Section: If a master says to his slave: "If I am killed, then you are free." Then he dies, and the slave claims that he was killed, while the heirs deny it, the statement is that of the heirs, along with their oaths; because the fundamental principle is the absence of killing. If he produces evidence for his claim, he is emancipated. If the heirs produce evidence of his death, the evidence of the slave is given precedence in one of the two views; because it testifies to an addition, which is the killing. The second view is that they contradict each other; because each of them testifies to the opposite of what the other has testified to, and so he remains in a state of slavery.

If he says: "If I die in Ramadan, my slave Salim is free, and if I die in Shawwal, my slave Ganim is free." Then he dies, and each of them claims that his death occurred [in the month in which he would be emancipated by his death], and the heirs deny them, the statement is that of the heirs, along with their oaths. If they admit the claim for one of them, he is emancipated by their admission. If each of them produces evidence for the cause of his emancipation, there are three views. The first is that the evidence of Salim is given precedence, because it contains additional knowledge, as it established what may have been hidden from the other evidence, which is his death in Ramadan. The second is that they contradict each other, and both slaves remain in a state of slavery; because they are both void, and thus they are like those who have no evidence. The third is that a lottery is drawn between them, and whoever the lottery falls upon is emancipated.

If he says: "If I recover from this illness of mine, Salim is free, and if I die from it, Ganim is free." Then he dies, and each of them claims the cause of his emancipation, a lottery is drawn between them, and whoever the lottery falls upon is emancipated; because he must have either recovered or not recovered, so one of them is emancipated in any case, and since his identity is not known, it is determined by lottery, just as if he had emancipated one of them and it became obscure to us. It is possible that the statement of Ganim is given precedence, because the fundamental principle is the absence of recovery. If each of them produces evidence for the cause of his emancipation, our companions said: They contradict each other, and both slaves remain in a state of slavery. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because each of them declares the other false and establishes an addition that the other negates. This view is not correct; because the effect of contradiction is to invalidate both pieces of evidence, and even if they had not existed at all, one of them would have been emancipated, so the same applies if they are invalidated. This is because he must have been in one of the two states, on each of which he suspended the emancipation of one of them, so its occurrence is inevitable, just as if he had said: "If this bird is a crow, Salim is free, and if it is not a crow, Ganim is free," and its condition is not known. However, two views are possible; one of them is that a lottery is drawn between them, as in the problem of the bird; because when two pieces of evidence contradict each other,