the heirs, for they do not benefit from the assets, nor do they have the right to dispose of them. Even if a benefit were to accrue to them, the share of the deceased and the creditor would not be invalidated for the sake of their benefit. Our argument is what we mentioned regarding the insolvent person, and because death was not established as a nullifier of rights, but rather it is a timing for succession and a sign of inheritance. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever leaves behind a right or property, it is for his heirs." What they mentioned is establishing a ruling based on public interest (maslahah mursalah), and there is no witness from the Shari'ah to support this consideration, and there is no disagreement regarding the invalidity of this. Therefore, the debt remains as a liability of the deceased as it was, and it attaches to the substance of his property just like the attachment of the rights of creditors to the property of an insolvent person upon interdiction. If the heirs wish to pay the debt and assume it towards the creditor, and [then] dispose of the property, they may not do so, unless the creditor is satisfied or they secure the right with a solvent guarantor or a pledge he trusts for the fulfillment of his right, for they might not be solvent and the creditor might not be satisfied with them, which would lead to the loss of the right. The Qadi mentioned that the right transfers to the liabilities of the heirs upon the death of their testator, without it being a condition that they assume it. It is not appropriate for a person to be held liable for a debt they did not assume nor cause. If it were binding upon them due to the death of their testator, it would be binding upon them even if he did not leave behind enough to cover it. If we say that the debt becomes due upon death, and the heirs wish to pay it from outside the estate to retain the estate, they may do so, and if they pay from it, they may...