the bequest to 'Amr, and bequeathed one-third of his wealth to Bakr, all the testimonies are valid, and the bequest is to Bakr, whether the two pieces of evidence are from the heirs or not, for there is no accusation regarding them. If the testimony of the third piece of evidence is that he revoked one of the two bequests, this testimony is of no benefit; because it has already been established by the second piece of evidence that he revoked the bequest of Zayd, which is one of the two bequests. Based on this, the bequest to 'Amr is established. If the second piece of evidence testified to the bequest to 'Amr, but did not testify to the revocation of Zayd's bequest, and the third testified to his revocation of one of the two bequests without specifying which, the Qadi said: The testimony is not valid. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because they did not specify the one testified against, and it becomes as if they said: We testify that this person owes one of these two one thousand. Or that one of these two is owed one thousand by this person. The third of the estate is then divided among all of them in thirds. Abu Bakr said: The analogy of the position of Abu 'Abd Allah is that the revocation of one of the two bequests is valid, and lots are drawn between them; so the one for whom the lot of revocation is drawn, his bequest becomes void. This is the opinion of Ibn Abi Musa. If the revocation of one of them is valid without specification, the testimony regarding it is valid as such. The reasoning for this is that a bequest is valid even with ambiguity, and testimony regarding it is valid with ambiguity; therefore, it is permitted in the case of revocation without specifying the person whose bequest is revoked.

Section: If two witnesses testify that he bequeathed one-third of his wealth to Zayd, and one witness testifies that he bequeathed one-third of his wealth to 'Amr, this is built upon whether a single witness and an oath can oppose two witnesses or not. There are two positions regarding this; one of them is that it does oppose them, so 'Amr takes an oath along with his witness, and the third is divided between them; because a witness and an oath constitute legal proof in financial matters, thus they resemble two witnesses. The second position is that it does not oppose them; because two witnesses are stronger, so they prevail over a witness and an oath. Based on this, Zayd alone takes the third, and the bequest of 'Amr is contingent upon the approval of the heirs. As for if one witness testifies that he revoked the bequest to Zayd and bequeathed one-third to 'Amr, there is no contradiction between them, and 'Amr takes an oath along with his witness, and the bequest to 'Amr is established. The difference between the two issues is that in the first, two sets of evidence faced one another, so we prioritized the stronger of the two, while in the second, they did not face one another,