that is binding, either in Ahmad’s school or in any other. The abridged manuals merely intended to explain the implications of classifying partition as either a confirmation of existing shares or a sale. If we regard it as a sale, it is impermissible, because an endowment cannot be sold. If we regard it as a confirmation of existing shares, partition is permissible in principle. They did not mention the conditions governing partition, as is customary in such discussions.

Some of them mentioned two views concerning the partition of an endowment. The school’s jurists explicitly stated that an endowment may be partitioned only when it is dedicated to two distinct beneficiaries or causes. As for an endowment dedicated to a single beneficiary or cause, they agree that its corpus may not be partitioned, since the rights of the second and third generations remain attached to it. An agreed allocation of its use is, however, permissible. “An agreed allocation of use” means a division of benefits. In this respect, there is no difference between exchanging rights of use and retaining the agreed allocation without an exchange. If they mutually agree to this, the property is restored to its former undivided state, with respect to both its corpus and its benefits. And Allah knows best.

He was asked:

About an endowment dedicated to a group: some of the co-beneficiaries had paid a sum for the fruit, while another had refused either to give or to accept a guarantee and had requested to receive his proportionate share of the fruit from whoever purchased it. Should the judge compel him to join the other co-beneficiaries in selling it or not?

He answered:

If it cannot be divided before the sale without causing harm, he must sell along with his co-beneficiaries and share the proceeds with them.