He replied:

A bequest is validly made by any wording that indicates it, as when the testator’s intended meaning is understood from his words. Recognition of the bequest’s [legal effect] (1) regarding disposal of the property remains contingent on the beneficiary’s acceptance, whether expressed verbally or indicated by customary practice, and on his permission to dispose of it or authorization under Islamic law. A captive’s money may be spent on securing his release without his permission. And Allah knows best.

He was asked:

Concerning a man who wrote his will and stated in it that he owed his wife one hundred dirhams, although she was unaware that he owed her anything: may his executor, after his death, pay the dirhams to his wife without requiring her to swear an oath, if he acknowledged her entitlement when she had no actual claim?

He replied:

It is not lawful for her to take any of it, for this would constitute a bequest to an heir. By the consensus of the Muslims, a bequest to an heir is impermissible unless the remaining heirs approve it.

As for the judicial ruling, she is to receive nothing until she affirms the truth of his acknowledgment made during his final illness; otherwise, it is invalid according to most scholars. If she affirms his acknowledgment in full, but the executor or one of the heirs alleges that it was made without any actual entitlement—as some people customarily cast the creation of a new entitlement in the form of an acknowledgment of an existing one—this is comparable to alleging that an acknowledgment was made before possession was taken. The scholars have differed over requiring an oath in such a case. The correct view is that he must swear an oath. The correct view is that she is to receive nothing until she swears an oath.