the poor, imams, muezzins, and students of knowledge: if the endower has not stipulated an administrator, then administration belongs to the judge, because it is not possible to bring every person who is poor or a student of knowledge and say to him, “Administer this endowment.” That would be impracticable.

Likewise, if the endowment is made for something that cannot own property, such as an endowment for mosques, its administration also belongs to the judge, unless the endower appoints a specific administrator.

Second: if the endowment is for a specified person, such as one’s children, or Zayd, or Amr, or the like, then its administration belongs to the beneficiaries of the endowment, and no one may contest them—unless they act contrary to the requirements of trusteeship, in which case the judge has general supervisory authority.

Third: if the endowment is for someone specified by a description, but not limited to a particular individual, such as the imam, the muezzin, the teacher, and the like, then two considerations contend with one another: particularity and generality. In view of the fact that the imam is one individual, administration belongs to him. But in view of the fact that he resembles a general category, and that this imam may act in a manner serving his own interest without regard to an imam who comes after him, then the aspect of generality is given precedence, and administration belongs to the judge, or to whoever is appointed by the state, such as the Ministry of Endowments.

Therefore, we say: if the opinion of the imam conflicts with that of the officials responsible for endowments, should we follow the imam’s opinion or that of the officials?

Neither of them should act independently in forming an opinion; rather, the public interest must be considered. However, the responsible authority has no right to object to this imam unless he acts contrary to the requirements of trusteeship.

Is the administrator of an endowment entitled to compensation?