Section: Authorization is not valid except from one who is legally competent to dispose of wealth. As for the child, the insane person, and the one under interdiction due to mental incompetence (safah), authorization from them is not valid; because it is a charitable donation of wealth, therefore it is not valid from them, just like a gift. As for the one under interdiction due to bankruptcy (falas), if we say: Authorization is a gift, it is not valid from him; because he does not have the right to gift his wealth. If we say: It is an execution (of a legal matter), it is valid.
957 - Issue: He said: (And whoever is bequeathed something, and he is outwardly an heir, but the testator did not die until the beneficiary became a non-heir, the bequest to him is established; because the consideration of the bequest is at the time of death.)
We are not aware of any disagreement among the scholars that the consideration of the bequest is at the time of death. If he were to bequeath to three of his brothers who are distinct, and he has no child, and he dies before a child is born to him, the bequest would not be valid for anyone other than the paternal brother, except with authorization from the heirs. If a son is born to him, the bequest becomes valid for all of them without authorization, provided the bequest does not exceed the third. If a daughter is born to him, the bequest is valid for his paternal brother and his maternal brother, so they receive two-thirds of the bequeathed property, shared equally between them, and it is not valid for the full brother; because he is an heir. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, the scholars of the school of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y), and others. We are not aware of any disagreement from anyone else. If he bequeathed to them while he had a son, and his son died before his death, the bequest is not valid for his full brother, nor for his maternal brother, and it is valid for his paternal brother. If the full brother died before his (the testator's) death, it is not valid for the paternal brother either; because he became an heir.
Section: If he bequeaths to an extraneous (non-relative) woman, or she bequeaths to him, then he marries her, their bequest is not valid.
(1) Omitted from: A. (2) In: (the) addition: "the bequest".
فصل: ولا تَصِحُّ الإِجَازَةُ إلَّا من جائِزِ التَّصَرُّفِ. فأمَّا الصَّبِىُّ والمَجْنُونُ والمَحْجُورُ عليه لِسَفَهٍ، فلا تَصِحُّ الإِجازَةُ منهم؛ لأنَّها تَبَرُّعٌ بالمالِ، فلم تَصِحَّ منهم، كالهِبَةِ. وأمَّا المَحْجُورُ عليه لِفَلَسٍ، فإن قُلنا: الإِجَازَةُ هِبَةٌ. لم تَصِحَّ منه؛ لأنَّه ليس له هِبَةُ مالِه. وإن قُلْنا: هي تَنْفِيذٌ. صَحَّتْ.
٩٥٧ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَمَنْ أُوصِىَ لَهُ، وَهُوَ فِي الظَّاهِرِ وَارِثٌ، فَلَمْ يَمُتِ الْمُوصِى حَتَّى صَارَ المُوصَى لَهُ غَيْرَ وارِثٍ، فَالْوَصِيَّةُ له ثابِتَةٌ؛ لِأَنَّ اعْتِبارَ الوَصِيَّةِ بالْمَوْتِ)
لا نَعْلَمُ خِلَافًا بين أهْلِ العِلْمِ، في أن اعْتِبارَ الوَصِيَّةِ بالمَوْتِ، فلو أَوْصَى لِثَلَاثةِ إخْوَةٍ له مُتَفَرِّقِينَ، ولا وَلَدَ له، وماتَ قبلَ أن يُولَدَ له وَلَدٌ (١)، لم تَصِحَّ الوَصِيَّةُ لغيرِ الأَخِ من الأَبِ، إلَّا بالإِجَازَةِ من الوَرَثَةِ. وإن وُلِدَ له ابْنٌ، صَحَّتِ الوَصِيَّةُ لهم جَمِيعًا من غيرِ إجَازَةٍ، إذا لم تَتَجَاوَز الوَصِيَّةُ الثُّلُثَ. وإن وُلِدَتْ له بِنْتٌ، جازَتِ الوَصِيَّةُ لأَخِيه من أبِيه وأخِيه من أُمِّه، فيكونُ لهما ثُلُثَا المُوصَى به بينهما نِصْفَيْنِ، ولا يجوزُ للأَخِ من الأبَوَيْنِ؛ لأنَّه وارِثٌ. وبهذا يقول الشافِعِىُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ، وابنُ المُنْذِرِ، وأصْحابُ الرأى، وغيرُهم. ولا نَعْلَمُ عن غيرهم خِلَافَهُم. ولو أَوْصَى لهم، وله ابنٌ، فماتَ ابْنُه قبلَ مَوْتِه، لم تَجُزِ الوَصِيَّةُ لأخِيه من أبَوَيْه، ولا لأَخِيه من أُمِّه، وجازَتْ لأَخِيه من أبِيه. فإن ماتَ الأَخُ من الأبَوَيْنِ قبلَ مَوْتِه، لم تَجُزْ (٢) للأَخِ من الأَبِ أيضًا؛ لأنَّه صارَ وارِثًا.
فصل: ولو أوْصَى لِامْرَأةٍ أجْنَبِيّةٍ، أو أَوْصَتْ له، ثم تَزَوَّجَها، لم تَجُزْ وَصِيَّتُهُما
(١) سقط من: أ.(٢) في ازيادة: "الوصية".
