Shaykh al-Islām Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A founder established an endowment for his children, then his children’s children, then his children’s children’s children, and his descendants and posterity, in perpetuity for as long as they continue to have descendants, stipulating:

“If any of them dies leaving neither a child nor a grandchild, nor descendants nor posterity, whatever he had been receiving from this endowment shall pass to those of his degree of kinship and generation.”

If one of these beneficiaries dies leaving a child, a grandchild, descendants or posterity, to whom does his share belong? Does it belong to his child, or to those of his degree of kinship, such as his brothers, paternal cousins and the like?

He replied:

His share passes to his child, not to his brothers or paternal cousins, for several reasons, three of which we shall mention.

The first is that the founder’s statement, “For his children, then his children’s children,” is restricted by the qualification that follows it, namely:

“On condition that, if any of them dies leaving no child, his share shall pass to those of his generation.”

Whenever a statement is joined to something that restricts it, that restriction must be taken into account, rather than treating the opening words as unrestricted.

To explain the first premise: this clause—“On condition that, if any of them dies”—functions syntactically as a circumstantial clause in the accusative position. A circumstantial clause conveys a qualifying description, and a qualifying description restricts what it describes.