Sunday, 5 April 2026 (17 Shawwal 1447 AH)
Question: A disabled woman owns a plot of land, and she has a granddaughter who is compassionate toward her—serving her needs, cleanliness, and provisions, hardly ever leaving her. The woman summoned a scribe and witnesses and testified before them that she had transferred ownership of her specified land to that granddaughter who serves her, in exchange for her past service and for what she will continue to render until the woman dies—even if only an hour of life remained. The granddaughter was made to hear this and she accepted—even if her grandmother’s life were to reach its utmost length, the granddaughter is content to serve her as long as life lasts. The grandmother is likewise content to give her granddaughter this, as recompense for what has passed and for what is to come. Is this transfer of ownership valid or not?
Answer: What appears from the question is that the transfer of ownership from the grandmother to her granddaughter is a recompense, not a lease. The granddaughter, as it seems, had been serving her grandmother without compensation and did not demand wages from her; rather, the grandmother wished to give of her own accord without the granddaughter requesting it. On that basis, the transfer issued from a willing soul, without intending thereby to procure any particular work—known or unknown—and what is of this nature is not vitiated. The muftī and the judge must therefore distinguish this from leasing (hire).
As for the case where a woman or man is disabled yet has wealth and no one to serve them, and they hire someone to serve them until they die, in exchange for a specified plot of land, or an apartment unit, or a specified sum of money, with a written contract attested by witnesses; then the woman or man lives for as long as Allah wills and dies, and the heirs come to dispute with the hireling: the judge does not rule the hiring valid; rather, he rules it invalid. With its invalidity, the hireling is entitled only to the customary equivalent wage (ujrat al-mithl) as assessed by two just persons.
However, if none of the heirs dispute the hireling and he has already taken possession of the land, the apartment, or the money, then it is lawfully his and no sin or liability attaches to him on that account. In a void (invalid) contract, the wage is owned upon receipt, though it remains liable to rescission upon dispute and litigation. Likewise in a void sale, the sold item is owned by taking possession. As for a valid lease and a valid sale, the wage and the sold item are owned by the contract itself.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2