Debts are settled from it, wills are executed, and the remainder belongs to the heirs; for he takes the endowment initially from the founder without an intermediary, so he is like one of the sons. And if he is a minor, or a child is born to one of the sons who shares with them in the endowment, or one of the sons is a minor, his share of the endowment is held in trust for him and is not surrendered to his guardian until he reaches puberty, at which point he swears or refuses; because he receives the endowment without an intermediary. If it is said: "Why then does he not become entitled without an oath, given that the entitled sons acknowledge this for him, and their acknowledgment should be sufficient, just as if they had a house in their possession and acknowledged a share of it to a minor, it would be surrendered to his guardian?" We say: The difference between the two is that in the house which is in their possession, they have no rival, and no oath is required from any of them, whereas in this case, the parents, creditors, and those with wills are their rivals, and they only take it through their oaths. So if they acknowledge a partner for them, they have acknowledged that he is like one of them, who does not become entitled except through his oath, just as none of them becomes entitled except by oath. This differs from the case where the endowment is arranged by generation after generation, for in that case, no one from the second generation shares with them. When the minor whose share was held in trust reaches puberty and swears, it becomes his; and if he refuses, you look: if he was present at the time of the claim or before they swore, his share becomes inheritance, just as if he were an adult and refused to take the oath. If an increase occurs after their oaths and the establishment of the endowment, his share of it also belongs to him; because the endowment was established in the entire house by the oaths of the sons, so it is not invalidated by the refusal of the one who was born later, except that if he acknowledges that it is not an endowment and declares the sons to be liars regarding that, his share of the yield becomes inheritance, with the ruling of the growth of inheritance, whereas if he does not accuse them of lying, his share is an endowment for him. The Qadi said: If he refuses the oath, his share is returned to the three sons, and no distinction is made between who was present at the time of the claim and who was born after it; because it is not permissible for him to be entitled to anything without his oath, nor is it permissible for the endowment established by their oaths to be invalidated, so the return of his share to them is necessary. Our view is that if he was present at the time of the claim and their swearing, he is their partner at the time the endowment is established, so it was not permissible for the endowment to be established for his share without his oath, like the adult. But if he was born after the establishment of the endowment by their oaths, they are acknowledging a property for him, and because they acknowledge...