What is the ruling of Imam Abu Hanifa regarding the liability when the payment is made with or without a judge's decree?
Chapter on Distant Kindred (Dhawu al-Arham)
Al-Mughni
Book of Inheritance Shares (Farā'id)
Primary text
Imam Abu Hanifa states that if the payment to the second claimant is made under the decree of a judge, the admitting party pays the second claimant half of what remains in his hand, because a judge's ruling is akin to forced expropriation. However, if the payment to the second claimant is made without a judge, he pays one-third of the entire wealth, as the payment made to the first claimant was a voluntary donation of something not due to him.
Supporting text
The supporting evidence for the first view (under judicial decree) is that the admitting party acknowledged what he was obligated to acknowledge, and thus he is not liable for what was lost through that acknowledgment, similar to when the governor cuts off a thief's hand and it results in a consequential injury to himself. There is another opinion aligning with the general principle from Ibn Abi Layla, the people of Medina, and some scholars of Basra.