Fourth:

Even supposing that this falls under “using a single expression in both its meanings,” we do not concede that disallowing this is correct. Indeed, this is not the position of any of the recognized imams; it is merely the view of a group of speculative theologians. The statements of the general body of the Companions, the Successors, the jurists and the linguists, as well as most speculative theologians, indicate that this is permissible. Why, then, should his words not be understood in accordance with what he himself considers valid and argues in support of?

Fifth:

Their claim that an explicit provision cannot be set aside on the basis of a possible interpretation has already been answered. We have explained that there is no explicit provision here; rather, it is the possible interpretation that is set aside by the explicit provision. We have also mentioned that this argument is expressly stated by the leading imams.

The fourth benefit:

By this condition, he intended to prevent an interruption in the endowment and to prevent all its beneficiaries from sharing in the portion of someone who dies without children. He thereby indicated that, by his words “leaving his children,” he meant succession from individuals to their respective descendants.

If it is objected:

Applying the condition to all the clauses would entail an interruption in the endowment at an intermediate stage. It is therefore preferable to interpret the wording in a way that avoids such an interruption. For the share of someone who dies leaving children would pass neither to his generation, in accordance with the condition, nor to his children, in accordance with the unqualified order of succession.

If you say, “If we construe it as based on succession from individuals to their respective descendants, it would not entail an interruption,”