Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/432)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

unlike a bequest to “the sons of so-and-so,” which includes both his male and female children. If it is asked, “Do you maintain that this is Mālik’s position?” we reply: The matter admits of more than one possibility. We do not know; perhaps his view that daughters’ children are excluded when someone establishes an endowment for his children and his children’s children rests on our first answer. If it rests on our first answer, then this is not his position, and he includes daughters under the word “children.” If, however, his view rests on our second answer, then this is his position, as required by consistently applying his analogy. And Allah knows best.

Section

If someone asks, “What purpose is served by the founder’s words ‘and my children’s children,’ if saying ‘and my children and my children’s children’ includes no one beyond those already included by saying ‘my children’?” The answer is that the words “and my children’s children” do serve a purpose: they clarify that he did not intend to restrict his endowment to his immediate children, to the exclusion of his male grandchildren below them, and they avoid the point of disagreement. Some scholars hold that the endowment is restricted to the children, excluding the grandchildren, unless he says, “and my children’s children.” This is the position reflected in Sahnūn’s report from someone other than Ibn al-Qāsim, in his collected transmissions in the Book of Endowments. Although the answers to this question are numerous and differ in their reasoning, they all agree in pointing towards the intended conclusion, for they constitute proofs supporting the position adopted by Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—and sound proofs do not contradict one another.

Section

Thus, any of our earlier teachers who included daughters’ children in the endowment under this wording—or daughters’ daughters’ children, if the wording is repeated a third time—and attributed this to Mālik’s position, has erred. He has failed to follow Mālik’s principle of interpreting expressions according to their intended meanings rather than merely their designations, and was unaware of the report transmitted from him

بخلاف إذا أوصى لبني فلان، فإنه يدخل في ذلك ذكورهم وإناثهم؛ فإن قيل فهل تقولون إن هذا هو مذهب مالك، قلنا الأمر محتمل، إذ لا ندري لعل رأيه فيمن حبس على ولده وولد ولده - أن أولاد البنات لا يدخلون في الحبس على جوابنا الأول فإن كان على جوابنا الأول، فليس هذا مذهبه، وبناته يدخلن عنده بلفظ الولد - وإن كان رأيه على جوابنا الثاني، فهذا مذهبه بناء على طرد قياسه والله أعلم. فصل فإن قال قائل: فما فائدة قول المحبس وولد ولدي إذا كان لا يدخل في الحبس بقوله وولدي وولد ولدي إلا من يدخل بقوله: ولدي؛ فالجواب عن ذلك أن لقوله وولد ولدي فائدة وهي البيان أنه لم يرد أن يخصص بحبسه ولده دنية دون من تحتهم منه ولد الولد الذكور والخروج من الخلاف؛ إذ من أهل العلم من يرى أن الحبس مقصور على الولد دون ولد الولد حتى يقول: وولد ولدي، وعلى هذا القول تأتي رواية سحنون عن غير ابن القاسم في سماعه من كتاب الحبس، والأجوبة في هذا وإن كثرت وكانت معانيها مختلفة فهي كلها في الإرشاد إلى الطلوب متفقة، لأنها أدلة على صحة قول مالك ﵀ فيما ذهب إليه، والأدلة الصحاح لا تتعارض. فصل فمن أدخل من شيوخنا المتقدمين ولد البنات في الحبس بهذا اللفظ، أو ولد بنات البنات - إذا كرر اللفظ ثالثة، وعزاه إلى مذهب مالك؛ فقد أخطأ ولم يجر على أصله في حمل الألفاظ على معانيها دون مجرد أسمائها؛ وجهل الرواية عنه