recourse for the price. If the seller establishes evidence, when he is the one who admitted it, we shall consider: if, at the time of the sale, he said: "I have sold you this slave of mine," or "this property of mine," his evidence is not accepted; because he is contradicting it, and it is contradicting him. If he did not say that, it is accepted; because one may sell one's own property and the property of another. If the claimant establishes evidence, it shall be heard, and the testimony of the seller on his behalf is not accepted; because he is thereby attracting a benefit to himself. If they both deny it, he has the right to make them both swear an oath if he has no evidence. Ahmad said, regarding a man who finds his stolen property itself in the possession of another person who says: "It is my property," he may take it. I refer to the Hadith of Samurah, from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever finds his property in the possession of a man, he is more entitled to it, and the buyer may follow the one who sold it to him." Husha'im narrated it from Musa ibn al-Sa'ib, from Qatadah, from al-Hasan, from Samurah, and Musa ibn al-Sa'ib is reliable.

Section: If the buyer has emancipated the slave, and they both admit to it, that is not accepted, and the slave remains free; because a right of another has become attached to him. If the slave agrees with them, the judge said: It is also not accepted; because the right of Allah, the Exalted, is attached to freedom. This is why if two witnesses testified to the manumission, while the master and the slave agreed on servitude, their testimony would be heard. And if a man said: "I am a free man," then admitted to servitude, his admission is not accepted. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that the manumission is nullified if they all agree, and the slave returns to the claimant; because he is of unknown lineage, who admitted to servitude for the one who claims it, so it is valid, just as if the buyer had not emancipated him. Whenever we rule for freedom, the owner has the right to demand from whichever of them he wishes the value of the slave on the day he emancipated him. Then, if he demands it from the seller, he may seek recourse against the buyer; because he is the one who destroyed it. If he seeks recourse against the buyer, he may not seek recourse against the seller except for the price; because the destruction occurred through him, so the liability is settled upon him. If the slave dies and leaves behind wealth, it belongs to the claimant; because they all agree that it is his. We only prevented the return of the slave to him due to the right of freedom being attached to him, unless he leaves behind an heir, in which case he takes it. No right of wala' (patronage) is established for anyone over him; because no one claims it.