as to a sighted person. As for a discerning minor, I know of no text from Ahmad regarding him. It is possible that a bequest to him is not valid, because he is not among those qualified for bearing witness or acknowledgment (iqrar), and his actions are not valid except with permission, so he is not among those possessing authority by way of priority. Furthermore, he is someone under guardianship, so he cannot be a guardian, just like a child or a madman. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and it is the correct view, Allah willing. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that the bequest to him is valid, because Ahmad has explicitly stated the validity of his agency (wakalah). Based on this, it is considered that he must have passed the age of ten. As for the disbeliever, the bequest of a Muslim to him is not valid, because he does not hold authority over a Muslim, and because he is not among those qualified for bearing witness or uprightness ('adalah), so the bequest to him is not valid, like the madman and the dissolute (fasiq). As for the bequest of a disbeliever to him, if he is not upright in his religion, the bequest to him is not valid; because the lack of uprightness in a Muslim prevents the validity of a bequest to him, so it is even more so with disbelief. If he is upright in his religion, there are two views: one is that the bequest to him is valid, which is the opinion of the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), because he holds authority through kinship, so he holds authority in the bequest, like the Muslim. The second is that it is not valid, which is the opinion of Abu Thawr, because he is a dissolute person, so the bequest to him is not valid, like a dissolute Muslim. The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views like these. As for the bequest of a disbeliever to a Muslim, it is valid [if] his estate does not consist of wine or pork. As for a slave, Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid said: A bequest to him is valid, whether he is his own slave or the slave of another, and Malik held this view. Al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, and Ibn Shubruma said: A bequest to his own slave is valid, but it is not valid to the slave of another. Abu Hanifah said: It is valid to his own slave if there is no intelligent person among his heirs. Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Shafi'i said: A bequest to a slave is not valid under any circumstances, because he cannot be a guardian over his child by kinship, so it is not permitted for him to hold the authority of a bequest, like the madman. Our view is that his deputization is valid during his lifetime, so it is valid to bequeath to him, like a free person. Their analogy is invalidated by the case of the woman. The disagreement regarding the mukatab (contractual slave), the mudabbar (slave promised freedom after owner's death), and the partially emancipated slave is like the disagreement regarding the absolute slave (qinn). Al-Khiraqi has explicitly stated that a bequest to one's umm al-walad (slave who bore her master a child) is permissible. Ahmad also stated this explicitly, because she becomes