the testimony is not completed. Ibn Hamid mentioned this, and Abu Bakr said: It is completed. The first is more correct because each act was testified to by only one person, as we previously stated. If they differ in the description of the thing testified to in a way that necessitates their divergence, such as one testifying to a garment and the other to a dinar, there is no disagreement that the testimony is not completed; because it is not possible to affirm both, as it would be affirming a right against him by the testimony of one person, nor can one of them specifically be affirmed because the other did not testify to it, and neither is more deserving than the other.

As for if two witnesses testify to each act, and they differ regarding the time, place, or quality, both are established because each of them has been testified to by a just set of witnesses, which would have established the right if it had stood alone, and the other testimony does not contradict it because it is possible to combine them, unless the act is one that cannot be repeated, such as the killing of a specific man; in that case, the two sets of evidence contradict each other, as we know that one of them is false, but we do not know which one it is. This is contrary to that which can be repeated and where it is possible for both sets of evidence to be true, for they are both established if he claims both. If he only claims one of them, the one he claimed is established for him, but not the one he did not claim. If two testify that he stole a black bag at midday, and two others testify that he stole a white bag at midday, or two testify that he stole this bag in the morning, and two others testify that he stole it in the evening, the Qadi said: They contradict each other. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, just as if the matter testified to were a killing. The correct view is that there is no contradiction in this, because it is possible for both sets of evidence to be true, by him stealing two bags, a white one and a black one, at midday; thus each set of evidence testifies to one of them. It is also possible that he stole a bag in the morning and then returned to its owner or another, and stole it in the evening. With the possibility of combining them, there is no contradiction. Therefore, if the one in whose favor the testimony is given claims both, both are established for him in the first scenario. As for the second scenario, only the bag testified to is established for him, for even if the things testified to were two acts, they are in one place, so no more than its compensation is due. If the one in whose favor the testimony is given claims only one of the two bags, it is established for him, and the other is not, because he did not claim it. If a witness testified for him regarding the theft of a bag on one day, and another testified regarding the theft of a bag on another day, or one of them testified regarding a place, and another testified