the third. If the slave earns something, his earnings are divided between him and the heirs according to the proportion of freedom and servitude in him, and it is subject to the rule of cyclical reckoning (al-dawr). We have already mentioned this previously. If something from the estate perishes due to an action for which the heirs are liable, it shall be accounted for against them from the estate.

Section: If one bequeaths a specific present item, while the rest of his wealth is a debt or is absent, the executor does not have the right to take the specific item before the arrival of the absent [wealth] or the collection of the debt, because it might perish, in which case the bequest would not be valid for the entire specific item. The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that the executor has one-third of the specific item. He mentioned this in [the discussion of] the mudabbar slave. It is also said: nothing is delivered to him, because the heirs are his partners in the estate, so he receives nothing unless the heirs receive twice as much, and they have not received anything. This is a view held by the followers of al-Shafi'i. The correct view is that he is entitled to one-third, because his right to it is established; therefore, it is obligatory to deliver it to him, as there is no benefit in withholding it, just as if he had not left anything other than the specific item. Furthermore, if the rest of the wealth were to perish, it would be mandatory to deliver one-third of the specific item to the executor, and the perishing of the wealth is not a cause for entitlement to the bequest or its delivery, nor does it prevent the validity of the bequest in the established third, even if the heirs do not benefit from anything, just as if he were to absolve an insolvent person of a debt owed by him. Malik said: The heirs are given the choice between delivering the specific item bequeathed or treating his bequest as one-third of the wealth, because the testator had the right to bequeath one-third of his wealth, and he opted for the specific item. But he does not have that right, because it leads to the legatee taking the specific item and thus being the sole recipient of the estate in the event that the remainder perishes before reaching the heirs. Therefore, it is said to the heirs: if you agree to that, then so be it; otherwise, return to what he was permitted to bequeath, which is one-third. As for us, he bequeathed what does not exceed one-third to a non-heir, so it became binding, just as if he had bequeathed an undivided share to him. What he [Malik] said is not correct, because placing his right in the amount of the third constitutes an undivided share and invalidates what he specified; thus, it is not permissible to drop what the testator specified for the legatee and transfer his right to what he did not bequeath, just as if he had bequeathed an undivided share, it would not be permissible to transfer it to a specific item, or as in the case where all the wealth is present or absent. Once this is established, the legatee has one-third of the specific present item, and whenever something is collected from his debt or something arrives from the absent wealth...