he was created without a father. Thus, if a man disavows his child, saying, “This child is not mine,” and his disavowal is accepted subject to the well-known conditions, then that child’s father is his mother. Accordingly, if he dies leaving her behind, she inherits from him both the share of a mother and that of a father. Thus, if he has neither children nor siblings, his mother receives one-third as her prescribed share, and the remainder by agnatic succession, because she is both his father and his mother.

His statement, “If he says, ‘for his sons’ or ‘for the sons of so-and-so,’ it is restricted to their males”: If he says, “for his sons” or “for the sons of so-and-so,” it is for the males to the exclusion of the females. Here, we are discussing the word “his sons” with respect to what the wording denotes and with respect to the permissibility of this endowment. If he says, “for my sons,” the wording indicates that daughters are not included, because a daughter is not called a son. But is it permissible for a person to establish an endowment for his sons to the exclusion of his daughters? The answer is no.

The jurists only discuss what expressions denote, rather than the ruling on the endowment itself. Thus, if he says, “This is an endowment for my sons,” only the males are included, whereas the females are not, since one says “sons” and “daughters.” Yet it is not permissible for him to restrict the endowment to his sons, because if he does so, he falls under the Prophet’s saying, “Fear Allah and be just among your children” (1). By doing so, he is not fearing Allah, Most High. The Prophet also described favoring some children over others as injustice, saying, “I will not bear witness to injustice” (2). There is no doubt that one who establishes an endowment for his sons to the exclusion of his daughters commits an injustice.