between us at this moment; and, in a claim of divorce, he swears by Allah, “She is not irrevocably divorced from me right now on account of what you have alleged,” and he is not sworn, “I did divorce her.”

If a house is in the possession of one man and two claimants appear—one asserting ownership of the whole house and the other of half of it—and both produce evidence, then, according to Abū Ḥanīfah, the claimant of the whole is awarded three-quarters and the claimant of half is awarded one-quarter. Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad maintain that the property is divided into thirds between them. If, however, the house is already in the joint possession of the two claimants, it is handed over to the one claiming the whole: half of it by formal judicial ruling and the other half without such a ruling.

When two people dispute over a riding beast and each produces testimony that it was born in his ownership, specifying a date, and the animal’s age matches one of the two dates, that claimant has the stronger claim. If the matter remains uncertain, the animal is divided between them.

If they quarrel over a riding animal while one of them is mounted on it and the other is holding its bridle, the rider has priority. Likewise, if they dispute over a camel bearing a load, the one to whom the load belongs is preferred. Similarly, if they dispute over a shirt, one wearing it while the other is grasping its sleeve, precedence goes to the wearer.

When the buyer and seller differ about the sale—one of them alleging a certain price while the seller claims a higher price, or the seller admitting only a portion of the commodity while the buyer claims more—and one party produces evidence, judgment is given in favor of the one who has proof. If both produce evidence, the evidence that establishes the greater amount takes precedence. If neither has evidence, the buyer is told, “Either accept the price the seller claims, or we will annul the sale,” and the seller is told, “Either deliver the amount the buyer claims, or we will annul the sale.” If they cannot agree, the judge administers an oath to each concerning the other’s claim, beginning with the buyer. Should both swear, the judge annuls the sale between them; but if one refuses to swear, the other’s claim becomes binding upon him.

If they disagree over a deferred term, an option clause, or whether part of the price has been received, no mutual oaths are taken; the statement of the one who denies the term or the option is accepted, provided he swears to it.

If the sold item has perished and they then differ, Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf hold that no oaths are exchanged and the buyer’s statement prevails; Muḥammad says they must swear mutual oaths, and the sale is rescinded on the basis of the value of the item that was destroyed.

If two slaves were sold and one of them dies, and the parties then dispute over the price, Abū Ḥanīfah says that no mutual oaths are taken—unless the seller is willing to forgo the share that pertained to the dead slave—whereas Abū Yūsuf … (continues).