all of them before the testator's death, or they were killed, the bequest becomes void, because it only becomes binding upon death, and he had no slaves at that time. If they perish after his death without negligence from the heirs, the bequest becomes void, because the estate in the hands of the heirs is not guaranteed, as it came into their possession through no action of their own. If a killer kills them, the legatee is entitled to the value of one of them, based on the two narrations regarding who among them is entitled to it during life. If he says: "I have bequeathed to you a slave from among my slaves," and he has no slaves, the bequest is not valid because he bequeathed to him nothing, and it is as if he said: "I have bequeathed to you what is in my bag," and there is nothing in it, or "my house," and he has no house. If he purchases slaves before his death, it is possible that the bequest is invalid, because it occurred as void, so it did not become valid, just as if he said: "I have bequeathed to you what is in my bag," and there is nothing in it, then he put something in his bag. And because the bequest requires a slave from those existing in his possession at the time of the bequest. It is also possible that it is valid, just as if he bequeathed to him one thousand [dirhams] he does not possess, then he acquires it, or he bequeathed to him a third of his slaves, then he acquires other slaves. Ibn Mansur reported from Ahmad regarding a man who said during his terminal illness: "Give so-and-so one hundred dirhams from my bag." Nothing was found in his bag. He is given one hundred dirhams, so the bequest does not become void because he intended to give him one hundred dirhams and thought they were in the bag, and when they were not in the bag, he is given them from elsewhere. Similarly, it is inferred regarding a bequest of a slave from among his slaves, if he had no slaves, that a slave be bought for him from his estate and given to him.

Section: If a man bequeaths a slave, the bequest is valid, and any slave, whichever it may be, is purchased for him. If he has slaves, the heirs give him whichever they wish, and there is no lottery here, because he did not attribute the slaves to himself, nor did he designate one from a restricted number, so the legatee is not entitled to more than the least of what is termed a slave, just as if he acknowledged a slave for him. Al-Qadi said: They may give him whichever they wish, male or female. The correct view, in my opinion, is that he is only entitled to a male, for Allah the Almighty has differentiated between male slaves (abid) and female slaves (ima') in His saying: {And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your slaves (ibadikum) and your female slaves (ima'ikum)} [Surah An-Nur: 32]. That which is conjoined is ostensibly distinct from that to which it is conjoined. And because it is likewise in custom, for the absolute term 'slave' (abd) is not understood to mean anything other than the male. If he appointed him as an agent to buy a slave, he would not have the right to buy a female slave, so his bequest only refers to the male. If he bequeaths to him a female slave (ama or jariya), he gets nothing but a female, and he may not give him an intersex person (khuntha mushkil), because it is not known whether they are male or female. If he bequeaths to him one of his slaves or one of those his right hand possesses, the male, female, and intersex person are included in his bequest.