in continuous speech, there are two views. The first is that it is not accepted, because the right of the first was established in the whole, so it resembles the case where he admits it to him in a different sitting. The second is that it is accepted, because one sitting is like one state. Al-Khiraqi said: If one leaves behind a son and a thousand dirhams, and he admits it to a man, then he admits a thousand to another, if it is in one sitting, the thousand is between them; if it is in two sittings, it belongs to the first, and the second gets nothing. The first is more analogical, because the right of the first was established in the full third due to his admission of it individually, so it resembles the case where it was in two sittings, or as if he admitted to dirhams, then paused, then said: "counterfeit," or "small ones," or "payable within a month," or as if he made an exception to what he admitted in separate speech in the same sitting.

968 - Issue: (And if he says: "What I have bequeathed to Bishr is for Bakr," it belongs to Bakr.)

This is the opinion of all of them, and this was stated by al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). It is also according to the school of al-Hasan, 'Ata', and Tawus. We know of no opponent in this matter, because he explicitly retracted from the first by mentioning that what he had bequeathed is returned to the second, so it resembles the case where he says: "I have retracted my bequest to Bishr and bequeathed it to Bakr." This is contrary to [the case where he bequeaths] a single thing to two men, one after the other, for it is possible that he intended to associate them both, and the bequest of the first was established with certainty, so it cannot be removed by doubt.

Section: If he says: "What I have bequeathed to so-and-so, its half is for so-and-so," or "its third [is for him]," it is a retraction in the amount that he bequeathed to the second specifically, and the remainder belongs to the first.