His statement, “giving precedence,” means that the endower stipulates precedence for one who possesses a particular quality—for example, by saying: “This is an endowment for my children, with precedence given to the seeker of knowledge.”

What is meant by giving him precedence is that he is given what suffices him from the endowment, and the remainder goes to the others. Thus, where precedence is stipulated, the one deferred is not deprived, because this is not an order of succession; rather, it is a matter of giving precedence and deferring. All are entitled to it, but the one whom the endower has given precedence is given priority.

If he says, “This is an endowment for my children, with precedence given to whichever of them is unmarried,” should this condition be fulfilled or not?

This requires consideration. We may say that the condition is not to be fulfilled, because remaining unmarried is not something encouraged, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “O young men, whoever among you is able to marry should marry.” (1) But if he has another consideration in mind—for example, if he says, “Precedence is given to the one whose wife has died”—then there is no harm in this, because he intends thereby to compensate this unmarried person whose wife has died, and perhaps he may marry again. However, if this endower intends to make being unmarried a qualifying attribute for entitlement without any religiously valid reason, then this condition is invalid, because it runs contrary to what the Sacred Law indicates and intends. Every condition not found in the Book of Allah is invalid.

His statement, “and the opposite of that”: the opposite of combining beneficiaries is differentiating between them, and the opposite of giving precedence is deferring.

Differentiating between them is such as when he has six children and says: “This is an endowment for”