Likewise, an endowment that remained in his possession until his death is invalid according to one of the two scholarly opinions. This is Mālik’s view and also one of the two opinions in the schools of Abū Hanīfah and Ahmad.

If, however, the endowment has become valid and binding and has eligible beneficiaries, but the creditor is not among those covered by its terms, the debt may not be repaid from it. Yet if the creditor is among those covered—for example, if the endowment is for the poor and the creditor is poor—then undoubtedly allocating funds to this poor man, to whom the founder owes a debt, takes precedence over allocating them to anyone else. And Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man was entrusted with money on condition that, if the depositor died, he would deliver it to his children. The depositor died, leaving heirs besides his children, namely two wives. He had two sons by one of them and two daughters by another woman. A man in authority claimed that the mother of the two sons was a slave woman whom he owned, and seized her and her children. Then one of the two sons died, followed by his mother.

Are the children alone entitled to all the money, or does it belong to all the heirs? If the claim of the man alleging ownership of the two sons’ mother is not substantiated, may the custodian hand over to him everything belonging to the two sons and their mother? Or may he retain their shares for the surviving son, hoping that ownership over him will be relinquished, or use the money to ransom him from slavery? If he retains the money, may he trade with it so that zakat does not consume it?