How can one respond to those who raise doubts about the issue of 'awl (a situation in Islamic inheritance where the sum of prescribed shares exceeds the total estate), claiming it is an imposition of what is unbearable and a violation of the clear Quranic texts regarding specified shares, and how can the proportions found in the Quran be interpreted in cases of 'awl where the heirs with prescribed shares receive less than their Quranic portion?

The Qur’an does not state that the sum of shares in every issue must equal one whole. The texts specify the amount of shares due to each heir, as well as the proportion of this right relative to the other heirs and the total inheritance. This includes cases of رد (Radd - return) and عول (Awal - increase).

Al-Murtada, in "Al-Bahr Al-Zakhkhar," explained in refutation of Ibn Abbas's argument denying Al-Awal, that God did not intend for heirs to take a half, a half, and a third. Rather, that was mentioned to clarify the origin of the shares and the extent of deficiency or surplus.

Sharia (definition) rulings are not always derived from texts with the same clarity. The Qur’an has encouraged referring matters to specialized scholars, because it is part of God's wisdom that some verses of the Qur’an contain ambiguity; this is to highlight the merit of those firmly grounded in knowledge, who understand their interpretation. Thus, there is no room to impugn the Qur’an after their clarification.

The consensus of the Ummah has been established regarding the principle of Al-Awal, and no attention was paid to the dissenting opinion of Ibn Abbas. This is because heirs are equal in the cause of entitlement, even if they differ in its amount. Therefore, when there is a shortfall, they are given shares according to their proportions, just as creditors are given proportional shares when the debtor's money is insufficient.