Section: If he bequeaths to him the distribution of his third, and the heirs refuse to produce the third of what is in their possession, there are two narrations regarding this. The first is that he distributes the entire third from what is in his possession. This was reported by Abu Talib; because the right of the legatee is attached to the portions of the estate, so it is permissible for him to pay him from what is in his possession, just as he pays to some of the heirs. The second is that he pays him one-third of what is in his possession, and does not give them anything from what is in his possession until they produce the third of what is in their possession. This was reported by Abu al-Harith; because if a creditor has assets belonging to the debtor in his possession, he does not have the right to satisfy his claim from what is in his possession, and it is the same here. It is possible to interpret the two narrations as referring to two different situations. The first narration is interpreted as applying when the property is of a single type, so the executor may distribute the entire third from what is in his possession, because there is no benefit in waiting for them to produce their portion when the type is unified. The second narration is interpreted as applying when the property is of various types, for the bequest attaches to one-third of each type, and he does not have the right to provide a substitute for the third of what is in their possession from what is in his possession, because this is an exchange that is not permissible without their consent. And Allah knows best.

Section: If the executor knows that there is a debt against the deceased, whether through the bequest of the deceased or otherwise, Ahmad said: He shall not pay it except with evidence. It was said to him: What if the son of the deceased confirms his statement? He said: That applies to the share of the person who acknowledged it, according to the measure of his share. He also said regarding someone who deposited a thousand dirhams with a man and said: 'If I die, pay it to my eldest son,' and he had two sons, or he said: 'Pay it to a stranger.' He said: If he pays it to one of the two sons, he is liable to the other for the measure of his share, and if he pays it to the other, he is liable. Perhaps this statement from Ahmad pertains to cases where the heirs do not believe the executor and do not acknowledge the debt, so his statement is not accepted against them, and he does not have the right to pay without their permission; because his statement 'he acknowledged to me and authorized me' is an establishment of authority, so his claim regarding it is not accepted, nor is his testimony, because he is testifying for himself regarding authority. Abu Dawud reported regarding a man who bequeathed that so-and-so is owed such-and-such by me, that the executor should execute it, and it is not lawful for him if he does not execute it. This matter is interpreted...