God if a debt subsequently comes to light, such that they would be required to make good that loss. They disagree, however, over whether the heirs become liable through acts of disposal, such as sale, gift, charity or emancipation. Ibn Habīb held that these acts make them liable, requiring them to pay the debt without any recourse against the recipient of a gift. Ashhab and Sahnūn held that these acts do not make them liable. This means that the creditor may seek recovery from the recipient of a gift, but has no claim against a purchaser unless the sale involved preferential treatment, in which case that preferential benefit is treated as a gift. Al-Mudawwana contains evidence supporting both positions.

Their claims that livestock—which cannot readily be concealed—has perished are accepted upon their oaths, unlike claims concerning goods that can be concealed. As for money and goods measured by volume or weight, whether foodstuffs or otherwise, there are three opinions where their loss is established by testimony:

The first is that the heirs are released from liability for them. This follows by analogy from the view that the division must be annulled.

The second is that they are not released from liability for them. This is the apparent meaning of Ibn al-Qāsim’s statement in Yahyā’s transmission in the Book of Division.

The third distinguishes between money and other goods measured by volume or weight.

Section

The disagreement over annulling the division rests on their disagreement concerning a debt against the deceased that subsequently comes to light: does it attach specifically to the estate itself, or is it an obligation owed by the deceased? Those who reason that it attaches specifically to the estate annul the division. Those who reason that it is merely an obligation owed by the deceased, without attaching specifically to the estate, do not annul the division. This disagreement also underlies Mālik’s differing statements in various cases about who should first take the oath accompanying a single witness’s testimony concerning a debt due to the deceased: the heirs or the creditors. These include the case in the second Book of Marriage concerning a guardian who spends an orphan’s property on the orphans in his care, after which a debt against him comes to light.

Section

As for the seventh case, in which a further creditor comes forward against both the creditors and the heirs, the ruling is that