al-Moulakhas al-FiqhiSalih Al-Fawzan

As for a person whose illness is chronic yet does not confine him to bed, any gifts he makes are valid with respect to his entire estate, exactly like the donations of a healthy individual, because such an illness is not feared to hasten death; he is treated like an elderly man. However, if someone with a chronic illness becomes bedridden, he is regarded as a patient in mortal danger: his bequests (waṣiyya) are effective only within one third of his property and only for non-heirs—unless the heirs ratify them after his death—because a bedridden patient is in jeopardy of dying.

The one-third limit is calculated at the time of death, for that is when bequests become obligatory and when their beneficiaries acquire the right to them. Accordingly, both bequests and gifts are executed out of that one third. If the third proves insufficient, the gifts are given priority over the bequests, because the gifts were already binding upon the patient; they therefore take precedence, just as a gift made by a healthy person has priority over his bequest.

The jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—have explained that a bequest differs from a gift in four respects:

  1. With a bequest, early and late recipients stand on an equal footing, because it is a post-mortem transfer that takes effect all at once. A gift, by contrast, follows a first-come-first-served rule, since it becomes immediately binding in favor of each recipient as it is delivered.

  2. The donor may not retract a gift once the recipient has taken possession of it, whereas a testator may revoke his bequest, for it does not become obligatory until his death.

  3. A gift requires the recipient’s acceptance at the moment it is offered, because ownership passes immediately. In a bequest, however, ownership is transferred after death, so acceptance is considered only when the bequest actually exists; any acceptance voiced before death has no legal effect.

  4. Title to the gifted property is established as soon as the gift is accepted, while a bequest confers no ownership before death, since it is intended to take effect afterward and cannot precede that moment.

ومن كان مرضه مزمنا، ولم يلزمه الفراش؛ فتبرعاته تصح من جميع ماله كتبرعات الصحيح؛ لأنه لا يخاف منه تعجيل الموت؛ فهو كالهرم، وأما إن لزم من به مرض مزمن الفراش؛ فهو كمن مرضه مخوف، لا تصح وصايه إلا في حدود الثلث، ولغير الوارث؛ إلا إذا أجازها الورثة؛ لأنه مريض ملازم للفراش، يخشى عليه التلف. ويعتبر مقدار الثلث عند موته؛ لأنه وقت لزوم الوصايا، ووقت استحقاقها، فتنفذ الوصايا والعطايا من ثلثه حينئذ، فإن ضاق عنها؛ قدمت العطايا على الوصايا؛ لأنها لازمة في حق المريض، فقدمت على الوصية كالعطية في حال الصحة. وهناك فروق بين الوصية والعطية: فقد قال الفقهاء ﵏: إن الوصية تفارق العطية في أربعة أشياء: أحدهما: أنه يسوى بين المتقدم والمتأخر في الوصية؛ لأنها تبرع بعد الموت، يوجب دفعة واحدة، أما العطية؛ فيبدأ بالأول فالأول فيها؛ لأنها تقع لازمة في حق المعطى. الثاني: أن المعطى لا يملك الرجوع في العطية بعد قبضها؛ بخلاف الوصية؛ فإن الموصي يملك الرجوع فيها لأنها لا تلزم إلا بالموت. الثالث: أن العطية يعتبر القبول لها عند وجودها؛ لأنها تملك في الحال؛ بخلاف الوصية؛ فإنها تمليك بعد الموت؛ فاعتبر القبول عند وجود؛ فلا حكم لقبولها قبل الموت. الرابع: أن العطية يثبت الملك فيها عند قبولها؛ بخلاف الوصية؛ فإنها لا تملك قبل الموت؛ لأنها تمليك بعده؛ فلا تتقدمه

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies