all of them. Neither the judge nor his assistant should say to either of them: 'Speak.' Because in singling one of them out for this is a form of favoritism and a departure from equity. Amr ibn Qays said: I witnessed Shurayh when the two litigants would sit before him, and a man stood over him saying: 'Which of you is the plaintiff? Let him speak.' If the other went to create a disturbance, he would nudge him until the plaintiff finished, then he would say: 'Speak.' If one of them started and made a claim, and his opponent said: 'I am the plaintiff,' the judge shall not pay attention to him and shall say: 'Answer his claim, then make whatever claim you wish afterward.' If they both make a claim at the same time, the analogy of the school of thought is that lots should be drawn between them. This is the analogy of the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because one of them is no more entitled than the other, and it is impossible to combine them, so lots are drawn between them, like two women if they are wedded on the same night. Ibn al-Mundhir deemed it better to hear from them both together. It has been said: Their matter is postponed until it becomes clear who the plaintiff is among them. What we have mentioned is better; because it is not possible to combine the ruling on both cases together, and postponing their matter is a harm to them, and in everything we have mentioned there is a prevention of harm as much as possible, and it has an equivalent in several places of the Shari'a, so it is more appropriate.

Section: The judge shall not hear a claim unless it is clearly defined, except in the case of a bequest and acknowledgement; because the judge asks the defendant regarding what is claimed against him, and if he confesses to it, it becomes binding upon him, and it is not possible for it to be binding upon him while it is unknown. This differs from acknowledgement, for the right is upon him, so it does not lapse by his omission to prove it. A claim is valid in a bequest even if unknown, because a bequest is valid even if unknown; for if he bequeathed him something or a share, it is valid, so it is not possible for him to claim it except as unknown, as established. Likewise with acknowledgement, when it is valid to acknowledge an unknown thing, it is valid for his opponent to claim against him that he acknowledged an unknown thing for him. When this is established, if the claimed object is currency, then three things must be mentioned: the genus, the type, and the amount. He should say: 'Ten Egyptian dinars.' If they differ in terms of being intact or broken, he says: 'Intact' or he says: 'Broken.' If the claim is for something other than