His statement, “and whoever accepts it,” means the bequest—that is, the bequeathed property.

His statement, “then rejects it, his rejection is invalid”: this is because it has entered his ownership. However, if the heirs accept it—that is, if they accept his renunciation of the bequest—it becomes a new gift to them from the beneficiary.

For example, a man bequeaths this house to someone, who accepts it, and the house becomes his. Then, afterward, some people cause him to regret it, so he comes to the heirs and says, “I was hasty in accepting the bequest, and now I renounce it.” If the heirs say, “We do not accept,” then we follow the heirs’ position, because once he accepted it, it entered his ownership. But if the heirs accept the renunciation, it constitutes a new gift, as though he had given it to them anew. Accordingly, if he has creditors and is under legal interdiction, his gift to the heirs is invalid, because he is under legal interdiction.

His statement, “It is permissible to revoke a bequest,” means that the testator may revoke his bequest. This is because it is a donation contingent upon death, and death has not yet occurred; therefore, he may revoke it.

For example, a man bequeaths this house for the poor to live in; thus, he has bequeathed it as a charitable donation for Allah, Most High. Then afterward he revokes it and says, “I have cancelled my bequest.” This is valid.

If someone were to say, “Has he not set it aside for Allah?”

The answer is: Yes, but it has not left his ownership. It is like a man who sets aside dirhams to give in charity, or measures out food to give in charity, but then changes his mind and takes it back. His revocation is valid, because he has not removed it from his ownership. Thus, this