Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examines ownership of waqf assets and the limits of nāẓir authority to develop a governance framework for productive waqf in Indonesia. It employs normative legal research combining statutory, conceptual, and comparative jurisprudential approaches with a functional comparison of official Malaysian and Singaporean documentation. The analysis distinguishes Abū Ḥanīfah from Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad al-Shaybānī and recognises differences among non-Hanafi schools. Indonesian waqf law cannot be attributed exclusively to one school. Restrictions on revocation and asset transfer reflect a binding endowment framework, while recognition of specified durations and productive management accommodates several jurisprudential choices. Menara Imarah Wakaf MAIWP and Wakaf Bencoolen illustrate institutional arrangements separating trusteeship from commercial management; they do not establish a causal relationship between doctrinal affiliation and success. The proposed framework combines dedicated asset status with productive trusteeship through asset segregation, an authority matrix, risk controls, and reporting on benefits. Changes in designated use and asset substitution remain subject to applicable approval procedures. As a document-based study, the research does not empirically test the effectiveness of the proposed framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Husein et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: