If someone were to say: Had the obligation remained in force, reports of the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—making bequests would have been abundant, whereas bequests among the Companions were few. The reply is: There is no doubt that this possibility weakens the view that it is obligatory. Yet as long as we have before us an explicit statement in the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, their not acting upon it indicates that some, or most, of the Companions held that the obligation had been abrogated. We, however, are accountable only for what is indicated by the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic.

Thus, the sound view is that the verse concerning bequests is definitive and remains in force, and that it must be acted upon. However, the ruling concerning those of the people mentioned in it who are heirs has been abrogated, so no bequest is made for them; those who are not heirs remain included.

His statement, “and it is substantial wealth”: what constitutes substantial wealth is determined by customary practice and by people’s circumstances. When money is plentiful, a large amount of wealth is regarded as substantial; when people have little wealth, even a small amount may be considered substantial. Indeed, some jurists say that whoever owns fifty dirhams is wealthy and is not eligible to receive zakah. In our time, however, fifty dirhams do not make a person wealthy, since they may be spent up within ten days, rather than lasting for an entire year.

In short, what constitutes substantial wealth is determined by customary practice: a small amount may be substantial at one time, while a large amount may be insignificant at another.

His statement, “and it is substantial wealth,” implies that if one leaves behind only a small amount of wealth, it is not recommended for him to make a bequest. The evidence for this is the Prophet’s saying to Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas—may Allah be pleased with him: “To leave your heirs wealthy is better than to leave them”