Thus, there is no difference between the order of presentation, whether it is sequenced, connected, or disconnected. The Qadi mentioned this. It has also been said that he is required to deliver it to Amr and compensate Zayd for it, because once he acknowledged it for Amr first, his acknowledgment of the possession for Zayd is not accepted. This is a sound position. The companions of al-Shafi'i hold two views similar to these. If he says, 'This thousand was given to me by Zayd, and it belongs to Amr,' or if he says, 'It belongs to Amr and was given to me by Zayd,' the same applies, based on the aforementioned discussion concerning it.

Section: If he says, 'I usurped it from one of them' or 'It belongs to one of them,' the acknowledgment is valid; because just as it is valid for an unknown person, it is valid for an unknown object. He is then requested to clarify. If he specifies one of them, it is delivered to him, and he swears an oath to the other if he claims it, and he does not pay compensation to him for anything because he did not acknowledge anything for him. If he says, 'I do not know the specific identity,' and they both validate his claim, it is removed from his possession and they both become adversaries regarding it. If they both refute him, he must take an oath that he does not know, and it is removed from his possession. If one of them has evidence, judgment is given in his favor. If neither has evidence, we draw lots between them, and the one whose name is drawn takes an oath and it is delivered to him. If the usurper clarifies the owner after that, it is accepted from him, just as if he had clarified it from the start. It is possible that if each of them claims that he is the one from whom it was usurped, an oath becomes binding upon him for each of them that he did not usurp it from him. If he swears an oath to one of them, he is required to deliver it to the other, because that functions in the same way as his specification. If he refuses the oath [to them both, and it is delivered to one of them by lot or otherwise, he is required to pay compensation for it to the other; because he refused an oath] that was binding upon him, so judgment was rendered against him, just as if he had claimed it alone.

Section: If there are two slaves in his possession, and he says, 'One of these two belongs to Zayd,' he is requested to clarify. When he specifies one of them and Zayd validates it, he takes it. If he says, 'This one is mine, and the other slave is for Zayd,' then he is under obligation