This is legal information only. For advice on your own circumstances, speak to a lawyer.
Yes, at a reasonable market figure for the inventory. They are usually modest in value and disproportionately contentious.
The Canadian position
Yes, at a reasonable market figure for the inventory. They are usually modest in value and disproportionately contentious.
Provincial law governs the detail, so confirm the position where the estate will be administered.
The Islamic position
The fixed shares apply to the net estate after funeral expenses, debts and any bequest capped at one third.
Where a Canadian instrument has no classical counterpart, treat it as a contemporary question for a qualified scholar.
Where the four schools differ
This question turns on one issue in our madhhab register: Is the estate valued at the date of death or the date of distribution? — as at what moment the estate is fixed for the faraid division — the date of death or the date of actual distribution — and who takes the gain or bears the loss in between
Position of each Sunni school on as at what moment the estate is fixed for the faraid division — the date of death or the date of actual distribution — and who takes the gain or bears the loss in between| School | Position |
|---|
| Shafi’iHanbali | It vests at death even when the estate owes money. On the Shafi’i view, and on the better known of the two narrations from Ahmad, the assets of the estate pass into the heirs’ ownership by the mere death of the deceased, with the debt attaching to them — and it makes no difference whether the debt swallows the whole estate or only part of it. The practical consequence is stated by the Mawsu’a in terms: on this view the increments of an indebted estate are the heirs’ property, and the cost of keeping those assets — storage, upkeep, carriage, feeding livestock — is on the heirs too. Rent and profit arising after the death are theirs pro rata; so is the risk. Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Tarikah” — the three recorded positions on an INDEBTED estate: the Shafi’is and, in the better known of the two Hanbali narrations, ownership passes to the heirs on death with the debt attaching, absorbing or not; the Malikis, that the assets “tabqa ‘ala milki al-mayyiti ba‘da mawtihi ila an yusaddida al-dayn”, absorbing or not, on Q 4:11; the Hanafis distinguishing — an absorbing debt keeps the assets in the deceased’s ownership, a non-absorbing debt does not, on the preferred view (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, Tarikah §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — both schools separately named at each of the two loci; the Hanbali position is expressly the better known (ashhar) of two narrations, not a settled single view. |
|---|
| Maliki | It stays with the deceased until the debt is paid. The Maliki position is that the assets of an indebted estate remain in the deceased’s ownership after his death until the debt is discharged — again whether or not the debt absorbs the whole estate — on the words of the Qur’an that the shares come “after any bequest he may have made, or debt”. The consequence is the mirror image: growth in the estate’s assets between death and payment counts as the deceased’s, so it is added to the estate for the creditors and only a surplus reaches the heirs — and the corresponding costs of holding the assets come out of the estate rather than out of the heirs’ pockets. Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Tarikah” — the three recorded positions on an INDEBTED estate: the Shafi’is and, in the better known of the two Hanbali narrations, ownership passes to the heirs on death with the debt attaching, absorbing or not; the Malikis, that the assets “tabqa ‘ala milki al-mayyiti ba‘da mawtihi ila an yusaddida al-dayn”, absorbing or not, on Q 4:11; the Hanafis distinguishing — an absorbing debt keeps the assets in the deceased’s ownership, a non-absorbing debt does not, on the preferred view (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, Tarikah §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Tarikah” sec. 14 — what turns on that disagreement: “nama’u al-tarikati aw nitajuha idha hasala bayna al-wafati wa ada’i al-dayn” — the rent of a house, the crop of farmland falling due after the death, an animal that gives birth or fattens, a tree that fruits: whoever holds that the estate passes says the increase is the heir’s and not the creditor’s; whoever holds that it does not says the increase is added to the estate to satisfy the debt, and only a surplus passes to the heirs (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — Mawsu’a position (b), footnoted to al-Dasuqi. |
|---|
| Hanafi | It depends on whether the debt swallows the estate. The Hanafis are the only school of the four to split the question. If the debt absorbs the estate, the assets stay in the deceased’s ownership and do not pass to the heirs — al-Sarakhsi’s reasoning is that God made the time of inheritance the time after the debt is discharged, so while the property is still tied up in the deceased’s need the position is in substance as though he were alive. If the debt does not absorb the estate, the preferred view is that the assets pass to the heirs on death with the debt attaching to them. The growth follows the ownership either way: on an absorbed estate the increase is the deceased’s and the upkeep comes out of the estate, while on an unabsorbed one the increase belongs to the heirs and the upkeep falls on them. Even where the assets have not passed, the Hanafi books are clear the heirs are not strangers to them: they may pay the debt out of their own money to redeem the estate and the creditor is compelled to take it. Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Tarikah” — the three recorded positions on an INDEBTED estate: the Shafi’is and, in the better known of the two Hanbali narrations, ownership passes to the heirs on death with the debt attaching, absorbing or not; the Malikis, that the assets “tabqa ‘ala milki al-mayyiti ba‘da mawtihi ila an yusaddida al-dayn”, absorbing or not, on Q 4:11; the Hanafis distinguishing — an absorbing debt keeps the assets in the deceased’s ownership, a non-absorbing debt does not, on the preferred view (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, Tarikah §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Tarikah” — the Hanafi reasoning, quoting al-Sarakhsi’s al-Mabsut 29/137: “al-daynu idha kana muhitan bi’l-tarikati yamna‘u milka al-warithi fi’l-tarika”, because God “ja‘ala awana al-mirathi ma ba‘da qada’i al-dayn”, so the deceased’s ownership survives in law (hukman) for as long as his need does; and Ibn Qadi Samawna, that the heirs may take the estate for themselves and pay the debt and the bequests out of their own money (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Tarikah” sec. 14 — what turns on that disagreement: “nama’u al-tarikati aw nitajuha idha hasala bayna al-wafati wa ada’i al-dayn” — the rent of a house, the crop of farmland falling due after the death, an animal that gives birth or fattens, a tree that fruits: whoever holds that the estate passes says the increase is the heir’s and not the creditor’s; whoever holds that it does not says the increase is added to the estate to satisfy the debt, and only a surplus passes to the heirs (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — Mawsu’a position (c), with al-Sarakhsi’s reasoning quoted from al-Mabsut 29/137. |
|---|
Researched positions from our madhhab register — issue estate-valuation-date, reviewed 2026-09-01.
What is agreed, and what we could not establish
What this settles, and the one thing it does not. Two propositions here are not merely undisputed — the Kuwaiti Mawsu’a positively records that the jurists do not differ on them. First, that the estate passes to the heir from the moment of the death, with no acceptance required and nothing for the heir to do; for a sudden death it puts the transfer at “the very time of death, with no disagreement worth counting among the jurists”. Second, that where the estate carries no debt, the estate together with its increments belongs to the heirs, each according to his share in the inheritance. So the rent a property earns, the dividends a portfolio pays and the appreciation a house enjoys between the death and the day the family finally divides are not a windfall for whoever happens to be administering; they follow the faraid fractions. The same logic answers the case families ask about most often: an heir who survives the deceased even by a moment and then dies before the estate is divided does not lose his share — it passes on to his own heirs, which the fiqh treats under munasakha. Where debts fit. Debts rank ahead of the shares on the Qur’anic words “after any bequest he may have made, or debt”, and it is that priority, not any separate valuation exercise, that the four schools are arguing about above. The gap, stated honestly. These sources establish WHEN ownership passes and WHO takes the interim growth. They do not answer the narrower accounting question of whether a debt is quantified at its death-date figure or at its figure on the day it is actually paid. We did not find a source addressing that, and we are not going to infer one: treat it as unresearched rather than as settled.
Full positions, evidence and history: Is the estate valued at the date of death or the date of distribution? — the issue page.
Which row is yours? Most families follow the school of their region of origin —
the four madhahib page maps them. The comparison is here so you can see
your school’s position, not so you can pick the convenient answer — assembling a plan from several schools at once (talfiq) can produce a distribution no school would accept. If your estate turns on this point, put it to a scholar of your school.
Note
This is legal information only. For advice on your own circumstances, speak to a lawyer.