perform one of the two aforementioned actions. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions analogous to these last two views. If his adversary denies it and says, "Rather, you were imprisoned for a just right other than this," then his word is accepted, because the default assumption is that his imprisonment was for a just cause. The fifth answer is that he says, "I was imprisoned unjustly, and there is no right against me." The judge’s caller then announces what he said, and if a man appears and says, "I am his adversary," and he denies it, and the claimant has evidence, he is compelled to answer according to what has passed. If he does not have evidence, or no adversary appears for him, his word is accepted along with his oath that he has no adversary or that there is no right against him, and his way is cleared.

Section: Then he examines the affairs of the executors (awsiya'), because they act as overseers of the wealth of orphans and the insane, and the distribution of bequests among the poor. The judge addresses them with supervision because the one who is being supervised cannot demand his right, for the minor and the insane have no [valid] speech, and the poor are not specifically identified to be taken from. If the executor comes before him, and the judge before him had executed his executorship, he does not remove him, because the judge would not have executed his executorship unless he knew his competency in the outward appearance. However, he monitors him; if his condition changes due to immorality (fisq) or weakness, he adds a strong, trustworthy person to him to assist him. If the previous [judge] did not execute his executorship, he examines it: if he is trustworthy and strong, he confirms him; if he is trustworthy but weak, he joins someone to him to assist him; and if he is immoral, he dismisses him and appoints another. According to the view of Al-Khiraqi, a trustworthy person is joined to him to supervise him. If he had already acted or distributed the bequest while he was qualified for the executorship, his action is valid. If he was not qualified, and the beneficiaries of the bequest were adult, sane, and identified, the delivery to them is valid, because they have received their rights. If they were not identified, such as the poor and the destitute, there are two views: one is that he is liable for compensation, as mentioned by the Qadi and the companions of Al-Shafi'i, because he had no authority to act. The second is that there is no liability upon him, because he delivered it to its rightful recipients. Likewise, if someone other than the one instructed to distribute the bequest distributes it (67), it is subject to two views.

Section: Then he examines the affairs of the judge's deputies (umana'), who are those to whom the judge has returned the supervision of the affairs of children and the distribution of bequests for which no executor was named. If they are in their [original] state, he confirms them, because the one