360 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. (June, 1911. 
LII. Tue SHarn at-WiqayvaH (Hd. Cal., pp. 256-257). 
It is the opinion of Muhammad that it is valid to make waqf 
of such moveables with respect to which there is Ta‘amul such 
as a pickaxe, a spade, a shovel, a saw, a bier and its pall, a . 
pot, a cauldron and a copy of the Qur’an. The majority of the - = 
jurists of various countries have accepted his view. | 
LI. THe Zaxntrat-ar-‘UQpi (ibid.). 
Muhammad says, as for those moveables the wagqf of which 4 
has been recognized by people, it is valid to make waqf thereof 
recognized in practice cannot be made wagqf of, e.g., clothes, ani- 
mals and other household goods. The view of al-Shafi‘i, Ahmad 
and Malik is that the waqf of moveables independently is valid, 
provided that the moveable is something of which use can be 
made consistently with the preservation of the original, of what- 
ever nature it may be. 
They are unanimous that it is not valid to make waqf of 
dirhams and dinars. The reason of al-Shafi‘i’s view rests on the 
t 
is valid to make wagf of them, according to Ahmad and al-Shafi‘l, 
seeing that Hafsah, the daughter of ‘Umar and wife of the Prophet, 
bought ornaments for 20,000 dirhams and made waqf of them 
for the benefit of the womenfolk of the family of al-Khattaéb 
Hence she paid no poor-rate on them. According to Ahmad, it 
is not lawful to make waqf of these even, and he denies the 
authority of this tradition. It has been said, if we allow the 
hiring of dirhams and dinars as valid, it is equally valid to 
make waqf of them. But this is of no weight. Here ends the 
quotation from the Dirayah. And it has been said in the 
Bazzaziyyah, that if a man makes waqf of dirhams and dinars 
‘siete Valid 6.652. In the Fatawa of Qadi Khan, it is stated 
from Zufar that a man makes waqf of dirhams . . . itis valid. 
But wesay that the way to reconcile what has been mentioned in 
these two authentic works, viz., that it is lawful to make waqf 
of coins and food grains with what has been mentioned in the 
of them consistently with the preservation of the original, 
whereas the propounder of the view expressed in these two 
