a person on himself, his children, and his wife is obligatory; hence the reward for it is greater than that for voluntary spending on those outside his family. Accordingly, permissible activities for which the Lawgiver grants no reward likewise carry no reward for spending on them or establishing endowments for them. Establishing such endowments brings neither religious benefit and reward nor worldly benefit. Thus, they afford their founder no benefit in either religious or worldly terms and are therefore invalid.

This is clear in the case of the wealthy. Although giving to them may sometimes be recommended or even obligatory, that is only when they are given something for a reason other than wealth, such as kinship, jihad, religious commitment, or the like. But if wealth itself is made the basis of entitlement, and the wealthy person is singled out to receive while the poor person shares all his other grounds of entitlement—and has a greater claim besides—then every religious community necessarily recognizes that Allah neither loves nor approves of this. It is therefore impermissible to stipulate such a condition in an endowment.

The second argument:

Endowments include those settled in perpetuity upon disbelievers and the like, and those that prevent property from passing by inheritance. This would be justified if there were an overriding benefit; otherwise, the founder would be prevented from doing so, because it withholds wealth from the heirs and those to whom it would pass.

This is the reasoning behind the view that “No property may be tied up so as to withhold the shares prescribed by Allah.” However, this view disregards the position of Umar and others, as well as the overriding benefit involved. But if there is no overriding benefit, and instead he has tied up the wealth