to him. If he refuses, the other is emancipated. If the master dies before the drawing of lots, the heirs shall cast the lots. If the other claims against them that he is the one who performed the payment, the oath is upon them that they do not know that he performed the payment, because this is an oath regarding the denial of another person's action. If one of the two slaves produces evidence that he has performed the payment, he is emancipated, whether this was before the lot was drawn or after it, in the lifetime of his master or after his death; if that occurred before the lot was drawn, his freedom is definitively established, and the other remains in servitude. If it occurred after it, the same applies, because the drawing of lots is not an act of emancipation, but rather it is a means of designating the emancipated one; evidence is stronger than it, thus the error of the drawing of lots is proven by it, and it becomes clear that servitude remains for the one whom we thought was free, just as it becomes clear that there is freedom for the one whom we thought was in servitude. Furthermore, because the one who did not perform the payment does not become a performer of payment by the act of drawing lots, the ruling of his status, which is emancipation, does not exist. It is derived from the opinion of Abu Bakr and Ibn Hamid that both are emancipated, based on what we have mentioned regarding divorce. The same ruling applies if the master specifies which of the two performed the payment. Whenever the other claims that he performed the payment, he has the right to an oath from the defendant, whether it is the master or his heirs, except that if the defendant is the master, the oath is on certainty (al-batt), and if it is his heirs, the oath is on the denial of knowledge, unless he claims the performance of payment to them, in which case their oaths are also on certainty. Each of the heirs must take an oath because each one of them is a defendant, so the oath is incumbent upon him, just as if he were alone in the litigation.

Section: If the mukatab has children from a woman emancipated by someone other than his master, and his master says: "He has performed the payment to me and has attained freedom, and thus the walā' (patronage rights) of his children has devolved to me," and the patron of their mother denies that, while the mukatab is still alive, he has become free by this statement; for it is an acknowledgement by his master of his emancipation, and the walā' of his children devolves to him. If he is dead,