case is like that of one who revokes his bequest—even if it was a charitable donation for Allah: his revocation is valid, because it has not left his ownership.

May he alter a bequest—substituting, advancing, or postponing its terms? Yes, he may, because if revocation of the bequest itself is permissible, then revoking a condition or description is likewise permissible. Thus, if he bequeaths that this house be made available to the poor, but later decides to transfer it to students of knowledge, that is permissible.

Therefore, if a person has made a bequest concerning something and later decides to change it and writes a second will, he should state: “This will supersedes the one before it,” so that there will not be two wills and the heirs become confused.

A bequest may be revoked by word or by deed. If he says, “Bear witness that I have revoked my will,” or, “I have cancelled my will,” this is revocation by word.

Revocation by deed may occur when he writes in his own hand: “I had bequeathed such-and-such a house as accommodation for the poor, but I have revoked my will.” This is revocation by deed, because he wrote it without uttering even a single word.

A second example: he bequeaths that the house be accommodation for the poor, then sells the house. This is revocation by deed, because by selling it he transferred its ownership; consequently, the bequest is invalidated, as the testator’s ownership of the bequeathed property has passed away.

Thus, revocation may be by word or by deed. The deed may either be writing or a transaction indicating revocation.

However, if he bequeaths this house as accommodation for the poor and then rents it out, this is not revocation, because he has not transferred its ownership. Ownership remains even with leasing,