the division if the property is measured by volume or weight. If it consists of animals or goods, however, the division is annulled because of the harm caused to him by fragmenting his entitlement. There are two opinions on whether each recipient is liable to the newly appearing claimant for the proportion due from what he received, if evidence establishes that it perished without his having caused its loss:

The first is that he is liable.

The second is that he bears no liability.

If we hold that he is liable even when such evidence is established, then, if he disposes of the property by sale, gift, charity, emancipation, or the like, he must pay its value on the day he received it. If we hold that he bears no liability when such evidence is established, then disposing of it by emancipation, charity, gift, or sale does not make him liable for its value; in the case of sale, he owes only the price he received. If he has no evidence, his claim that the property perished is accepted where it is not readily concealable, but not where it is readily concealable. Asbagh’s position in his transmitted reports in the Book of Marriage would entail that he is liable for cash, but not for other property, even when evidence establishes its loss. Thus, there are three opinions:

The first is that he is liable for both cash and other property, even when evidence establishes that it perished without his having caused its loss.

The second is that he bears no liability for either cash or other property when evidence establishes that it perished without his having caused its loss.

The third is Asbagh’s distinction between cash and other property. According to the opinion that he bears no liability when evidence establishes the loss, his claim of loss is accepted upon his oath in the case of property for which there is no fear of loss.

Section

The fourth, fifth, and sixth cases—a creditor coming forward with a claim against the heirs; a creditor coming forward with a claim against the legatees entitled to one-third and against the heirs; and legatees entitled to fixed amounts coming forward with claims against the heirs—likewise share the same ruling. The same disagreement applies to them regarding the annulment of the division and the basis on which each recipient is liable for the share he received through it. As for the division, according to Ashhab’s report from Mālik, it is annulled in observance of Allah Most High’s right; according to Ashhab and Sahnūn, it is not annulled. There is inconsistency in the position of Ibn