because they do not deserve more than three-quarters of the endowment, so it is not permissible for them to take more than that. And if the minor dies before reaching puberty, his heir takes his place in what we have mentioned. And if one of the adult sons dies before the minor reaches puberty, his share of what belonged to his deceased uncle is also held in trust, and the ruling regarding it is the same as the ruling regarding his original share. The Qadi said: If he reaches puberty and refuses to take the oath, the quarter is held in trust until the death of the third party, and it is divided among them between the adults and the heirs of the deceased; because it was between the three, and his share from the deceased is for the two living adults exclusively; because they are the ones entitled to the endowment.

1912 - Issue: He said: "And whoever makes a claim and mentions that his evidence is far from him, so the defendant swears, then the claimant produces his evidence, judgment shall be rendered based upon it, and the oath shall not remove the right."

Its general meaning is that if the claimant mentions that his evidence is far from him, or it is not possible for him to produce it, or he does not wish to present it, and he requests an oath from the defendant, the defendant is made to swear for him. If he swears, and then the claimant produces evidence, judgment is rendered in his favor. This is the opinion of Shurayh, al-Sha'bi, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and Ishaq. It was narrated from Ibn Abi Layla and Dawud that his evidence is not heard; because the oath is the argument of the defendant, so the argument of the claimant is not heard after it, just as the oath of the defendant is not heard after the evidence of the claimant. Our position is the statement of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: "Truthful evidence is dearer to me than a perjured oath." The apparent nature of this evidence is truth, and from its truthfulness follows the perjury of the preceding oath, so it takes precedence. And because in every situation in which a right becomes obligatory upon him through his acknowledgment, it becomes obligatory through evidence, just as before the oath; and what they mentioned is not valid, because evidence is the fundamental principle, and the oath is a substitute for it.