Since the stipulations of an endowment founder are, by agreement, either valid or invalid, if he stipulates a forbidden act, the stipulation is plainly invalid: no created being may be obeyed in disobedience to the Creator. If he stipulates a permissible act that does not draw one nearer to Allah, that too is invalid, because he has imposed a condition that benefits neither himself nor the beneficiary. He himself benefits only by helping to further righteousness and piety.

As for spending wealth on something permissible, this is allowed when a person spends it during his lifetime, as in purchasing or hiring, because he benefits from enjoying permissible things during his life.

An endowment founder and a testator, however, derive no worldly benefit from the permissible acts performed by the beneficiaries of their endowment or bequest, nor are they rewarded in the Hereafter for spending wealth on such things. Even if someone were to spend wealth on this frivolously and foolishly, that would not justify accepting it. How much more so if he requires a permissible act that serves no purpose for him, from which he benefits neither in this world nor in the Hereafter? Rather, this leaves wealth being spent on falsehood, with the recipient subjected to toil and suffering and consuming wealth wrongfully.

Given that the Lawgiver has said:

“No prize may be awarded except for camel racing, horse racing, or archery,”

and has not permitted prizes for activities that do not assist in jihad—even if they are permissible and may have some benefit, such as wrestling and footracing—how can someone provide perpetual remuneration for work that has no benefit, especially when an endowment is set aside in perpetuity? How, then, can he tie up wealth