in another place, or if one of them testifies to the usurpation of a white bag, and another testifies to the usurpation of a black bag, and the one in whose favor the testimony is given claims both, he may swear an oath alongside each of them and obtain a judgment in his favor for them, because it is property for which a witness has testified for him. If he does not claim anything but one of them, that which he claimed is established for him, and the other is not established for him because he did not claim it.

Section: As for testimony regarding an acknowledgment (iqrar), such as if one of them testifies that "He acknowledged before me on Thursday in Damascus that he killed him, or slandered him, or usurped such and such from him, or that he owes him such and such," and another testifies that "He acknowledged before me to this on Saturday in Homs," their testimony is completed. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Zufar said: Their testimony is not completed, because each acknowledgment was testified to by only one person, so the testimony is not completed, similar to testimony regarding an act. Our argument is that the thing acknowledged is one, and two people have testified to the acknowledgment of it, so their testimony is completed, just as if the acknowledgment of both were one. It differs from testimony regarding an act, for in that case, the testimony pertains to two different acts. Its equivalent regarding an acknowledgment would be if one of them testified that "He acknowledged before me that he killed him on Thursday," and the other testified that "He acknowledged that he killed him on Friday"; in this case, their testimony is not accepted. What confirms what we have mentioned is that it is not possible to gather the witnesses to hear the testimony regarding every single person, and the custom is to seek the witnesses in their respective locations, not to gather them before the person in whose favor the testimony is given; therefore, he goes to them at different times and in different places to have them testify to his acknowledgment. If the acknowledgment is regarding two different acts, such as if one of them says: "I testify that he acknowledged before me that he killed him on Thursday," and the other says: "I testify that he acknowledged before me that he killed him on Friday," or one of them says: "I testify that he acknowledged before me that he slandered him in Arabic," and the other says: "I testify that he acknowledged before me that he slandered him in a foreign language (a'jamiyya)," the testimony is not completed; because that which one of them testified to is not that which his counterpart testified to, so the testimony is not completed, just as if one of them testified that "He acknowledged that he usurped [dinars from him, and the other testified that he acknowledged that he usurped] dirhams from him," the testimony would not be completed. According to the view of Abu Bakr, the testimony is completed in [the case of] killing and slander; because slander in Arabic or a foreign language, and killing in Basra or Kufa, is not a requirement (muqtada), so it is not considered in the testimony and has no effect. The first [view] is more correct.