strengthening it. According to this opinion, this narration is like the first one in terms of this ruling, and the difference (13) between them only appears in another matter, which we will mention, if Allah Almighty wills.

Section: If the person in whose possession the asset is denies it, and one of them has evidence, judgment is passed in his favor. If each of them presents evidence, and we say: the two pieces of evidence are to be utilized, the asset is taken from his possession and divided between them, according to the opinion of those who advocate division, or it is handed over to the one for whom the lot falls, according to the opinion of those who advocate that. If we say: the two pieces of evidence drop, the possessor swears an oath, and it remains in his possession, as if they had no evidence. If he later acknowledges it for both of them, or for one of them, his acknowledgment is accepted. If he acknowledges it for one of them at the outset, the one in whose favor it was acknowledged becomes the possessor; because the one who is currently in possession acknowledges that his possession is a proxy for the other's possession. If he acknowledges it for both of them, then the possession belongs to each of them, in the part he acknowledged for him, for that reason.

Section: If they both claim an asset in the possession of someone else, and he says: It belongs to one of you (14) but I do not know him specifically. Or he says: I do not know its owner, is it one of you or someone else? Or he says: One of you deposited it with me. Or: A man (15) whom I do not know specifically. If each of them claims, "You know that I am its owner," or "I am the one who deposited it with you," and requests (16) his oath, he is obliged to swear it to him; because if he had acknowledged it for him, he would have been obliged to hand it over to him, and whoever is burdened with a right upon acknowledging it, is burdened with an oath upon denying it. He swears regarding what he claimed (17) of negating knowledge. If they both certify his claim, there is no oath upon him. If one of them certifies it, he swears an oath to the other. If he acknowledges it for one of them, or someone else, the one in whose favor it was acknowledged becomes the possessor. If the one for whom it was not acknowledged says: "Swear to me that the asset is not my property," or "that I am not the one who deposited it with you," he is obliged (18) to take the oath regarding what he claimed of that; for the reason we have mentioned. If he refuses the oath, judgment is passed against him for its value. If he acknowledges it for both of them,