879 - Issue: He said: (And if they differ regarding the price, the statement is that of the buyer [along with his oath], unless the preemptor has evidence).

The collective understanding is that if the preemptor and the buyer differ regarding the price, and the buyer says: "I bought it for one hundred," while the preemptor says: "Rather, for fifty," then the statement is that of the buyer, because he is the contracting party and is more knowledgeable of the price, and because the share is his property, so it cannot be removed [from his hand] through a claim without evidence. Al-Shafi'i held this view. If it is said: Why did you not say that the statement is that of the preemptor, because he is the one burdened with payment and denies the increase, making him like the usurper, the destroyer, or the guarantor of his partner's portion if he were to emancipate it? We say: The preemptor is not burdened, for there is nothing against him, and he merely wishes to own the share for its price, unlike the usurper, the destroyer, or the emancipator. As for if the preemptor has evidence, judgment is passed accordingly; likewise, if the buyer has evidence, judgment is passed accordingly, and there is no need for his oath. This is established by one witness and an oath, or the testimony of a man and two women. The testimony of the seller is not accepted, because if he were to testify for the preemptor, he would be an interested party, as he seeks to reduce the price for fear of the liability (darak) being brought against him. If each of them brings evidence, it is possible for them to conflict, because they are disputing over what the contract was actually concluded upon, thus they become like those who have no evidence. Al-Sharif mentioned that the evidence is that of the preemptor. The school of al-Khiraqi necessitates this, for in his view, the evidence of the outsider (kharij) is prioritized over the evidence of the insider (dakhil), and the preemptor is the outsider. This is the view of Abu Hanifah. His two companions said: The evidence is that of the buyer, because it is strengthened by the buyer's statement, for he is prioritized over the preemptor's statement. This differs from [the case of] the outsider and the insider, because the evidence of the insider may be based on his possession, whereas in our issue, the evidence testifies to the contract itself, like the evidence of the preemptor. Our argument is that these are two pieces of evidence that have conflicted, so the evidence of the one whose statement would not be accepted in the absence of evidence is prioritized, like [the case of] the outsider and the insider. It is also possible that lots be drawn between them, because they are disputing over the contract while neither has possession of it, thus they become like two people disputing over an object in the possession of someone else.