Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:47:05.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Maliki Family Endowment: Legal Norms and Social Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

David S. Powers
David S. Powers
Affiliation:
Teaches Islamic history in the Department of Near Eastern Studies, Cornell University, 360 Rockefeller Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians of Muslim societies have observed that, in principle, the strict application of the Islamic rules of inheritance would result in the progressive fragmentation of capital. Although technically correct, the observation fails to take into account the fact that the Islamic inheritance rules are but part of a larger and flexible Islamic inheritance system that also includes bequests, gifts inter vivos, family endowments, dowries, fictitious sales, and other modes for the devolution of property. This larger system has served Muslims, rich and poor, for over 1,400 years, although it operates differently in different places. The most important component of the Islamic inheritance system arguably has been the family endowment, known among the Malikis as ḥabs (popularly, habous) and elsewhere as waqf ahlī. This institution came into existence in the first Islamic century, in part because the Islamic inheritance rules proved too constraining, and soon became an integral component of the Islamic legal system. It allows a proprietor to transform immovable property such as a house or field into a perpetual endowment for one or more beneficiaries and subsequent generations of descendants; the property thereafter may not be bought, sold, or inherited. The founder designates the initial beneficiaries and defines the strategy according to which usufructory rights pass from one generation to the next. Thus, the founder may control the devolution ofendowment revenues for many generations after his or her death.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , August 1993 , pp. 379 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 See, for example, Hodgson, Marshall, The Venture of Islam,3 vols. (Chicago, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, The Classical Age of Islam, 1:343; Ashtor, Eliyahu, A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1976), 113Google Scholar; Valensi, Lucette, Tunisian Peasants in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Cambridge, 1985), 67, 69Google Scholar. On the Islamic inheritance rules, see Schacht, Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford, 1964), 169–74Google Scholar; Coulson, Noel J., Succession in the Muslim Family (Cambridge, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Mundy, Martha, “Women's Inheritance of Land in Highland Yemen,” Arabian Studies 5 (1979): 161–88Google Scholar; Gerholm, Tomas, “Aspects of Inheritance and Marriage Payments in Yemen,” in Property, Social Structure, and Law in the Modern Middle East, ed. Mayer, Ann E. (Albany, N.Y., 1985), 129–51Google Scholar; Rycx, Jean-François, “Règies islamiques et droit positif en matière de successions,” in Hériteren pays musulman: Ḥabus, Lait vivant, Manyahuli, ed. Gast, Marceau (Paris, 1987), 19–41Google Scholar; Stauth, Georg, “Women, Properties, and Migrations: Access to Land and Local Conflicts in Rural Egypt,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft 140, 1 (1990): 32–50Google Scholar.

3 Mundy, Martha, “The Family, Inheritance, and Islam: A Re-examination of the Sociology of Farāʾiḍ Law,” in Islamic Law: Social and Historical Contexts, ed. al-Azmeh, Aziz (New York, 1988), 1–123Google Scholar. Cf. Powers, David S., “The Islamic Inheritance System: A Socio-Historical Approach,” in Islamic Family Law, ed. Mallat, Chibli and Conners, Jane (London, 1990), 11–29Google Scholar.

4 The earliest extant model of a waqfiyya may be found in Shāfiʿī, Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al, Kitāb al-Umm, 8 vols. (Cairo, 1961), 3:281–83Google Scholar. A waqfiyya emanating from the middle of the 9th century is reproduced in Rāghib, Yūsuf, Marchands d'étoffes du Fayyoum au IIIe/IXe siecle: I. Les actes des Banū ʿAbd al-Mwʾ'min (Cairo, 1982), 36–45Google Scholar. See also Amīn, Muḥammad M., al-Awqāf wa-al-ḥayāt alijtimāʿciyya fi miṣr (Cairo, 1980)Google Scholar; Little, Donald, A Catalogue of the Islamic Documents from al-Ḥaram al-Sharīfin Jerusalem (Beirut, 1984), 317–21Google Scholar.

5 See Wensinck, A. J., Concordance et indices de la tradition musulmane, 8 vols. (Leiden, 1936–1988), 1: s.v. ḥ-b-sGoogle Scholar.

6 See, for example, al-Shaybānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAmr, known as al-Khaṣṣāf (d. 875), Kiātb aḥkām alawqāf (Cairo, 1904)Google Scholar; al-Raʾy, Hiläl ibn Yaḥyā (d. 859), Kitāb a ḥ kām al-waqf (Hyderabad, 1936)Google Scholar.

7 See, for example, Saḥnūn, , al-Mudawwana al-kubrā, 13 vols. (Cairo, A.H. 1323–24 [1906]), 15:98–111Google Scholar; Shāfiʿī, , Umm, 3:274–83Google Scholar; al-Sarakhsī, , Kitāb al-mabs ūṭ, 30 vols. (Cairo, 1906–1912), 12:27–47Google Scholar.

8 al-Wansharīsī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā (1430–1508), al-Miʿyār al-mughrib wa-al-jāmiʿ al-muʿrib ʿanfatāwī ahl Ifrīqiya wa-al-Andalus wa-al-Maghrib, 13 vols. (Rabat, 1981–1983)Google Scholar (hereafter, all references to the Miʿyār will be identified by “M” and the volume number). For a French translation of selected fatwas, based upon the earlier lithograph edition published in Fez in 1896–97, see Amar, E., “La Pierre de touche extraordinaire,” Archives Marocaines, 12, 13 (1907–1908)Google Scholar.

9 See, for example, Powers, David S., “A Court Case from Fourteenth-Century North Africa,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110, 2 (1990): 229–54;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, “Fatwās as Sources for Legal and Social History: A Dispute over Endowment Revenues from Fourteenth-Century Fez,” al-Qanṭara 11, 2 (1990), 295–341Google Scholar.

10 Ibn ʿAttab (d. 1069), five fatwas; Ibn Sahl (d. 1093), two fatwas; Ibn Rushd (d. 1126), nine fatwas; and Ibn al-Hajj (d. 1134), ten fatwas.

11 Fasi muftis: Musa al-ʿAbdusi (d. 1374), three fatwas; Ahmad al-Qabbab (d. 1376), two fatwas; al-Awrabi (d. 1381), two fatwas; al-Yaznasini (d. 1391), three fatwas; ʿIsa ibn ʿAllal (d. 1420), two fatwas; ʿAbd Allah al-ʿAbdusi (d. 1446), four fatwas. Tlemcen mufti: Muhammad ibn Marzuq II (d. 1438), two fatwas.

12 The most recent historical study of the Maliki family endowment is that of Aharon Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf according to Wills and Waqfiyyāt,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 46, 1 (1983): 1–32Google Scholar. This study is based on fifteen documents that originated in Tangier between the middle of the 18th and the beginning of the 20th century. Cf. Ferchiou, Sophie, “Le systeme Ḥabus en Tunisie: logique de transmission et idéologic agnatique,” in Hériter en pays musulman, ed. Gast, M. (Paris, 1987), 57–74Google Scholar; Marcus, Abraham, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo inthe Eighteenth Century (New York, 1989), 209–12Google Scholar.

13 The institution has been studied systematically by French scholars. See Henry, Jean-Robert and Balique, François, La Doctrine coloniale du droit musulman algérien: bibliographie systématique et introduction critique (Paris, 1979), 118–21Google Scholar. On the sometimes problematical relationship between European colonialism and the study of Islamic law, see Powers, David S., “Orientalism, Colonialism, and Legal History: The Attack on Muslim Family Endowments in Algeria and India,” Comparative Studiesin Society and History 31, 3 (1989): 535–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 The definition is cited in M7:345, 11. 12–14; cf. Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 3. The question of ownership is disputed by the Malikis. Malik himself reportedly held that ownership passes from the founder to God (M7:63, 11. 3–5). Another jurist held that “the [endowed] property is not owned by any of the beneficiaries because it is transferred from one to the other” (ibid., 69, 11. 18–19).

15 Unlike other schools of Islamic law, the Malikis permitted the creation of a family endowment on a temporary basis. Early Maliki doctrine allowed a person to create an endowment for one or more beneficiaries and their descendants, and to stipulate that if the line of beneficiaries expired, the property was to revert to the founder or his heirs. Some jurists maintained that the founder or his heirs acquired full ownership of the reverting property; others held that the reverting property retained its character as an endowment that could not be sold, given away as a gift, or transmitted as an inheritance. See, for example, ibid., 14 (1. 12)–15; 66, 11. 6ff.; 103 (1. 10)–104; 205, 1. 10; 333, 11. 14–20; 443, 11. 12–16; 459–60.

16 Several versions of this hadith are cited at ibid., 282–83.

17 Layish, , “The Mālikī Family Waqf” 8–9.Google Scholar

18 Q. 4:11: lil-dhakar mithlu ḥaẓẓ al-unthayayn (“a male is entitled to the share of two females”).

19 Pesle, Octave, La théorie et la pratique des habous dans le rite malékite (Casablanca, n.d.). On ḥiyāza, see also M7:48,11. 4–13; 81,11. 15–18; 188–90; 226–27,1. 5; 321–29; 444, 11. 1–6Google Scholar.

20 For examples of testamentary endowments, see ibid., 21–29, 75–76, 311–21, 463–64, 477–78.

21 Compare Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf” 3, where the author observes that the “dominanttype of waqf in the Tangier documents is the testamentary waqf.”

22 M7:346, 11. 14–17.

23 Unlike the Hanafi school, the Maliki school does not allow a founder to designate himself or herself as the initial beneficiary. See Layish, , “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 5–6Google Scholar.

24 See, for example, M7:29 (1. 24)–30 (1. 7); 67, 11. 1–6; 267, 11. 7–12; 269, 11. 3–6; 279, 11. 1–4;343,11. 17–24; 355, 11. 1–4; 360, 11. 16–19; 396, 11. 13–15; 442, 11. 12–16.

25 Muʿaqqab endowments: ibid., 141, 11. 15–18; 280, 11. 6–13; 357, 11. 1–3; 398, 11. 16–18. Cf. Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf” 13, 24.

26 M7:281, 11. 14–15. Cf. ibid., 270, 11. 23–25.

27 Cf. Layish, , “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 14.Google Scholar

28 M7:484, 11. 2–4.

29 Ibid., 478, 1. 1.

30 Ibid., 186, 11. 12–20. Cf. Layish, , “The Mālikī Family Waqf” 13Google Scholar.

31 See, for example, M7:80, 1. 23.

32 In early Islamic times one wasq (camel-load) was the equivalent of 60 ṣāʿ or 194.3 kilograms. See Hinz, W., Islamische Masse und Gewichte (Leiden, 1955), 53Google Scholar.

33 M7:24, 11. 1–13. Cf. ibid., 311 (1. 6)–312 (1. 9).

34 Ibid., 220, 11. 10–17; 285, 11. 19ff.

35 Ibid., 49, 11. 19ff.; 59–60.

36 Ibid., 40–41.

37 On the relationship between family endowments and inheritance law, see Powers, “Court Case,” 242–43; idem, “Islamic Inheritance System,” 19ff.

38 It should be noted that any endowment created for one's children—no matter what their economic situation—was considered to satisfy the criterion of charity or piety.

39 See, for example, Pesle, , Habous, 75;Google ScholarMercier, Ernest, Le code du hobous ou ouakfselon la législation musulmane (Constantine, 1899), 131Google Scholar.

40 M7:281, 11. 10–25.

41 Ibid., 80–82. Cf. ibid., 270–72.

42 Ibid., 278 (1. 20)–279 (1. 4).

43 Ibid., 62,11. 15–19.

44 Ibid., 441, 11. 14–16.

45 Ibid., 223, 11. 11–14. Cf. Mercier, , Code, 131Google Scholar; Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 18–21.

46 M7:80, 11. 10–13. Cf. ibid., 60, 11. 13–18; 311, 11. 6–25; 333, 11. 15–16; 463, 11. 11–19.

47 Cf. Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 21

48 Cf. ibid., 9.

49 M7:281, 11. 10–13. Cf. Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 23.

50 M7:141, 11. 6–7. Cf. ibid., 360, 11. 14–22.

51 Ibid., 269, 11. 13–14. Cf. ibid., 343, 11. 13–20.

52 Males: ibid., 25, II. 1–2; 186,1. 12; 248, 11. 17–18; 278, 1. 21; 281, 1. 10; 311, 11. 9–11; 343, 1. 17; 48 6, 1. 17. Females: ibid., 188, 11. 14–15; 311, 11. 11–12.

53 Cf. Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 8, where the author notes that 80 percent of the family endowments in the Tangier corpus were created for the founder' children or grandchildren.

54 See, for example, M7:248–57, 343–47, 463–64.

55 But note that in some cases, a childless man created an endowment “for whatever male or female children will be born to him.” See, for example, ibid., 441,11. 21–22; cf. 202, 11. 21–22.

56 Cf. Mercier, , Code, 159–62;Google Scholar Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf” 20–21.

57 M7:223, 11. 11–12. Cf. Ibid., 442,11. 21–22.

58 Ibid., 229, 11. 15–20. Cf. Ibid., 269, 11. 4–5.

59 Ibid., 281, 11. 10–13.

60 Ibid., 278, II. 20–24.

61 Ibid., 25, 1. 8; cf. Ibid., 21, 11. 10–11; 333, 1. 15.

62 Ibid., 311, 11. 6–25.

63 Ibid., 50, II. 17–19; 80, 11. 13–15; 360, 11. 18–19.

64 Ibid., 189, 11. 7–9.

65 Ibid., 49, 11. 12–13; 60, 1. 11.

66 Ibid., 60, 11. 17–18.

67 Ibid., 463, 11. 18–19.

68 Ibid., 343, 11. 22–24.

69 Ibid., 438, 11. 6–8.

70 Ibid., 186, 11. 12–17.

71 Ibid., 452, 11. 21–22; 459, 11. 23–24.

72 Ibid., 46, 1. 3. Cf. Ibid., 220, 1. 12.

73 Ibid., 281, 11. 15–17.

74 Ibid., 312, 11. 1–4.

75 Ibid., 202, 11. 22–23.

76 Ibid., 141, 11.7–8.

77 See Ibid., 25, 11. 4–8; 27, 11. 13–15; 311, 11. 12–16; 333, 1. 15; 443, 11. 12–13.

78 Ibid., 432, 1. 11

79 Ibid., 80, 11. 15–17.

80 Ibid., 432, 1. 6.

81 Ibid., 248 (1. 23)–249 (1. 1).

82 Cf. Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 25: “[T]he Tangier documents contain no instances of apportionment based on economic considerations, i.e., in units as complete as possible and according to types of property.”

83 Ibid., 45, 1. 17; 49, 11. 11–12; 75, 11. 10–11; 202, 1. 21; 226, 1. 21; 423, 1. 20; 446, 1. 4.

84 Ibid., 261–62.

85 Ibid., 311–21.

86 Ibid., 452–53.

87 Ibid., 435, 11. 8–18.

88 Ibid., 486–514. For an analysis of this dispute, see Powers, “Court Case.”

89 M7:80–82

90 See Powers, “Court Case.”

91 On written documents in Islamic law, see Tyan, Emile, Le notarial et le régime de la preuve par écrit dans la pratique du droit musulman (Beirut, 1959);Google ScholarWakin, Jeanette A., The Function of Documents in Islamic Law (Albany, N.Y., 1972)Google Scholar.

92 M7:455, 11. 16–22 (Ibn ʿAttab, Cordova).

93 Ibid., 278–81.

94 On this type of document, see M10:199–200. See also Powers, “Court Case,” 245, n. 97.

95 M7:433–35

96 Ibid., 67–69. Cf. Ibid., 452–53 (original document reappears after an interval of seventy years); M5:253 (endowment deed is produced subsequent to the sale of the endowed properties).

97 M7:228–29 (Ibn ʿAttab, Cordova). Cf. ibid., 29 (1. 22)–30.

98 Ibid., 81, 11. 21–22.

99 Ibid., 280, 11. 16–17.

100 Ibid., 285, 11. 1–2.

101 Ibid., 270–72.

102 For references by mustaftīs to the notion of intent, see ibid., 229, 11. 19–20; 316, 11. 10–11.

103 Ibid., 26, 11. 19–22 (al-Maqqari, Fez).

104 Ibid., 23, 11. 2–3 (al-Mazjaldi, Fez).

105 Ibid., 196, 11. 15–16.

106 Ibid., 356, 11. 13–20.

107 Ibid., 267–69. Cf. ibid., 354–58.

108 Ibid., 311–21.

109 Ibid., 440–41.

110 Ibid., 395, 11. 10–17.

111 Ibid., 104–5.

112 Ibid., 228–29.

113 Ibid., 432, 11. 5–10.

114 Ibid., 49, 11. 10–17.

115 Ibid., 72, 11. 16–21.

116 Ibid., 45–46.

117 Cf. Layish, , “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 5–6Google Scholar.

118 M7:202–3.

119 Ibid., 218, 11. 5–11.

120 Ibid., 426, 11. 14–22.

121 Ibid., 260–61. Cf. ibid., 261–62.

122 Ibid., 202, 11. 1–19.

123 Ibid., 486–88.

124 Ibid., 248–57.

125 Ibid., 358, 11. 6–8.

126 Ibid., 88, 11. 1–8; 358, 11. 1–5; 396, 11. 16–17; 462, 11. 2–8; 478, 11. 11–19; 484, 11. 1–11.

127 Ibid., 359, 11. 1–14.

128 In practice, the meaning of the term walad varied from time to time and place to place, in accordance with local custom. See, for example, ibid., 440–41.

129 Ibid., 223, 11. 21–22; 280, 11. 11–12; 346, 11. 8–11; 355, 11. 21–25. For a discussion of ʿaqib and other kinship terms, see ibid., 281–85.

130 On this term, see Pesle, , Habous, 78–79, 131;Google Scholar Layish, “The Mālikī Family Waqf,” 16–17.

131 M7:462–63

132 Ibid., 463–64. Cf. Powers, , “Fatwās as Sources for Legal and Social History,” 313Google Scholar.

133 M7:186–87.

134 Ibid., 191–92.

135 Ibid., 51, 11. 1–5.

136 Ibid., 343–47; 354–58; 360–62.

137 Cf. Comaroff, John L. and Roberts, Simon, Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of Dispute in an African Context (Chicago, 1981)Google Scholar.

138 Cf. Brettell, Caroline B., “Kinship and Contract: Property Transmission and Family Relations in Northwestern Portugal,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 33, 3 (1991): 443–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.