ʿAbd Allāh, stating that the bequest goes to his male children, not his female children. Restricting the scope of wording on the basis of customary speech is a principle on which Mālik’s own positions differ, as do those of other scholars. Thus, the inclusion of daughters’ children in the endowment under this wording can be derived from Mālik’s position that customary speech does not restrict its scope. As for the teachers’ statement that, if the founder repeats the wording and says, “and my children’s children’s children,” the children of his daughters’ daughters are included in the endowment, and that each additional generation is likewise included up to the limit he specifies, this cannot be derived from Mālik’s position under any circumstances. It follows only from adhering to the apparent linguistic wording without regard to any underlying considerations.

Section
On the Fourth Question

If someone says, “I establish an endowment for my children, male and female,” without naming them, and then adds, “and for their descendants,” the apparent position of Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—is that daughters’ children are included, just as they would be if he had named his children. This differs from saying “my children” without adding “male and female,” for the reason already explained: in customary speech, people apply the word “children” only to males, not females.

The book of Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz contains a case that some have cited as evidence that, according to Mālik, daughters’ children are not included in the endowment even if the founder says, “I establish an endowment for my children, male and female, and for their descendants.” This is his discussion of someone who established an endowment for his male and female children and said, “When any of them dies, his children shall take his place.” Mālik said, “I see no entitlement for daughters’ children.”

This, however, is a weak inference. If we concede it despite its weakness, the reasoning behind this position would be to understand “and their descendants” as intended merely to clarify that the founder did not mean to restrict his endowment to his immediate children, male and female, to the exclusion of the descendants below them through his sons, thereby including those not covered by the expression “children, male and female.”

If the inference is not conceded, the distinction between the two cases is that the wording in the present case is understood according to its apparent meaning, whereas the statement in the case recorded in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book, “When any of them dies, his children shall take his place,” is understood as a clarification and explanation of those encompassed by the initial wording. Success comes from Allah Most High.