testified to by the other evidence. If a man dies and leaves a house, and his son claims that he left it as an inheritance, and his wife claims that he gave it to her as her dowry, and they both establish two pieces of evidence for that, judgment is rendered in favor of the wife, because she is claiming an additional matter that was hidden from the son's evidence. It is the same whether the evidence testified to the purchase and what is in its meaning—such as that he sold his property or what was in his possession—or did not testify to that, and whether it testified to the sale and the receipt, or did not mention the receipt. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: Ownership is not established for the purchaser, nor is the seller's possession removed, unless the evidence testifies that he sold his own property or what was in his possession, because an absolute sale is not proof, as one may sell what he does not own. Our position is that the seller's evidence established ownership for him, so if evidence of the purchase is established against him, it acts as proof against him in transferring his ownership of it to the purchaser, so judgment in his favor is necessary. If a person claims a house in the possession of a man, saying "It has been mine for a year," and establishes evidence for this, then a third party comes and claims that he bought it from its claimant two years ago, and establishes evidence for this, it is established for the claimant of the purchase. There is nothing in the testimony of the first evidence that he owned it for a year that invalidates the fact that it was his for two years, because there is no contradiction between owning it for two years and owning it for one year, for the owner for two years continues to have ownership in the second year. If the evidence of the purchase says, "And he is its owner," ownership is established without disagreement. If it does not say that, then the disagreement we have already mentioned remains.

Section: If a man claims ownership of a house in the possession of another, and the possessor claims that it has been in his possession for two years, and each of them establishes evidence for their claim, it belongs to the claimant of ownership, without any disagreement that we are aware of, because there is no contradiction between the two claims or the two pieces of evidence, as it may be his property while being in the possession of the other. If he claims a riding beast, saying that it has been his for ten years, and establishes evidence for this, but the beast is found to have been in existence for less than ten years, the evidence is false, and the beast belongs to the one in whose possession it is.

Section: If two witnesses testify against a man that he confessed to a certain person for one thousand, and one of them testifies that he has paid it to him,