except (11) by a proof, whether from an explicit text (nass), consensus (ijma'), or analogy (qiyas), and we know of no text, nor consensus regarding it. It is not valid to draw an analogy to the inheritance of the clientage (wala') of freedmen, because its underlying cause ('illah) is not realized here. The closest of the opinions regarding it is its disbursement to the needy (masakin), because they are the recipients of God Almighty’s wealth and His rights. If there are needy people among the endower’s relatives, they are more deserving of it, not by way of obligation, just as they are more deserving of his zakat and his charity while it is permitted to disburse them to others. Also, because when we disburse it to his relatives by way of specification, it is still a terminated category, so its continuity is only realized by disbursing it to the needy. Al-Shafi'i said: It is an endowment upon the closest of people to the endower, with males and females being equal in it.

Section: If the endower has no relatives, or he had relatives but they have become extinct, it is disbursed to the poor and the needy as an endowment upon them, because the intention behind it is the reward that flows to him on a perpetual basis. We only prioritized the relatives over the needy because they are more deserving, so when they are not present, the needy are the people worthy of it, and thus it is disbursed to them, unless one follows the opinion of the one who said that it is disbursed to the heirs of the endower as their property. In that case, it is disbursed upon their absence to the public treasury (bayt al-mal), because the endowment upon them was invalidated by its termination, and it became an inheritance with no heir, so the public treasury is more entitled to it.

Section: If he says: "I have endowed this," and remains silent, or says: "A perpetual charity," and does not specify its path (12), there is no text regarding it. Ibn Hamid said: The endowment is valid. Al-Qadi said: This is the analogy of Ahmad’s opinion, for he said regarding an absolute vow: It takes effect as an obligation requiring an expiation for an oath. This is the opinion of Malik and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, because it is the removal of ownership for the sake of drawing near to God; therefore, its absolute form must be valid, like a sacrifice (udhiyya) or a bequest. If he said: "I have bequeathed a third of my wealth," it is valid; and once it is valid, it is disbursed to the recipients of a terminated endowment after the extinction of the original beneficiary.