The gist of this matter is that if one of the two witnesses testifies to something, and the other testifies to a portion of it, the testimony is valid, what they agreed upon is established, and judgment is rendered based on it. This is the opinion of Shurayh, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Ishaq, and Abu 'Ubayd. It is narrated from al-Sha'bi that two men testified before him, one testified that he divorced her once, and the other testified that he divorced her twice, so he said: "You have differed, depart." It is narrated from Abu Hanifa that if one witness testifies that he acknowledged one thousand, and another testifies that he acknowledged two thousand, the testimony is not valid, because the acknowledgement of one thousand is not the acknowledgement of two thousand, and each acknowledgement was testified to by only one witness. To us, the testimony is complete regarding what they agreed upon, so judgment is rendered based on it, as if neither had added to the other. And what he mentioned regarding each acknowledgement being testified to by only one witness is invalidated by the case where one of them testifies that he acknowledged one thousand in the morning, and the other testifies that he acknowledged one thousand in the evening, for the testimony is complete even though each acknowledgement was testified to by only one witness. As for what one of them testified to exclusively, the claimant may swear along with him and be entitled to it. This is the opinion of those who accept judgment by one witness and an oath. This is in cases where they give absolute testimony, or where the causes and descriptions do not differ. However, if they differ—such as if one witness testifies to one thousand as a loan, and one witness testifies to five hundred as the price of a sold item, or one witness testifies to one thousand white coins, and another to five hundred black ones, or one of them testifies to one thousand dinars, and the other to five hundred dirhams—the evidence is not complete, and he would have the right to swear along with each of them and be entitled to it, or swear along with one of them and be entitled to what he testified to.
Section: If two witnesses testify for him to one thousand, and two witnesses testify to five hundred, and the causes and descriptions do not differ, the five hundred is included within the one thousand, and one thousand is due to him by the two testimonies. If the causes and descriptions differ, both the one thousand and the five hundred are due to him, and neither of them is included in
(1) In B and M, there is an addition: "acknowledgement". (2) In A and M: "testifies". (3) In B and M: "and he testifies". (4) In A and M: "witness". (5) In M: "and he swears". (6) In M: "one hundred" (an error). Nothing is mentioned in the original, A, or B. Perhaps the correct reading is what we have established. (7) In A: "or the descriptions".
وجملةُ ذلك أَنَّه إذا شَهِدَ أحدُ الشَّاهديْنِ بشىءٍ، وشهِدَ الآخَرُ ببَعْضِه، صحَّتِ الشَّهادةُ، وثَبَتَ ما اتَّفقا عليه، وحُكِمَ به. وهذا قولُ شُرَيْحٍ، ومالكٍ، والشَّافعىِّ، وابنِ أبى ليلى، وأبى يوسفَ، ومحمدٍ، وإسحاقَ، وأبى عُبَيْدٍ. وحُكِىَ عن الشَّعْبِىِّ، أنَّه شهِدَ عندَه رجلان، شَهِدَ أحدُهما أنَّه طلَّقَها تطليقةً، وشهِدَ الآخرُ أنَّه طلَّقَها تَطليقَتَيْن، فقال: قد اخْتلَفْتما، قُوما. وحُكِىَ عن أبى حنيفةَ، أنَّه إذا شَهِدَ شاهِدٌ أنَّه أقرَّ بألفٍ، وشَهِدَ آخَرُ أنَّه أقَرَّ بألْفَيْنِ، لم تَصِحَّ الشَّهادةُ؛ لأنَّ الإِقْرارَ بالأَلْفِ غيرُ الإِقْرارِ بالألْفَيْنِ، ولم يَشْهَدْ بكُلِّ إِقْرارٍ (١) إِلَّا واحدٌ. ولَنا، أَنَّ الشَّهادةَ قد كَمَلَتْ فيما اتَّفَقَا عليه، فحُكِمَ به، كما لم يَزِدْ أحدُهما على صاحبِه. وما ذكَرَه من أَنَّ كلَّ إقْرارٍ إنَّما شَهِدَ (٢) به واحدٌ، يبْطَلُ بما إذا شَهِدَ أحدُهما أنَّه أقرَّ بألْفٍ غُدْوةً، وشهِدَ الآخَرُ أَنَّه أقَرَّ بألْفٍ عَشِيًّا، فإِنَّ الشَّهادةَ تكْمُلُ، مع أَنَّ كلَّ إقْرارٍ إنَّما شَهِدَ (٢) به واحدٌ. فأمَّا ما انْفَردَ به أحدُهما، فإِنَّ للمُدَّعِى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ معه، ويَسْتَحِقَّ. وهذا قولُ مَن يَرَى الحُكْمَ بِشاهِدٍ ويَمِينٍ. وهذا فيما إذا أطْلَقا الشَّهادةَ، أو لم تَخْتلِفِ الأسْبابُ والصِّفاتُ. فأمَّا إن اخْتلَفتْ، مثل أن يشْهَدَ شاهدٌ بألفٍ من قَرْضٍ، وشَاهِدٌ بخَمْسِمائةٍ مِن ثَمَن مَبِيعٍ، أو يَشْهَدَ (٣) شاهدٌ بألْفٍ بِيضٍ، وآخرُ بخَمْسِمائةٍ سُودٍ، أو يَشْهدَ أحدُهما (٤) بألفِ دينارٍ، والآخَرُ بخَمْسِمائةِ دِرهمٍ، لم تَكْمُلِ البَيِّنَةُ، وكان له أن يَحْلِفَ مع كلِّ واحدٍ منهما ويسْتحِقَّها، أو يحْلِفَ (٥) مع أحدِهما ويَسْتحِقَّ ما شهِدَ به.
فصل: فإن شهِدَ له شاهدان بألْفٍ، وشاهِدَان بخَمْسِمائةٍ، ولم تخْتَلِفِ الأسْبابُ والصِّفاتُ، دخَلَتِ الخمسُمائة فى الألْفِ، ووجَب له بالشَّهادَتيْنِ [ألفٌ] (٦). وإن اخْتَلَفَتِ الأسْبابُ والصِّفاتُ (٧)، وجَبَ له الألفُ والخَمْسُمائة، ولم يَدْخُلْ أحدُهما فى
(١) فى ب، م زيادة: "إقرار".(٢) فى أ، م: "يشهد".(٣) فى ب، م: "ويشهد".(٤) فى أ، م: "شاهد".(٥) فى م: "ويحلف".(٦) فى م: "مائة" خطأ. ولم يرد شىء فى: الأصل، أ، ب. ولعل الصواب ما أثبتناه.(٧) فى أ: "أو الصفات".
