some basis; yet it would count as evidence against the disputant. For if the endowment continues when he dies leaving a child, then, if his share passes to the child, that is precisely what we seek to establish. If, however, it passes to the generation as a whole, no jurist could possibly say that it passes to that generation when there is a child, but lapses when there is no child. Thus, interpreting this wording as excluding the possibility of a lapse plainly demonstrates that the share of someone who dies leaving a child passes to his child. The proofs of this are as abundant as rain. And Allah guides whom He wills to the straight path.
The second argument concerning the fundamental issue is that his wording, “For his children, then for their children,” entails an order of succession: the children’s children become entitled after the children.
Here we have two groups, one succeeding the other. Rulings attached to general terms are of two kinds.
The first applies to each individual covered by the general term, whether or not another individual exists.
The second applies to those individuals collectively, so that the existence of each is a condition for the ruling to apply to the others. An example of the first is the saying of the Most High:
“O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you.”
“O you who believe, when you rise for prayer.”
And an example of