at the time of death, for it is the time the bequest becomes binding, so the value of the wealth is considered at that time. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and the scholars of opinion, and I know of no disagreement regarding it. Therefore, it is examined: if the bequeathed item at the time of death was a third of the estate or less, the bequest is executed, and the legatee is entitled to all of it. If its value increases until it becomes equal to the rest of the wealth, or more than it, or the entire wealth perishes except for it, it belongs to the legatee, and the heirs have nothing of it. If it was more than a third at the time of death, the legatee is entitled to the value of a third of the wealth. If it was half the wealth, the legatee receives two-thirds of it. If it was two-thirds, the legatee receives half of it. If it was one-half and one-third of the wealth, the legatee receives two-fifths of it. If it decreases or increases after that, or if the rest of the wealth decreases or increases, the legatee has nothing but what he was entitled to at the time of death. If he bequeathed a slave worth one hundred, and he owned two hundred, and the slave's value increased after death until it became equal to two hundred, it belongs entirely to the legatee. If its value was two hundred at the time of death, the legatee receives two-thirds of it, because that is a third of the wealth. If its value decreased after death until it became worth one hundred, the legatee's right does not exceed his third at all, unless the heirs permit otherwise. If its value was four hundred, the legatee receives half of it, and his right is not increased beyond that, whether the slave decreases or increases in value, or the [rest of the] wealth decreases or increases.

Section: Gifts given during one's terminal illness are considered to be drawn from the third [of the estate] at the time of death. Salih ibn Ahmad narrated from his father, regarding a man who had one thousand dirhams and a slave worth one thousand, and he freed the slave during his terminal illness and spent the dirhams: one-third of the slave is freed. He considered his wealth at the time of death based on the slave, not on what was before it; since he had nothing at the time of death except the slave, only one-third of it was freed. If the thousand had not been spent, two-thirds of the slave would have been freed. And if his wealth had increased before his death until it reached two thousand, the entire slave would have been freed because it [would] fall within the third.