Each of them is an insider regarding half of the object and an outsider regarding the other half. Therefore, the evidence of each of them is given precedence concerning what is in his hand, according to those who give precedence to the evidence of the insider, and concerning what is in his companion's hand, according to those who give precedence to the evidence of the outsider. Thus, they are equal in both views. Abu al-Khattab mentioned another narration regarding this: that lots are drawn between them. Whoever the lot falls to, he swears that it is his and that the other has no right to it, and the object becomes his, just as if it were in the hand of someone else. The first opinion is more correct due to the report and the logic. There is a difference of opinion in the narration: Does each of them swear to the half judged in his favor, or does he receive it without an oath? It is narrated that he swears, and this is what al-Khiraqi mentioned; because when the two pieces of evidence do not conflict without one being stronger, it is mandatory to discard them, like two reports when they conflict and are equal. When they are discarded, the two disputants become like those who have no evidence, and each of them swears to the half judged in his favor. This is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, based on the fact that an oath is mandatory upon the insider along with his evidence, and each of them is an insider in half of it, so it is judged in his favor by his evidence, and he swears along with it, according to one of the two views. The other narration is that the object is divided between them without an oath. This is the opinion of Malik, Abu Hanifa, and one of the two views of al-Shafi'i. It is more correct, due to the report and the logic we mentioned. It is not correct to analogize these two pieces of evidence to two equal reports; because each piece of evidence is stronger regarding half of the object, according to both views. We have already mentioned that stronger evidence is judged without the need for an oath. As for if one of the two pieces of evidence testified that the object belongs to this one, and the other testified that it belongs to this other one, having been born into his ownership, we have already mentioned two narrations regarding preferring one with this [fact]; one of them is that it is not preferred by it. This is the choice of al-Khiraqi;