the oath regarding the slave he denies. If Zayd says, 'I only have the other slave,' the statement is that of the acknowledger along with his oath regarding the slave he denies, and he does not deliver the acknowledged slave to Zayd; rather, it remains in the possession of the acknowledger because his acknowledgment of it was not valid according to one of the two views. According to the other view, it is removed from his possession due to his admission that he does not own it, and it is placed in the public treasury (bayt al-mal) because it has no known owner, so it resembles the inheritance of one whose heir is unknown. If he refuses the specification, and the one to whom acknowledgment was made specifies it, saying, 'This is my slave,' he is requested to respond. If he denies it, he takes an oath, and it is in the position of his specification for the other. If he refuses the oath, judgment is rendered against him. If he acknowledges it for him, it is like his specification.

Section: If he acknowledges a slave for a man, then brings him to him and says, 'This is the one I acknowledged,' but he says, 'This is not him; it is actually another,' then the acknowledger must take an oath that he has no slave of his besides this one, and he is not required to deliver this one to the one to whom acknowledgment was made because he does not claim it. If he says, 'This one is mine, and I have another of yours,' he delivers this one to him and swears an oath to him regarding the negation of the other. Anyone who acknowledges wealth to a man, and he refutes him, the acknowledgment is rendered void because ownership does not become established for a person who does not admit to it. Regarding the wealth, there are two views: first, that it is left in the possession of the acknowledger because judgment had been passed in his favor regarding it, so when the acknowledgment is rendered void, it remains as it was. Second, it is taken to the public treasury because no owner has been established for it. It has also been said: it is taken and preserved until its owner appears, because no one claims it. The school of al-Shafi'i is like this. If one of them retracts and refutes his own claim, it is delivered to him because he claims it, and there is no one contesting it with him. If each of them refutes his own claim—the acknowledger retracting his acknowledgment and the one to whom acknowledgment was made claiming it—if it remains in the possession of the acknowledger, his statement is accepted along with his oath, just as if he had not acknowledged it for someone else. If it is non-existent due to destruction, absconding, or similar causes, without transgression by either of them, then there is nothing regarding it in terms of an oath or otherwise. If it is due to the transgression of one of them, then the statement regarding it is that of the acknowledger with his oath, just as if it were still remaining. Once he swears the oath, the liability is lifted from him if its destruction was due to his transgression, and the liability becomes binding upon the other if its destruction was due to his transgression. And Allah knows best.