Are you in doubt, O son of al-Khattab? Have I not brought it to you white and pure? If my brother Musa were alive, he would have had no choice but to follow me" (2). Were it not for the fact that this is an act of disobedience, he would not have been angry with him. An endowment for the lamps of a church, its furnishings, and those who serve and maintain it is like an endowment for the church itself; because it is intended for its exaltation. This applies whether the endower is a Muslim or a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim). Ahmad said, regarding Christians who endowed many lands to a church and died leaving Christian children, who then embraced Islam while the lands remained in the hands of the Christians: they [the children] have the right to take them, and the Muslims may assist them until they extract them from their hands. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and we know of no disagreement regarding it. This is because that which is not valid to be endowed upon by a Muslim is not valid to be endowed upon by a dhimmi, such as an endowment upon an unspecified person. If it is said: You have stated that when the People of the Book enter into corrupt contracts and take possession [of the goods], then embrace Islam and bring the matter to us, we do not invalidate what they have done; so how can you allow the rescission of what they have endowed upon their churches? We say: An endowment is not a contract of exchange; rather, it is a removal of ownership of the endowed property for the sake of an act of piety. If it does not occur validly, ownership is not removed, and it remains as it was, similar to manumission. It has been narrated from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding a Christian who testified in his will that his servant, so-and-so, shall serve the church for five years and then be free. Then his master died, he served for one year, and then he embraced Islam. What is required of him? He said: He is free, and he [the heir] returns to the servant for the value of the service for four years. It was also narrated from him that he said: He is free the moment his master died; because this [endowment for the church] is an act of disobedience. This narration is more correct and more consistent with his principles. It is possible that his statement "he returns to him for his service for four years" was not because the will was valid, but because he only manumitted him in exchange for compensation they both believed to be valid. If the compensation becomes impossible due to his conversion to Islam, he is liable for what takes its place, just as if a dhimmi were to marry a dhimmi woman on such terms and then embrace Islam; the dowry would be obligatory upon him. Likewise here, the compensation is obligatory upon him. The first [view] is better.

Section: An endowment is not valid upon one who does not possess, such as a slave, a slave mother (umm al-walad), a mukatab (contractual slave), a deceased person, a fetus, an angel, a jinn, or demons. Ahmad said, regarding one who endowed upon his slaves: The endowment is not valid until he manumits them. This is because an endowment is a transfer of ownership, so it is not valid upon one who does not possess. If it is said: You have permitted an endowment upon mosques, water-dispensing stations, and the like, yet they do not possess. We say: The endowment there is upon the Muslims, except that it was specified for a particular benefit for them. If it is said: Then it ought to be valid to endow upon churches, and the endowment would be upon the People of the Dhimma. We say: The destination for which the endowment was specified is not a benefit, but rather a forbidden act of disobedience, for which they are increased (3) in punishment and sin, unlike mosques. An endowment upon a slave is not valid, even if we say that he can possess through transfer of ownership; because an endowment necessitates the tying up of the substance, and the slave does not possess [it] with a permanent, binding ownership. An endowment upon a mukatab is not valid, even if he possesses, because his ownership is not stable. Nor [is it valid] upon an apostate or a harbi (enemy combatant); because their wealth is originally permissible [to be taken], and it is permissible to take it from them by force and subjugation, so what is newly acquired by them is more so. An endowment cannot be permitted to be taken [by force]; because it is the tying up of the substance.