I have established elsewhere that fulfilling an obligation is more important than refraining from a prohibited act, and that acts of obedience involving action are greater than those involving abstention. Thus, wrongdoing that consists in withholding obligatory rights is, as a category, graver than wrongdoing that consists in overstepping the limits. I have also established that religiously prescribed scrupulousness consists in fulfilling obligations and refraining from prohibitions, not merely refraining from prohibitions. Likewise, piety encompasses both fulfilling obligations and refraining from prohibitions, as Allah explained its scope in His words:

“Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west”

—through to His words—

“Those are the ones who are true, and it is they who are mindful of Allah.”

This is where many people go wrong: they consider the objectionable aspect of an action or some property that calls for avoiding it, but overlook the aspect involving a command that requires action.

An example is a question put to Ahmad concerning a man who died leaving property of doubtful lawfulness and an outstanding debt. The heir asked Ahmad whether he should scrupulously avoid that doubtful property. Ahmad replied, “Will you leave your father bound by his debt?” This was related by Abū Tālib [and Ibn Hāmid] (*).

This is sound understanding indeed. Repaying the debt is obligatory, and the creditor has a claim against the estate. If the heir does not repay the debt, the creditor is entitled to recover it from the estate. It is therefore impermissible to let the estate of doubtful lawfulness go to waste when the creditor has a claim against it. Nor is it permissible to harm the deceased by leaving him bound by his debt. Turning away from the estate thus harms both the deceased and the rightful claimant. These are two definite acts of wrongdoing resulting from neglecting two obligations. Taking the property of doubtful lawfulness