Is the estate valued at the date of death or the date of distribution?

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.

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.

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.