it manifests no effect, unlike our issue. Their saying that ownership is not established for the heir is rejected; for ownership transfers to the heir by the ruling of the origin, unless a barrier prevents it. And regarding the saying of Allah the Almighty: "after the fulfillment of any bequest that might have been made, or debt." We say: The intended meaning is a bequest that has been accepted, because if he did not accept it, it would have been the property of the heir, and before its acceptance, it is not accepted. It is also possible that the intended meaning of His saying: "then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after the fulfillment of any bequest" (11) is that it is settled for you. This does not prevent the establishment of non-settled ownership; for this reason, debt does not prevent the establishment of ownership in the estate, even though it is more emphatic than a bequest. If we concede that ownership is not established for the heir, then it remains the property of the deceased, just as when he has a debt against him. And their saying that no property remains for him is rejected; for his property remains regarding what is needed for his preparation expenses, his burial, and the settlement of his debts. It is possible that new property is acquired for him in his debt (12) if he accepts, and in cases where he set up a net and game fell into it after his death, such that his debts are paid, his bequests are executed, and he is prepared for burial if it was before his preparation; so this remains his property, due to the impossibility of it transferring to the heir because of the bequest, and the impossibility of it transferring to the legatee before the completion of the cause. So if the legatee rejects or accepts, it transfers at that time. If we say the first opinion, that it transfers to the heir, then ownership is established for him in a manner that does not permit disposing of it, like its establishment in a mortgaged asset; so if he sold the bequeathed item, mortgaged it, freed it, or disposed of it otherwise, none of his actions would be valid. Even if the heir were the child of the person bequeathed (such as if a woman owns her husband from whom she has a child, and she bequeaths him to a stranger), then when she dies, ownership transfers to his child until the time of acceptance, and he does not become free by virtue of him. And Allah knows best.

Section: Regarding branches that differ based on the divergence of the two Madhhabs. Among them is that if a separate growth occurs to the bequeathed item after the death of the testator and before acceptance, such as fruit, offspring, or earnings, it belongs to the heirs. According to the other view, it belongs to the legatee.