according to the scholars of ḥadīth.

It is authentically reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said:
“If people would reduce the proportion of the bequest from one-third to one-quarter, that would be dearer to me, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘A third—and even a third is much.’”

As for their disagreement over whether a person who leaves no heirs may bequeath more than one-third, Mālik and al-Awzā‘ī do not permit it, the reports from Aḥmad are divergent, while Abū Ḥanīfah and Isḥāq allow it, and it is likewise the view of Ibn Mas‘ūd.

The reason for the divergence is whether this ruling is restricted to the rationale given by the Lawgiver or not. That rationale is that he should not leave his heirs destitute, begging from people, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “To leave your heirs wealthy is better than to leave them poor, begging from people.”

Whoever considers the ruling confined to that specific cause holds that when the cause is absent, the ruling lapses. But whoever regards the ruling as devotional in nature—despite its stated rationale—or views all Muslims, in this respect, as standing in the place of the heirs, says that under no circumstances may a bequest exceed one-third.

Meaning conveyed by the word waṣiyyah: In general, a waṣiyyah is a person’s transfer of his property to another individual, or to several individuals, after his death, or his emancipation of a slave, whether or not he explicitly uses the term waṣiyyah. By unanimous agreement, this contract is revocable—that is, the testator may withdraw what he has bequeathed—except in the case of a mudabbar slave, about which they differed, as will be mentioned in the Book of Tadbīr.

They likewise agree that the beneficiary’s right does not crystallize until the testator’s death.

They disagreed, however, over whether the beneficiary’s acceptance is a condition for the validity of the bequest. Mālik says acceptance is required, while it is related from al-Shāfi‘ī that acceptance is not a condition; Mālik likened it to a gift.

Section Two
Rulings Pertaining to Bequests

These rulings are of three kinds: those that concern wording, those that concern calculation, and those that concern substantive judgment.

Among the well-known substantive issues is their disagreement about the ruling when a man bequeaths one-third of his estate to someone and designates a particular item in the estate that equals one-third. The heirs contend that the designated item in fact exceeds one-third. Mālik says the heirs may choose either to give him that specific item named by the testator or to give him one-third of the entire estate. Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, Aḥmad, and Dāwūd all dissent.

Their principal argument is that the bequest became binding for the beneficiary upon the death of the testator and his acceptance of it—by consensus—so how can what has become his property be taken from him without his consent and the bequest altered?

Mālik’s principal justification is the possibility that