selling it and using its proceeds to purchase a saddle and bridle that are more beneficial to the Muslims. This makes clear which of the two options is preferable.

His statement, “Because the silver serves no useful purpose,” does not mean that it has no benefit whatsoever. Adornment is a permissible benefit, and it is permissible to hire someone to fashion lawful ornaments. If someone destroys such lawful workmanship, he must compensate for it; Ahmad explicitly stated this. Were there no benefit in it, hiring someone to produce it would not be valid, nor would its destruction entail liability. Rather, he meant that its benefit was incomplete, just as someone may say, “This is of no benefit,” meaning that it does not provide a full benefit.

This is supported by his statement, “Its proceeds may be used to purchase something more beneficial to the Muslims.” This indicates that both options are permissible, but the second is more beneficial. Moreover, if it had no benefit whatsoever, endowing it would not be valid, since it is impermissible to endow something from which no benefit can be derived. This makes clear that the preferable option is to sell the endowed property and replace it with something more beneficial to its beneficiary. Doing so is preferable to retaining it as an endowment because it better serves the beneficiary’s interests. Yet he did not make replacement obligatory.

His statement, “It should remain as he endowed and bequeathed it,” implies that this ruling applies both to what he endowed and to what he directed in his will to be endowed, even though the question put to him concerned someone who had directed in his will that it be endowed. It is well known that his conditions must be followed concerning what he directed to be endowed, just as they must be followed concerning what he himself endowed. Likewise, his instructions must be followed concerning a slave whom he directed to be emancipated, just as they must be followed concerning one whom he himself emancipated. It is impermissible to endow different property or emancipate a different slave from those specified in his will, just as it is impermissible to substitute different property or a different slave for what he himself endowed or whom he emancipated. Thus, the permissibility of replacement in one case is like its permissibility in the other. He based his recommendation of replacement solely on the replacement being more beneficial to the Muslims than the ornamentation.