legal ownership of the corpus and the usufruct, and thus it removes the ownership, similar to manumission. Furthermore, if it remained his property, its value would revert to him, just like absolute ownership. As for the report, the intention behind it is that it remains restrained, neither sold, nor gifted, nor inherited. The benefit of this disagreement is that if we rule that his ownership remains, he is obligated to maintain it and bear the responsibility for litigation concerning it. It is also possible that he is obligated to pay the indemnity (arsh) for any injury it causes, just as the master pays the ransom for the umm al-walad (a slave woman who bore his child) when surrendering her becomes impossible, unlike one who is not the owner.

Section Two: The outward meaning of this statement is that ownership ceases and the waqf becomes binding simply by the utterance, because the waqf is realized thereby. From Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, there is another narration that it does not become binding except by taking possession and the endower removing it from his hands. He said: "The known waqf is that one removes it from his hands to another, and appoints someone to manage it." This was chosen by Ibn Abi Musa, and it is the view of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, because it is a charitable gift of wealth that has not been removed from its status as property; therefore, it is not binding by mere utterance, like a gift (hibah) and a bequest (wasiyya). Our evidence is what we narrated from the hadith of Umar, and because it is a charitable gift that prevents sale, gift, and inheritance, it is thus binding by its mere utterance, like manumission. It differs from a gift, for a gift is an absolute transfer of ownership, whereas a waqf is the restraining of the corpus and the releasing of the usufruct; thus, it is more similar to manumission, and attaching it to that is more appropriate.

Section Three: It does not require acceptance from the beneficiary. This was mentioned by al-Qadi. Abu al-Khattab said: If the waqf is for an unspecified recipient, such as the poor, or for one from whom acceptance cannot be conceived, such as mosques and bridges, it does not require acceptance. But if it is for a specified human, there are two views regarding the condition of acceptance. One of them is that it is a condition, because it is a charitable gift to a specified human, [so acceptance is one of its conditions, like a gift and a bequest. This is confirmed by the fact that if a bequest is for a specified human,] (2) it depends on his acceptance, and if it is for an unspecified recipient, a mosque, or the like, it does not require acceptance; the same applies here. The second view is that acceptance is not a condition, because it is one of the two types of waqf, so acceptance is not required for it, like the other type.