the offspring of one’s daughters. A poet from Medina put the matter succinctly:

Our sons are the sons of our sons, while our daughters—
their sons belong to men far removed from us.

If a man creates a ḥabs for “his children and his children’s children,” or for “his progeny and the progeny of his progeny,” then his direct daughters enter it alongside his sons, and the male grandchildren enter alongside the sons as well; thus the immediate children and the male grandchildren share together, and those among them who are in need are always preferred over the well-off. Should those direct daughters die, however, nothing of the ḥabs passes to their own children.

Suppose a person endows a house upon four of his children to the exclusion of the grandchildren, and stipulates that if any one of them dies his offspring shall take his father’s portion. If two of the four die and leave children, those children receive the exact shares of their fathers. Should one of the remaining direct children later die childless, his share reverts to his surviving brother and to the sons of the brothers who predeceased him. Here again, the needy are favored over the wealthy, and the property is not to be divided, for need may shift from one relative to another.

When a man states in his ḥabs, “to my children, then to my grandchildren,” none of the grandchildren are included until the immediate children have died out. But if he says, “to my children and my grandchildren,” they all share concurrently, with the needy always given priority.

If a man donates property as a ḥabs to his daughters and stipulates that, should they die out, it shall pass to his male children, the daughters take possession of the gift during their father’s lifetime; it remains in their hands until they die, leaving behind brothers and nephews (the sons of those brothers)