is henceforth a waqf, a ḥabs, or a charitable gift—namely, a ḥabs that may neither be sold nor given away—whether he expressly adds, “it is perpetually consecrated,” or leaves those words unsaid.
Likewise, if he says, “My land is charity for so-and-so, with a perpetual reversion,” all of that constitutes a waqf in Mālik’s view, provided the donor brings witnesses to the declaration and the beneficiary takes possession of it, or the donor appoints someone to manage it, attend to its needs, and distribute its yields along the path he has specified.
Some have argued that mere use of the words “ḥabs” or “charity” does not create a perpetual waqf unless he also states, “it is not to be sold, gifted, or inherited.” Others maintain that the phrase “My house is a ḥabs, a charity” suffices, while still others say that if he omits the word “charity” it is not a valid ḥabs. All of these opinions are transmitted from Mālik.
Rabīʿah, Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, and Bukayr ibn al-Ashh held that it makes no difference whether he says “ḥabs charity” or simply “ḥabs.”
The upshot of Mālik’s doctrine is that the very term “ḥabs” entails perpetuity when it is assigned to unspecified beneficiaries whose description never disappears—such as the poor and the needy—or when it is first given to named individuals but its reversion is to unspecified beneficiaries defined by enduring qualities in the avenues of righteousness: categories that never cease with the passing of people, like the needy, mosques, the sick, the blind, and the like. It is immaterial whether the initial beneficiaries will eventually cease to exist, so long as its reversion and ultimate destination are as just described.
Once drafted in this fashion, the endowment may never be reduced, altered, or diverted from its purpose, and it is unlawful to buy or sell it once it has been segregated and taken into possession during the donor’s lifetime.
Mālik was asked about a man who made a ḥabs for his sons and daughters while stipulating that any daughter who marries is excluded from the ḥabs. He replied, “I dislike and do not approve of this. Our judges have been known to uphold such a document, but I would prefer to see it annulled.” He added, “One should not act upon an instrument of this sort; I used to ask him about it and he would refuse.”
And if someone establishes a ḥabs for a particular man without adding “for his children” or “for his descendants” or