half of it, until the judge inquires and investigates the places he used to frequent, and orders a caller to proclaim: "Such-and-such a person has died, so if he has an heir, let him come forward." Once it becomes his predominant opinion that if there were an heir he would have appeared, he hands over the share to the person present. Is he to demand a guarantor from him? There are two potential perspectives. The same ruling applies if the two witnesses are people of inner expertise, but they did not state: "We know of no other heir for him." If there is an inheritor with a fixed share (dhu fard) along with the son, then according to the apparent view of the school (al-madhhab), he is given his full fixed share. Based on this deduction, one is given the certain amount. If he had a wife, she is given a quarter of an eighth (due to the possibility that he could have had four wives). If he had a grandmother and it was not established that his mother had died, she is given nothing; but if her death is established, she is given a third of a sixth (due to the possibility that he could have had three grandmothers), and the residuary heir (al-'asaba) is given nothing. If the heir was a brother, he is given nothing, due to the possibility that the deceased had another heir who would block him. If there was a mother with him, she is given a sixth as an 'a'il (increased share) case, the woman a quarter of an eighth as an 'a'il case, and the husband a quarter as an 'a'il case; because this is the certain amount. The inheritance issue may indeed 'increase' (ta'ul) with the presence of a husband, such as if he leaves behind parents, two sons, and a husband. When the judge investigates, he gives the husband his share and completes the fixed shares for those entitled to them.

Section: If there is a dispute over a house in the possession of one of the two parties, and the claimant provides evidence that this house was his property yesterday, or a month ago, is this evidence heard and is a judgment passed based on it? There are two perspectives: one is that it is heard and judged upon, because it establishes property in the past, and once established, its continuity is maintained until its cessation is known. The second is that it is not heard. The Qadi said: This is the correct view, because a claim is not heard as long as the claimant does not claim property in the present, so evidence is not heard for what he did not claim. However, if there is added to their testimony an explanation of the cause of the second party's possession and an identification of his aggression, so they say: "We testify that it was his property yesterday, then this person usurped it from him, or stole it, or it strayed from him and this person found it," or the like, then it is heard and judged upon. This is because if the cause is not explained, possession is evidence of property, and there is no contradiction between what the evidence testified to and the indication of possession, as it is possible that it was his property yesterday and then transferred to the possessor. Once it is established that the cause of possession is aggression, it ceases to be evidence, and therefore judgment must be passed based on the continuity of property.