If only a single witness supports the claimant in seeking the property of the deceased, and no other person entitled to that property comes forward, the claimant swears together with his witness and thereby receives the estate—without the claimed blood relationship being legally affirmed.
Everything to which the deceased had acquired a right before his death, whether by inheritance or by any other means, passes to this claimant on the strength of his oath. The same applies to any benefit or increase that accrues to the estate after death, provided it stems from something the deceased already owned in his lifetime; all of it devolves to the claimant by that same oath. He need not summon the witness to testify again.
If the deceased actually left a brother or some other acknowledged heir and the claimant denies that heir’s right, nothing is adjudged against the heir on the basis of the mere allegation, nor may the claimant oblige him to take an oath.
Whoever has an item in his possession is not regarded as the claimant with respect to it; he is the defendant. Thus, if someone possesses a thing and another claims it, the object is not removed from the possessor—whether to a neutral party or anyone else—merely because of the claim, until the claimant produces admissible proof, whereupon the judge rules in his favor. If he lacks proof, the defendant must swear an oath, and his statement is accepted with that oath. Should the defendant refuse to swear, the claimant then swears and takes the property; but if the claimant also refuses, the object remains with its current holder.
If the claimant does present evidence, judgment is rendered according to the more reliable of the two sets of proof. If the two bodies of evidence are equal in probity, they cancel each other out and the property stays with the person in possession, whose claim is stronger when coupled with his oath. In this matter, the jurists of Medina do not rule in favor of the claimant who is outside possession on the basis of his evidence alone.
When the property is jointly held by both parties, or is in the custody of a third person, and their proofs are of equal force, it is divided between them after they each swear an oath. If one of them swears while the other refuses, judgment is given to the one who swears and not to the one who refuses. The same rule applies when neither party has evidence: if the property is in their joint possession, or in the hands of someone closely connected to them, it is divided between them on the basis of their respective claims and oaths. Should one party refuse to swear, he receives nothing; and if both refuse, no judgment is issued between them and they are left as they were.