The disagreement among jurists and jurists regarding the nature of a will has overshadowed the status of a will for someone else's property. A will for someone else's property (a will in which the testator is not the owner of the property being bequeathed) and a will for someone else (a will made in favor of a third party) have different statuses from a jurisprudential and legal perspective. By distinguishing between these two types of wills and citing the rules related to a fiduciary contract, a group has considered a will for someone else's property to be invalid and a will for someone else to be invalid, which can be executed with the owner's approval; while others consider both types to be absolutely invalid. This research, using a descriptive-analytical method and based on library resources, shows that since the testator's interference in his own property after death is an exception, its scope cannot be generalized to the property of others. Legal principles and rules, including the rule of subrogation and the Prophetic hadith "People are in control of their property" and the rule of respecting Muslim property, also require that another person cannot act on a will to the property of another. Since the majority of jurists and jurists consider a will to be an act of interference, a will to the property of another is considered invalid from the perspective of jurisprudence and law as a meddling act.