The jurists differ over whether his books of learning may be sold; two opinions are reported. The dispute rests on the broader question of whether selling works of jurisprudence is deemed reprehensible or not.

As for identifying, in Mālik’s school, which debts share in the pro-rata distribution of the bankrupt’s estate and which do not, they are first divided into two main categories:

1. Debts incurred for a consideration;
2. Debts incurred without a consideration.

Debts incurred for a consideration then subdivide into two kinds:
– those for which the consideration has been received, and
– those for which it has not.

Where the consideration has already been received—whether it is money or the indemnity for bodily injury—there is no disagreement in the school: the creditors must share in such debts pro rata.

Where the consideration has not yet been received, the case falls into one of five situations:

1. The debtor is absolutely unable to pay the counter-value, as with a husband’s future maintenance of his wives.

2. He cannot pay the counter-value, yet he can still deliver the thing for which it is due—for example, a man rents a house for cash, or where cash payment is customary, and the tenant is adjudged bankrupt before moving in, or after occupying part of the term but before paying the rent.

3. Payment of the counter-value is within his power and is binding upon him, such as the capital sum of a salam contract when the seller becomes insolvent before that sum has been received.

4. Payment is within his power but is not obligatory, as where he has sold merchandise and the buyer is declared bankrupt before the seller hands the goods over.

5. He has no right to accelerate payment of the counter-value, as when a man enters into a salam, paying dinars for goods to be delivered at a fixed term, and the buyer becomes bankrupt before paying the price and before the term falls due.

Rulings

1. In the first situation—where payment of the counter-value is impossible—there is no pro-rata sharing, except in the dower of wives when the husband is declared insolvent before consummation.

2. In the second situation—where he cannot pay the price but can still deliver the object owed, such as a tenant who is declared bankrupt before paying the rent—two views are reported. One says that the landlord participates with the other creditors in the whole amount of the rent and must place the house at the disposal of the creditors. The other says that he is entitled only to a share corresponding to the period already occupied, after which he repossesses his house; if the house has not been occupied at all, he simply reclaims it.