accorded to its implicit meaning just as it is to its explicit wording. As for the claim that every stipulation must always be carried out, no one with the least share of learning would say so. If a judge’s ruling is set aside whenever it contradicts the judgement of Allah and His Messenger, then the founder’s document is even more subject to that principle.

Scholarly disagreement
Abu Hanifah held that a waqf may be sold and even revoked, unless a judge has already enforced it or the founder has linked it to his own death by saying, “When I die my house is endowed for such-and-such.” In that case it becomes binding. His own companions dissented. Abu Yusuf said, “Had Abu Hanifah known the hadith of ʿUmar he would have accepted it and withdrawn his view that a waqf can be sold.” The authoritative opinion in the Hanafi school is therefore that of Abu Yusuf.

Al-Qurtubi stated, “Retracting a waqf runs counter to the consensus, so it deserves no consideration.”

Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī maintained that a waqf is permanent and may never be sold in any circumstance, relying on the general wording of the hadith, “Its capital asset is not to be sold.”

Ahmad adopted a middle course: a waqf may neither be sold nor exchanged unless its benefit has ceased altogether; in that case both sale and substitution are permitted.

His evidence was the action of ʿUmar when word reached him that the public treasury in Kūfah had been breached. He wrote to Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, the governor of Kūfah: “Move the mosque that is by the date-sellers and place the public treasury on the qiblah side of the mosque, for there will always remain a place of prayer within the mosque.”

This occurred in the presence of the Companions, and none of them objected, which is tantamount to consensus.

Imam Ahmad likened the matter to a sacrificial animal (hady) that becomes incapacitated before reaching its destination: it is slaughtered immediately, and regard for the designated place is set aside, lest the benefit be lost entirely.

Ibn ʿAqīl said: “A waqf is perpetual. When it is impossible to preserve that perpetuity with the very same property, we safeguard the underlying purpose—continuous benefit—by transferring it to another asset. Substituting a replacement stands on the same footing as the original property, whereas clinging to the original after its benefit has ended would defeat the purpose.”