ضمان المنافع في الفقه الإسلامي: منافع الوقف أنموذجا

الملخص EN

Islamic scholars had differences in understanding the financial value of services, or benefits, so the Hanafi School scholars argued that services aren't existent possessions, and that it is not possible to document a contract over things that are non-existing.

On the other side, the majority of islamic scholars argued that services are actually the purpose of having a property, and that saying otherwise contradicts with the purposes of the islamic rules.

One of the problems that resulted out of this disagreement was the returning of the financial value of the service of a property that was stolen or taken over, which is called (Guaranteeing Benefits).

The difference between the Hanafi School scholars and the other majority of scholars in the matter of Guaranteeing Benefits was the essence of their difference in the matter of the Fanancial Value of Benefits.

This paper came to explain the main sources that each party used to show their point of view, then, the paper talked about Guaranteeing Benefits of a public service (Waqf) in a situation where it was taken over, the paper then discusses the sources and proofs that the Hanafi School scholars used to switch their opinion from being against guaranteeing benefits of a public service to being on the side of guaranteeing it.

The purpose of this paper was to study the sources of each party and trying to know the origin of the disagreenment.

The paper also tried to get the two parties closer by finding the cross-overs in their opinions.

The importance of the matter is that it is directly related to people's money in general, and public services in particular, since many types of people in society benefit from them.

Many methods were used in the research process, such as analyzing, induction and comparing.

One of the results of this paper: the reasons that the Hanafi Scholars used to prove that the benefits of a public service should be guaranteed are similar to the ones for a private property, so there is no clear reason for them to be on the side of guaranteeing public benefits only without the private ones.