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