Thus, the correct view is that it is permissible to endow something from which no benefit can be derived except by consuming it. So if someone says, “This sack of dates is an endowment for the poor,” we say: May Allah reward you well and accept it from you; it is equivalent to charity.
This is the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, d. 728 AH, and it is the correct view: it is permissible to endow something whose substance is consumed through its use.
If someone endows dirhams as a loan fund, saying, “These are an endowment for lending to those in need,” is this valid or not? According to the established school of jurisprudence, it is not valid, because the dirhams cannot be put to use except by being spent: the borrower takes them and purchases what he needs, whereupon they are spent.
The correct view, however, is that this is permissible. If it is permissible to endow a specified item that is consumed through its use, then endowing something such as this is even more deserving of permissibility, because when the borrower takes it as a loan, he will return its equivalent, and it will therefore remain in perpetuity.
Thus, the correct view is that it is permissible to endow dirhams for lending to those in need. There is nothing wrong with this, and there is no evidence to prohibit it. The purpose is to extend kindness to others.
His statement, “such as real estate,” refers to houses, shops, and land that is cultivated or leased out as enclosed yards or warehouses. These may be endowed.
His statement, “and an animal”: an animal may be put to use—if it is a riding animal, by riding it; and if it is a milk-producing animal, by milking it. An animal can be used while its substance remains. If someone says, “I endow this sheep to be fed to the poor,” is this valid or not? According to the established school of jurisprudence, it is not valid, because he has restricted it to something from which benefit may be derived while it remains intact. It is therefore like endowing dates, rice, wheat, and the like.