upon the executor, because he acted within the scope of his authorization; therefore, he bears no liability.

For example, a man appoints Zayd by will to spend ten thousand riyals on building a mosque. Zayd spends it, then it becomes known that the deceased had a debt which consumes the entire ten thousand. The executor bears no liability, because he acted within the scope of his authorization, and his action was valid. He exercised his judgment and did not possess knowledge of the unseen. If it is asked, “Why did he not wait?” the answer is: How long should he wait? At any time, a debt might come to light. The executor is commanded to hasten in carrying out the will. If he delays it for a day or two out of fear that a debt may emerge, he may likewise say, “I shall postpone it for a month or two out of fear that a debt may emerge.” This would ultimately result in the will not being carried out at all. Therefore, we say: what is prescribed for this executor is that he promptly carry out the will. If he does what is prescribed for him and then something of which he was unaware becomes apparent, he bears no liability.

If someone asks: Where, then, is the creditor’s right?

We say: the creditor has no claim in this case. This differs from the case where the heirs take the money and it subsequently becomes clear that the deceased owed a debt: it is then recovered from the heirs, each person being required to return what he took. The difference is evident: the executor acted on behalf of someone else, whereas the heirs acted for themselves. Since the property was lost while in their possession, they are liable for it. Someone may suppose that there is no difference between this issue and the previous one, but the distinction between them is clear.

If someone asks: What if the executor knew that the deceased owed a debt, yet he took the bequeathed property and disposed of it? In this case, we say that he is liable, because when