and he says, “It is mine,” while a human being says, “This wallet is mine,” we say that it belongs to the jinnī, because it is in his possession—unless you produce witnesses.

Some later scholars found it problematic that the jurists say a bequest to a jinnī is invalid because he cannot own property, yet say that whatever is in their possession is accepted as belonging to them. They answered—assuming what the jurists said is sound, for I may agree or disagree—that the distinction is clear: a bequest to them constitutes new ownership, whereas what is in their possession is an existing ownership, and thus belongs to them. The Prophet ﷺ granted them ownership of every bone over which Allah’s name has been mentioned, which they will find covered with more meat than ever. He said to them: “Every bone over which Allah’s name has been mentioned is for you; you will find it covered with more meat than ever”—this indicates that they eat—“and every piece of dung is fodder for your animals.” (1)

Issues:

First: Is it permissible to make a bequest to a disbeliever?

According to the madhhab, a bequest to a disbeliever is valid. As for an apostate, some scholars hold that he cannot own anything, because he must be executed and his property transferred to the public treasury; even his heirs do not inherit from him.

Second: If debts compete and exceed the available wealth, do we begin with the earlier debt, or are all creditors treated equally?

We say: the debts share proportionately, and the shortfall is borne by all of them, because their attachment to the estate occurs simultaneously upon the debtor’s death. Thus, there is no difference between an earlier and a later debt. An example is a man who owes Zayd three thousand, which he borrowed one year before his death,