He replied:

If he acknowledged owing money to each of the two daughters, when he had previously owed neither of them anything, that acknowledgment gave her no claim against him; it was false and invalid. Even if he subsequently pledged a gift to her as a debt owed by him, it would not be binding. Rather, preferential treatment among one’s children is prohibited, and he should treat them equitably, by the consensus of the Muslims, even if the aforementioned acknowledgment had already been made. Equitable treatment among them is obligatory according to the sounder of the scholars’ two opinions. The woman’s heirs are not entitled to any of that money.

He—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—was asked:

A man freed a slave woman and then married her. Subsequently, while of sound mind, legally competent, and in good health, he granted her ownership of property, declaring that everything contained in the home where they lived—copperware, textiles, chests, jewelry, furnishings, and anything else apart from his own clothing, riding animals, and equipment for his horses—belonged to his aforementioned wife. He had no right to any of it or any share in it; all of it was in her possession and at her disposal, with no control over it remaining to him. He then acknowledged this in her favor and drew up a legally valid deed of acknowledgment in these terms. Is an itemized description required, or not?

Our shaykh and master, Taqī al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās, replied:

Praise be to Allah. If he acknowledged that everything in his house belonged to his wife except the weapons, riding animals, and equipment for the horses, this was a valid acknowledgment whose terms must be given effect, without disagreement. If the basis for this acknowledgment was that the property had been transferred to his wife through a legally valid and binding conveyance, then the acknowledgment was valid both in substance and in its outward legal effect. And Allah knows best.