Because they are equal in what pertains to the point of contention, which is the ownership of the object now, it is mandatory that they be equal in the ruling. The second [view] is that the evidence of birth/origin and what bears the same meaning is given precedence. This is the school of Abu Hanifa, because it entails additional knowledge, which is the knowledge of the cause, whereas the other [evidence] was unaware of that. Thus, it is possible that their testimony is based on mere possession and disposal, so the former is given precedence over it, like the precedence of the evidence of impugnment (jarh) over that of approbation (ta'dil). This is the statement of the Qadi in the case where the object is in the hands of someone other than them.

Section: If one of them testified that it has been his for a year, and the other testified that it has been his for two years, the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's words is equality between them, which is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is to give precedence to the older of them in terms of date. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and the second opinion of al-Shafi'i, because the one with the earlier date established ownership for him at a time when the other evidence did not conflict with it, so ownership is established for him at that time; this is why he has the right to claim the growth/yield (nama') for that period. The two pieces of evidence conflicted regarding ownership in the present, so they were discarded, and the ownership of the earlier one remains requiring its continuity, and that no ownership is established for anyone else except through him. The reasoning for al-Khiraqi's opinion is that the witness to the recent ownership is more deserving of preference, for it is possible he knows about it while the first does not. For this reason, if he mentioned that he bought it from the other or gifted it to him, his evidence would be given precedence by agreement. If it is not preferred by this [fact], then it is at least equal. Their saying that ownership is established in the past time without conflict: we say it is only established as a consequence of its establishment in the present. If he were to claim ownership in the past in isolation, his claim and his evidence would not be heard. If one of them is dated and the other is absolute, they are equal. This was mentioned by the Qadi. Abu al-Khattab said: It is possible that the ruling be given to the one who did not provide a date. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. Our [argument] is that there is nothing in either of them that necessitates preference by way of earlier ownership or otherwise, so their equality is mandatory, just as if both were absolute or their dates were equal.

Section: Neither of the two pieces of evidence is preferred by the number of witnesses nor by the prominence of integrity (adala). This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. It is extrapolated that it could be preferred by that, derived from the statement of al-Khiraqi: "The blind person follows the one he finds most trustworthy." This is the opinion of Malik, because one of the two reports is preferred by that, so likewise is testimony, for it is a report; and because testimony is only considered for the preponderance of probability regarding that which is testified to, and when the number increases or the integrity strengthens, the probability regarding it becomes stronger. Al-Awza'i said: It is divided according to the number of witnesses. So if two witnesses testify for one of them, and four for the other, the object is divided between them in thirds, because testimony is the cause of entitlement, so the right is distributed accordingly. Our [argument] is that testimony is defined by the Sharia, so it does not vary by increase, like blood money (diya), and it differs from the report, for there is ijtihad in accepting the report of one versus a group, so it is preferred by the increase. As for testimony, there is consensus on the report of two, so the ruling is connected to them without regard to probability. Do you not see that if women testified alone, their testimony would not be accepted, even if they were numerous such that the probability of their testimony became stronger than the testimony of two men? Based on this, the testimony of two men is not preferred over the testimony of a man and two women regarding property; because each of the two pieces of evidence is a proof in property, so when they meet, they conflict. As for if one of them has two witnesses and the other has one witness, and he offers his oath with it, there are two positions regarding this: one is that they conflict because each of them is a proof on its own, so they resemble the two men versus the man and two women. The second is that the two witnesses are given precedence because they are a proof upon which there is consensus, while the witness and the oath are disputed, and because the oath is his statement for himself, whereas the complete evidence is the testimony of two outsiders; therefore, it must be given precedence, like its precedence over the oath of the denier, and this position is more correct, if Allah wills. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions, like the two positions.

Section: If there is a house in their hands, and one of them claims all of it, while the other claims half of it, and they have no evidence, it is divided between them in halves. Ahmad asserted this. The claimant of the half must take an oath for his companion, and there is no oath upon the other; because the half that is judged in his favor has no one disputing him over it. And I know not in this