Is it permissible to demand the re-division of a shop registered in the name of one of the brothers, and consider it part of the inheritance? Can what was paid for the deceased’s debts and medical expenses be claimed? Should the other siblings be compensated for the gifts given to the mother? Is it valid to compensate some heirs with excessive gifts under the pretext of the father's negligence towards them?

Scholars have differed on the obligation of justice between children in gifts, with the preponderant opinion being its obligation. If the gift was taken possession of during the father's lifetime, the majority of scholars hold that it becomes effective, while others believe that the wronged party has the right to demand the return of the gift to be distributed justly. It is advised not to make wealth a cause for discord among siblings, and to give to those sons and daughters who did not receive a share.

Ibn Qudamah mentioned in "Al-Mughni" that if someone favored some of his children over others in gifts and then died before rectifying it, the gift becomes firm for the donee and is binding. This is a narration from Ahmad, as reported by Muhammad ibn al-Hakam and al-Maimuni, and chosen by al-Khallal and Abu Bakr. Malik, al-Shafi'i, the jurists of opinion (Ahl ar-Ra'i), and most scholars held this view. There is another narration from Ahmad stating that the heirs have the right to reclaim what was gifted, and this was chosen by Ibn Battah and Abu Hafs al-Ukbarani. It is also the opinion of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr and Ishaq, who argue that injustice is not changed by death.

A father's gift to some of his heirs during his death illness is not effective, because it is considered like a will and is counted from one-third if given to a non-heir. If a father gave to one of his sons during his health and then wanted to equalize during his illness, Ahmad hesitated on this matter. The dowry is the wife's property and has no relation to this issue. Whatever was paid to settle the father's debt with the intention of recourse to the estate, the payer has the right to do so, because settling debts precedes the distribution of the estate. If it was paid with the intention of beneficence, then there is no right to reclaim it.