Thus, if he bequeaths an undivided share to his own slave, the slave’s value may exceed it, fall short of it, or equal it.
His statement, “But a bequest of one hundred or of a specified item to him is invalid”: this is the second part of the distinction. If he bequeaths a specified amount to his slave, saying, for example, “I bequeath one hundred riyals to my slave after my death,” the bequest is invalid, even though he is his own slave. This is because a slave cannot own property, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever sells a slave who possesses property, his property belongs to his seller, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.” (1) The wealth in the slave’s possession does not belong to him, and he is not included in the bequest. In the first case, however—when he bequeaths an undivided share—the slave is included in the bequest: the slave himself is among what the undivided share encompasses, so he acquires ownership of a portion of himself and is thereby emancipated. Here, by contrast, he is not included in the bequest.
Likewise, if he bequeaths a specified item to his slave, saying, “Such-and-such house belongs to my slave,” the bequest is invalid, because a slave cannot own property. Thus, a bequest to someone else’s slave is invalid, whether it concerns a specified item, a specified amount, or an undivided share. As for a bequest to one’s own slave, it is valid if it is of an undivided share; but if it is of a specified amount, such as one hundred, or of a specified item, it is invalid. The distinction is clear: when he bequeaths an undivided share, the slave himself falls within that undivided share, and he is emancipated from it in proportion to the share bequeathed to him.
His statement, “A bequest of a fetus, or to a fetus, is valid, provided its existence before it is established”: the bequest