or a distinct portion, demarcated by a boundary or by its orientation. The slips are then rolled into pellets of equal size, after which the partner who did not prepare them draws one slip for the first parcel. If the slips bear the partners’ names, the parcel is awarded to the person whose name appears; if they bear the designations of the parcels, a slip is drawn beside Zayd’s name, for example, and the parcel named on it becomes his.

If the shares are unequal—as in one half, one third, and one sixth—the land is first divided into a number of plots equal to the least common denominator of the shares, and then allocated as previously described, taking care not to scatter a single partner’s share over separate plots.

2. Division by adjustment (taʿdīl): this applies, for instance, to land whose parts differ in value because of fertility or proximity to water. According to the sounder view, a reluctant partner may be compelled to accept this type of division. If two houses or two shops are exactly equal in value and one partner requests that each be assigned to a different owner, compulsion does not apply. As for slaves or garments, compulsion is exercised when they are of one kind, but not when they are of two different kinds.

3. Division with compensation (radd): for example, when one side contains a well or a tree that cannot itself be divided, so the partner who takes that side reimburses the others their proportionate value. There is no compulsion here, and this procedure is treated as a sale; the same ruling applies to adjustment (taʿdīl) according to the preferred opinion, whereas division by parts is, on the stronger view, merely a separation (ifrāz).

For compensation (radd) the partners’ consent after the drawing of lots is a prerequisite. Even when they voluntarily agree to divide property over which no compulsion exists, the sounder opinion is that their consent must still be renewed after the draw, as in their saying, “We are pleased with this division,” or, “with whatever the lot produces.”

If witness testimony establishes that a mistake or injustice occurred in a compulsory division, the division is annulled. If there is no testimony and one partner alleges such error, he may require his fellow to take an oath. Should the claim be raised with respect to a consensual division, and we hold that such a division constitutes a sale, the sounder view is that the error has no legal effect, so the claim is pointless.

I (the author) say: If, however, we deem it a separation (ifrāz), the division is annulled if the error is proven; otherwise the partner must swear—Allah knows best.

If a portion of the divided property is later proven, in undivided form, to belong to someone else, the division is void with regard to that portion. As for the remainder, there is a dispute: should the rule of “splitting the contract” (tafrīq al-ṣafqa) be applied, or should the deficiency be assigned to one specific share? In either case, if any part of the division remains intact, it stands; if nothing remains, the entire division is void. Allah knows best.