A number of scholars have held the same view, for the prohibition against bequeathing more than one-third was instituted to protect the heirs’ rights. When no heirs exist, the impediment is lifted, for neither an heir nor a creditor has any claim on the estate; it is therefore akin to a person who, while healthy, donates all his wealth in charity.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH) said, “The correct opinion is that such a person may dispose of his whole estate, for the Lawgiver only forbade exceeding one-third when the testator has heirs. One who leaves no heir is not to be challenged in whatever he does with his property.” End of Ibn al-Qayyim’s words.

Among the rulings on bequests is that if one-third of the estate is insufficient to cover them and the heirs do not authorize the excess, every bequest is reduced proportionately; all beneficiaries share the shortfall, with no distinction between earlier and later bequests. All of them are post-mortem donations that fall due simultaneously. The beneficiaries are therefore equal in principle but differ in amount, so proportional reduction is required—just like the cases of ʿawl (proportional scaling) in inheritance law when the allotted shares exceed the estate itself.

For example, suppose the testator bequeaths 100 riyals to one person, another 100 riyals to a second, 50 riyals to a third, and 30 riyals to a fourth, while one-third of his estate amounts to only 100 riyals and the total of the bequests is 300 riyals. Since the available one-third equals one-third of the total bequests, each beneficiary receives only one-third of the amount bequeathed to him.

Another rule is that a bequest’s validity is judged by the situation at the time of death. Thus, if a bequest is made to someone who is an heir when the will is written but ceases to be an heir at death—such as a brother who becomes excluded by the later birth of a son—the bequest stands, because the decisive moment is death, for that is the state in which