his bequest, like other bequests. We have already mentioned the analogue of this issue previously. If Zayd refuses to perform the Hajj, and the Hajj was obligatory, another trustworthy person is appointed in his place for the Hajj for the least amount possible, and the remainder of the hundred goes to the heirs, and 'Amr gets what remains. If the Hajj was voluntary, there are two views regarding the voidance of the bequest for it, which we have mentioned previously.

Section: If he bequeaths to Zayd a specific slave, and to 'Amr the remainder of the third, the slave is valued on the day of the testator's death, because that is the time when the bequest becomes effective. He is handed over to Zayd, and the remainder of the third is handed over to 'Amr. If nothing remains of the third, 'Amr's bequest becomes void. If the slave dies after the death of the testator, or Zayd rejects his bequest, it becomes void, but 'Amr's bequest does not. The same applies if Zayd dies before or after the testator's death. If the slave dies before the testator's death, we value the estate at the time of the testator's death excluding the slave, then we value the slave as if he were alive; if anything remains of the third after his value, it goes to 'Amr, otherwise his bequest is void. If he said to one of his two slaves: "You are a mudabbar," then said to another: "You are a mudabbar," [it is applied] to the increase of the third beyond the value of the first. Then the tadbir of the first becomes void due to his revocation, or because it is proven to be the property of someone else, or otherwise, then it is like the one preceding it, according to what we have mentioned.

984 - Issue: He said: (And whoever bequeaths a third of his wealth to a man, then is killed intentionally or by mistake, and the blood money (diya) is taken, then for the one to whom he bequeathed the third, [goes] a third of the blood money, in one of the two narrations, and the other is that the one to whom he bequeathed the third has no share of the blood money).

There is a difference of opinion in the narration from Ahmad concerning one who bequeaths a third of his wealth, or an undivided part of it, then the testator is killed and his blood money is taken: is the legatee entitled to anything from it or not? Muhanna reported from Ahmad that he is entitled to it. This was reported from 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the blood money for manslaughter (khata'). This is the opinion of al-Hasan and Malik. Ibn Mansur reported from Ahmad that he does not include the blood money in his bequest. This was reported from Makhul, Sharik, Abu Thawr, and Dawud. It is the opinion of Ishaq. Malik said: Regarding the blood money for intentional killing [it does not enter], because the blood money only becomes due to the heirs after the testator's death, as evidenced by the fact that its cause is death, so it cannot be due before it; for the ruling cannot precede its cause, and it is not permissible for it to become due to the deceased after his death;