mentioned the lot, and he did not differentiate between whether they had evidence or not. This is narrated from Ibn Umar and Ibn al-Zubayr (6). Ishaq and Abu Ubayd held this view, and it is a narration from Malik and an early opinion of al-Shafi'i. This is because of what Ibn al-Musayyab narrated: that two men disputed before the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—regarding a matter, and each of them brought (7) truthful witnesses to the same degree, so the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—drew lots between them. Narrated by al-Shafi'i in his "Musnad" (8). Furthermore, both pieces of evidence are proofs that have conflicted without any superiority of one over the other, so they both drop, just like two conflicting reports. The second narration is that both pieces of evidence are utilized. Regarding the method of utilizing them, there are two narrations: one is that the asset is divided between them. This is the view of al-Harith al-'Ukli, Qatada, Ibn Shubruma, Hammad, and Abu Hanifa, and it is an opinion of al-Shafi'i, due to what Abu Musa narrated: that two men disputed before the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—regarding a camel, and each one of them presented evidence that it was his; so the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—judged it between them in two halves (9). This is because they were equal in their claim, so they are equal in its division. The second narration is that one of them is given priority by means of the lot. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. He has a fourth opinion: the matter is withheld until it becomes clear. This is the view of Abu Thawr, because the matter became ambiguous, making it necessary to withhold (10), like a judge when the ruling in his case is not clear to him. As for us, our evidence is the two reports, and that the conflict between two proofs does not necessitate withholding (10), just as with two reports. Rather, when it is impossible to give priority to one, both are dropped, and we return to a proof other than them. Once this is established, if we say that the two pieces of evidence drop, lots are drawn between them; whoever the lot falls to (11), he shall swear an oath and take it, just as if they had no evidence. If we say that the evidence is acted upon and lots are drawn between them, then whoever the lot falls to takes it without an oath. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i (12), because evidence makes the oath unnecessary. Abu al-Khattab said: He must take an oath along with the evidence.