or [a property] that is preserved and whose destruction is not feared, the share of the absent party is not to be removed from the hands of the defendant. This is because the absent party did not claim it, nor did his agent, so it should not be removed from the hands of the one who currently possesses it, just as if one of two partners claimed a house shared between him and an outsider; his share would be handed over to the claimant, while the absent partner's share would not be removed. The case is similar here. Our view is that it is the estate of a deceased person that has been established by evidence, so it is necessary to remove the share of the absent party, just as with movable property, and as if his brother were a minor or mentally incapacitated. Furthermore, what [the opponent] says entails harm, because it may be difficult for the absent party to present evidence, the two witnesses might die or be absent, their reliability might vanish, or the judge might be dismissed, causing his right to be lost. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve it by removing it, just as is done with movable property. The partner differs from the outsider in both general and specific terms. As for the general, the movable property share of one’s partner in inheritance is removed, while the share of an outsider partner is not. As for the specific, the evidence has established the right for the deceased, evidenced by the fact that his debts are settled and his bequests are executed from it, and because the brother shares with him in what he has taken if he finds it difficult to take the remainder. As for whether it is a debt in a person's liability, does the judge take possession of the absent party's share? There are two perspectives: one is that he takes possession of it, just as he takes possession of tangible assets (al-'ayn). The second is that he does not, because when it remains in the liability of the one upon whom it is due, it is more secure than being a trust in the hands of a trustee, as there is no guarantee against its loss if he takes possession of it. The first is more appropriate, because in the liability it is also exposed to loss through insolvency, death, the dismissal of the judge, and the inability to provide evidence. Once this is established, if we hand over half of the house or the debt to the person present, we do not require him to provide a guarantor, because we handed it over based on the testimony of the witnesses, and demanding a guarantor is a disparagement of them. Our scholars said: It is the same whether the two witnesses are people of inner expertise or not. It is possible that their testimony regarding the absence of another heir is not accepted unless they are people of inner expertise and long-standing acquaintance; because for one who is not a person of expertise, his ignorance of an heir is not evidence of the heir's non-existence, and it is not sufficient. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. According to this, the house is considered suspended, and half of it is not handed over to the person present...