Our sons are the sons of our sons, and our daughters... their sons are the sons of distant men.

Regarding their claim that they (children of daughters) are 'children of children' in reality, we respond: except that they are not attributed to the endower by custom. For this reason, if he were to say: 'My children's children who are attributed to me,' these would not enter into the endowment. Moreover, the child of a Hashimi woman from a non-Hashimi man is not a Hashimi, nor is he attributed to her father. As for Jesus, peace be upon him, he had no father to be attributed to, so he was attributed to his mother due to the absence of a father; that is why it is said, 'Jesus, son of Mary,' while others are only attributed to their fathers, like John, son of Zachariah. The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), 'Indeed, this son of mine is a leader,' is metaphorical without disagreement, evidenced by the saying of God, the Exalted: 'Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men' (Qur'an 33:40). This disagreement applies when there is nothing present that indicates the specification of one of the two matters; however, if something is found that directs the wording to one of them, it is directed to it. If he were to say, 'To my children and my children's children,' on the condition that the children of daughters have one share and the children of sons have two shares, or: 'When the land is vacant of anyone whose lineage returns to me from the side of a father or mother, it shall be for the poor,' or if the first generation of his children for whom the endowment was made were all daughters, and similar instances that indicate the intent to include the children of daughters in the endowment, they are included in it. If he says, 'To my children, and my children's children who are attributed to me,' or 'not of the uterine relatives,' or similar, the children of daughters do not enter into it. If he says, 'To the children of so-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, and their children,' the children of daughters are included. Likewise, if he says: 'On the condition that whoever among them dies leaving his children, his share is for his children.' If a Hashimi says: 'I have endowed this to my children and my children's children who are Hashimi,' those among his daughters' children who are not Hashimi do not enter into the endowment. As for those who are Hashimi among the children of his daughters, do they enter? There are two opinions: First, that they do enter, because both characteristics have combined in them—being his children's children and being Hashimi. Second, that they do not enter, because they did not enter into the absolute phrasing of 'his children's children,' so it is similar to if he had not said 'the Hashimi ones.'