includes a she-camel, whereas the term “cow” does not include a bull, and the word “bull” applies only to the male.
The authoritative view holds that the word dābbah (riding beast) covers a horse, mule, or donkey. The term raqīq (slave) embraces one who is young, female, defective, or unbelieving, as well as the opposites of these.
Some maintain that if a person bequeaths “the emancipation of a slave,” the slave freed must be of the type that would meet the legal standard for an expiatory offering. If he says, “Free one of my two slaves,” and both die or are killed before his own death, the bequest lapses; but if one survives, that one is specified. If he stipulates “the emancipation of slaves” in the plural, three must be freed. Should the estate’s one-third prove insufficient for three, the relied-upon opinion is that no fractional shares are purchased; instead, two complete persons are emancipated, and any surplus after freeing two full slaves reverts to the heirs. If he allocates two-thirds of his estate for emancipation, then fractional shares may indeed be bought.
If he bequeaths to “her unborn child” and she gives birth to twins, they share the bequest. If he directs it to “the living and the dead,” then—on the sounder view—it all goes to the living child. Should he say, “If the child in your womb is a boy,” or, “if it is a girl, it shall have such-and-such,” and she bears both, the bequest is void. If he says, “If there is a boy in her womb,” and she bears a boy and a girl, only the boy takes. If she delivers two boys, the sounder opinion validates the bequest, and the heir may choose either one of them to receive it.
A bequest to “his neighbours” extends to the forty houses in every direction. “Scholars” are those versed in the sciences of the Sacred Law—Qurʾanic exegesis, hadith, and jurisprudence—not a professional reciter, man of letters, dream interpreter, or physician, and, according to most, not even a speculative theologian. A bequest to the fuqarāʾ (poor) includes the masākīn (destitute), and vice versa; when both names are mentioned, the estate is divided equally between them, half to each, and the minimum number for every category is three persons, although the testator may give some preference over others.
If he says, “to Zayd and the poor,” the authoritative position counts Zayd as one of them: it is permissible to give him the smallest item of monetary value, but he is not to be excluded altogether. If he bequeaths to a named yet uncountable group such as “the ʿAlawīs,” the bequest is valid on the stronger view, and it suffices to begin with any three of them. Should he say, “to Zayd’s relatives,” every blood relative is included, however remote, except an ascendant or descendant, according to the sounder opinion. The mother’s kin are not included in a bequest “to the Arabs,” on the sounder view.
Kinship is reckoned by referring to the nearest forefather to whom Zayd traces his lineage, and that forefather’s children are deemed a tribe. The phrase “his closest relatives” embraces both ascendants and descendants. The sounder view gives precedence to a son over a father and to a brother over a grandfather. Neither maleness nor eligibility for inheritance gives priority: the father and mother, son and daughter, are on equal footing, and the daughter’s son is preferred to the son’s son’s son. If a person bequeaths to “his own relatives,” his heirs are not included, on the sounder view.