concerning his 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.

Section: If one of the two sons embraces Islam at the beginning of Sha'ban, and the other at the beginning of Ramadan, and they disagree regarding the death of their father, and the first of them says: "He died in Sha'ban, so I inherited from him alone," while the other says: "He died in Ramadan," then the inheritance is between them, because the default assumption is the continuation of his life until it is known that it has ceased. If each of them brings evidence for his claim, there are two opinions; the first is that they contradict one another. The second is that the evidence of his death in Sha'ban is given precedence, because it contains additional knowledge; for it specifies his death in Sha'ban, and it is possible that this was hidden from the other witnesses.

Section: If they differ regarding a house, and one of them claims: "This house is mine, I inherited it from my father," and the other claims that it is his house, which he inherited from his father, and neither of them is the brother of the other, and it was in the possession of one of them, then it belongs to the one in whose possession it is, whether he is a Muslim or an unbeliever. If it was in the possession of both of them, it is between them. If each of them has evidence, and it is in their joint possession, the evidences contradict each other, and the ruling regarding it is according to what we have previously established in similar cases.

1941 - Issue: He said: (If a woman and her son die, and her husband says: "She died before her son, so we inherited from her, then my son died, and I inherited from him." And her brother says: "Her son died, so she inherited from him, then she died, and I inherited from her." Each of them shall take an oath to invalidate the claim of the other, the inheritance of the son shall go to his father, and the inheritance of the woman shall be divided in halves between her brother and her husband.)

In summary, if a group of people die, each of whom would inherit from the other, and the living heirs differ as to who died first, such as a woman and her son who die, and the husband says: "The woman died first, so her entire inheritance went to me and my son, then my son died, so his inheritance went to me," and her brother says: "Her son died first, so she inherited one-third of his wealth, then she died, so her inheritance was divided between me and you in halves," each of them shall take an oath to invalidate the claim of his companion. We assign the inheritance of each of them to their respective living heirs, excluding those who died with them; because the cause of the living person's entitlement from the deceased is present, and it is only prevented by the remaining of the other deceased person after them, and this is a matter that is in doubt. Therefore, we do not depart from certainty due to doubt. Thus, the inheritance of the son belongs to his father, with no one sharing it with him, and the inheritance of the woman is divided in halves between her brother and her husband. This is the school of thought of Al-Shafi'i. If it is said: "You have given the husband the half, yet he only claims the quarter," we say: "Rather, he is a claimant for all of it; a quarter of it by his inheritance from her, and three-quarters by his inheritance from his son." Abu Bakr said: "The filiation is established with certainty, so the father's inheritance from him is not to be severed except by evidence presented by the brother." This is a reasoning for the statement of Al-Khiraqi in this issue. He mentioned another opinion: that it is possible that the inheritance is between them in halves. He said: "This is my choice, that if any two men claim something regarding which it is impossible for both to be truthful, it is between them in halves." It is not known what he intended by this. If he intended that the woman's wealth is between them in halves, then that is the statement of Al-Khiraqi, and it is not a different opinion. If he intended that her wealth and the son's wealth are between them in halves, it is not valid; because it leads to giving the brother wealth he does not claim and is not entitled to by certainty; because he does not claim more than one-sixth of the son's wealth, and it is not possible for him to be entitled to more than that. If he intended that one-third of the son's wealth is added to the woman's wealth, and they divide it in halves, it is not valid; because half of that belongs to the husband by their agreement, and the brother does not dispute him regarding it, and the dispute is only between them regarding the other half. It is possible that this is what he intended, just as if two men disputed over a house in their possession, and one of them claimed it all, and the other claimed half of it, then it is divided between them in halves, and the oath is upon the claimant of the half, except that the difference between this issue and that is that the house is in their possession, so each of them has half of it in his possession, so the claimant of the half claims it while it is in his possession, so his statement is accepted regarding it along with his oath, whereas in our issue...