they were both from strangers is equal; because it has been established that the deceased emancipated the two slaves. If the two sons challenge the testimony of the strangers and say: "He did not emancipate Ganim; he only emancipated Salim," their statement is not accepted in refuting the testimony of the strangers; because it is upright, affirmative evidence, while the other is negative, and the statement of the affirmative party is given precedence over the statement of the negative party. The ruling for what they testified to is the same as the ruling when the heirs do not challenge their testimony, in that he is emancipated if the date of his emancipation was earlier or the lottery was drawn for him, and he remains in slavery if his date was later or the lottery was drawn for someone else. As for what the two sons testified to, the entirety of him is emancipated due to their admission of his emancipation alone and his entitlement to freedom. This is the opinion of the Qadi. It was also said: Two-thirds of him are emancipated if judgment is made for the emancipation of Salim, and this is a third of the remainder; because the slave whom the two strangers testified for is like something usurped from the estate or something gone from the estate due to death or destruction, so a third of the remainder is emancipated, which is two-thirds of Ganim. The first opinion is more correct; because what is considered is his departure from the third at the time of death, and at the time of death, according to the statement of the two sons, Salim was not emancipated; he only became emancipated by the testimony after death, so that is in the position of his death after the death of his master, and it does not prevent the emancipation of one who departed from the third before his death. If the two sons were corrupt and did not refute the testimony of the strangers, emancipation is established for Salim, and he is not contested by the one for whom the two sons testified, due to their corruption, [because the testimony of a corrupt person is like its absence], so their statement is not accepted in nullifying a right established by upright evidence. The two sons have acknowledged the emancipation of Ganim, so it is examined: if the date of his emancipation was earlier, or if lots were drawn between them and the lot fell to him, all of him is emancipated,