that the children, when present, are closer to the deceased, so their basis for entitlement is stronger. This indicates that the founder intended them to receive the share. We shall mention, Allah willing, what may be said in response to this.

The fourth argument:

A pronoun must refer to everything previously mentioned. If this is impossible, it is taken to refer to the nearest antecedent or to whatever the evidence identifies. Restricting its reference to some of what has been mentioned without justification departs from the default rule, and the wording may not be construed in this way without evidence. This is because third-person pronouns are generally used to refer to what has already been mentioned, without themselves indicating any particular kind or quantity.

Thus, if someone were to say:

“I visit Banū Hāshim, then Banū al-Muttalib, then the rest of Quraysh, and honor them and have them seated,”

or something similar, the pronoun would refer to all those previously mentioned.

This is not the same as the disagreement over an exception following several clauses: does it apply to all of them or only to the nearest one?

That disagreement arises because an exception excludes some of what the wording encompasses. Those who restrict it to the final clause say:

“The basis for inclusion in the preceding clauses remains in place, while the ground for exclusion is uncertain. What that basis requires cannot therefore be set aside on account of doubt.”

This consideration does not apply to a pronoun. A pronoun is a word used to refer to what has previously been mentioned, and it can encompass all those referents collectively. It must therefore be understood as general in scope unless there is evidence restricting it. Accordingly, understanding the pronoun as general accords with its literal meaning, while restricting its reference is like restricting the scope of a general expression.