Thus, if he says, “This is an endowment for my male and female children,” then this is an explicit statement—not merely a contextual indication—that females are included, so they are included.

If he says, “This is an endowment for my children who strive in the cause of Allah,” the contextual indication shows that males are intended, because striving in jihad is specific to men. The point is that contextual indications are taken into account in determining whether the wording includes females or not.

His statement, “If an endowment is made for a group whose members can be counted, they must all be included and treated equally”: if an endowment is made for a group whose members can be counted, two things are obligatory: that they all be included and that they be treated equally.

For example, if he makes an endowment for the children of a certain person, and they number ten, they can be counted. Therefore, they must all be included, and each one must be given a share; and they must be treated equally. Males and females are alike; the wealthy and poor are alike; the weak and strong are alike; and the elderly and young are alike. This is because they can be counted.

But if they cannot be counted—as, for example, the tribe of Tamim—the author says: “Otherwise, preference may be given and it is permissible to limit it to one of them.” If they cannot be counted, he may give some preference over others, and he may give to some while depriving others. This is because it is customary that those who cannot be counted cannot be fully encompassed; and when they cannot be fully encompassed, it is not obligatory to give to them all.

If he makes an endowment for thirty people, they can be counted, and they must all be included. But if these people become numerous and turn into a tribe that cannot be counted, then it is not obligatory to include them all or to treat them equally. Rather, it is permissible to limit it to one of them.