and over whether gifts and charitable donations are treated like an ariyyah, as I shall explain, Allah willing. Abū Umar ibn al-Qattān held that Ibn Habīb’s statement explained the position in al-Mudawwanah concerning ariyyahs, gifts, and charitable donations. There is no distinction between these: if the donor dies, the recipient is entitled to nothing unless he had taken possession of the trees before the donor’s death and fruit had appeared on them. In support of treating all three alike, he cited Yahyā’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim in the Book of Gifts and Charitable Donations in al-Utbiyyah, recorded in its section entitled “Prayer.”

I have seen a statement by Abū Marwān ibn Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him, that Ibn Habīb’s position contradicts al-Mudawwanah. What he meant—and Allah knows best—was that the recipient’s entitlement to an ariyyah is established by taking possession of the trees during the donor’s lifetime, even if their fruit has not yet appeared. This accords with the apparent wording concerning gifts and charitable donations in the Book of Gifts and Charitable Donations. Thus, in his view, an ariyyah and a gift are alike: the recipient’s entitlement is established by taking possession of the trees, even before their fruit appears.

The jurist Abū Ja‘far ibn Rizq, may Allah have mercy on him, held that Ibn Habīb’s statement explained al-Mudawwanah’s position concerning ariyyahs but contradicted its position concerning gifts and charitable donations. His reading of al-Mudawwanah was that it distinguished between an ariyyah and a gift. Such was his position and interpretation, and it is the most evident of the interpretations of al-Mudawwanah.

Ashhab held that if the palms were pollinated before the donor’s death, the recipient’s entitlement to the ariyyah was established, because he was not barred from access to his ariyyah. If, however, he had taken possession of the trees and secured control over them, it belonged to him even if they had not been pollinated.

If the recipient dies, however, his heirs do not become entitled to the ariyyah, even if he had taken possession of it, unless he died after the fruit had ripened. This is Muhammad ibn Khālid’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim in al-Utbiyyah, in which he treated it as an endowment rather than a gift. This is sound by analogy with the view that irrigation and zakat are the recipient’s responsibility. Ashhab’s position concerning endowments—that the beneficiary’s heirs become entitled to the fruit upon pollination—necessarily implies that the heirs of an ariyyah recipient likewise become entitled to it upon pollination. Success comes from Allah.