they both acknowledge that this is an inheritance from the two deceased individuals, so neither of them has possession over it; because they both acknowledge that it did not belong to them, but rather it is an inheritance that they are claiming from others. If he intended that one-sixth of the son's wealth is added to one-half of the woman's wealth, and it is divided between them in halves, then there is a basis for this; because they are equal in their claim, so it is divided between them, just as if they disputed over an animal in their possession, and each of them must take an oath regarding what he has been judged to be entitled to. What is necessitated by the statement of our companions regarding those who drown or are buried under ruins is that one-sixth of the son's inheritance belongs to the brother, and the remainder of both inheritances belongs to the husband; because we assume that the woman died first, so her inheritance [would be for her son and her husband, then the son died, so the husband inherited everything in his possession, so her inheritance became] entirely for her husband, then you assume that the son died first, so his parents inherited from him; for his mother is the one-third, then she died, so the one-third was divided between her brother and her husband in halves, each of them receiving one-sixth, so the brother inherited nothing but one-sixth of the son's wealth, as we mentioned. Perhaps this opinion is specific to those whose time of death is unknown, and whose heirs agree upon the ignorance of it. The two aforementioned opinions; the statement of Al-Khiraqi, and the statement of Abu Bakr, are concerning the situation where the heirs of each deceased person claim that he died last, and that the other died before him. If one of them has evidence for what he claimed, it is ruled by it. And if they both present two sets of evidence, they contradict each other, and whether they both fall, [or whether lots are drawn] between them, or they divide what they differed upon, is derived from the three narrations. And Allah knows best.

Section: If a man had a house in his possession, and his wife claimed that he had given it to her as a dowry, or that she had purchased it from him, and he denied it, then the statement is his along with his oath; because the statement is that of the denier along with his oath. If each of them presents evidence, the evidence of the wife is given priority; because she testifies to an addition that was hidden from the evidence of the husband. If the man died and left behind a son, and the son claimed that he left the house as an inheritance, and the woman claimed that he