Section: If two people claim an asset, and each of them says: "This asset is mine; I bought it from Zayd for one hundred, and I paid him for it." If there is no evidence for either of them, and Zayd denies both of them, he shall take an oath, and the asset remains his. If he acknowledges it for one of them, he hands it over to him and takes an oath for the other. If he acknowledges half of it for each of them, it is handed over to both, and he takes an oath for each (25) of them regarding his half. If he says, "I do not know to whom among you it belongs," lots are drawn between them, and whichever one the lot falls upon takes an oath and takes it. If the seller takes an oath that it is his, and then acknowledges it for one of them, it is handed over (26) to him; then, if he acknowledges it for the other, he is obligated (27) to pay its value as damages to him. If each of them presents evidence for what he claimed, we examine the matter: if the two pieces of evidence are dated with different dates—such as one of them claiming he bought it in Muharram, and the other claiming he bought it in Safar—and the evidence of each of them testifies to their respective claims, it belongs to the first [buyer], because it was established that he sold it to the first [person], so his ownership ceased. Thus, his sale in Safar is void, due to him selling what he did not own, and he is demanded to return the price. If they are dated with the same date, are absolute (undated), or one is absolute and the other dated, they conflict due to the impossibility of reconciling them. Therefore, we look at the asset: if it is in the possession of one of them, this rests upon the disagreement regarding the evidence of the 'possessor' (al-dakhil) and the 'non-possessor' (al-kharij); whoever prioritizes the evidence of the possessor makes it for the one in whose possession it is, and whoever prioritizes the evidence of the non-possessor makes it for the non-possessor. If it is in the possession of the seller, and we say the two pieces of evidence cancel each other out, we return to the seller; if he denies both, he swears for both, and it is his; if he acknowledges it for one of them, it is handed over to him and he swears for the other; and if he acknowledges it for both, it is between them, and he swears for each of them regarding his half, just as if they had no evidence. If we say the two pieces of evidence do not cancel each other out, no attention is paid to his denial or his admission. This is the view of the Qadi and most of the companions of al-Shafi'i, because it has been established that his ownership has ceased and that his possession has no legal weight, so his statement has no effect. As for the one who says, "Lots are drawn between them," [lots are drawn between them] (28), so whoever the lot falls upon, it is his along with his oath. This is the view of the Qadi, and he did not mention anything.