completes, like divorce and manumission. What Malik mentioned is invalid, because it is an act of dropping the oath from the one who is obligated (7) to perform part of it, so it is not permissible, just as it would be if the two fractions were equal, such as if each of the two [heirs] had half, or each (7) of the three had a third [of the oath]. This is also by way of analogy to whoever is obligated to perform the majority of it. Furthermore, the oath in all other claims is completed in the right of each individual, and it makes no difference whether one has a large or small share in the claim; likewise is the case here. Moreover, it leads to the situation where someone who is not obligated to perform the oath would bear it on behalf of one who is, which is not permissible, just like a complete oath, and like the larger part (8).

Section: If there are among them those upon whom no qasamah (oath-taking) is required at all, namely women, their ruling lapses. Thus, if there is a son and a daughter, the son swears all fifty. And if there is a brother and sister from the mother, and a brother and sister from the father, the oaths are divided between the two brothers, based on eleven, with three for the brother from the mother, and eight for the other. Then the fraction is adjusted for both of them, so the brother from the father swears thirty-seven oaths, and the brother from the mother swears fourteen oaths.

Section: If the entitled claimant dies, the obligation of the oaths that was upon him transfers to his heir, and the oaths are between them according to their inheritance shares. The fraction [of the oath] is adjusted for them, just as it is adjusted (9) in the case of the heirs of the slain. If some of them die, his share of the oaths is divided among his heirs. For instance, if the slain had three sons, each one would have seventeen oaths; if one of them dies before dividing, and he leaves three sons, his oaths are divided among them, so each one of them would have six oaths. If he leaves two sons, each one swears nine oaths. We say this because the heir stands in the place of the one from whom he inherits regarding the establishment of his proofs, just as he stands in his place regarding the entitlement to his wealth, and this is among his proofs. Therefore, he possesses the right to establish evidence (bayyina), to take the oath in cases of denial, and [to swear] along with a single witness in financial claims. And if his death was after...