on the basis that the heirs confirm the executor or the claimant, or that he has evidence for that, reconciling the two narrations and in accordance with the evidence. It was said to Ahmad: 'If the executor knows that a man has a right against the deceased, and the creditor comes demanding the executor, and he brings him before the judge to make him swear that the property of mine in your hands is a rightful debt,' he said: 'He shall not swear. He shall inform the judge of the case, and if the judge gives it to him, he knows best.' If a man claims a debt against the deceased and produces evidence for it, is it permissible for the executor to accept it and pay the debt based on it without the presence of a judge? Ahmad's speech indicates two narrations. The first is his statement: 'Payment to him is not permissible based on his claim unless evidence is established.' The apparent meaning of this is that he permitted payment through evidence without the ruling of a judge, because evidence is a proof for him. He said in another place: 'Unless he establishes evidence before the judge regarding that.' As for if the heirs confirm them in that, it is accepted, because it is an acknowledgment from them against themselves.

988. Issue: He said: "And whoever emancipates, during his illness or after his death, two slaves—and he owns nothing else—and the value of one of them is two hundred, and the other is three hundred, and the heirs do not approve, lots shall be cast between them. If the lot falls on the one whose value is two hundred, five-sixths of him is emancipated, which is one-third of the total. And if it falls on the other, five-ninths of him is emancipated; because all of the deceased's property is five hundred dirhams, which is the value of the two slaves, so it is multiplied by three, and one-third of it is taken, which is five hundred. As for if the lot falls on the one whose value is two hundred, we multiply it by three, and we make it six hundred, so the emancipation of him becomes five-sixths of him. And likewise, it is done with the other if the lot falls on him. And everything that comes from this chapter, its method is that it should be multiplied by three, so that it emerges without a fraction."

This issue points to four rulings: among them is that the ruling of emancipation during the illness of death is the ruling of a bequest; it is not permissible from it except one-third of the wealth, unless the heirs permit it. This is the opinion of the majority of the jurists.