that which the Qadi mentioned. It is also the school of al-Shafi'i, because he stated that explicitly, so it is construed accordingly, just as if he had bequeathed his emancipation, or as if he had bequeathed the sale of a commodity and the giving of its price as charity. It differs from a disposal made after a sale; for Allah Almighty granted man the right to dispose of one-third of his estate after his death, unlike what is done after a sale. The first view is more correct, if Allah Almighty wills. It differs from a bequest of emancipation and the sale of a commodity because ownership does not stabilize for the heirs in this case, and they do not possess the right to dispose of it, unlike our issue. Regarding their statement: "He granted him the right to dispose of one-third of his estate," we say: He only disposes of it in a way that is confirmed immediately following his death, and which prevents its transfer to the heir. Even if it were established for the heir, it is a non-stable establishment. It has been said: It is deemed "pending"; so if the legatee accepts, it becomes clear that ownership belonged to him from the moment of death, and if he does not accept, it becomes clear that it was for the heir. Thus, according to our view, he is not emancipated by entering after death, and the heir has the right to dispose of it as he wishes. Whoever validates this condition holds that it is possible to prevent the heir from disposing of the slave's person, because he is entitled to emancipation, so he resembles one who has been bequeathed emancipation. It is also possible that he does not prevent him from doing so, because he attached his emancipation to a condition other than death, so it does not prevent disposal of it, just as if he said to his slave: "If you enter the house, you are free." As for his earnings before his emancipation, they belong to the heir, because ownership of them is stable before the condition is met, just as if the heir were the one who had attached his emancipation to the condition.

Section: If he said, "You are free one month after my death," or said, "one day [after my death]," Ahmad said in the report of Muhanna: "He is not emancipated, and this condition is invalid." He also said: "I asked Ahmad about a man who said to his slave, 'You are free one month after my death, in exchange for a thousand dirhams.' He said: 'All of this is of no effect after his death.'" This is the preferred view of Abu Bakr. The two Qadis, Ibn Abi Musa and Abu Ya'la, mentioned another narration regarding this: that he is emancipated when the two conditions are met: death and the passing of the mentioned period. This was also the view of al-Thawri, Abu Yusuf, and Ishaq. The reasoning for both narrations has been mentioned previously. The proponents of independent reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: "He is not emancipated until the heir emancipates him." According to the view of those who say "he is emancipated," he is, before death, the property of the heir, and his earnings belong to him, just like the umm al-walad (mother of a child) and the mudabbar during the master's lifetime. If it were a slave girl and she gave birth before the condition was met, her child