while in good health either. Rather, he must treat them equitably and take back the excess, just as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, instructed Bashīr ibn Saʿīd, saying: “Take it back,” so he took it back. He also said: “I will not witness injustice,” and told him, by way of warning: “Have someone else witness this.” The child who has been favored may not take the excess; rather, he must return it during the lifetime of the unjust, oppressive giver. According to the sounder of the two scholarly opinions, he must also return it after the giver’s death, just as he must during his lifetime.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Concerning a woman who bequeathed a sum from one-third of her estate to a little girl under her father’s guardianship. The woman died, and the girl’s father accepted the bequest on her behalf after the woman’s death. He then brought a claim before the judge on the girl’s behalf for what the woman had bequeathed. Evidence established the woman’s death, her having made the stated bequest, and the father’s acceptance of it on his daughter’s behalf. However, the judge withheld judgment awarding the girl what had been established before him by evidence, because she was too young to swear an oath. Should her father swear the oath? Or should the judge postpone judgment until she reaches puberty and then require her to swear? Or is neither course required?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. Her father does not swear the oath, because he is not the person entitled to the bequest. Nor should the judge postpone judgment until she reaches puberty and swears an oath. Rather, he should award it to her, without disagreement among the scholars, unless contrary evidence is established.

Indeed, this extends further: suppose that a minor or a person of unsound mind has an established claim against an absent party, whether for a debt arising from a sale, repayment of a loan, compensation for an injury, or some other claim for which an adult claimant of sound mind would swear that he had neither waived the claim nor received payment, according to one of the two opinions of