If, however, what the creditor recovered from the solvent heir exceeded that heir’s rightful share of the debt, and some of the other heirs later became able to pay, the creditor turns to those newly solvent heirs for the balance of his claim, while the original heir becomes his co-claimant for the excess that had been taken from him. The two of them apportion that amount between themselves, for they now stand together as creditors of the heir who had previously been insolvent.

When the judge gathers the bankrupt’s assets for the creditors and the goods are destroyed before any sale takes place, the loss is borne by the bankrupt; the creditors’ claims remain outstanding against him. But if the judge has already sold the property, received the price, and that money is then lost before the creditors take possession, the loss falls on the creditors and the bankrupt is discharged.

Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam held that the liability for the lost price rests with the bankrupt, not with the creditors, and Ashhab related this view from Mālik. ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said: if the estate consists of both gold and silver and the debts are of the same kinds, then, should the assets be lost after being assembled and removed from the bankrupt, the loss of the gold is borne by those whose claims are in gold, and the loss of the silver by those whose claims are in silver. Ibn al-Qāsim stated that when a man is declared bankrupt, stripped of his property for his creditors, and the judge bars him from it so that it may be sold on their behalf, any loss that befalls those goods is borne by the creditors, because the property has already become due to them; he made no distinction between the sale price and any other part of the estate. A second report from Ibn al-Qāsim agrees with Mālik’s first opinion.