one of his two wives; because it is known that his marriage to one of the two wives has ceased. We say: His breach is only realized regarding one unspecified [wife], and when viewing each one individually, the certainty of her marriage remains and her divorce is doubted. However, since we have realized that one of the two is prohibited, and it is impossible to distinguish her, both are prohibited to him. Likewise, here, we know that one of these two men’s wives has been divorced and is prohibited to him, and distinguishing [between them] is impossible, so intercourse is prohibited for both of them. It becomes as if one of two vessels became impure without specifying which one; it is prohibited to use either of them, whether they belong to two men or one man. Mak-hul said: The divorce is applied to both of them, and Abu Ubayd inclined toward this. If each of them claims that he knew the situation and that he did not commit a breach, he is trusted in that which is between him and Allah the Almighty. Atta, al-Sha’bi, al-Zuhri, al-Harith al-Uqli, al-Thawri, and al-Shafi'i said something similar, because the honesty of each of them in what he claims is possible. If each of them confesses that he is the one who committed the breach, their wives are divorced based on their confession against themselves. If one of them confesses, he has breached it alone. If the wife of one of them claims his breach, and he denies it, the statement is his. And does he take an oath? This is derived from two narrations.

Section: If one of them says: "If this is a crow, my slave is free," and the other says: "If it is not a crow, my slave is free," and it flies away and they do not know its state, we do not rule that either of the two slaves is free. If one of them buys the slave of his companion after denying his own breach, the one he bought becomes free, because his denial of his own breach is a confession by him of his companion's breach, and a confirmation of the freedom of the one he bought. When he buys someone whose freedom he has confessed, that person becomes free through him. If there was neither a denial nor a confession from him, the two slaves have come into his possession, and one of them is free without being specified, and one returns to the drawing of lots to determine which one. This is the opinion of Abu al-Khattab. The Qadi held that he becomes free of the one he bought in both cases, because his holding onto his slave is a confession by him of his [the slave's] servitude and his companion's freedom. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. As for us, he did not confess verbally, nor did he do anything that necessitates a confession, for the Law (Shar') permits him to keep his slave while in a state of ignorance, relying upon the original state.