Thus, if he makes a bequest to an heir, but at the time of death that person is no longer an heir, the bequest is valid. For example, he bequeaths something to his full brother, then later has a son. At the time of the bequest, the full brother was an heir; but when the testator had a son, the brother ceased to be an heir. The bequest to him is therefore valid.

His statement, “and the converse is likewise”: If he has a son and a brother, and he makes a bequest to his brother, who at that time is not an heir because the son excludes him, then the son dies and the brother becomes an heir, the bequest is invalid. This is because he became an heir at the time of death, so the bequest is nullified, and he is to be content with the share apportioned to him from the inheritance.

The essential principle is that whether the beneficiary of a bequest is an heir or not is determined at the time of death, rather than at the time the bequest is made.

Does a gift follow the same ruling as a bequest, or is the relevant time the time of the gift itself?

There is a difference of opinion among our jurists, may Allah have mercy on them. Some hold that a gift is like a bequest, so whether the recipient is an heir or non-heir is determined at the time of death. Others hold that it is determined at the time of the gift, because that is when he takes ownership of it.

His statement, “Acceptance is considered after death, even if delayed,” means that the beneficiary’s acceptance of the bequest is considered after death.

His statement, “not before it”: If he accepts before death, his acceptance is invalid. Thus, if a man bequeaths a house to another person, and the beneficiary accepts the house as soon as he learns of the bequest, that acceptance is not valid, and ownership of the house does not pass to the beneficiary, because a bequest takes effect only after death. Thus, his acceptance or non-acceptance