and the like—if they request the judge to divide it between them, he shall grant their request, even if their ownership is not established before him. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad held this view. Abu Hanifa said: If it is real estate that they attribute to an inheritance, he shall not divide it until the death and the heirs are established; because the inheritance remains under the legal status of the deceased's ownership, so he does not divide it, out of precaution for the deceased. [As for other than real estate, he shall divide it], even if it is an inheritance, because it perishes and decays, and its division preserves it; and the same applies to real estate that is not attributed to an inheritance. The apparent view of al-Shafi'i is that it is not divided, whether it is real estate or otherwise, as long as their ownership is not established; because dividing it based on their statement—if it were later brought to another judge—would make it easy for him to treat it as a binding ruling for them, while it might belong to others. Our view is that possession indicates ownership, and there is no one contesting them, so it is established for them by way of appearance (zahir). For this reason, it is permissible for them to dispose of it, and it is permissible to purchase it from them, receive it as a gift, and rent it. What al-Shafi'i mentioned is averted if one states in the case record: "I divided it between them based on their acknowledgement, not based on evidence that testified for them regarding their ownership," and everyone with an argument bears the burden of their own argument. What Abu Hanifa mentioned is not valid, because the appearance (al-zahir) is that it is their property, and the deceased has no right to it, unless a debt against it appears, and none has appeared, and the original principle (al-asl) is its absence. For this reason, we deemed it sufficient in cases other than real estate, and in that which they did not attribute to an inheritance.

Section: The division of measurable and weighable items is permissible, both food items and otherwise; because the permissibility of dividing land despite its differences indicates the permissibility of dividing items that do not differ, by way of analogy (tanbih). This applies equally to grains, fruits, lime, potash, iron, lead, and similar [types of] solids, as well as juices, vinegar, milk, honey, ghee, grape molasses, oil,