its gift to him is valid, so the will to him is valid, just as in the case of a dhimmi. It has been narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave 'Umar a silk garment, and he said: "O Messenger of God, you have clothed me in it, and you have said regarding the garment of 'Utarid what you said." He replied: "I did not give it to you to wear." So 'Umar clothed an idolater brother of his in Mecca with it. Also, on the authority of Asma' bint Abi Bakr, she said: "My mother came to me while she was desirous [of something]"—meaning Islam—"so I asked the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) and said: 'O Messenger of God, my mother has come to me and she is desirous, should I maintain ties with her?' He replied: 'Yes.'" Both of these incidents involve maintaining ties with the people of war and being righteous toward them. The verse is an argument for us regarding one who does not fight; as for the combatant, he has been forbidden from taking as an ally, not from being righteous toward him and bequeathing to him. If one argues from the implicit meaning (mafhum), he [the author] does not consider it a valid argument. Furthermore, there is a consensus on the permissibility of a gift, and a will is in its same meaning. As for the apostate, Abu al-Khattab said: The will to him is valid, just as his gift is valid. Ibn Abi Musa said: It is not valid, because his ownership is not stable; he does not inherit and is not inherited from, so he is like a dead person. Also, because his ownership ceases regarding his wealth upon his apostasy according to the view of Abu Bakr and a group, so ownership is not established for him by way of a will.

Section: A will to a disbeliever for a copy of the Mushaf or a Muslim slave is not valid, because it is not permissible to gift them to him, nor to sell them to him. If he bequeaths to him a non-Muslim slave and he [the slave] embraces Islam before the death of the testator, the will is void. If he embraces Islam after the death and before acceptance, it is void according to those who hold that ownership is not established except by acceptance, because it is not permissible for ownership to initiate over a Muslim. And whoever says that ownership is established upon death before acceptance says: The will is valid, because we determine that ownership is established upon death, since he embraced Islam after he owned him. It is also possible that it is not valid, because it comes through a cause without which ownership would not be established, so it is prohibited, like the initiation of ownership.

Section: A will for a sin or a prohibited act is not valid, whether the testator is a Muslim or a dhimmi,