after his father.” This wording requires that each person be entitled to what his father would have been entitled to had he met the qualifying condition, just as others of his generation are entitled to it. Muslim scholars agree on this in comparable cases, whether the entitlement arises under Islamic law or from a stipulation. If this establishes the child’s entitlement, while the detailed provision either also establishes his entitlement—which is the more evident interpretation—or does not require his exclusion, then the evidence remains operative, being free of any countervailing evidence of equal weight. And Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man established an endowment for his children, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and for his grandson through his son, so-and-so. He stipulated that if any of them died leaving a son, his share would pass to his son; and if anyone died leaving a daughter, his share would pass to her, then to her paternal uncles, then to the sons of her paternal uncles, the nearest taking precedence over the next nearest. A grandson through a son then died without children, leaving his full sister and his paternal uncles. Which of them has the stronger claim?

He answered:

His share passes to his full sister. It is clear that the founder intended to earmark what his ascendant would have been entitled to, and to assign the share of anyone dying without children to his closest relative. He also placed Mūsā, the grandson, in the position of his son, because his father was already deceased when the endowment was established. And Allah knows best.