people of the language, so one should not rely on what contradicts it. If he bequeaths to his 'qawm' (people) or his 'nusaba' (kin by marriage/lineage), Abu Bakr said: This is of the same status as his 'ahl bayti' (people of his house). Al-Qadi said: If he says: 'to my rahim' (my kin), or 'to my arham' (my kin), or 'to my ansab' (my lineage), or 'to my munasib' (my kinsmen), it is directed to his kin from both his father’s and mother’s sides, and it extends beyond the fifth forefather. According to this, it is directed to everyone who inherits by a fixed share (fard), by residuary (ta'sib), or by kinship (rahim) in any situation. The statement of Abu Bakr regarding 'munasibin' (kinsmen) is more appropriate than the statement of Al-Qadi, because in common usage, this term is applied to those of the clan to which both parties belong, and if each of them belongs to a tribe other than the other's tribe, he is not considered a 'munasib' to him.

Section: If he bequeaths to his 'mawali' (clients/freed slaves), and he has 'mawali' from above—who are those who freed him—the bequest is for them, because the name applies to them, and they are specified by their existence as opposed to others. If he has only 'mawali' from below (those he freed), it is for them likewise. If they both coexist, the bequest is for all of them, and they are treated equally therein, because the name encompasses them all. The scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: The bequest is invalid because it is for non-specified parties. Abu Thawr said: Lots are drawn between them because one of them is not more entitled than the other. Ibn al-Qasim said: It is for the 'mawla' from below. The companions of Al-Shafi'i have four views: like our view, the view of the scholars of opinion, and the third is that it is for the 'mawali' from above, because they are stronger, as evidenced by the fact that they are his agnatic heirs ('asaba) and they inherit from him, unlike those he freed. The fourth is that the matter is suspended until they reconcile. Our view is that the name applies to all, both in reality and in common usage; thus, they are included in the bequest, just as if he had bequeathed to his siblings. Their argument that 'it is not specified' is not correct; for with generalization, specification is achieved. Therefore, if one swears, 'I will not speak to my mawali,' he commits a breach by speaking to any one of them. Regarding their saying that the 'mawla' from above is stronger, we say: Given that the name encompasses them, it includes both the strong and the weak, like his siblings. There is nothing for the paternal cousin, nor for the 'nasir' (helper), [nor for the ally], nor for anyone other than those we mentioned, because if the name does not apply to them