is invalid, because the beneficiary is unspecified, and we do not know which of the two is entitled to the endowment.

Some scholars said that it is valid, and one of them should be selected by drawing lots, because this is closer to the endower’s intent. The endower wishes to show charity to one of these two, but does not know which of them is more deserving. This view is closer to what is correct, in accordance with the endower’s intent. For the endower has removed this property from his ownership and does not want it back, but he is uncertain whether it should go to this one or that one. So he says: “It is an endowment for one of these two men—either so-and-so or so-and-so.” In this case, one is selected by drawing lots.

But if he says, “Either so-and-so or so-and-so, with the decision left to the third person,” then we say to that third person, who is the administrator: “Give it to whichever of them you consider more deserving.” Thus, if one of them is in greater need, more devoted to seeking knowledge, or the like, there is no harm in giving it to him, because we know that the endower’s purpose is benevolence and kindness.

The specified beneficiary must be capable of ownership. If the endowment is made for a specified recipient incapable of ownership, it is invalid. For example:

His statement, “not an angel”: if he were to endow something for a particular angel, such as Gabriel, saying, “This is an endowment for Gabriel, for he is Allah’s trustee over His revelation,” this is invalid, because he cannot own property. If he cannot own property, the endowment is invalid.

His statement, “or an animal”: for example, if he says, “This is an endowment for so-and-so’s horse,” this is not permissible, because a horse cannot own property. But if he says, “For the horses of jihad,” this is a public cause rather than a specified recipient, and so it is valid, because it is general,