His statement, “and something nonexistent”: that is, a bequest of something nonexistent is valid.

His statement, “such as what his animal or tree produces, indefinitely or for a specified period”: An example is for him to say, “I bequeath to Zayd whatever this ewe produces.” This does not mean its fetus, for it has previously been stated that a bequest of a fetus is not valid until its existence is known. Rather, he has bequeathed whatever it produces—not a known, specified fetus, but its offspring as future increase. Thus, he says: “Whatever it produces belongs to him.” This is permissible despite its being nonexistent. This ewe may presently have no offspring, but we say: whenever it bears offspring, it belongs to him; when it bears a second, it belongs to him; and when it bears a third, it belongs to him; and so on.

The same applies to what his tree produces. If a person has a date palm and bequeaths the fruit of this date palm to someone, this is valid, whether indefinitely or for a specified period. For example, he may say: “I bequeath to Zayd whatever this date palm produces for five years.” The bequest is valid even though it is nonexistent, because in this case its produce is akin to the usufruct of real property. He did not intend a particular, specified yield, such that we would say it is invalid; rather, he intended the fruit yielded by it. It is therefore like bequeathing the usufruct of this house and the like.

“If it produces nothing, the bequest is invalid. A bequest is valid with respect to a hunting dog and the like, and with respect to impure oil.”

His statement, “If it produces nothing, the bequest is invalid,” means that if he says, “I bequeath to Zayd the fruit of this date palm in the year 1419 AH,” and it bears no fruit, may the beneficiary demand from the heirs the equivalent value of its annual fruit?

The answer is: No. Rather, the bequest is invalid, because the bequeathed property did not come into existence.