For this reason, Muslims agree that, among the successive generations of endowment beneficiaries, if the conditions are not met by the first generation, or by some of its members, this does not necessarily deprive the second generation of entitlement, provided they meet the conditions. Some have disputed only the case in which members of the first generation die before their entitlement arises. Yet there is no difference between the two cases.

This is further clarified by the following: to say that the deceased’s share passes to his siblings because he belongs to their generation would necessarily entail succession by one entire generation to another, or would mean that some or all members of the second generation become entitled only once the entire first generation has died. The founder’s wording, however, makes clear that he intended individuals to succeed individuals.

Nevertheless, we recognize two opinions where the wording is unqualified. The stronger is that individuals succeed individuals in all cases, since this is what such wording is intended to convey. They themselves favour giving the deceased’s child precedence over his brother with respect to what his father inherits, for the child is given precedence over the brother. If it is argued that the endowment’s succession is interrupted in this case, this founder has expressly used wording indicating continuity. His share must therefore pass to his child. In short, this is certain: it admits of no valid juristic dispute, but only disagreement arising from error.

As for the founder’s statement:

“If any of Zayd’s children or grandchildren dies, leaving a child or grandchild, however far down the line of descent, his share shall pass to his grandchild or great-grandchild.”

The following may be said about it: either his expression “his share” encompasses the share to which he would be entitled if he possessed the qualifying characteristic, whether or not he actually became entitled to it, or it covers only what he actually became entitled to. If the former is intended, there is nothing further to dispute. This is the more compelling interpretation, because after his death he is no longer entitled to that share; and because, if the father were excluded owing to the absence of