as we said regarding the one before it. If the date of his emancipation was later, or the lot was drawn for someone else, nothing of him is emancipated; because if the two sons were upright, nothing would be emancipated from him, so if they are corrupt, it is more appropriate. The Qadi and some of the companions of al-Shafi'i said: Half of him is emancipated in all cases, because he became entitled to emancipation by the admission of the heirs, with the establishment of emancipation for the other by upright evidence, so he becomes, relatively, as if he had emancipated the two slaves, thus half of him is emancipated. This is not correct; for if he had emancipated the two slaves, we would have emancipated one of them by lot, and because in the case of the priority of the emancipation date of the one for whom the evidence testified, nothing of him is emancipated even if his evidence were upright, so with its corruption, it is more appropriate. If the heir refuted the stranger, and said: "He did not emancipate Salim; he only emancipated Ganim," both slaves are emancipated. It was said: Two-thirds of Salim are emancipated. The first opinion is more appropriate.

Section: If two upright, strange witnesses testify that he bequeathed the emancipation of Salim, and two upright, heir witnesses testify that he revoked the bequest of Salim's emancipation and bequeathed the emancipation of Ganim, and their values are equal, or Ganim's value is greater, their testimony is accepted, and the bequest of Salim is nullified; because they do not draw any benefit to themselves, nor do they repel any harm from themselves. If it is said: "They are establishing the wala' (clientage) of Ganim for themselves," we say: They are also negating the wala' of Salim. Moreover, wala' is the establishment of a cause for inheritance, and this does not prevent the acceptance of testimony, evidenced by the case where they testify to the emancipation of Ganim without a competitor; his emancipation is established, and they have his wala'. Even if they testified to the establishment of the lineage of a brother to them, their testimony would be accepted, along with the establishment of the cause of inheritance for them, and the testimony of a person for his brother regarding money is accepted, even if it is possible for him to inherit from him. If the two heirs were corrupt, their testimony regarding the revocation is not accepted, and their admission regarding Ganim is binding upon them, so Salim is emancipated by the upright evidence, and Ganim is emancipated by the admission of the heirs regarding the bequest to emancipate him alone.