he listed them, extending that same order to the remaining generations, as people generally understand such wording? For just as the conjunction “and” does not require an order of succession, neither does it exclude one. If the wording contains an indication of such an order, it must be observed. This is a matter of disagreement. If we adopt the second view, there is nothing further to discuss.

If we adopt the first view, we also say:

It requires the deceased’s share to pass to his children in every generation. Transferring the deceased’s share to those of his own generation, rather than to the other beneficiaries of the endowment, when he leaves no children implies that it passes to his children when he does leave children. Such an a fortiori implication constitutes stronger evidence than an explicit statement, even in the conditions stipulated by founders of endowments.

Thus, if someone says:

“I have established an endowment for my children, on condition that anyone among them who is openly sinful shall not receive a single dirham,”

there is undoubtedly no permission to give such a person two dirhams. By denying him a small amount, the founder has indicated that he is also to be denied a larger amount. Likewise, by transferring the deceased’s share to his siblings when he leaves no children, the founder has indicated that it passes to the children when both they and the siblings are present. Thus, the siblings’ exclusion when there are children follows from the stated restriction, while the children’s entitlement follows from the implication and evident purport of the wording.

To clarify: assigning the deceased’s share to those of his own generation, rather than to the other beneficiaries of the endowment, and without singling out those closest to the deceased, shows that the founder made closeness to the deceased the basis for this exclusive entitlement—not closeness to the founder or merely being entitled to benefit from the endowment. And it is well known