“And they shall have a quarter of what you leave,”

it would convey only a distributive correspondence between the respective individuals—not a correspondence between the two groups collectively, between every individual and every other individual, or between each individual and the entire group. Likewise, if a jurist tells a man, “Your property passes to your heirs, then to their heirs,” this is understood to mean that each person’s property passes to his own heir. The wording, “for their children, then for their children’s children,” should therefore be understood similarly, either as an admissible interpretation or as the apparent meaning.

Third: In the wording “for their children,” the possessive relationship cannot possibly connect every individual with every other individual, since each child is not the child of every parent. Rather, the meaning is: “then for each person’s own children.” Thus, if someone says, “I establish an endowment for Zayd, ʿAmr, and Bakr, then for their children,” the pronoun refers to Zayd, ʿAmr, and Bakr, and the correspondence is distributive.

The statement involves two meanings: a possessive relationship and an order of succession. If the possessive relationship is distributive, the order of succession can likewise be distributive. Thus, His saying:

“They shall nurse their children,”

involves both nursing and a possessive relationship. Since the possessive relationship is distributive, the nursing is distributive as well. Likewise, in His saying:

“You shall have half of what your wives leave,”

the possessive relationship is distributive, so the entitlement is also distributive. This makes clear that the distributive interpretation has considerable force in expressions of this kind, whether it is stronger than the alternative, weaker, or equally plausible.