in reality, it does not apply to them by common usage, and usages of names take precedence over their literal meanings. The client (mawla) of his son does not deserve [the bequest] alongside the existence of his own clients. Zufar said: He does deserve it. This is not correct because the client of his son is not a client of his in reality when he has a client other than him. If he has no clients, Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said: It goes to the client of his father. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: He receives nothing, because he is not a client of his. Al-Sharif argued that the name applies to the clients of his father metaphorically, so when the literal meaning is impossible, it is obligatory to direct the name to its metaphorical meaning and act upon it to validate the speech of the testator when such validation is possible. This is also because the outward appearance implies he intended the metaphor, as it is a valid interpretation, and the intention of a valid meaning is more probable than the intention of a void one. If he had clients and clients of his father at the time of the bequest, and then his own clients became extinct before his death, there is nothing for the clients of the father according to what we have mentioned, because the bequest was for others, so it does not revert to them except by a contract, and that has not occurred. This is not analogous to his statement: 'I have bequeathed to the person closest to me,' while he has a son and a grandson, where the grandson deserves it [if the son dies], even if he would not deserve anything while the son is alive; for the bequest here is for one described by a quality that existed in the grandson, just as it existed in the son in reality. In the case of the client, the name applies to his own client in reality and to his father's client metaphorically, so with their coexistence, the expression is not interpreted as anything other than the literal meaning, and this quality is not found in his father's client. Al-Sharif said: The 'mudabbar' (slave promised freedom upon the master's death) and the 'umm walad' (slave-concubine who has borne her master a child) are included in the bequest to clients, because the bequest is only deserved after death, and they are clients in reality at that time.

Section: If he bequeaths to his neighbors, they are the people of forty houses on every side. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and Al-Awza'i and Al-Shafi'i held the same view. Abu Hanifa said: The neighbor is the one who is adjacent, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'The neighbor has a better right to his proximity,' meaning pre-emption, and it is only established for the adjacent one, and because...