suspended, pending receipt. He [the partner] has the right to demand his share from him or to share with his partner in what he took. If he shares with them, he takes two-thirds of one hundred and seeks recourse against the slave for the remainder of the one hundred, and the one from whom [the money] was taken does not seek recourse against the other for anything. This is because if he takes from the slave, he [the slave] says: 'You oppressed me and took from me twice.' And if he takes from the two witnesses, they say: 'You oppressed us and took from us what you have no right to take from us.' The oppressed one does not seek recourse against anyone other than his oppressor. If they are not just, the same applies, regardless of whether we say the testimony of two just persons is accepted or not, because the testimony of someone who is not just is not accepted; rather, he is held accountable for his admission.

If the third [partner] denies the sale, his share remains in a state of servitude, provided he swears an oath, unless they testify against him regarding the sale and are both just, in which case their testimony is accepted because they do not draw any benefit to themselves by this testimony.

Section: If a slave is owned by two partners and they enter into a mukataba contract with him for one hundred, then he claims to have paid it to them and they confirm it, he becomes free. If he denies it, or there is no evidence, the word is theirs along with their oaths. If one of them acknowledges it and the other denies it, the share of the one who acknowledged it is emancipated. As for the one who denies it, according to the statement of al-Khiraqi, the testimony of his partner against him is accepted if he is just; thus, the slave swears along with his testimony and becomes free. The one who denied it then seeks recourse against the witness and shares with him in what he took. As for the analogy, it dictates that the testimony of his partner against him should not be heard, because he is warding off a liability from himself by his testimony, and the word is that of his master along with his oath. So if he swears, he has the right to demand from his partner half of what he acknowledged, which is twenty-five, because what he received is the slave's earnings, and it is jointly owned between them. If it is said: 'But the one who denies it denies the receipt of his partner, so how can he seek recourse against him?' We say: He is only denying his own receipt, while his partner acknowledges the receipt, and it is possible that he did receive it and he [the other partner] did not know about it. Once he acknowledges a conceivable matter, the ruling of his acknowledgment becomes binding upon him, and among its rulings is the permissibility of his partner seeking recourse against him. If it is said: 'If he had a debt to two people and he paid one of them, the other would not seek recourse against his partner, so why does he seek recourse here?' We say: If the debt was established by a single cause, then whatever one of them took from him, the other seeks recourse against him for it, as in our issue, and this differs from a debt, because a debt...