharers 13/13 = unity.

In this situation, the brothers and sisters will get nothing, anyway.

Conclusions
From the above discussion, one important point would emerge. The
introduction in 1931 of the principles of shariaat in place of the
sometimes incorrect rules of the First Title of the Muhammadan Code
of 1806, has ensured the application of the principles laid down in the
Holy Quran and the traditions in a very pure form with respect to
intestate succession. However, unfortunately, the same cannot be
said of testate succession, as the application of the provisions of the
Wills Ordinance has the effect of overriding some of the important
principles of shariaat law. This is clearly inconsistent with the
legislative policy manifested by the 1931 reform brought about by
the enactment of the Muslim Intestate Succession Ordinance.
This is a matter that needs to be addressed by modern legislation in
the light of the aspirations of a community that is very keen to
preserve and practice its religious prescriptions in accordance with
the teachings of the Holy Quran and the beloved Prophet Muhammad
(Peace Be Upon Him).