جهالة الموقوف عليه

Abstract

This research discusses the issue of ignorance in endowments, and the problem of the research lies in the contradiction between two descriptions of the endowment. The first is that it is a necessary contract, and the principle in contracts is that ignorance invalidates them. The second is that it is a pure act of kindness, and kindness allows for forgiveness. Therefore, clarification was needed regarding the opinions of jurists in considering both descriptions. The research goals include determining the prevailing view on this issue based on evidence, detailing the possible types of ignorance in the endowment according to what is understood from the jurisprudence of the topic, and providing endowment observers with jurisprudential material that aids them in dealing with the dilemma of ignorance in endowments. The researcher followed two methods: inductive and analytical. He examined the material from jurisprudential books, analyzed its content and evidence, and reached several results, including: defining the chosen endowment as restraining the original and allocating the benefit. The endowment is valid and established even if a trustee is not assigned to it. If the purpose of the endowment cannot be determined because a trustee is not named, customary practices are followed if available, or else it is utilized for the benefit of Muslims. The formality does not detract from the right to assign a trustee. The endowment is valid for ambiguous cases and can be decided by drawing lots. The endowment is valid for an absolute unknown, such as a man. The endowment is valid with the authorization to assign the trustee to someone else. An entrusted endowment whose trustee is assigned to someone else is allocated to the poor relatives of the endower. If ignorance regarding the trustee arises and its flow is confirmed in a specific direction and in the possession of someone who abandoned it as it is, the endowment is valid.
Keywords: Ignorance, endowments