And if he dies during the lifetime of his brothers, there are three views regarding it: one is that it reverts to his brothers because nothing is established for the second generation as long as one person from the first generation remains. The second is that it transfers to his children, because his two brothers forfeited their right by their refusal [to swear], and thus they became like the non-existent. The third is that it is diverted to the closest agnate (asaba) of the founder, [because it was not possible to divert it to the two brothers, nor to the second generation, for the reason we have mentioned, so it is diverted to the closest agnate of the founder], until the two brothers die, and then it reverts to the second generation. The first [view] is the most correct, because the two brothers did not forfeit their rights; they merely refrained from establishing the proof against it. Therefore, if the parents were to confess it for them, the endowment would be established without an oath, and here, the confession has been obtained from the second generation, so it must necessarily revert to them, due to the occurrence of agreement from all parties regarding their entitlement to it. If it is said: "If the second generation consists of minors, then no confession has been obtained from them." We say: The confession has been obtained from the one who swore, by whose oath the proof was established, and by the evidence (bayyina) through which the endowment was established, by which the second generation is entitled; therefore, this is sufficient for its transfer to the two brothers, just as it is sufficient for its transfer to the second generation after the extinction of the two brothers. What points to the correctness of this is that we sufficed with the evidence in the origin of the endowment, its modality, its description, and its arrangement, in matters other than this disputed one, so it must be sufficed with in this [matter] as well. As for if the condition of the founder was that whoever of them dies leaving a child, his share transfers to him, then it transfers to his children, in one singular opinion; because they have no one to dispute them regarding it. And if he dies without leaving a child, it transfers to his two brothers, according to the correct view, and the other two views are derived from it. The second state is when the endowment is collective, which is that they claim that their father endowed his house to his children and his children's children as long as they reproduce, so he created a partnership between the generations. In this state, if his three children swear with their witness, and none of their children are present with them, the endowment is established for the three. And if one of their children is present, he is their partner; if he is an adult, he swears and becomes entitled, and if he does not swear, his share becomes inheritance.