because by death, his established properties cease, so how can a [new] ownership be renewed for him? Thus, it does not enter into the bequest; because the deceased only bequeaths a portion of his wealth, not the wealth of his heirs. The reasoning for the first narration is that the blood money becomes due to the deceased because it is a replacement for his person, and his person is his own, so its replacement is likewise. And because the replacement for his limbs during his lifetime belongs to him, so is its replacement after his death; this is why we pay off his debts from it, and he is prepared [for burial] from it if it is done before his preparation. Only that of his properties which he no longer needs ceases, but that which is needed remains. And because it is permissible for ownership to be renewed for him after death, such as one who set up a net and game fell into it after his death, it is owned such that his debts are paid from it, and he is prepared [for burial], so [it is the same with] his blood money; for the execution of his bequest is one of his needs, so it resembles the payment of his debts.
Section: If the bequest is for a specific item, then according to the first narration, its exclusion from [the third of his wealth and his blood money] is considered. According to the other, its exclusion from the origin of his wealth, excluding his blood money, is considered; because it is not part of his wealth.
Section: If he makes a bequest, then acquires wealth before death, most of the scholars say: The bequest is considered from all that he leaves behind, of inherited wealth and newly acquired wealth, and the third of the entirety is considered. This is the opinion of al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y). This applies whether he knew [of it] or did not know. It was narrated from Aban ibn 'Uthman, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, Rabi'ah, and Malik that nothing enters into his bequest except what he knew of, except for a mudabbar, for it enters into everything. We say: It is part of his wealth, so it enters into his bequest, like that which is known.
(1) In A: "the other". (2) In A: "the origin of his wealth excluding his blood money". (3) In A and M: an addition: "to him".
لأنَّه بالموتِ تزولُ أملَاكُه الثابتةُ له، فكيف يتجدَّدُ له مِلكٌ؟ فلا يَدخلُ في الوصيةِ؛ لأنَّ الميتَ إنَّما يُوصِى بجُزْءٍ مِن مالِه، لا بمالِ وَرثتِه. ووجهُ الروايةِ الأولى، أنَّ الدِّيَةَ تجبُ للميتِ؛ لأنَّها بدلُ نفسِه، ونفسُه له، فكذلك بَدَلُها، ولأنَّ بَدَلَ أطْرافِه في حال حياتِه له، فكذلك بَدَلُها بعدَ موتِه، ولهذا نَقْضِى منها دُيونَه، ويُجهَّزُ منها إن كان قبلَ تجهيزِه، وإنما يزولُ من أمْلاكِه ما اسْتَغْنَى عنه، فأمَّا ما تعلَّقتْ به حاجتُه فلا. ولأنَّه يجوز أن يتجدَّدَ له مِلْكٌ بعدَ الموتِ، كمَن نصَب شَبَكةً فسقطَ فيها صيدٌ بعدَ موتِه، فإنه يُمْلَكُ بحيثُ تُقضَى ديونُه منه، ويُجَهَّزُ، فكذلك دينُه؛ لأنَّ تنفيذَ وَصِيَّتِه مِن حاجتِه، فأشْبَهتْ قضاءَ دينِه.
فصل: وإن كانتِ الوَصِيَّةُ بمُعَيَّنٍ، فعلى الرِّوايةِ الأولى (١)، يُعْتَبَرُ خروجُه من [ثُلُثِ مالِه ودِيَتِه] (٢)، وعلى الأُخرَى، يُعتبَرُ خُروجُه من أصلِ مالِه دونَ دِيتِه؛ لأنَّها (٣) ليستْ من مالِه.
فصل: وإن أوصَى، ثم استفادَ مالًا قبلَ الموتِ، فأكثرُ أهلِ العلمِ يقولون: إنَّ الوَصِيَّةَ تُعتبرُ من جميعِ ما يُخْلِفُه من التِّلادِ والْمُسْتَفادِ، ويعتبرُ ثلثُ الجمِيع. هذا قولُ النَّخَعىِّ، والأوزاعىِّ، ومالكٍ، والشافعىِّ، وأبى ثورٍ، وأصحابِ الرَّأْىِ. وسواءٌ عَلِم أو لم يَعْلَمْ، وحُكىَ عن أبانَ بنِ عثمانَ، وعمرَ بنِ عبدِ العزيزِ، ورَبِيعةَ، ومالكٍ، لا يَدخلُ في وصيَّتِه إلَّا ما عَلِمَ، إلَّا المُدَبَّرَ فإنَّه يَدْخُلُ في كلِّ شيءٍ. ولَنا، أنَّه من مالِه، فدخلَ في وصيَّتِه، كالمعلومِ.
(١) في أ: "الأخرى".(٢) في أ: "أصل ماله دون ديته".(٣) في أ، م زيادة: "له".