The correct view is that it does not take effect until after death. As long as he is alive, he may amend it, alter it, or revoke it. Once he dies, if the heirs approve it, it takes effect; but if they do not approve it, only the equivalent of one-third of the estate takes effect.

His statement, “An endowment is a binding contract that may not be revoked”: the apparent meaning of the author’s words is that there is no difference between whether a person is in debt or not. It is known, however, that if a debtor has been legally restricted from dealing with his property, his endowment is invalid. But if he has not been placed under such restriction and establishes an endowment while owing a debt that absorbs the endowed property, then the apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the endowment is binding.

The second view—and it is the stronger view—is that, in this case, the endowment is not binding and may not be executed, because repayment of a debt is obligatory whereas an endowment is voluntary. One may not compromise an obligation for the sake of a voluntary act. This was the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

If the debt arises after the endowment—for instance, if he endows his house and then becomes impoverished and borrows—does the endowment become void, or should we say that it does not become void because it was completed before the impediment existed, and thus remains in force? The latter is closer to the truth. Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said that he may sell it to pay his debt, because this is no more inviolable than a mudabbar slave: a slave whose emancipation is made conditional upon his master’s death. Yet the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, sold such a slave to settle a debt (1).

But the stronger view is the first: namely, if the debt arises after the endowment, the endowment remains effective, and Allah will make the matter of the debt easy.