their approval is valid, because the basis for their inheriting this property—the illness of death—has come into effect. Thus, if they approve what exceeds one-third before death, their approval is binding, and they have no right to retract it afterward.

Evidence for this view is found in the chapter on pre-emption, where the Prophet ﷺ instructed one who wishes to sell to offer it to his partner, so that he may either take it or forgo it. (1) This indicates that when the cause exists, even if the condition has not yet been fulfilled, the ruling dependent upon that cause takes effect. Further evidence is that if a man swears an oath and wishes to break it, then offers the expiation before breaking it, this is permissible because the cause exists. This view is the stronger one, and there is nothing to prevent its being adopted. Accordingly, we say: the heirs’ approval during a life-threatening illness is valid, because the basis for their inheritance has come into effect and they are legally competent.

If someone says: We fear that the heirs’ approval during the person’s lifetime may be prompted by embarrassment and shyness, we reply: If we fear that, then their approval is not to be considered valid.

His statement, “if he dies from it,” means: from this life-threatening illness. If he gives something to some of his heirs, we say to the heirs: the matter is in your hands; if you wish, you may validate the gift, and if you wish, you may prevent it.

His statement, “but if he recovers, then he is like one in good health,” means that the gift is valid. An example is a woman who goes into labour and gives half her wealth to her husband, then dies in childbirth: the gift is not valid unless the heirs approve it. But if she gives birth, recovers, and returns to good health, then her gift of half her wealth to her husband