as a party to the dispute regarding it, and thus his testimony is not accepted in it, just as if he had litigated it. It differs from a case where he was not an agent for it, for in that case, he was not a party to the dispute.

Section: If an enslaved woman is owned by two people, and they testify that her husband appointed someone to divorce her, their testimony is not accepted because they are deriving a benefit for themselves, which is the cessation of the husband’s right to sexual access, which is their property. If they testify to the dismissal of the agent in the divorce, it is not accepted, because they are deriving a benefit for themselves, which is the retention of the maintenance (nafaqah) on the husband. The testimony of a man’s two sons or his two parents for him regarding agency is not accepted because they are establishing for him the right of disposal, and a person’s right is not established by the testimony of his son or his father. Likewise, the testimony of the principal’s two sons or his two parents regarding the agency is not accepted. Some Shafi'ites said: It is accepted, because this is a right against the principal through which the agent becomes entitled to demand, so the testimony of the principal’s relatives is accepted regarding it, just like an admission (iqrar). Our view is that this is testimony by which a right is established for his father or his son, so it is not accepted, just like the testimony of the agent’s two sons or his two parents. This is because they are establishing for their father a representative who acts on his behalf, and it differs from testimony against him by admission, for that is purely testimony against him. If an agent claims agency and the principal denies it, and his two sons or his two parents testify against the principal, the agency is established and his disposal is ratified, because this is testimony against him. If the principal claims that he (the agent) acted by his agency, and the agent denies it, and his (the agent's) two parents or two sons testify against him, it is also accepted for that same reason. If an agent for an absent principal claims a right and demands it, and the opponent claims [that the principal] has dismissed him, and the principal’s two sons testify to that effect for him, their testimony is accepted and the dismissal is established by it, because they are testifying against their father. If the opponent does not claim his dismissal, their testimony is not heard, because they are testifying for someone who does not claim it. If the agent collects the payment and the principal appears, claiming that he had dismissed the agent and that his right remains in the debtor’s liability, and his two sons testify for him, their testimony is not accepted, because they are establishing a right for their father. If a mukatab (a slave in a contract of manumission) claims agency,