on this matter—and Allah knows best. It is possible that he knew of the report but interpreted it in accordance with his own position, understanding Mālik’s statement, “Daughters’ children are not included,” to mean only the children of the daughters of the founder’s sons, in keeping with Mālik’s underlying principle and position that daughters’ children are neither children nor descendants—meaning in the usage of Islamic law, as we have explained. This, however, is a far-fetched interpretation, since it conflicts with both the apparent wording and its meaning, as we have explained. It is also possible that they departed from his position and disagreed with him, adopting instead what they considered to follow from analogy based on the apparent wording. And Allah knows best.

Section
On the Third Question

If someone says, “I establish an endowment for my children and their children,” using either waladī or awlādī for “my children,” Ibn Abī Zamanīn relates from Mālik in his al-Muqarrab that daughters’ children are not included in the endowment under this wording. The reasoning is as explained above: in customary speech, “children” refers only to males, not females. The plural pronoun in “their children” therefore refers exclusively to them, leaving daughters’ children excluded.

Those teachers who included daughters’ children under the wording “I establish an endowment for my children and my children’s children” also included them under this wording, but only daughters’ children themselves, not the descendants below them through daughters’ daughters—unless the founder adds another generation by saying, “and my children’s children,” in which case they are included at the second level. Likewise, whenever he adds another generation, they are included up to the limit specified by the founder’s words. The judge Muhammad ibn al-Salīm ruled that they were included under this wording, on the basis of the legal opinions of most scholars of his time.

Their inclusion under this wording is clearer than under the first wording. The first wording—“my children and my children’s children”—is restricted to the offspring of his male children, rather than his female children, on two grounds:

First: the established usage of Islamic law.

Second: customary speech.

Restriction on the basis of the established usage of Islamic law is undisputed. The second wording—“my children’s children and their children”—can be restricted only on the basis of customary speech. This is the import of Asbagh’s report in the Book of Bequests in al-ʿUtbiyyah concerning someone who made a bequest to the children of