its particular recipient. If he does not call it an ʿariyyah, but merely says, “I give you the fruit,” he may intend either an outright gift specifically to that recipient, or support in the form of an ʿariyyah, without intending that particular recipient. Ibn al-Qāsim therefore treats it as an outright gift unless the donor makes clear that he intended an ʿariyyah, whereas Ibn Habīb treats it as an ʿariyyah unless the donor makes clear that he intended an outright gift.

Mālik’s senior companions, as reported in al-Mudawwanah, held that watering the ʿariyyah and paying its zakat fall to its recipient. Their reasoning is that, upon taking possession, the recipient acquires an entitlement that prevents the donor from transferring it to someone else. It thus resembles an outright gift intended specifically for him. This entails that, once he has taken possession of it, whether pollination has occurred or not, he becomes entitled to it and it passes to his heirs, just like a gift. On this reasoning, there are four views concerning what establishes the recipient’s entitlement to an ʿariyyah:

The first is the view just mentioned. The second is that he becomes entitled to it upon pollination, by analogy with Ashhab’s position concerning endowments.

The third is that he becomes entitled to it only when it ripens. This is Muhammad ibn Khālid’s report from Ibn al-Qāsim.

The fourth is that he becomes entitled to it, and it passes to his heirs, once he takes possession of the trees, even if the fruit has not yet appeared. This is the apparent meaning of the passage in the Book of Gifts and Charity in al-Mudawwanah. Two of these views rest on the position that an ʿariyyah is not intended specifically for its recipient, but is intended to provide support. The other two rest on the position that it is intended specifically for its recipient, and therefore differs from an ordinary gift only in the particular concession that applies to it.

As for the view that distinguishes between zakat and watering in the case of an ʿariyyah, I see no justification for it as a matter of legal reasoning. If the recipient has become entitled to the fruit by taking possession of the trees, or by taking possession of the fruit once it appears—according to the view that this establishes his entitlement even if the donor dies—then watering it must fall to him, just as paying its zakat does. For the donor is entitled to say to the recipient: “I will not water