his original religion is unknown, then they are contradictory. If his original religion is known, we look at the wording of the testimony. If each of them testifies that his last words were the pronouncement of what they testified to, they are contradictory. If one of them testifies that he died in the religion of Islam, and the other testifies that he died in the religion of unbelief, the evidence of the one claiming his transition from his religion is given priority; because the one maintaining his original religion had their testimony established based on the origin that they know, as when they know his original religion and do not know of his transition from it, it is permissible for them to testify that he died in the religion they knew. The other evidence contains knowledge that the first did not possess, so it is prioritized, just as if they testified that this slave was the property of so-and-so until he died, and two others testified that he emancipated him or sold him before his death, the evidence of emancipation and sale is prioritized. As for if two witnesses say: We know he [before his death had] been a Muslim, and two witnesses say: We know he was a unbeliever, we look at their dating. If they are dated with two different dates, the latter of the two is acted upon, because it is established that he transitioned from what the first testified to, to what the latter testified to. If they are unrestricted, or one of them is unrestricted, the evidence of the Muslim is prioritized, because the Muslim is not acknowledged as being in a state of unbelief in the Abode of Islam, whereas the unbeliever might embrace Islam and is acknowledged. If they are dated with the same date, you look at their testimony; if it is based on the wording, they are contradictory. If it is not based on the wording and his original religion is not known, they are contradictory. If his original religion is known, the one testifying to his transition from his original religion is prioritized. In every situation where the two pieces of evidence contradict each other, al-Khiraqi said: Both pieces of evidence are discarded, and they are as those who have no evidence. We have already mentioned two other narrations; one of them is that lots are drawn between them, so whoever wins the lot takes an oath and takes the inheritance. The second is that it is divided between them. Al-Shafi'i said something similar to this. Abu Hanifa said: The evidence of Islam is prioritized in all cases. The discussion with him has already passed. Al-Khiraqi's statement, in the case where two witnesses say: We know he was a Muslim, and two witnesses say: We know he was an unbeliever, is interpreted as referring to someone whose original religion is not known, or [it is known] that his original religion is unbelief. As for someone who was a Muslim originally, it is appropriate that the evidence of...