The answer is: Apparently, this is not obligatory, because the bond between a father and his son is stronger than that between a grandfather and his grandchildren. However, if there is fear of severing family ties, then due consideration should be given to them by giving privately to whomever he gives.

His statement, “If he dies before that,” means before establishing fair treatment.

His statement, “it stands,” means that the gift stands. That is, if the father who favored some of his children dies before treating them fairly, the gift stands. Thus, if he gives one of them, for example, ten thousand riyals as a voluntary gift rather than maintenance, then dies, this gift is deemed the recipient’s property and remains effective, because he was unable to take it back—or was able to but was negligent. The one required to take it back was the father, and he has died; thus, the legal obligation fell from him upon his death. The son who was favored acquires it as full ownership. This is the established position of the school, but it is a weak view, because it is not permissible for us to enable this son to take wealth which he is not permitted to take.

The correct view is that if he dies, the favored child must return to the estate whatever additional amount he was given. If he does not do so, it is deducted from his share, if he has a share, because once it became obligatory for the father, who has now died, to treat them fairly, and he died before doing so, he became like a debtor; and a debt must be repaid. Accordingly, we say to the favored child: If you wish to honor your father, then return to the estate what he gave you.

But do the heirs have the right to reclaim it, or was the gift invalid from the outset?

There are two views concerning this. It was said: The gift was invalid from the outset.

And it was said: It was valid, but if he dies before treating them fairly, then the heirs have the right to reclaim it, and the favored child must return it to the estate.