And He distinguished between the two named parties, so we need to distinguish between them as well. In contexts other than alms (sadaqat), each of the two terms refers to the other. If one combines both terms in the endowment, saying, "I have endowed this for the needy (fuqara') and the poor (masakin), in two halves or three," then it is mandatory to distinguish between them as well, so we treat them as their status in the shares of alms. If he says, "For the needy and the poor," then the analogy of the school of thought is the permissibility of limiting it to only one of the two classes and the permissibility of distributing it to just one person, as we have said regarding Zakat. It is also inferred that it is not permissible to distribute to fewer than three from each class, based on the opinion regarding Zakat as well. There is no disagreement that it is not mandatory to distribute it generally to all of them, just as it is not mandatory to encompass them in Zakat, nor is there any disagreement that it is permissible to favor some of those to whom he gives over others, whether they are male or female, or whether the endowment is from the outset or transferred to them from others. The guideline for this is that whenever the endowment is for those whose number can be limited and encompassed, and equality among them can be achieved, it is mandatory to encompass them and maintain equality among them, if the founder did not favor some over others. If he endows it for those whose number cannot be limited, such as the poor, or a large tribe like the Banu Tamim or Banu Hashim, it is permissible to give to one person or to more than one, and it is permissible to favor some and treat others equally; because his endowment for them, while knowing that encompassing them is impossible, is evidence that he did not intend it. Whoever may be excluded from it, it is permissible to favor another over him. If the endowment at its inception was for those who could be encompassed, and then they became a group that could not be encompassed, such as a man who endows it for his children and his grandchildren, then they become a large tribe that exceeds limitation, such as when Ali, may God be pleased with him, endowed it for his children and descendants, then it is mandatory to distribute it generally to as many as possible among them and to treat them equally; because general distribution was mandatory, and so was equality, so when that becomes impossible, that which is possible becomes mandatory, like a mandatory act for which one is unable to perform part of; and because the founder here intended general distribution and equality, due to its possibility and the fitness of his expression for that, so it is mandatory to act upon what is possible of it, unlike when they were, at the time of the endowment, of those for whom this is not possible.