And he takes an oath along with his witness. Even if he [the witness] were not a person of integrity, his testimony would be as though it were non-existent. If there were two workers and one owner of the wealth, and one of the workers testified against his companion, his testimony would also be accepted, for the reason we have mentioned.

Section: The worker owns his share of the fruit upon its emergence. If all of it were destroyed except for one [fruit], it would belong to both of them. This is one of two opinions held by Al-Shafi'i. The second opinion is that he does not own it until the division [is made], just like in Qirad (profit-sharing partnership). Our argument is that the condition is valid, so its requirement is established, just like all other valid conditions. Its requirement is that the fruit belongs to both of them in all circumstances, because if he did not own it before the division, the division would not be obligatory, nor would he own it, similar to the [original] trees. As for Qirad, he does own the profit upon its emergence, just as in our issue, then the difference between them is that the profit serves as a protection (wiqayah) for the capital, so he does not own it until he delivers the capital to its owner, whereas this is not a protection for anything. Because of this, if all the original trees were destroyed, the fruit would belong to both of them. Once this is established, Zakat becomes obligatory for each of them on their respective share if their share reaches the nisaab (minimum threshold). Ahmad explicitly stated this regarding Muzara'a (sharecropping). If it does not reach the nisaab except by combining their shares, it is not obligatory; because mixing (khultah) does not have an effect on anything other than livestock, according to the correct view. There is another narration that it does have an effect, and thus it would have an effect here, so one begins by paying the Zakat, then they divide what remains. If the share of one of them reaches the nisaab and the other does not, then the Zakat is on the one whose share reached the nisaab, to the exclusion of the other, and he pays it after the division, unless the one whose share did not reach the nisaab has other assets from other places that complete the nisaab; then Zakat becomes obligatory upon both of them. Likewise, if one of them has fruit of the same type as his share, and their combined total reaches the nisaab, then he is obligated to pay Zakat on his share. If one of the two partners is someone upon whom there is no Zakat, such as a Mukatab (a slave under a contract of manumission) or a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen).