As for items other than currency, if they are identifiable by their attributes—such as grains, garments, and animals—he must mention the attributes that are stipulated for a salam (forward sale) contract. If he mentions the value, it is more emphatic, although the attribute is sufficient in this regard just as it is in a contract. If they are jewels or similar items that cannot be identified by attribute, he must mention their value, because they can only be identified by it. If the claimed object is damaged and is of a type that has an equivalent, such as things measured by volume or weight, he claims its equivalent and defines it by its attribute. If it is of a type that has no equivalent, such as plants or animals, he claims its value, because that becomes due upon its destruction. If the damaged item is an object adorned with silver or gold, he assesses its value in a currency other than the type of its ornamentation; and if it is adorned with both gold and silver, he assesses its value in whichever of the two he wishes, because it is a matter of necessity. If the claimed object is real estate, he must specify its location and boundaries; he claims that 'this house, with its boundaries and appurtenances, is mine, and it is in his possession wrongfully, and I demand that he return it to me.' If he claims against him, 'This house is mine, and he prevents me from accessing it,' the claim is valid even if he does not say it is in his possession, for it is permissible for him to dispute and prevent him even if it is not in his possession. If he claims a wound that has a known compensation (arsh), such as a mudihah (a wound exposing the bone) caused by a free person, it is permissible for him to claim the wound without mentioning its compensation, because it is known. If it is from a slave, or from a free person for which there is no set compensation, he must mention its compensation. If he claims a debt against his father, the claim shall not be heard until he claims that his father died and left assets in the possession of his heir, because the heir is not obligated to pay his father's debt unless this is the case. He needs to mention his father's estate, specify it, and state its amount, as he does with the amount of the debt. This is what the Qadi stated. The correct view is that he needs to mention three things: the specification of the debt, the death of his father, and that he received from his father's estate what is sufficient to cover his debt. If he says, 'What is sufficient to cover part of my debt,' he must specify that amount. The statement is that of the defendant, regarding the denial of the father's estate, supported by his oath. If he denies his father's death, his statement is accepted supported by his oath; it is sufficient for him to swear based on the negation of his knowledge, because it concerns the negation of the act of another, and his father may have died without the son knowing. It is sufficient for him to swear that he did not receive from his father's estate what is sufficient to satisfy his right, nor any part of it, and he is not obligated to swear that his father did not leave anything behind; for he may have left an estate that did not reach him, and he is not obligated to pay from it.