Thus, preserving the general scope of “children” because no restriction is known is no more justified than preserving the general scope of “the sinful” because no evidence restricting it is known. Rather, excluding them is the stronger position, for several reasons.

First: The basic presumption is that they are not included in the endowment. Two general expressions conflict over their inclusion and exclusion, so the argument against their inclusion remains unopposed by any stronger counterargument.

Second: We know with certainty that they are excluded from one of the two clauses. One of the two conjoined general expressions is therefore restricted. Extending that restriction to its coordinate counterpart is more appropriate than introducing a restriction into an expression that is not conjoined with it.

Third: A conjoined clause and the clause to which it is joined are equivalent to a single clause. Once a restriction applies to this combined clause, its general force is weakened. By contrast, the general scope of the expression stating the exception has undergone no restriction.

Fourth: Sinfulness being an impediment implies that, in the endower’s estimation, it outweighs the ground for granting a share. Once we know with certainty that it takes precedence in one instance, giving it precedence in another is more appropriate than giving precedence to something whose superiority has not been established in any instance.

Fifth: As for his expression, “the endower’s explicit wording,” if he means the apparent meaning of the wording, then, according to this view, applying the exception to all the clauses is likewise its apparent meaning. There is therefore no distinction between the two. But if he means unequivocal wording that admits only one meaning, then it is well known that