May the wasi be paid out of the estate?

This is legal information only. For advice on your own circumstances, speak to a lawyer.

Where the four schools differ

This question turns on one issue in our madhhab register: May the wasi be paid out of the estate? — may the executor and guardian take a fee from the estate or from the property in his charge for the work of administering it?

Position of each Sunni school on may the executor and guardian take a fee from the estate or from the property in his charge for the work of administering it?
School	Position
MalikiHanbali	Yes — he may be paid for the work. The reasoning given for the Hanbali school is a straight analogy: the wasi is like an agent, an agent may take a wage for his work, so may the wasi — “this is what the Hanbalis said”. The Maliki authorities are recorded as saying the same and go one step further on procedure: if the wasi asks for a fee for his supervision of the orphan’s property, it is on the judge to fix him a fee, measured by how much work he does in managing the property and buying the child’s necessities; and the judge may fix a fee where doing so is in the orphans’ own interest. The same passage adds the piety note without turning it into a rule: “if he abstains from it, that is better for him”. Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaytiyya, entry “Isa’” sec. 17, al-ajr ‘ala al-wisaya — “yajuzu li’l-wasiyyi an ya’khudha ajran ‘ala nazarihi wa-‘amalihi; li-anna al-wasiyya ka’l-wakil, wa’l-wakilu yajuzu lahu akhdhu al-ajri ‘ala ‘amalihi, fa-kadhalika al-wasiyy, bi-hadha qala al-Hanabila” (al-Mughni 6/142), “wa-bihi aydan qala al-Malikiyya” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Isa’” sec. 17 continued — the Maliki rule (“if the wasi asks a fee for his supervision of the orphan’s property, the judge must fix him a fee bi-qadri shughlihi fi mali al-yatim… and if he abstains from it, that is better for him”); the Shafi’i rule (“idha kana al-naziru… ajnabiyyan, fa-lahu an ya’khudha min mali al-tifli qadra ujrati ‘amalihi, fa-in akhadha akthara min dhalika damina ma akhadhahu, wa-law li-kifayatihi”, with the different rule for a father, grandfather or mother); and the Hanafi rule (“amma al-Hanafiyyatu fa’l-sahihu ‘indahum anna al-wasiyya in kana wasiyya al-mayyiti fa-laysa lahu ajrun ‘ala wasiyyatihi, wa-in kana wasiyya al-qadi, fa-li’l-qadi an yaj‘ala lahu ajra al-mithl”, while still allowing a needy wasi to eat from the orphan’s property and ride his mount, on Q 4:6) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — both schools named in terms at Isa’ sec. 17 — “bi-hadha qala al-Hanabila” (footnoted to al-Mughni 6/142) and “wa-bihi aydan qala al-Malikiyya”, the Maliki detail continuing on the following page.
Shafi’i	Only the value of the work, and not a penny more — even if he needs it. Where the person managing the child’s affairs is an outsider, he may take from the child’s property the amount of the wage for his work; if he takes more than that he is liable to make it good, and that is so even where he took it to meet his own needs. The school treats a relative differently: a father, grandfather, or a mother appointed by the will takes nothing from the child’s property if he or she is well off, and if poor, is maintained from it and may spend on himself from it bi’l-ma‘ruf, in what is reasonable, without needing a judge’s authorisation. Source: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Isa’” sec. 17 continued — the Maliki rule (“if the wasi asks a fee for his supervision of the orphan’s property, the judge must fix him a fee bi-qadri shughlihi fi mali al-yatim… and if he abstains from it, that is better for him”); the Shafi’i rule (“idha kana al-naziru… ajnabiyyan, fa-lahu an ya’khudha min mali al-tifli qadra ujrati ‘amalihi, fa-in akhadha akthara min dhalika damina ma akhadhahu, wa-law li-kifayatihi”, with the different rule for a father, grandfather or mother); and the Hanafi rule (“amma al-Hanafiyyatu fa’l-sahihu ‘indahum anna al-wasiyya in kana wasiyya al-mayyiti fa-laysa lahu ajrun ‘ala wasiyyatihi, wa-in kana wasiyya al-qadi, fa-li’l-qadi an yaj‘ala lahu ajra al-mithl”, while still allowing a needy wasi to eat from the orphan’s property and ride his mount, on Q 4:6) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — “wa-qala al-Shafi‘iyya” at Isa’ sec. 17, footnoted to Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/78–79.
Hanafi	No fee for the executor the deceased chose — a fee only for the one the judge appoints. On the sound view in the school, a wasi who holds office because the deceased named him has no wage for his executorship; a wasi appointed by the judge may be granted the going rate for such work (ajr al-mithl) by the judge who appointed him. The school does not leave a poor executor destitute, though: it permits him to eat from the orphan’s property when he is in need, and to ride the child’s mount when travelling on the child’s business, on the words of Surah an-Nisa 4:6, “and whoever is poor, let him consume in a reasonable manner”. And where a fee was fixed for him by the father or the judge, the school is inside the agreement that he may take it. Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Isa’” sec. 17 continued — the Maliki rule (“if the wasi asks a fee for his supervision of the orphan’s property, the judge must fix him a fee bi-qadri shughlihi fi mali al-yatim… and if he abstains from it, that is better for him”); the Shafi’i rule (“idha kana al-naziru… ajnabiyyan, fa-lahu an ya’khudha min mali al-tifli qadra ujrati ‘amalihi, fa-in akhadha akthara min dhalika damina ma akhadhahu, wa-law li-kifayatihi”, with the different rule for a father, grandfather or mother); and the Hanafi rule (“amma al-Hanafiyyatu fa’l-sahihu ‘indahum anna al-wasiyya in kana wasiyya al-mayyiti fa-laysa lahu ajrun ‘ala wasiyyatihi, wa-in kana wasiyya al-qadi, fa-li’l-qadi an yaj‘ala lahu ajra al-mithl”, while still allowing a needy wasi to eat from the orphan’s property and ride his mount, on Q 4:6) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, entry “Wisaya” sec. 61, the wasi’s fee and his use of the ward’s property — “ittafaqa al-fuqaha’u ‘ala anna al-wasiyya idha farada lahu al-abu aw al-qadi ujratan fi mali al-musa ‘alayhi muqabila al-qiyami bi’l-wisayati kana lahu akhdhuha sawa’un a-kana ghaniyyan am faqiran”; and that a wealthy wasi for whom nothing was fixed may take nothing, on Q 4:6 “wa-man kana ghaniyyan fa’l-yasta‘fif”, with the Maliki school recording an internal disagreement where such a wasi actually renders service and work (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Wisaya” sec. 62 — the poor wasi for whom neither father nor judge fixed anything: “fa-yara al-Hanafiyyatu — fi’l-istihsan — wa’l-Malikiyyatu wa’l-Shafi‘iyyatu wa’l-Hanabilatu anna li’l-wasiyyi an ya’khudha al-ajra min mali mawlihi li-hajati faqrin hasaba dawabita tuhaddidu miqdara ma yajuzu”, against a Hanafi view “wa-huwa al-qiyasu ‘indahum” that he may take nothing (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — “amma al-Hanafiyyatu fa’l-sahihu ‘indahum” at Isa’ sec. 17, footnoted to al-Durr with Ibn ‘Abidin 6/713; the school separately named at Wisaya secs. 61–62.

Researched positions from our madhhab register — issue wasi-compensation, reviewed 2026-09-01.

Put the fee in the will

Two points every school agrees on, and one drafting instruction that follows. First, the Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia records it as agreed among the jurists that if the testator or the judge fixed the wasi a fee out of the property for doing the job, he may take it, whether he is rich or poor. Second, it is likewise agreed that a wealthy wasi for whom nothing was fixed may take nothing, on the words of Surah an-Nisa 4:6, “whoever is well off should abstain” — the Maliki authorities recording an internal disagreement only where such a wasi actually does the labour, one view letting him consume in proportion to his work and the other not. On the poor wasi for whom nothing was fixed, the same work records the Hanafis (by istihsan), Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis allowing him to take for his need, subject to limits, with only the Hanafi position “by strict analogy” refusing. So the drafting instruction is simple: say it in the will. A clause fixing the executor’s remuneration — a stated sum, or the reasonable value of his work, or expressly nothing — removes the whole difference above, because the one thing all four schools agree on is that a fee the testator fixed may be taken. It also fits Canadian practice, where an estate trustee is entitled to compensation assessed by the court or agreed with the beneficiaries unless the will provides otherwise, and where a compensation clause in the will is the ordinary way of settling it in advance. One caution: a fee fixed in the will is a disposition out of the estate, so where the executor is also an heir it runs into the separate rules on bequests to heirs and on the one-third ceiling, which are researched separately in this register — we did not research the interaction and it should be put to a scholar of your school.

Full positions, evidence and history: May the wasi be paid out of the estate? — the issue page.

Which row is yours? Most families follow the school of their region of origin — the four madhahib page maps them. The comparison is here so you can see your school’s position, not so you can pick the convenient answer — assembling a plan from several schools at once (talfiq) can produce a distribution no school would accept. If your estate turns on this point, put it to a scholar of your school.

Questions that turn on this

Every answer below renders its madhhab position from this one entry, so the positions cannot drift apart between pages.

Citations & sources

Every factual claim on this page traces to a source below. Details change — check the original source before relying on any figure, fee or legal position.

Classical fiqh works