Thus, a bequest made by a person under legal interdiction is valid, whereas his gift is not. The difference is that a gift harms the creditors, while a bequest does not, since it is not executed until the debt has been settled.

Is a bequest valid when made by one placed under legal interdiction due to prodigality?

A person placed under legal interdiction due to prodigality may be a minor, insane, or an adult of sound mind who is nevertheless prodigal and incapable of managing his affairs properly. As for the first two, neither their bequest nor their gift is valid, because they have no legally recognized intent and do not understand bequests or gifts.

As for the third, there are two views. Some scholars hold that his bequest is valid, because the interdiction imposed upon him is only for his own benefit; and after his death, he is not harmed if some of his wealth goes, for example, toward reward in the Hereafter. Yet I have some reservations about this, because the prodigal does not manage his affairs properly. Therefore, I withhold judgment on this matter.

The seventh difference: a bequest may be made of something beyond one’s ability to deliver, whereas a gift may not. Thus, if someone gives something that cannot be delivered, such as a runaway camel, an escaped slave, or the like, the gift is invalid according to the well-known position of the madhhab. The stronger view, however, is that it is valid, because the recipient may either gain it or remain safe from loss, and there is no wagering involved. Yet according to the madhhab, a gift of something beyond one’s ability to deliver is invalid, while a bequest is valid. The difference is that a bequest does not require immediate acquisition of ownership; perhaps the item may be recovered between the making of the bequest and death.

The correct view in this matter is that both are valid with respect to something beyond one’s ability to deliver.

The eighth difference: a bequest has a specific amount that one ought to bequeath.