daughters, since he most probably did not intend his female children, being unaware that they too are designated by the word “child.” Similarly, the general wording of an oath is restricted by what is known of people’s intentions in their oaths and their customary speech.

The analogy may be formulated precisely as follows: this is a general expression which, in Arabic, applies to both males and females among the founder’s children and grandchildren. It must therefore be understood according to its customary meaning and people’s intended usage: males, rather than females, among his children and grandchildren. The precedent for this is the position that someone who swears not to eat meat or eggs, then eats fish or fish eggs, does not break his oath. This is because fish is not considered meat in people’s customary speech and intended usage, although it is meat in Arabic. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:

“so that you may eat fresh meat from it” [al-Nahl: 14].

This is a sound analogy whose validity is undisputed among all scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah who accept analogical reasoning. For they define analogy as extending a ruling from an original case to a new case, whether to deny or affirm it, on account of an effective cause shared by both. The new case in our discussion is the founder’s statement, “I establish this endowment for my children and my children’s children.” The ruling sought is the exclusion of the offspring of females among the founder’s children and grandchildren from the scope of his wording. The original case is that of someone who says, “By Allah, I will not eat meat or eggs,” without any particular intention, and then eats fish or fish eggs. The effective cause shared by both cases is that, in their customary speech and intended usage, people apply the word “meat” only to the flesh of four-legged animals, excluding other kinds of flesh, and the word “eggs” only to the eggs of feathered creatures, excluding other kinds of eggs. Likewise, in their customary speech and intended usage, they apply the word “child” only to a male, not a female.

Section

This answer is supported by what Ibn Abī Zamanīn relates in his al-Muqarrib from Mālik, citing the book of Ibn al-Mawwāz, concerning someone who establishes an endowment for “his children and their descendants,” using precisely this wording: daughters’ children are not included in the endowment. Had the expression “his children” been understood in its general sense, encompassing both males and females, the plural pronoun would have been referred back