unbelief; because the evidence of Islam is permitted to be based on what he was originally.

Section: If he leaves behind a Muslim son and an unbelieving brother, and they disagree regarding his religion at the time of his death, the ruling regarding them is like the one preceding it. This is the case for all other relatives, unless he leaves behind parents and two sons, or other relatives, and they differ regarding his religion. Indeed, the fact that the parents are unbelievers is equivalent to knowing his original religion, because a child before reaching puberty is judged to be of the religion of his parents; thus, it is established that he was an unbeliever. If the two sons claim he was a Muslim, the statement to be accepted is that of the parents. If they were both Muslims, their statement is to be accepted regarding his Islam, because his unbelief would be based on the premise that he was a Muslim and then apostatized, or that his parents were unbelievers who embraced Islam after he reached puberty, and the default assumption is the contrary.

Section: If a Muslim dies and leaves a wife and heirs other than her, and the wife was an unbeliever and then embraced Islam, and she claims that she embraced Islam before his death while the heirs deny it, the statement to be accepted is that of the heirs; because the default assumption is the absence of that. If it is not established that she was an unbeliever, and the heirs claim against her that she was an unbeliever while she denies it, the statement to be accepted is hers; because the default assumption is the absence of what they have claimed against her. If they claim that he divorced her before his death, and she denies it, the statement to be accepted is hers. If she acknowledges the divorce and the completion of the waiting period, but claims that he took her back in marriage, the statement to be accepted is theirs. If they differ regarding the completion of her waiting period, the statement to be accepted is hers, that it has not ended; because the default assumption is its continuation. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this entire matter. Al-Shafi'i, the scholars of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and Abu Thawr have said the same. If he leaves behind two Muslim sons, and they agree that one of them was a Muslim when his father died, but the other claims that he embraced Islam during his father's lifetime, and his brother denies it, the inheritance belongs to the one who is agreed upon; because the default assumption is the continuation of unbelief until it is known that it has ceased. The burden of the oath lies with his brother, and it is an oath denying knowledge; because it is an oath denying the action of his brother, unless it was established that he was a Muslim before the distribution [of the estate], for whoever embraces Islam before an inheritance is distributed, it is distributed to him. If one of them was a freeman and the other a slave, then he was emancipated, and they differed regarding his state of freedom at the time of death, the statement to be accepted is that of the one who denies it. If it is not established that he was a slave or an unbeliever, and it was claimed against him that he was, and he denied it, the statement to be accepted is his, and the inheritance is between them; because the default assumption is freedom and Islam, and the absence of anything other than them.