and find that this house exceeds one-third, then only the portion of the house equivalent to one-third takes effect. Thus, if this house constitutes one-half of the estate, two-thirds of it takes effect, because two-thirds of one-half is one-third of the whole.

However, if the heirs approve and say, “We have no objection,” then there is no harm in it. This is the established rule of the school, and its discussion and precise formulation will come, Allah willing.

His statement, “and an endowment for oneself,” means that it is invalid for a person to say, “I have made my particular house an endowment for myself.” Imam Ahmad said: “I know of no endowment except that which one has given away for Allah’s sake.”

One who makes an endowment for himself has done nothing, for he has transferred his ownership to his own ownership. What benefit is there in that?

If they say: “The benefit is that he will not sell it, since an endowment may not be sold,” we say: Who is compelling him to sell it?! Let him keep it as unrestricted property, not as an endowment, and simply not sell it.

If he says, “I fear that my own self may overcome me and lead me to sell it, so I make it an endowment for myself,” then there is a benefit in that. Thus, if a person fears that he may sell his house and therefore makes it an endowment for himself out of fear of this, that is a benefit; and there is no doubt that it carries weight and value. For this reason, the scholars differed, may Allah have mercy on them, over whether a person may validly establish an endowment for himself.

The position of the school is that it is invalid. Accordingly, the endowment reverts to him as his property because of its invalidity, and the endowment contract is treated as though it had never existed.

But if he establishes it for himself and then mentions someone after himself, it passes to them immediately. For example, if he says: “This is an endowment for myself, and after me for…”