in a non-Arabic language, the testimony is not complete, because appointment in Arabic is not the same as appointment in a non-Arabic language, and thus their testimonies did not complement each other regarding a single act. Similarly, if one of them testifies that he said, "I have appointed you," and the other testifies that he said, "I have granted you permission to act," or that he said, "I have made you an agent," or testifies that he said, "I have made you a proxy," the testimony is not complete because the wording is different. A "proxy" (jari) is an agent. If one of them says: "I testify that he appointed him," and the other says: "I testify that he granted him permission to act," the testimony is complete, because they are not narrating the exact words of the principal; rather, they are expressing it in their own words, and a difference in their wording has no effect if the meaning is identical. If one of them says: "I testify that he acknowledged before me that he is his agent," and the other says: "I testify that he acknowledged that he is his proxy," or that he made a bequest to him to act during his lifetime, the agency is established by that. If one of them testifies that he appointed him to sell his slave, and the other testifies that he appointed him and Zayd, or testifies that he appointed him to sell it, but said: "Do not sell it until you consult me, or consult so-and-so," the testimony is not complete, because the first established his independence in the sale without conditions, and the second negates that; thus, they are contradictory. If one of them testifies that he appointed him to sell his slave, and the other testifies that he appointed him to sell his slave and his slave-girl, judgment is passed regarding the agency over the slave due to their agreement upon it, and the addition by the second does not invalidate his authority over the first, so it causes no harm. Likewise, if one of them testifies that he appointed him to sell it to Zayd, and the other testifies that he appointed him to sell it to Zayd and, if he wishes, to 'Amr.

Section: Agency and dismissal are not established by the report of a single person. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: Agency is established by the report of a single person, even if he is not trustworthy. It is permissible for the person informed to act if he deems the truthfulness of the informer to be likely, on condition of guarantee if the principal denies it. Dismissal is established by the report of a single person if he is a messenger, because requiring two just witnesses in this case is difficult, so the requirement was dropped; and because he had granted permission to act and then forbade it, so the conditions of testimony are not required in this, just like employing his servant. Our view is that it is a financial contract, so it is not established by the report of a single person, like a sale, and it differs from employment, for that is not a contract. If two people testify that a certain absent person appointed a certain present person, and the agent says: "I did not