the other, and because it is a removal of ownership that prevents sale, gift, and inheritance, so acceptance is not considered in it, like manumission. Through this, it differs from a gift and a bequest. The difference between it and a gift or bequest is that a waqf is not exclusive to a specified person; rather, it relates to the right of future generations, so the waqf is for all of them, although it is ordered. It is therefore in the position of a waqf for the poor, which does not become void by the rejection of one of them, and does not depend on his acceptance, whereas a bequest to a specified person is the opposite. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. If we say it does not require acceptance, it is not invalidated by his rejection, and his rejection, acceptance, or lack thereof are one and the same, as in manumission. But if we say it requires acceptance, and the one for whom it was endowed rejects it, it becomes void regarding him and becomes like a waqf that is disconnected at the beginning (munqati' al-ibtida'). Regarding its validity in relation to others versus its invalidation, there are two views based on the principle of splitting the contract (tafriq al-safqa). If we say it is valid, then does it transfer immediately to those who follow him, or is it directed immediately to a beneficiary in the waqf that is disconnected (munqati') until the one who rejected it dies, and then transfers to those after him? There are two views on this. We will mention this in the section on the waqf that is disconnected at the beginning, if Allah the Almighty wills.

Section: Ownership of the endowed property transfers to the beneficiaries, according to the apparent view of the school. Ahmad said: If he endows his house for his brother's son, it becomes theirs. This indicates that they have come to own it. It is also narrated from Ahmad that it is not owned, as a group reported from him regarding one who endows to his heirs during his terminal illness: It is permissible because it is neither sold nor inherited, and does not become property for the heirs; they merely benefit from its yield. This indicates in its outward meaning that they do not own it. It is possible that he means by his statement "they do not own it" that they do not own the right to dispose of the corpus, for the benefit and effects of ownership are established in the waqf. Similar differences are narrated from al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: Ownership does not transfer in a binding waqf; rather, it remains a right for Allah the Almighty, because it is a removal of ownership from both the corpus and the usufruct for the sake of proximity to Allah by assigning the usufruct, so ownership transfers to Allah the Almighty, like manumission. Our evidence is that it is a cause that removes the ownership of the endower, which occurred to one whose ownership is valid in a manner that does not remove the wealth from its status as property, so it must transfer ownership to him, like a gift and a sale. And because if it were merely assigning the usufruct, it would not be binding, like a loan (ariya) or residence (sukna), and the ownership of the endower would not cease, like in a loan. It differs from manumission, for that removes it from the status of wealth, and the prohibition of disposing of the corpus does not prevent ownership, as in the case of an umm al-walad.