For this, the statement of the one authorizing is sufficient, such as "I have authorized it," "I have executed it," or similar words, and it does not require the conditions of a gift. Derived from this disagreement is that if he emancipates a slave while he has no other wealth during his illness, or bequeaths his emancipation, and they carry out the emancipation according to his bequest, the emancipation is executed in his third, while the emancipation of the remainder is suspended pending the authorization of the heirs. If they authorize it, the whole of him is emancipated, and the residuary heirs (asabat) of the deceased have exclusive right to all of his wala’ (patronage rights), if we hold the view that his emancipation and bequest are valid. If we hold that it is void, and that the authorization is an initial gift, the residuary heirs of the deceased have exclusive right to one-third of his wala’, and the two-thirds belong to all the heirs, divided among them according to their inheritance shares, because they initiated the emancipation. Likewise, if he gives away a third of his wealth during his illness, then emancipates, or bequeaths emancipation, the ruling regarding it is according to what we have mentioned. If he bequeaths to the child of his heir after he has already given away a third of his wealth, or he gave him a gift during his illness, and his father authorized his bequest and gift, then later wished to retract what he had authorized, he may do so if we say that it is an initial gift. He may not do so according to the opinion that it is a mere execution. If a man marries his cousin, and she bequeaths to him a bequest or gift during her fatal illness, then she dies and leaves him and her father, and her father authorizes her bequest and gift, the ruling regarding it is according to what we have mentioned. If he makes a waqf (endowment) during his illness for his heirs, and they authorize the waqf, it is valid if we say: their authorization is an execution. It is not valid if we say: it is an initial gift; and this is because they would be establishing a waqf for themselves. There is no difference in the bequest between illness and health; Hanbal narrated from Ahmad that he said: "If he bequeaths during illness, it is from the third, and if he is healthy, he may bequeath what he wishes," meaning by that, the gift. This is what the Qadi stated. As for the bequest, it is a gift after death, so nothing is permitted from it except the third in any case.

Section: Retraction and authorization are not considered except after the death of the testator. Thus, if they authorize before that, then retract, or grant permission to their testator during his lifetime to bequeath the entire wealth, or to bequeath to some of his heirs, then change their mind and retract after his death, they have the right to retract, whether the authorization was during the testator's health or his illness. Ahmad explicitly stated this in the narration of Abu Talib. This has also been narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, and it is the opinion of Shurayh, Tawus, al-Hakam, al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Hanifa, and his companions. Al-Hasan, 'Ata', Hammad