Hossam Badrawi Writes: Yesterday’s Endowments and Today’s Ambitions… Between the Legitimacy of Disposal and the Prohibition of Sale

I read an article by writer Wagih El-Giayar in Al-Guardian Al-Masrya newspaper, reporting news about an upcoming decision at the level of the Prime Minister — during his meeting with the Minister of Religious Endowments — that the government intends to survey all Egyptian endowments in preparation for selling them. These endowments are estimated to be worth around 1.5 trillion Egyptian pounds.

A serious, deep, and important question came to my mind upon reading that news — because such a decision touches on the core of the relationship between private ownership, public interest, and the role of the state as a trustee, not an owner.

Therefore, I researched the topic and would like to share the outcome with you, regardless of whether the news reported in the newspaper is true or not.

The matter has three levels: definition, jurisprudential and legal understanding, and then the position on selling endowments.

First: What Are Endowments?

An endowment (or Waqf) is defined as “withholding the asset and allowing its benefit to flow” — meaning that the asset (a property, land, or money) is withheld from sale or inheritance, and its benefits are spent on charitable causes.

In Islamic jurisprudence, it is defined as: “To withhold an asset from private ownership and dedicate its proceeds permanently to a charitable cause, seeking closeness to God.”

Second: Nature of the Endowment and the Role of the State

• The Endower (Waqif): The person who owns the money, land, or property and decides to endow it (withhold it) for the benefit of a public or private cause (a school, mosque, orphanage, hospital, the poor, education…).
• The Beneficiary (Mawquf ‘alayh): The party that benefits from the proceeds (such as students, patients, or the needy).
• The Overseer (Nathir): The party that manages the endowment. This may be an individual, a religious entity, or the state via the Ministry of Endowments.

The state is not the owner of the endowment, but rather its overseer — meaning it manages its affairs and distributes its proceeds according to the condition set by the endower. It is not permitted for the state to act as though it owns the endowment.

Third: Is It Permissible for the State to Sell Endowments?

❌ In principle:
It is not permissible to sell endowments according to Islamic law because they exit the domain of human ownership at the moment of endowment.

As long as the original asset remains and fulfills its intended benefit, its sale, replacement, or redirection is considered a betrayal of the endower’s condition.

✅ However… In the jurisprudence of substitution (istibdal), some scholars permitted replacement under strict conditions:

• The endowment has deteriorated or no longer yields benefit.
• There is a clear and overriding public interest.
• It is replaced with an asset that is more beneficial and produces greater revenue.
• The proceeds must be reinvested in a new endowment serving the same charitable purpose.

Even in this case, the state is not free to act however it pleases. It must honor the endower’s condition, and the value must be redirected to the same charitable cause.

The real danger lies in the state selling endowments and spending the proceeds in the general budget, or allocating them to projects unrelated to the original charitable purpose, or even seizing them for commercial or political aims. This would constitute a violation of legal ownership and a breach of the endowment’s trust.

Conclusion:

• Endowments are not owned by the state, but entrusted to it.
• Only conditional replacement is permitted, not sales for financial or political purposes.
• Violating endowments is, religiously, a betrayal of trust and, legally, a crime.
• The state should revive and preserve endowments — not liquidate them.

My research also raised another important question: Why are Egyptian endowments always managed by religious figures? With all due respect to them, shouldn’t these be managed by economic experts to achieve optimal returns?

After all, this is about financial management — not purely religious affairs.

Endowments: A Trust, Not Ownership

When a person endows their wealth, land, or property, they liberate it from inheritance and personal ownership, directing it toward a noble, enduring purpose: serving people, educating the poor, treating the sick, or building mosques and schools.

At its core, the endowment is a moral contract — one that transcends time and surpasses the interests of individuals and governments. It is a contract between one’s soul and their duty to society.

The state, in managing endowments, does not own them — it merely represents society in safeguarding them and distributing their revenue according to the endower’s condition. It is a trustee, not a proprietor who can dispose of them at will.

If the state sells the endowment’s core assets, or redirects its proceeds to its own treasury, or repurposes them for goals unrelated to the endower’s intention, then it is not fulfilling its role — it is betraying it.

The default rule in Islamic law is that an endowment is not to be sold, inherited, or wasted — except under narrow conditions approved by scholars under the concept of substitution, and even then, only if it is replaced with something more beneficial, and directed to the exact same charitable cause.

Any action beyond this is not just an administrative violation — it is an act of aggression against a moralized form of public wealth. It is a betrayal of intention, a violation of trust, and a distortion of the meaning of “charity” when it becomes an investment file in the hands of power.

Historically, endowments were models of social justice independent of state control. They funded hospitals, schools, water systems, and livelihoods for the poor and orphaned.

It is disheartening to see this communal wealth turned into a burden in the eyes of those who neither understand history nor appreciate values.

In a time of ethical scarcity, endowments remain proof that some hearts continue to give, even after their last breath.

Will we protect the rights of those hearts? Or betray them in the name of law and modernization?