He replied:

Praise be to Allah.

These conditions imposed on those appointed at the school, such as the prohibition on holding another appointment elsewhere, must be fulfilled only when doing so does not compromise the objective prescribed by Islamic law, which is—your name—either obligatory or recommended. It is not permissible to uphold certain conditions while defeating the purpose those conditions were intended to serve.

Thus, when part of the endowment’s principal has been lost and the person appointed at the school no longer receives sufficient support, the condition prohibiting simultaneous appointments is invalid. He is not obliged to observe it, nor may he be compelled to do so, for two reasons:

First: This condition was imposed on them while the endowed property continued to yield revenue for them, whether that revenue was full or reduced. If part of the endowment’s principal is lost, the conditions were not stipulated for that situation. There is a difference between a reduction in the endowment’s revenue while its principal remains intact and the loss of part of its principal.

Second: Adequate support for the person appointed at the school is indispensable. Even if the founder were assumed to have expressly stipulated otherwise, that condition would be invalid. For example, he might say: “Anyone appointed at the school shall not obtain support from elsewhere, even if he does not receive enough to meet his needs.” Even if he expressly stipulated this, it would not be valid, because such a condition contradicts the Book of Allah. Adequate support is indispensable, and securing it for a Muslim is an obligation either upon that Muslim himself or upon the Muslims. No condition contrary to this is valid.

It is clear, moreover, that the founder did not intend this, since he stipulated adequate support for them. Rather, the loss of some of the endowment’s assets is comparable to the destruction of the endowed property itself and similar circumstances.