Section: If one of them testifies that he sold yesterday, and the other testifies that he sold today, or if one of them testifies that he divorced her yesterday, and the other testifies that he divorced her today, our companions said: The testimony is completed. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not completed; because each one of the sale and the divorce was testified to by only one person, it is similar to if they testified to usurpation at two [different] times. The perspective of our companions' view is that the matter testified to is one thing, which is permissible to be repeated one time after another and remain one, so their disagreement regarding the time is not a disagreement regarding the matter itself, so it has no effect, just as if one of them testified in Arabic and the other in Persian.

Section: The same ruling applies to every testimony regarding a statement (qawl); the ruling for it is like the ruling for a sale, except for marriage, for it is like an act. So if one of them testifies that he married her yesterday, and the other testifies that he married her today, the testimony is not completed, according to all of their opinions; because the marriage of yesterday is not the marriage of today, so each of the two contracts was testified to by only one witness, so it is not established, just as if the testimony were regarding an act. The same applies to slander (qadhf); the testimony is not completed unless they testify to a single instance of slander.

Section: If one of them testifies that he usurped this slave from him, and the other testifies that he acknowledged his usurpation from him, the testimony is completed and judgment is rendered by it; because it is possible that the usurpation which he acknowledged is the same one the witness testified to, so the act has not differed, and the testimony is completed, just as if they both testified at two different times to his acknowledgment of the usurpation. The Qadi said: The testimony is not completed, and no judgment is rendered by it. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because it is possible that what he acknowledged is different from what the witness testified to. This is refuted by testimony regarding two acknowledgments; for it is possible that what he acknowledged before one of the two witnesses is different from what he acknowledged before the other, if they were at two different times. Also, because when it is possible to attribute the testimony to one thing, it is not attributed to two, like the two acknowledgments, and as if two people testified to the usurpation and two people testified to the acknowledgment of it. If one of them testifies that he usurped this slave from Zayd, or that he acknowledged his usurpation from him, and the other testifies that he is the property of Zayd, their testimony is not completed; because they have not testified to one thing. If he testifies that he took it from his hands, the judge obligates him.