Islamic Fiqh > Endowments (waqf) and property > Managing a waqf: the nazar (custody) > The endower designating himself as nazir
Contents
Updated on 06 October 2026 at 10:50 PM
The nazir is the administrator entrusted with supervising a waqf (Islamic endowment). These sheets gather its rules according to the four schools of law: who may be designated as nazir and under which conditions (probity, majority, competence), his remuneration, his duties, his liability, the plurality of supervisors, delegation of his office, and the rules for his removal. Each position is reported with its classical references.
The jurists differed over the case of an endower (waqif) stipulating supervision (nazar) of his own endowment for himself: is it valid or not?
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis within the madhhab, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, allow the endower to stipulate supervision for himself and to hold authority (wilaya) over it. First proof: Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) managed his sadaqa himself, then entrusted it to Hafsa during her lifetime, then to the people of counsel (ahl al-ra'y) of her family; an authentic report narrated by Abu Dawud (2879), al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (5/341) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (6/160).
Second reason: the mutawalli derives authority only from his own stipulation, so it is impossible that he would hold no authority while someone else derives it from him. Third reason: he is the closest person to this endowment and therefore the most entitled to manage it, just as the one who builds a mosque is most entitled to maintain it and appoint its muezzin, or as the one who frees a slave, to whom the walaa belongs because he is the closest to him (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/331; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/329; al-'Inaya 8/353; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/243; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 4/109; al-Lubab 1/625; Rawdat al-Talibin 4/164; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/480; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/539; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/455; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/519; Kanz al-Raghibin 3/266; al-Dibaj 2/534; al-Mughni 5/377; al-Mubdi' 5/335; Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/321; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 4/355; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 4/318).
The Malikis, however, draw a distinction: if he endows for a person under interdiction (mahjur), such as his minor children, someone under his wardship or a prodigal, he may stipulate supervision for himself. But if he endows for a person free in his affairs and stipulates supervision for himself, the endowment is invalid, because it amounts to placing that person under interdiction (Sharh al-Kabir with al-Dasuqi's gloss 5/463; Mawahib al-Jalil 7/485; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/567; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 7/84; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/645; al-Sawi's gloss on the Sharh al-Saghir 9/159; Shifa' al-Ghalil 2/963).
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) reports example forty-six: if the endower makes an endowment reserving supervision for himself during his lifetime, then for someone else after him, this is valid according to the majority and reflects the consensus of the Companions: Omar managed his sadaqa, and so did the rightly guided caliphs and other Companions. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) advised Omar to dedicate his land as an endowment, he did not say to him: "It is not valid until you remove it from your hand and give up its supervision." What interest could the Lawgiver have in that, and what benefit for the endower or the beneficiary? On the contrary, the benefit lies in the opposite: for he knows his property best and is most capable of maintaining it, attending to its interests and protecting it, unlike a stranger whose experience and care do not match those of the owner.
It suffices for the validity of the endowment that the property leave his ownership and that his hand and supervision remain over it, like the hand of a stranger, all the more so if he acts voluntarily. What benefit is there in telling him: your endowment is not valid until you place it in the hands of someone whose preservation and management you do not trust, and until you give up your supervision?
If it is objected that dedication to Allah requires lifting his hand completely, as with manumission: Ibn al-Qayyim answers that through manumission the slave ceases to be property and becomes entirely free, so that no one's hand remains established over him; as for the endowment, a hand must necessarily remain over it to protect it and manage its interests, and the hand most entitled to be established over it is the hand of the one who cares most for it and manages its interests best. The endower's hand and supervision do not contradict his endowing it to Allah: he dedicated it to Allah and set his supervision and his hand for Allah; both are an act of devotion and obedience. How could anyone be deprived of the reward of this devotion by being told: your devotion of the endowment is valid only by depriving you of the devotion of supervising it? What text, what analogy, what interest, what purpose of the Lawgiver requires that?
Indeed, which scholar ever said it?
If the endower needs a workaround in a place where rulings are only given by one who voids the endowment unless the property is removed from his hand and supervision is not stipulated for him, the workaround is to delegate supervision to someone he trusts, with power to delegate it to whom he wills: the appointee accepts, the endowment becomes valid and binding, then the appointee delegates it back to him, for he has become a third party like anyone else. This is a sound means to a right and is therefore permitted. Likewise if he assigns supervision to the ruler, who then delegates it to him; if he fears the ruler will not delegate it to him, let him make someone he trusts the owner, on condition that its supervision be that person's and that it remain under his authority (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 3/371-372).
The jurists differed when the endower, by oversight, did not stipulate any nazir over his endowment: to whom does supervision then belong?
First case: the endowment benefits a specific person capable of managing his own affairs, or a limited number of people: they hold and administer it, for it is their property and they alone benefit from it; supervision belongs to them as their absolute property does. If there is one, he disposes of it absolutely; if several, supervision is divided among them according to their shares; if he is a minor or the like, his guardian stands in his place. This is the view of the Malikis, the Hanbalis within the madhhab, and the Shafi'is in one opinion.
The Shafi'is within the madhhab, an opinion also possible among the Hanbalis and chosen by Ibn Abi Musa, hold that supervision belongs to the qadi or the ruler, because he holds general supervision and ownership in the endowment belongs to Allah.
Second case: the endowment benefits unspecified persons, such as the poor, the needy and the mosques, or persons too many to enumerate: supervision belongs to the ruler or his deputy, since there is no specific owner to supervise it and no right of existing or future persons attaches to it; the matter is therefore delegated to the ruler, who may appoint a deputy, for he cannot manage everything himself, and he may prefer the one he approves. This is the madhhab of the Malikis and the Hanbalis.
A third Shafi'i opinion assigns supervision to the endower himself (Sharh al-Kabir with al-Dasuqi's gloss 5/475-476; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 7/92; Rawdat al-Talibin 4/164-165; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/480-481; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/540; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/457; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/520; Kanz al-Raghibin 3/266; al-Dibaj 2/534; al-Mughni 5/377; al-Mubdi' 5/336; al-Insaf 7/69-70; al-Rawd al-Murbi' 2/175; Manar al-Sabil 2/335).
The Hanafis differed: according to Abu Yusuf and Hilal, which is the apparent position of their madhhab, if the endower stipulated authority for no one, it belongs to himself, then to his executor if there is one, otherwise to the ruler.
If the endower dies without entrusting his endowment to anyone, the judge appoints a caretaker (qayyim) for it, and does not choose him from among strangers as long as he finds among the endower's family someone fit for it, either because he is the most caring or because the endower intended the endowment to be ascribed to his family, as we have mentioned. If there is none, then from among fit strangers; if a stranger is appointed and then a fit son of the endower appears, the judge transfers it to him.
If the appointed mutawalli dies after the endower, the judge appoints another; if he dies before the endower, the power of appointment returns to the endower.
According to Muhammad: if the endower stipulated authority for himself, it is his; if he did not stipulate it at the inception of the endowment, he has no authority after delivery (taslim), for delivery to the mutawalli is, in Muhammad's view, a condition of the endowment's validity: the endower retains authority after delivery only if he stipulated it for himself. According to Abu Yusuf, delivery to the mutawalli is not a condition: authority remains with the endower even without stipulation for himself (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/231; al-Hidaya 3/18; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/329; al-'Inaya 8/354; al-Is'af p. 50; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/251; al-Ikhtiyar 3/53; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 4/109; al-Lubab 1/626).
The jurists also differed when the endowment benefits a non-Muslim, for instance a dhimmi: must the nazir be a Muslim?
Ibn Nujaym, the Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him), reports that freedom and Islam are not conditions of validity. In al-Is'af: even if his son is a slave, it is valid by analogy (qiyas) and by istihsan, on account of his intrinsic capacity; the proof is that his act concerning an endowment for the master's right takes effect after manumission, the impediment having gone, unlike the child; and the dhimmi, in ruling, is like the slave: if the judge removes both, then the slave is freed and the dhimmi embraces Islam, authority does not return to either of them (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/245; al-Is'af p. 52).
As for the Malikis, no specific condition imposed on the nazir is reported from them, except what al-Mawwaq transmits from Ibn 'Arafa: supervision of the reserved property belongs to whom the endower designated. Al-Muti'i adds that he designates someone he trusts in religion and honesty; if the endower neglects this, supervision belongs to the judge, who appoints the one he approves and grants the caretaker, from the rent, what he deems appropriate according to his ijtihad. Ibn 'Arafa adds: if the endower appointed capable persons, he may remove and replace them (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/579; Mawahib al-Jalil 7/499).
The Shafi'is, in one opinion, require the nazir to be a Muslim even if the endowment benefits a dhimmi; al-Qalyubi says: it is not valid for a dhimmi, even from among dhimmis (al-Qalyubi's gloss on Kanz al-Raghibin 3/267).
The Hanafis, the Hanbalis, and the Shafi'is in one opinion hold that Islam is not required when the endowment benefits a non-Muslim: a dhimmi who is just in his religion may supervise (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/245; al-Is'af p. 52; Ibn Abidin 4/381; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/543; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/457). For the Hanafis, this is because they do not require Islam of the nazir at all, whether the endowment benefits a Muslim or a dhimmi.
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: what is required for validity is majority and intellect, not freedom or Islam (Ibn Abidin 4/381).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (may Allah have mercy on him) says: by analogy with what is stated concerning bequests (wasiyya) and marriage, stipulating supervision for a dhimmi who is just in his religion is valid, that is, if the beneficiary is a dhimmi (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/543; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/457).
The Hanbalis say: if the endowment benefits a specific disbeliever, supervision by a disbeliever is permitted, as when he endows for his disbelieving children and stipulates supervision for one of them or another disbeliever: it is valid, like the bequest of a disbeliever for a disbeliever on a disbeliever (Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/326; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 4/358; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 4/337; Manar al-Sabil 2/334).
The jurists differed over the nazir of the endowment: is probity a condition? Four answers emerge.
Among the Hanafis there are two views. First view: probity is a condition of validity. In al-Is'af: administration is entrusted only to a trustworthy man capable of acting by himself or through a deputy, for authority is conditioned on supervision; entrusting a traitor is not supervision, since he would fail the objective, and likewise entrusting the incapable, since the objective is not achieved through him. Man and woman are equal in this, likewise the blind and the sighted, and likewise the one punished with the legal penalty for slander (qadhf) if he has repented, for he has become trustworthy again.
Whoever requests administration of an endowment is not granted it, just as whoever requests judgeship is not invested with it (al-Is'af p. 49).
Second view: probity is a condition of preference. Ibn Nujaym, followed by Ibn Abidin: the apparent conditions are conditions of preference, not validity; the nazir who falls into wickedness (fisq) deserves to be forced out, but he is not formally removed; for judgeship is nobler than administration and is guarded more strictly, and probity there is a condition of preference, so that appointing a wicked judge remains valid; and when the judge becomes wicked he is not removed, according to the sound position relied upon in fatwas: the same applies to the nazir. In Ibn al-Humam's wording one reads "yukhraju" in the passive: he must be expelled without being formally removed (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/244; Ibn Abidin 4/380).
Al-Marghinani (may Allah have mercy on him) adds: if the endower stipulated authority for himself while he is not trustworthy in safeguarding the endowment, the judge may wrest it from him out of concern for the poor, just as he may remove the executor out of concern for the minors; likewise if he stipulated that no ruler or judge may take it from him or appoint someone else: such a stipulation contradicts the rule of the sharia and is void (al-Hidaya 3/19).
The Shafi'is and the Hanafis (in one of the two views) require of the nazir both outward and inward probity, whether he is appointed by the endower or by the ruler, as al-Azra'i stated and Ibn Hajar and al-Ramli preferred, even if he is the endower himself: for supervision is authority over another, so probity is required as with the executor and the caretaker; he is removed upon established wickedness, unlike a lie that admits an excuse; and if he is removed, supervision goes to the ruler.
No distinction is made in this between public institutions and specific persons of good conduct.
Al-Subki said that outward probity may suffice for the ruler's appointee; al-Khatib al-Shirbini preferred it.
Al-Damiri reports (from Ibn al-Salah): if one person has supervision over several places and his competence is established in one, the aspect of trustworthiness (amana) is established in the rest, not the aspect of competence (kifaya), unless his competence is established for the whole endowment; this is apparent if the remainder exceeds or equals what his competence was established in, through the abundance of its expenditures and works; if it is little, then no.
If the nazir becomes wicked and then returns to probity, his authority returns to him if it was his by the endower's stipulation, otherwise not: so ruled the author (of al-Najm al-Wahhaj); the Imam (al-Marghinani) said it resembles the executor's wickedness, whose implication is that authority does not return.
If supervision was delegated to someone possessing probity and competence, and one of the two lapses and the ruler takes the endowment away from him, Ibn al-Rif'a says it seems he transfers it to whoever deserves supervision after him, treating the loss of capacity like death, as the authority of marriage passes to the more distant when the nearer becomes wicked; if competence returns, authority returns (al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/521, 523; see Rawdat al-Talibin 4/165; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/481; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/543; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/457; Kanz al-Raghibin 3/267; al-Dibaj 2/534).
The Malikis hold that probity is a condition when the nazir is appointed by the judge or by the endower. Supervision of the reserved property belongs to whom the endower designated; he gives it to someone he trusts in religion; if he neglects this, it belongs to the ruler, who appoints whom he approves, unless the beneficiary is a specific person capable of managing his own affairs. If the beneficiary is capable of managing his own affairs and the endower appointed no one, he himself manages it. And if the nazir of the reserved property manages poorly and is untrustworthy, the judge removes him, unless the beneficiary is capable of managing his own affairs, approves of him and wishes him to continue.
Al-Qarafi said: the judge does not remove a nazir except for an offence (junha), whereas the endower may remove him even without an offence (Mawahib al-Jalil 7/499; al-Dasuqi's gloss 5/475).
The Hanbalis say: when supervision belongs to the beneficiary, either by the endower's stipulation or because he is the most entitled in the absence of any other nazir, and he is a single legally responsible, discerning person, he is most entitled to it, whether man or woman, upright or wicked, for he supervises his own property; he may dispose of it in these circumstances as of his absolute property. It is nevertheless possible to add a trustworthy person to the wicked one, to protect the substance of the endowment from sale or loss.
If the endowment benefits a group of discerning persons, supervision belongs to all of them, each in his share; if the beneficiary is not discerning (a minor, a prodigal or an insane person), his guardian stands in his place in supervision as in his absolute property.
If supervision belongs to someone other than the beneficiary (an endowment for the poor, or the ruler appoints an outside nazir, or supervision belongs to some of the beneficiaries by the ruler's grant, or to an original nazir), probity is necessarily a condition: for it is authority over property, and probity is required for it as for authority over the orphan's property.
If the outsider appointed by the ruler or by an original nazir is not upright, his authority is invalid, lacking its condition, probity, and his hand is removed from the endowment to protect it. If the outsider serves while upright and then becomes wicked, he is removed: it is authority over another's right, which wickedness nullifies, and what prevented the appointment at the outset prevents its continuation.
If he regains his capacity, his right to the stipulated supervision returns to him, as if the endower had explicitly said that his supervision returns upon regaining capacity, like the beneficiary described as "supervision belongs to the most discerning": when the description disappears his hand is removed; when it returns, his right returns.
It tends to be held that when he regains his capacity he is restored to supervision, unless the ruler confirmed another person before his return: then that person cannot be removed without a legal cause, for the ruler's confirmation has taken the place of the original holder.
If the endower appointed or stipulated the outsider while he was wicked, or if he was upright and then became wicked, a trustworthy person is added to him to protect the endowment, and his hand is not removed, for combining the two rights is possible.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) continues: it is possible that appointing a wicked person is invalid and that he is removed if he becomes wicked during his term of authority; for it is authority over another's right, which wickedness nullifies, as if the ruler had appointed him; or if the endowment cannot be safeguarded while his authority over another's right remains: as soon as preservation from him becomes impossible, his authority is removed, for safeguarding the endowment takes precedence over keeping the wicked person's authority over it (al-Mughni 5/377-378; Sharh al-Kabir 6/214; al-Insaf 7/67; Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/327; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 4/359; Manar al-Sabil 2/334).
There is a weak Shafi'i view that probity is not required when the endowment benefits specific persons with no minor among them; if he betrays the trust, he is presumed honest (Rawdat al-Talibin 4/165).
The jurists of the four schools stipulate in principle majority (bulugh) for the nazir.
Among the Hanafis, Ibn Abidin devotes a chapter to appointing a child: validity requires majority and intellect, not freedom or Islam. In al-Is'af: if the endower bequeaths to a minor, it is void by qiyas absolutely, and by istihsan while he is small; once grown, authority becomes his. If he is a slave, it is valid by qiyas and istihsan on account of his intrinsic capacity, as explained above, the impediment having gone, unlike the child; and the dhimmi, in ruling, is like the slave: if the judge removes both, then the slave is freed and the dhimmi embraces Islam, authority does not return to either of them. This is summarized in al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, and similar wording appears in al-Nahr.
In the Fatawa of the scholar al-Shalabi: entrusting (isnad) supervision to a minor is invalid in every respect, neither by way of independent supervision nor by way of sharing it with another, for supervision of the endowment falls under authority, and the minor is himself supervised on account of his incapacity; he therefore cannot supervise another.
In Anfa' al-Wasa'il, from Waqf Hilal: if the endower says "its supervision belongs to my children", minors and adults included, the judge places a man in the minor's place, or, if he wishes, has the adults stand in his place. Al-Astarushani then cites the passages of al-Is'af explicitly establishing that a child cannot serve as nazir.
As for what al-Ashbah states, namely that a minor may serve as executor and nazir, the judge installing an adult in his place until he reaches majority, as in Ibn Wahban's poem on bequests: Ibn Abidin notes that the poem does not contain the words "and nazir"; and he saw that the commentator of al-Ashbah noted this as well.
As for what the commentator reports, in the chapter on bequests, from al-Mujtaba, namely that delegating the endowment's authority to a minor is valid by istihsan: the author of al-Mujtaba himself clarifies in al-Hawi: "if he bequeaths his endowment to a minor, it is void by qiyas, but it is preferred (istihsan) that authority be his once he has grown up": which is exactly what appears in al-Is'af.
Ibn Abidin nevertheless saw in Ahkam al-Sighar by al-Astarushani, from the Fatawa of Rashid al-Din, this statement of the judge: delegating supervision to a minor is permitted if he is capable of preservation, and he then holds authority of disposal, just as the judge may transfer ownership to the minor even if his guardian does not consent.
On this basis a reconciliation is possible: what al-Is'af and others state concerns the one incapable of preservation, unable to dispose; the capable minor is given supervision by the judge as permission to dispose; and the judge may permit the minor even without his guardian's consent.
A chapter on what has become widespread in our time: delegating supervision of endowments to a minor. Ibn Abidin concludes that this is incomprehensible, and that the ruling of the Hanafi judge declaring it valid is pure error; all the more so when the endower stipulated supervision for the most discerning (al-ardash) among those entitled to the endowment: if a discerning, reasonable adult, more discerning than him, exists among those entitled to the endowment, appointing the minor is invalid, for it contradicts the endower's condition; how much more so when it is a child while a discerning adult is present. "This is manifest error. Their belief that a father's testimony on behalf of his son produces no effect alters the rule of the sharia, contradicts the endower's condition and grants offices (teaching, leading the prayer and others) to those who do not deserve them, as the author clarified for jihad at the end of the chapter on the jizya.
Likewise, even if the endower bequeaths supervision to his son, it is not valid while he is a minor, until he grows up, and authority then becomes his as mentioned. Likewise their belief that the most discerning one, if he delegates or assigns in his final illness to whomever he wants, acts validly "because the discerning one's choice is discerning": it is void, for discernment in endowment matters is a quality belonging to the discerning person himself, not acquired merely through another's choice, just as an ignorant man does not become a scholar merely through another's choice for the office of teaching. All of this stems from ignorance and from a habit that contradicts the plain truth, by submitting to defective reason. "There is no might nor power except with Allah, the Most High, the Immense" (Ibn Abidin 4/381).
The Malikis and the Hanbalis say the nazir must be discerning (rashid); if the beneficiary is under interdiction (mahjur), his guardian stands in his place.
The Malikis say: the endower's stipulation is followed when he designates a specific nazir, or a specific nazir with power to remove himself; the beneficiary then appoints whom he wills if he is alive, otherwise the ruler. If he appointed no nazir: if the beneficiary is a specific discerning person, he administers the endowment; if he is not discerning, his guardian does; if the beneficiaries are unspecified, such as the poor, the ruler appoints whom he wills (Sharh al-Kabir with al-Dasuqi's gloss 5/475).
The Hanbalis require of the nazir legal responsibility (taklif), for one not legally responsible does not supervise even his own absolute property, all the more so an endowment; this applies when the endowment does not benefit a specific limited group; if it benefits specific persons, supervision belongs to the guardian who stands in his place.
They say: the beneficiary himself supervises if he is legally responsible and discerning; his guardian supervises if he is a minor, insane or a prodigal. Ibn Abi Musa said the ruler supervises (Sharh al-Kabir 6/214; Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/311, 328-329; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 4/356, 358; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 4/304; Manar al-Sabil 2/334).
The Hanafis say: the nazir is removed for total insanity (mutbiqa) lasting a year, not less; if his intellect returns and he recovers from his illness, supervision returns to him. Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) notes, from al-Nahr, that this apparently concerns the one for whom supervision was stipulated; not the judge's appointee (Ibn Abidin 4/380; see Sharh Fath al-Qadir 6/242; Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyya 3/150).
The Shafi'is say: insanity causes authorities to lapse, for whoever cannot manage his own property manages that of others even less; the interdiction of the insane person is lifted by recovery, and authority returns to the nazir by that same recovery, without a new appointment (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/108-109; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 4/409).
The jurists expressly stipulate competence for the nazir of the endowment: it means the person's strength and ability to manage what he supervises (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/481).
The Hanafis, per al-Is'af: administration is entrusted only to a trustworthy man capable of acting by himself or through a deputy; entrusting a traitor is not supervision, since he fails the objective, and likewise entrusting the incapable, since the objective is not achieved through him; man and woman are equal in this, likewise the blind and the sighted, and likewise the one punished for slander if he has repented, for he is trustworthy (al-Is'af p. 49; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/244; Ibn Abidin 4/380).
The Malikis say: if the nazir of the reserved property manages poorly and is untrustworthy, the judge removes him, unless the beneficiary is capable of managing his own affairs, approves of him and wishes him to continue (Mawahib al-Jalil 7/499; al-Dasuqi's gloss 5/475).
The Shafi'is require of the nazir competence, whether he exercises general or particular supervision: it is the person's strength and ability to manage what he supervises, or to be guided to the management delegated to him, by analogy with the guardian (wali) and the caretaker (qayyim): it is authority over another, so it is required. If it lapses, the ruler takes the endowment away from him, even if the one for whom supervision was stipulated is the endower.
Al-Khatib al-Shirbini (may Allah have mercy on him) explains the import of the two shaykhs' words: the ruler administers it independently and appoints whom he wants; and supervision does not pass to the successor if the endower stipulated supervision for one man and then for another, that is, unless the endower expressly specified it, as al-Subki and others said: then, if the lapse ends, his supervision returns to him if it was stipulated for him in the endowment as a specifically named person, as the author reports in his Fatawa, even if the Imam's words suggest otherwise. What is found in al-Fatawa indicates that his removal does not take effect, neither from himself nor from another; and from another, or from himself, when he is specifically named.
If the nazir has supervision over several places and his competence is established in one, the aspect of trustworthiness is established in the rest, not the aspect of competence, unless his competence is established for all the endowments, as Ibn al-Salah said; this is apparent, as al-Damiri said, if the remainder exceeds or equals what his competence was established in, through abundance of expenditures and works; if it is less, then no.
The nazir may act only within the scope of his supervision and with precaution, for he manages the interests of others: he resembles the orphan's guardian (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/481; see Rawdat al-Talibin 4/165; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/543-544; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/457; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/521, 523; Kanz al-Raghibin 3/267; al-Dibaj 2/534).
The Hanbalis require of the nazir competence in disposal and expertise, that is, knowledge of disposal and the ability to carry it out: for safeguarding the endowment is required by the sharia, and one lacking these qualities cannot uphold it. If competence lapses, he is not removed: a strong, trustworthy man is added to a weak nazir so that the objective is achieved, whether he is a nazir by stipulation or a beneficiary (Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/327; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 4/358; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 4/328; Manar al-Sabil 2/334).
In Omar's report quoted further below, he stipulated in his endowment that whoever managed it would eat from it in a proper manner (bi-l-ma'ruf). It follows that the administrator of the reserved property is entitled, from that property, to the wage of his work and management; and this does not alter the reservation nor breach the endower's stipulation when he endows for named persons, for an administrator working for the property is indispensable (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 8/201).
The hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says: this report proves the legality of the administrator's wage on the endowment; the "administrator" ('amil) in this report means the caretaker of the land and the hired worker (Fath al-Bari 5/409).
The nazir's remuneration falls into three situations: stipulated by the endower, assessed by the judge, or neither.
First case: stipulated by the endower. The jurists expressly state that if the endower stipulated a wage for the nazir, the latter earns it even if it exceeds the wage of the like (with details to follow): for if he had granted it to him without requiring him to manage the endowment, it would be permissible; a fortiori therefore.
The Hanafis: if the endower grants the administrator of his endowment more than the wage of the like, it is permissible; but the nazir may not take more than what the endower fixed for him. According to another statement: if the endower fixed less than the wage of the like, the judge may complete the wage of the like for him at his request (al-Is'af p. 54; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/264; Ibn Abidin 4/451 and 6/713; Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyya 3/84, 200).
In al-Is'af: the endower may grant the mutawalli of his endowment, each year, a known sum in return for managing it. The origin of this is the practice of Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who told the administrator of his sadaqa that he would eat from it "without accumulating wealth"; and the practice of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), who assigned, from the produce of his endowment, the maintenance of the slaves he had incorporated into it so that they maintain it: they are like hired workers within the endowment; do you not see that it is permitted to hire workers for the maintenance the endowment requires, and this is how people act? There is no fixed limit: it follows the customary fee (ju'l) people practice at the time of concluding the endowment, in return for managing its interests (al-Is'af p. 53).
The Malikis say the judge may grant the nazir a wage from the endowment's revenue according to the interest, if he received nothing from the endower; contrary to Ibn 'Attab, who held that he may not take from the endowment's produce but only from the treasury (bayt al-mal), unless the endower specified something: a weak view (Sharh al-Kabir with al-Dasuqi's gloss 5/475; al-Sawi's gloss on the Sharh al-Saghir 9/167).
The Shafi'is: the nazir earns the stipulated wage even if it exceeds the wage of the like, unless he is himself the endower: if he stipulates supervision for himself at the wage of the like, it is valid, for he earns it by his work, not by the endowment; if he stipulates more, the endowment is not valid, for it would be an endowment on himself (Asna al-Matalib 2/460; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/459, 482; al-Jamal's gloss 3/592; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/459).
The Hanbalis: if the endower stipulated something for him, he has only what the endower stipulated, little or much; the author said so in al-Qawa'id. If the endower stipulates a wage (a known compensation): if the stipulated amount equals the wage of the like, it is exclusively his, and what the endowment needs in trustees and the like comes from the endowment's produce; if the stipulated amount is greater, the costs of what the endowment needs (trustees, workers) fall upon the nazir, deducted from the surplus until the wage of the like remains for him, unless the endower stipulated it for him exclusively.
The nazir is entitled to the wage for his work from the beginning of his supervision of the endowment. Al-Ruhaybani transmits al-Harithi's report from the Companions, and says: a fixed sum is explicit on the nazir's exclusive entitlement; suspending this exclusivity upon what they said is meaningless... and manifest favoritism does not, by consensus, harm this exclusivity. It tends to be held that exceeding the wage of the like is not proper conduct (ma'ruf), and this is a direction worth noting.
The shaykh Taqi al-Din said: the nazir of the endowment may take the wage of his work if he is in need; and without a stipulation, the knowledgeable one is not preferred except by paying him the wage of his work along with his need, like the orphan's guardian (Matalib Uli al-Nuha 3/418; see al-Insaf 7/58; Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/328).