ibn Abi Sulayman, Abd al-Malik ibn Ya'la, al-Zuhri, Rabi'a, al-Awza'i, and Ibn Abi Layla: that is binding upon them, because the right belongs to the heirs, so if they are satisfied with waiving it, their right lapses, just as if a purchaser is satisfied with a defect. Malik said: If they give him permission during his health, they have the right to retract it, but if that occurs during his illness, and at a time when he is restricted from his wealth, then it is binding upon them. Our view is that they waived their rights in that which they did not [possess, so it] did not become binding upon them, like a woman when she waives her dower before the marriage, or a pre-emptor who waives his right of pre-emption before the sale, and because this is a situation in which their rejection of the bequest would not be valid, therefore their authorization is not valid, just as it was before the bequest.

Section: If he bequeaths more than a third, and the heir authorizes the bequest, then says: I only authorized it thinking the wealth was little, whereas it turned out to be much. If the testator has evidence testifying to his acknowledgment of knowing the amount of the wealth, or if the wealth was apparent and not hidden from him, his statement is not accepted, except according to the opinion of those who said: Authorization is an initial gift; therefore, he has the right to retract it in cases where retraction of a gift is permitted. If there is no evidence testifying to his acknowledgment of that, then his statement is accepted along with his oath, because the authorization is treated as a remission (ibra'), and it is not valid regarding unknown matters, and his statement is accepted regarding his ignorance of it along with his oath, because the original state is the absence of knowledge. It is possible that his statement may not be accepted, because he authorized a contract he has the option to annul, so his option is void, just as if one who has the option to annul a sale due to a defect or an option (khiyar) were to authorize the sale. If he bequeaths a specific item, such as a slave or a horse that exceeds a third, and he authorizes the bequest of it, then says: I thought the wealth was large enough for the bequest to be covered by its third, but it turned out to be small, or a debt appeared upon him which I did not know of, the bequest does not become void, because the slave is known and there is no ignorance regarding him. It is possible that he possesses the right to rescind it, because he may have permitted it thinking that there would remain enough wealth for him to suffice, so if the contrary appears, he is harmed by the authorization, and therefore he possesses the right to retract, like the issue before it.