and if they dispute over property other than the ordinary household effects—such as slaves, movable goods, or livestock—the word of the one who actually holds the item is accepted, provided he or she swears to it. If both of them have already taken possession of the property so that it is in the hands of them both, they must each swear an oath and then divide it equally.

Should either of them claim, “I bought it from my partner,” he must produce evidence; if he fails to do so, the other swears and is awarded the property.

When an umm al-walad (a slave-woman who has borne a child to her master) loses her master to death, she must bring proof for any property she claims, as long as it is the sort of thing someone in her position could normally own.

If a master contends that he emancipated his slave on condition of a payment, the slave swears an oath, owes nothing, and is free. The same rule applies when a woman released through khulʿ is later claimed by her husband to have paid compensation: if she denies it, she swears, and the divorce he has admitted remains binding upon him without any payment becoming due from her.

If two brothers, one Muslim and the other Christian, each alleges that their father died following his own religion, while the father’s original faith is unknown, they both swear and the estate is divided equally between them. The same result is reached even when each produces witnesses—for example, one daughter testifies that he remained Muslim until his death and that her brother is Muslim, while another daughter testifies that he remained Christian until his death and that her brother is Christian—for the two sets of testimony cancel one another; the brothers must therefore swear and share the inheritance equally.

Now, if it is already established that the father was Christian and he leaves a Christian son and a Muslim son, and the Muslim son claims that his father died a Muslim while the Christian son claims he died a Christian, the Christian’s statement is accepted with his oath unless the Muslim brings proof. Should each of them present evidence, the evidence of the Muslim prevails, because it affirms something additional that the other evidence does not refute.

Anyone who claims a child whose paternity is plausible and for whom no other lineage is known has the child affiliated to him. But if he claims what is impossible—such as a child said to have been born to him in the land of the Berbers, the land of the Zanj, or the land of the Slavs, places it is known he never visited—his falsehood becomes apparent and the claim is rejected.