when he said, “If Zayd arrives, then he shall have what I have bequeathed to Amr,” this constituted a revocation of the bequest.

An example of this is where he bequeaths this car to Amr, then, a day or two—or a month or two—after making the bequest, says: “If Zayd arrives, then he shall have what I have bequeathed to Amr.” If Zayd arrives before the testator dies, then the car belongs to Zayd. But if he arrives after the testator has died, it belongs to Amr. This is because, if he arrives during the testator’s lifetime, the condition has been fulfilled, as he said: “If he arrives, then he shall have what I have bequeathed to Amr.” But if he arrives after the testator’s death, Amr’s right has become attached to it. If he has accepted the bequest, he has acquired it; and if he has not accepted it, he has the stronger claim to it, since it was bequeathed to him.

If he bequeaths this car to Amr, then bequeaths it to Zayd, and then dies, what is the ruling? Do we say that they share it, or do we say that it belongs to the latter of the two?

There are two views:

The first is that they share it, since it is a specific item bequeathed to two persons, and so they share it. However, this is a case of competing claims: if they both accept the bequest, the car is divided between them; but if one of them declines it, it all belongs to the other.

Some scholars have said instead that this is joint ownership, meaning that if one of them does not accept it, his share returns to the heirs, while the other retains his share. But the first view is undoubtedly more correct, because they did not acquire it through a contract such that it could be described as joint ownership. Rather, it is a case of competing claims: if they both accept it, it is divided between them; and if they do not both accept it, it belongs in its entirety to the one who accepts it.