For Zechariah belonged to the family of Jacob. From this we can formulate an analogical argument as follows: this is a general expression applying both to those who inherit from the founder of the endowment and trace their lineage to him, and to those who neither inherit from him nor trace their lineage to him—all being equally free and Muslim. It must therefore be restricted to those among them who inherit, excluding those who do not. The basis for this analogy is that, when the founder says, “I establish this endowment for my children,” without adding anything further, its scope is restricted to those who inherit from him and trace their lineage to him: his children, male and female, and the children of his sons. It excludes those who neither inherit from him nor trace their lineage to him, such as children born of unlawful intercourse and daughters’ children, even though the word “child” encompasses them all in Arabic. This is clear, Allah willing.

There is a second argument, sound in meaning and clear by analogy, which follows what I consider the correct position on a principle disputed within the school: taking account of people’s customary language and their intentions in their oaths. To introduce this argument, we must establish a principle upon which to base it and to which we may refer it. There is no disagreement that spoken words merely express what is in people’s minds. Thus, if the founder expresses his intention in unambiguous terms, explicitly including his daughters’ children in his endowment or excluding them from it, we must abide by his words and may not depart from his explicit statement. But if he expresses his intention in wording that admits both interpretations, we must adopt whichever possible meaning we consider he most probably intended, on the basis of what is known of his purpose. For people’s general expressions are understood only in light of what is known of their intentions and beliefs, since we have no way of knowing what the founder intended except through him.

Once this principle we have established and explained is accepted, we know that only those with specialized knowledge of Arabic understand that the unqualified word walad (child) applies to both males and females. Most people believe that it applies only to a male, not a female. If you ask someone who has a daughter but no son, “Do you have a child?” he will tell you, “I have no child; I only have a daughter.” This customary usage must therefore restrict the general scope of the founder’s wording, which must be understood to mean that he intended only his male grandchildren, not his