Which principle is stronger when there is a conflict: "The event is attributed to its nearest time" or "The default is the absolution of liability"?

If the rule "The default is to attribute a new occurrence to its nearest time" contradicts the rule "The default is the presumption of innocence" or "The default is that what was, remains as it was," then the latter rule is given precedence because it is stronger.

This is evident in issues such as the claim of a hired custodian. If the hired person and the hirer dispute the time of the destruction of an item, the statement of the hirer, supported by his oath, is accepted. This is because his liability is originally clear (presumed innocent), and this established fact cannot be overturned by attributing the occurrence to its nearest time.

As for the apostasy of a child, jurists differ on this matter. Some do not consider it, while others do. However, an apostate child is not killed until after reaching puberty if he persists in his apostasy.

In cases of doubt as to whether a person's apostasy occurred before or after puberty, the rule of "presumption of innocence" is given precedence, and he is judged to be a Muslim, and the occurrence is not attributed to its nearest time.