Muslims? We have examined this: if there is evidence indicating their inclusion, such as if there are no people in the village except Muslims, they are included in the will. The same applies if there is only one disbeliever in the village and the rest of the inhabitants are Muslims. If no such indications exist, there are two views regarding their inclusion: first, they are not included, just as disbelievers are not included in the will of a Muslim. Second, they are included because the general wording covers them, and they are more entitled to his will than others, so the wording should not be diverted from its intended implication nor from those who are more entitled to its ruling to someone else. If there is a disbeliever in the village from a religion other than that of the testator, he is not included in his will because the implication of the testator's circumstances excludes him, and he lacks the priority that was found in the case of the Muslim, so he remains excluded in his state. It is possible that he is not excluded, based on the principle of disbelievers inheriting from one another despite the difference in their religions.

974- Issue: He said: "And whoever bequeaths all of his wealth, and he has no 'asaba (agnatic heir), and no mawla (freedman or patron), it is permissible. Another narration has been reported from Abu Abd Allah, may Allah have mercy on him: It is not permissible except [for] one-third."

There is a difference of opinion in the narration from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, concerning one who leaves behind no 'asaba among his heirs, nor any sharer (dhu fard). It is reported from him that his will is valid for his entire wealth. This is established from Ibn Mas'ud, and it was also the opinion of 'Ubaydah al-Salmani, Masruq, Ishaq, and the people of Iraq. The other narration is: It is not permissible except for one-third. This was also the opinion of Malik, al-Awza'i, Ibn Shubruma, al-Shafi'i, and al-'Anbari, because he has those who provide 'aql (diya compensation) on his behalf, so his will is not effective for more than one-third, just as if he had left an heir. Our argument is that the prohibition against exceeding one-third was only due to the attachment of the rights of the heirs to it, as evidenced by the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "That you leave your heirs wealthy is better than that you leave them destitute, begging from people." And here,