as a portion of what is partitioned, the ruling concerning it is the same as if it appeared to be rightfully claimed, according to the detail previously mentioned; for it is subject to being rightfully claimed. If the bequest is of an unspecified amount of wealth, such as if one bequeaths one hundred dinars, its ruling is the ruling of a debt, according to what we have explained.

Section: If one of the two partners requests the other for muhaaya'a (rotation/alternating possession) without partition, whether it be in parts—such as by assigning to one of them a portion of the house to reside in, or a portion of the field to cultivate, while the other resides and cultivates the remainder—or by one of them residing and cultivating for a year, and the other residing and cultivating for another year, the refuser among them is not compelled to do so. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: He is compelled to do so, because there is harm in the refusal, and it is negated by his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement: "There shall be no harm and no reciprocation of harm." Abu Hanifa agreed with us specifically regarding slaves, that he is not compelled to accept muhaaya'a. Our view is that muhaaya'a is an exchange [mu'awada], so one is not compelled to perform it, just as in a sale. Furthermore, the right of each of them to the benefit is immediate, so it is not permissible to delay it without his consent, just as with debt, and just as with slaves [according to Abu Hanifa; and it differs from the partition of the asset, for that is the setting apart of the two shares] and the distinction of one of the two rights. When this is established, if they agree to the muhaaya'a, it is permissible; for the right belongs to them, so what they mutually agree upon is permissible, just as in partition by mutual consent. It is not binding, rather whenever one of them withdraws from it, the muhaaya'a is invalidated. If one of them requests the partition, he may do so, and the muhaaya'a is invalidated. Abu Hanifa and his companions agreed with us regarding its invalidation by the request for partition. Malik said: The muhaaya'a is binding because he is compelled to do so according to him, so it becomes binding, like the partition of the asset. Our view is that he has offered benefits in order to receive benefits without it being a lease [ijara], so it is not binding, just as if he had lent him something so that he would lend him something else when he needs it. It differs from partition, for that is the setting apart of a right, according to what we have mentioned.