against his heir. Similarly, if he purchases a slave girl to enjoy, who is of high value, for her equivalent price, or purchases foods that someone of his status would not typically consume, it is permissible, and his purchase is valid; because it is an expenditure of his wealth for his own need. If he is under debt, or dies while under debt, he is given priority in that over his heir; due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: "after any bequest he may make or debt" (Quran, An-Nisa: 11).

Section: As for if the terminally ill person pays some of his creditors, and his estate covers all other debts, his payment is valid, and the other creditors have no grounds to object to him. If it does not cover them, there are two views: One is that the other creditors have the right to seek recourse against him and share in what he took. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa; because their rights attached to his wealth during his illness, which prevented him from disposing of it in a way that diminishes their debts, just like his giving a gift. Also, because if he were to bequeath the payment of some of his debts, it would not be valid, so the same applies if he pays them. The second is that they do not have the right to object to him or share in it. This is the analogy of the opinion of Ahmad and the explicitly stated view of al-Shafi'i; because he fulfilled an obligation upon him, so it is valid, just as if he purchased something and paid its price, or sold some of his wealth and handed it over. It differs from a bequest; for if he bought expensive clothes, it would be valid, whereas if he bequeathed that he be shrouded in expensive clothes, it would not be valid. This is confirmed by the fact that fulfilling the price of a sold item is a payment to some of his creditors, and it has been valid immediately following the sale, so it is likewise if it is delayed, as the delay has no effect.

Section: If the terminally ill person makes a gift or emancipates [a slave], and then acknowledges a debt, his gift does not become void. Ahmad stated this regarding someone who emancipated his slave during his illness and then acknowledged a debt: The slave is emancipated and is not returned to slavery. This is because the right was established by the gift in appearance, so his acknowledgment regarding what would invalidate the right of another person is not accepted.