If he had wealth other than it, it has been said: The legatee receives the entire dog, even if the wealth is small, because a small amount of wealth is better than a dog, as it has no value. It has also been said: The legatee receives a third of it. If the wealth is large, then the subject of the bequest is that he should hand over two-thirds of the estate to the heirs, and there is nothing in the estate of the type bequeathed. If he bequeaths to a man his dogs, and to another a third of his wealth, the one bequeathed the third receives the third, and the one bequeathed the dogs receives them in their entirety, by a single opinion, because what the heirs obtained from two-thirds of the wealth, the bequest has already been permitted regarding the equivalent of it from the legatee's right, which is the third, so it is not calculated against them regarding the right to the dogs. If he bequeathed a third of his wealth and did not bequeath the dogs, a third of the wealth is given to him, and the dogs are not calculated against the heirs, because they are not wealth. When the dogs are divided between the heir and the legatee, or between two legatees, they are divided according to their number, because they have no value. If they dispute regarding some of them, it is appropriate that they draw lots for them. If he bequeaths a dog to him, and the testator has dogs whose possession is permissible, such as dogs for hunting, livestock, and tillage, he receives one of them by lottery, or whatever the heirs prefer, according to the other narration. If he has a dog whose possession is permissible and a dog for fighting (hirash), he receives the permissible dog. The school of al-Shafi'i in this entire section is similar to what we have mentioned, except that he grants the legatee of a dog whatever the heirs prefer to give him. A bequest of a dog for fighting is not valid, nor is a dog other than the three [types of] dogs. Regarding a bequest of a young puppy, there are two opinions, based on the permissibility of raising it for hunting or for livestock. That has already been mentioned. A bequest of a pig is not valid, nor of any predatory animal not suitable for hunting, such as a lion, a tiger, or a wolf, because there is no benefit in them. A bequest is also not valid for anything else from which there is no benefit.

Section: If he bequeaths a war drum to him, the bequest is valid, because there is permissible benefit in it. If it is a drum for amusement, it is not valid due to the lack of permissible benefit in it. If it is, along with that, such that if it were modified it would be suitable for war, the bequest is not valid either, because its benefit in the present is non-existent. If it is suitable for both, the bequest is valid, because the benefit is existent within it. If he bequeaths a drum and is general/vague, and he has two drums, the bequest is valid for one of them and not the other; the bequest is directed toward that for which the bequest is valid. If he has drums for which a bequest of all of them is valid, he may take them by lottery, or whatever the heirs wish, according to the two narrations. If he bequeaths a tambourine (duff), the bequest is valid, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Announce the marriage, and beat the tambourine for it." A bequest of a flute, a tanbur, or a lute—from the instruments of amusement—is not valid, because they are forbidden. This is the same whether they contain strings or not, because it is prepared for the performance of sin to the exclusion of other things, so it resembles that which has strings.