Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/169)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “or a deceased person,” means that a bequest to a deceased person is invalid, because the deceased cannot own property. If he cannot own property, then how can a bequest to him be valid?

It has also been said that a bequest to a deceased person is valid and is to be given in charity on his behalf in charitable causes. This is the stronger view: it is valid for the deceased, though not by way of transferring ownership, since the deceased cannot own property. Everyone knows that when a person makes a bequest for a deceased person, he does not mean that food should be bought for him to eat, drink for him to drink, or clothing for him to wear. Rather, he intends that it be spent on charitable works on behalf of that deceased person. But if he says, “I intend to transfer ownership to the deceased,” we say: the bequest is invalid. This is mere sophistry, for the deceased cannot own property; when a person dies, his property passes to someone else, so how could he own anything?

His statement, “If he bequeaths to a living person and a deceased person whose death he knows, then all of it belongs to the living person”: if he makes a bequest to a living person and a deceased person—for example, saying, “I bequeath one thousand riyals to Zayd and to Amr, who is deceased”—while knowing that Amr is deceased, then all of it belongs to the living person. The reason is that their joint entitlement is one of competition. The testator knows that the deceased person is nonexistent and that a bequest to him is invalid; thus, it is as though he intended it all for the living person. Since the deceased person’s share cannot be given to him, it returns to the living person, because the testator knows that the deceased cannot own property.

According to the view we have deemed stronger, however, the living person receives half and the deceased person receives half, which is given in charity on his behalf. According to the madhhab, the living person receives only half in all cases, whether the testator knew or did not know, based on the principle of separating the transaction: when a transaction comprises what is lawful and unlawful, the lawful part remains lawful and the unlawful part remains unlawful; or when it comprises what is valid and invalid, the valid part remains valid and the invalid part remains invalid. Accordingly, the living person receives only half in all cases.

The point of disagreement applies only if he does not say, “half and half between them.” If he says that, then the living person receives only half in all cases.

قوله: «وميت» أي: لا تصح لميت؛ لأن الميت لا يملك، فإذا كان لا يملك فكيف تصح الوصية له؟! وقيل: تصح الوصية للميت وتصرف صدقة له في أعمال الخير، وهذا القول هو الراجح، أنه تصح للميت لا على سبيل التمليك؛ لأن الميت لا يملك، وكل أحد يعرف أن الإنسان إذا أوصى لميت لا يريد أن يُشترى له طعام ليأكله، أو شراب ليشربه أو لباس يلبسه، وإنما يريد أن يصرف في أعمال الخير لهذا الميت، لكن لو قال: أنا أريد تمليك الميت، قلنا: الوصية غير صحيحة، وهذا تلاعب؛ لأن الميت لا يملك، وملك الميت ينتقل إلى غيره إذا مات، فكيف يملك؟! قوله: «فإن وصَّى لحي وميت يعلم موته فالكل للحي» إذا وصى لحي وميت، بأن قال: أوصيت بألف ريال لزيد وعمرو الميت، وهو يعلم أنه ميت فالكل للحي؛ ووجه ذلك أن اشتراكهما اشتراك تزاحم، والموصي يعلم أن الميت معدوم، وأن الوصية لا تصح له، فكأنه أراد أن تكون كلها للحي، فلما تعذر أن يكون نصيب الميت له عاد إلى الحي؛ لأنه يعلم أن الميت لا يملك، وعلى القول الذي رجحنا يكون للحي النصف وللميت النصف ويكون صدقة له، والمذهب أنه ليس للحي إلا النصف مطلقاً سواء علم الموصي أم لم يعلم، بناء على تفريق الصفقة، وأن الصفقة إذا اشتملت على حلال وحرام، حَلَّ الحلال وحرم الحرام، أو على صحيح وفاسد صح الصحيح وفسد الفاسد، وعليه يكون للحي النصف مطلقاً. ومحل الخلاف ما لم يقل: بينهما أنصافاً، فإن قال ذلك فليس للحي إلا النصف مطلقاً.