And the third is that its disposition is left unspecified, resulting in an interruption midway through the endowment, as if he had said: “I endow it for Zayd, and, ten years after his death, for the poor.” Since an interruption midway upon the death of one beneficiary is a possible interpretation, the founder included this condition to exclude that possibility, even though, according to the first opinion, this condition merely expresses what the endowment already entails. Some conditions accord with what the wording already implies and thus serve to reinforce its effect.

We reply: Glory be to Allah, the Magnificent! These are the words of someone who has strayed far from the point of our argument. We did not base our argument on the bare formulation of a condition, but on the restriction contained within it. This objection would indeed be sound had the founder said: “On condition that whoever among them dies, his share shall pass to the members of his tier.” Had he said this, there would have been no doubt that the deceased’s share passes to the members of his tier, whether or not he leaves a child, for several reasons.

First, this is what the initial wording entails when left unrestricted, and nothing modifying its effect has been appended to it.

Second, he has appended wording that reinforces what his unrestricted statement entails.

Third, he has expressly stipulated this in a condition that excludes both transfer to the second tier and any interruption, whether or not the deceased leaves a child.

The actual case before us, however, is that he said: “On condition that whoever among them dies leaving no child