it is prevented to the extent of [the debt]. Ahmad alluded to something similar, for he said regarding four sons whose father left behind a house and owed a debt, and one of the sons said, "I will pay [the debt], so leave the quarter to me." Ahmad said: "This house belongs to the creditors; they do not inherit anything until they pay the debt." This indicates that it did not transfer to them in his view, because he prevented the heir from retaining the quarter by paying its value, since the debt was not established in the liabilities of the heirs, so it must attach to the estate. The first view is the established School of Thought (Madhhab), and this is why we said that the creditor does not swear regarding the debt of the deceased. This is because the debt's locus is the liability, and it only attaches to the estate; thus the heirs have the choice between settling the debt from it or from other assets, like a pledge or the property of a perpetrator (jani). For this reason, the creditors are not obligated to provide for the maintenance of the slaves, nor is the growth of the estate theirs. Furthermore, it must be the case that it either transfers to the heirs, or to the creditors, or remains for the deceased, or belongs to no one. It is not permissible for it to transfer to the creditors, because if it transferred to them, they would be obligated to pay for the maintenance of the animals, and its growth would belong to them without being deducted from their debt. It is not permissible for it to remain for the deceased, because he is no longer fit for ownership. It is not permissible for it to belong to no one, because it is owned property, so it must have an owner. Moreover, if it remained without an owner, it would be permitted for anyone who takes possession of it, like other permissible things. Thus, it is established that it transferred to the heirs. Based on this, if the estate grows—such as the house increasing in value, the palm trees bearing fruit, or the livestock reproducing—that [growth] belongs to the heir; he is exclusively entitled to it, and the right of the creditors does not attach to it, because it is the growth of his property, similar to the earnings of a perpetrator. It is possible, however, that the right of the creditors attaches to it, similar to the growth of a pledge. Those who chose the first view say: The attachment of the right to a pledge is more confirmed because it was established by the choice and consent of the owner, which is why disposal of it is prohibited; whereas this [the estate] is established without the owner's consent, and disposal is not prohibited, so it is more similar to the perpetrator. According to the other report, the growth of the estate has the same ruling as the estate itself, and the expenses required are taken from it. If the heirs dispose of the estate by sale, gift, or partition, then according to the first report, their disposal is valid; if they then pay the debt, it is well, otherwise it shall be rescinded.