the bequest contract is concluded; rather, ownership remains with the testator. This is unlike a gift, in which ownership is established when it is given and accepted. Hence he said, “Ownership is then established,” meaning when it comes into existence and is accepted.

A consequence of this is that if the gift increases, whether through an attached or separate increase, that increase belongs to the recipient. In the case of a bequest, however, the growth belongs to the heirs, because ownership under a bequest is not established until after death. Hence he said, “A bequest is unlike that.”

These are four differences mentioned by the author. There are other differences as well, which I had written down in addition to those he mentioned. Among them are the following:

The fifth difference: a gift must be immediate. This may perhaps be inferred from his statement, “Acceptance of it is considered when it comes into existence.” A bequest, on the other hand, cannot be valid if made effective immediately, because it can only take effect after death; in all cases, it is deferred.

The sixth difference: a bequest made by a person under legal interdiction is valid, whereas his gift is not valid.

For example, a man may have debts exceeding his assets: he owes ten thousand riyals, while his assets amount to eight thousand riyals, and he has been placed under legal interdiction. He cannot give anyone anything from those eight thousand, because he is under legal interdiction. Such a gift is a voluntary donation that entails waiving an obligation, and a voluntary donation that entails waiving an obligation is invalid. Yet if he bequeaths two thousand riyals to be given after his death, this is permissible. The difference is that a bequest is not executed until the debts have been paid. The creditors suffer no harm if he bequeaths something from his wealth, because when the deceased dies, we begin first with preparing him for burial, then with the debts he owes, and thereafter with the bequest.