Section: The scholars have reached a consensus that the testator has the right to retract all or part of what he has bequeathed, except for a bequest of emancipation (i'taq). The majority hold that retraction of a bequest of emancipation is also permissible. It is narrated from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: "A man may alter whatever he wishes of his will." This is also the view of 'Ata', Jabir ibn Zayd, al-Zuhri, Qatadah, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. Al-Sha'bi, Ibn Sirin, Ibn Shubrumah, and al-Nakha'i said: "He may alter whatever he wishes of it except for emancipation, because it is emancipation after death, so he does not have the power to alter it, like the tadbir (post-mortem emancipation)." Our evidence is that it is a bequest, so he has the power to retract it, unlike emancipation. It is also a gift that is completed by death, so it is permissible for him to retract it before its completion, just like a gift that requires taking possession (qabd) before it is possessed. It differs from tadbir, for that is conditional upon a stipulation, so he does not have the power to alter it, just as if it were conditional upon a description during his lifetime.

Section: Retraction occurs by his saying: "I have retracted my bequest," "I have cancelled it," "I have changed it," "What I have bequeathed to so-and-so is for so-and-so," "It is for my heirs," or "It is among my inheritance." If he eats it, feeds it to others, destroys it, gives it away, gives it as charity, sells it, or if it was a piece of cloth that was not tailored and he tailored and wore it, or a slave girl and he impregnated her, or anything similar, it is a retraction. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "Every scholar I remember from whom I have learned is in consensus that if he bequeaths food to a man and then eats it, or [bequeaths] something and destroys it, gives it as charity, or gives it away, or [bequeaths] a slave girl and he impregnates her or she bears his child, it constitutes a retraction." It is narrated from the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) that selling it is not a retraction because he has received its substitute, unlike in the case of a gift. Our evidence is that he has removed his ownership of it, so it is a retraction, just as if he had gifted it. If he offers it for sale, bequeaths its sale, offers a gift but the donee does not accept it, enters into a mukataba (contract of manumission) regarding it, bequeaths its emancipation, or declares it as tadbir, it is a retraction. This is because it indicates his choice to retract by offering it for sale, offering a gift, or bequeathing its sale or emancipation, as he has bequeathed what contradicts the first bequest. A mukataba is a sale, and tadbir is stronger than a bequest because it takes effect upon death, thereby preceding the acquisition of the legatee. If he mortgages it, it is a retraction; because he has attached to it a right that allows for its sale, so it is more significant than offering it for sale. There is another view that it is not a retraction, which is a view held by the followers of al-Shafi'i, because it does not remove ownership, so it resembles leasing it. The same ruling applies to the mukataba.

Section: If he bequeaths grain then grinds it, or flour then kneads it, or dough then bakes it, or bread then crumbles it, or makes it into breadcrumbs, it is a retraction; because he has removed its name and exposed it to usage, which indicates his retraction. This is also the view of al-Shafi'i. If he bequeaths flax or cotton and spins it, or yarn and weaves it, or cloth and cuts it, or silver bullion and mints it, or a sheep and slaughters it, it is a retraction. This is the view of the People of Opinion and al-Shafi'i in his manifest school. Abu al-Khattab chose the view that it is not a retraction, and it is a statement of Abu Thawr, because it does not remove the name. Our evidence is that he has exposed it to usage, so it is a retraction, like the preceding examples. His statement that "it does not remove the name" is incorrect, for cloth is not called yarn, and yarn is not called flax.

Section: If he bequeaths something specific, then mixes it with something else in a way that it cannot be distinguished, it is a retraction; because it is impossible to deliver it, which indicates his retraction. If he mixes it with something from which it can be distinguished, it is not a retraction, because it is possible to deliver it. If he bequeaths a qafiz of wheat from a pile, then mixes it with something else, it is not a retraction, whether he mixes it with something equal, better, or worse, because it was undivided (musha') and remains undivided. It is said: If he mixes it with something better, it is a retraction, because he cannot deliver the bequeathed item except by delivering something better, and it is not incumbent upon the heir to deliver something better; thus, it becomes impossible to deliver, unlike the case where he mixes it with something equal or worse.

Section: If something happens to the bequeathed item that removes its name, without an act from the testator, such as grain falling on the ground and becoming a crop, or a house collapsing and becoming an empty plot, during the lifetime of the testator, the bequest for it becomes void, because the name no longer applies to what remains. If the collapse of the house...