Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:181

(فَمَنْ بَدَّلَهُ): That is, whoever alters the bequest, whether he be a witness or an executor. Alteration by either of them could be by denying the bequest from its inception, reducing it, changing its terms, or otherwise. The Shafi'is consider it "alteration" to generalize a bequest; if one is appointed an executor for a specific matter, he is not, according to them, an executor for other matters, whereas according to us, he is. That, however, is not a form of alteration at all.

(بَعْدَمَا سَمِعَهُ): That is, after he knew of it and it was confirmed to him. Hearing is used as a metonym for knowledge because it is the primary means of acquiring it.

(فَإِنَّمَا إِثْمُهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يُبَدِّلُونَهُ): That is, the sin of the altered bequest or the act of alteration—the former regarding the letter of the text, and the latter regarding its meaning—rests only upon those who alter it, not upon the testator, for they are the ones who transgressed the law and committed betrayal. The explicit noun is used in place of a pronoun to indicate that the act of alteration is the cause of the sin. The choice of the plural form takes into account the meaning of "whoever" (man), and it contains an indication that the sin encompasses all individuals involved.

(إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ): He hears the statements of the alterers and the testators, and He knows their intentions, so He will requite them accordingly. In this is a threat to the alterers and a promise to the testators.

The verse is cited as evidence that the obligation is discharged from the testator simply by making the bequest, and that no harm befalls him if it is not carried out. It is also used as evidence that if a person has a debt and bequeaths its repayment, he is delivered from its liability in the Hereafter, even if the executor or heir fails to fulfill it—a view held by al-Kiya.

What the heart inclines toward is that a debtor has no liability after death absolutely, nor is he detained in his grave as people say. If he left nothing behind and died insolvent, the matter is manifest; for if he remained alive, there would be no obligation upon him after his insolvency was established, other than [to grant him] a delay until a time of ease. Thus, to hold him accountable and detain him in his grave after his return to the Subtle, the All-Aware, is something scarcely comprehensible.

As for when he leaves behind assets and the heir is aware of the debt or it is proven to him, the heir is the one requested to pay it and is bound to settle it. If he does not pay or settle it, the heir is the one to be held accountable, not the one who died having left behind that which would cover his debts, whether in full or in part. Indeed, to hold accountable the one who says: "O Lord, I left behind that which suffices [to pay my debts], yet the one upon whom You imposed the duty of fulfillment after me did not fulfill it for me; had You granted me respite, I would have fulfilled it," is something that contradicts wisdom and is not necessitated by mercy. Yes, accountability is comprehensible in the case of one who borrows for something forbidden and spends the wealth in a manner not pleasing to the King, the All-Knowing. What has been narrated in the hadiths is to be understood in this light or similar, and to interpret them absolutely is something that a sound intellect and an upright mind cannot accept.