between them (42). The one for whom the lot is drawn is entitled to the price, he takes an oath to the other, and is absolved. If we say: it is divided (43), the price is divided between them, and he takes an oath to each of them regarding the remainder. If the two dates are different, or if both are absolute, or one of them is absolute and the other is dated, both contracts are established, and he is obligated for both prices; because it is possible that he bought it from one of them, then the other acquired ownership of it, and he bought it from him. Whenever the truthfulness of both pieces of evidence is possible and they can be reconciled, it is obligatory to deem them both true. If it is said: Why did you say that if the seller is one and the buyers are two (44), and one of them produces evidence that he bought it (45) in Muharram, and the other produces evidence that he bought it (46) in Safar, the second purchase (47) is void? We say: Because if ownership is established for the first, he cannot invalidate it by the second selling it a second time. In our case, the establishment of his purchase from each of them invalidates his ownership; because it is not permissible for him to buy his own property a second time, while it is permissible for a seller to sell what is not his (48); thus, they differ. If it is said: When the two pieces of evidence are absolute, or one of them is absolute, it is possible that their dates are the same, in which case they contradict each other, and the principle is the freedom from liability (bara'at al-dhimma) of the one against whom the testimony is given, so it should not be occupied (49) by doubt. We say: Whenever it is possible for both pieces of evidence to be true, it is obligatory to deem them both true, and there is no doubt there; only conjecture remains, and conjecture is not sufficient to invalidate evidence. For if evidence were invalidated by it, no right would ever be established by it at all; because there is no piece of evidence but that it is possible it might be false, or not just, or suspicious, or opposed, yet no attention is paid to this conjecture. The same applies here.

Section: If a man dies, and two men testify that this boy is the son of this deceased person, and we do not know any heir for him other than him, and two others testify for another that this boy is the son of this deceased person, and we do not know any heir for him other than him, there is no contradiction between them, and the lineage of the two boys from him is established, and the inheritance is divided between them; because it is permissible for each piece of evidence to know what the other did not know.