The first is that the evidence must be available. If the witnesses have died, then the debtor may know that so-and-so and so-and-so would testify that he owes such-and-such to so-and-so; yet if the two men have died, the presence or absence of this evidence is the same, because the rightful claimant will lose his right if the evidence is unavailable.

The second is that it must be known. If it is not known, it is of no benefit. By “known” is meant that it is in a particular place and can readily be summoned. But if it is unknown—for example, a man had so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and so-and-so, son of so-and-so, bear witness to his debt during the Hajj season, and the two witnesses were pilgrims—then this evidence is unknown. Even if it were assumed to be known, it would be impossible to produce if they were, for instance, in the far West or the far East.

The third is that it must be reliable. If the evidence is unreliable, such that the testator knows that, were these two men to testify before a judge, their testimony would be rejected, then it is of no benefit. This applies whether their testimony would be rejected because of their immorality, because of a kinship relationship between them and the one entitled to the right, or for some other reason.

It has thus been established that the five legal rulings apply to bequests.

His statement: “If one-third is insufficient to cover the bequests, the reduction is apportioned proportionately.” It has already been mentioned that, with regard to gifts, the first is given precedence over the next, whereas bequests place the earlier and later recipients on an equal footing. Thus, if he bequeaths to a group and the bequests exceed one-third, the reduction is apportioned proportionately. For instance, if he bequeaths one thousand to one person, two thousand to another, and three thousand to a third, while his estate amounts to nine thousand, then the total bequests are six thousand, which exceeds one-third. Should we begin with the first and then the next, or take from the larger bequest, or what?

The author says: “The reduction is apportioned proportionately.” The manner of doing so is to compare one-third to the total amount of the bequests. Whatever that proportion is, each person receives the same proportion of his bequest.

Thus, in our example, the total bequests are