his oath. If they both produce evidence, and we say: the evidence of the outsider is given precedence, then each of them has what is in the possession of the other. If we say: the evidence of the insider is given precedence, then each of them has what is in his own possession without an oath.

Section: If each of them is in possession of a sheep, and each of them claims that the sheep in his companion’s possession is his, and neither of them has evidence, each of them shall take an oath for his companion, and the sheep in his own possession shall be his. If they both produce evidence, then each of them has the sheep that was in his companion’s possession, and there is no conflict between them. If each of them says: "This sheep in your possession is mine, from the offspring of this sheep of mine," then the conflict is in the offspring, not in the ownership. If each of them claims that both sheep are mine rather than my companion’s, and they both produce evidence, they conflict, and that is based on the opinion regarding the evidence of the insider and the outsider; so whoever gives precedence to the evidence of the outsider makes what is in the other’s possession belong to each, and whoever gives precedence to the evidence of the insider, or gives it precedence if it testifies to the offspring, makes what is in his possession belong to each.

Section: If Zayd claims a sheep in the possession of ‘Amr, and produces evidence for it, and a judge rules in his favor regarding it, then ‘Amr claims it from Zayd and produces evidence for it; if we say: the evidence of the outsider is given precedence, ‘Amr’s evidence shall not be heard, because Zayd’s evidence is given precedence over it. If we say: the evidence of the insider is given precedence, we look at how the judgment occurred; if he ruled in favor of Zayd because ‘Amr had no evidence, it is returned to ‘Amr, because he has produced evidence and the possession was his. If he ruled in favor of Zayd because he holds the opinion of giving precedence to the evidence of the outsider, his judgment shall not be overturned, because he ruled based on what is permissible to exercise ijtihad (legal reasoning) in. If ‘Amr’s evidence had also testified for him, but the judge rejected it due to his fisq (immorality), and then he was declared adl (just), the judgment shall not be overturned either; because when a fasiq’s (immoral person’s) testimony is rejected due to his immorality, and then he brings it back later, it is not accepted. If the judge did not know how it was, it shall not be overturned, because it is the judgment of a judge, and the foundation is its consistency with justice, fairness, and correctness, so it shall not be overturned based on mere possibility.