and they receive their bequests without taking an oath, while each of the two witnesses supplements the other’s testimony with his own oath and thereby becomes entitled to his bequest. If the accompanying witness has been left nothing in the will, the will is established by their testimony for the other beneficiaries, while the beneficiary-witness supplements his companion’s testimony with his own oath and thereby becomes entitled to his bequest. This is Ibn al-Mājishūn’s opinion in al-Wādiha.

The fourth opinion is that his testimony is admissible both on his own behalf and on behalf of others if another witness joins him. The will is then established by their testimony, and he receives his bequest without taking an oath. The same applies to his companion: if he too has been left something in the will, he receives it without taking an oath. If no other witness joins him, however, his testimony is admissible on behalf of others but not on his own behalf. The other beneficiaries supplement his testimony with their oaths and thereby become entitled to their bequests, while he receives nothing. This is Yahyā ibn Saʿīd’s opinion in al-Mudawwana.

If the bequest to the witness is large, his testimony is inadmissible both on his own behalf and on behalf of others according to the well-known opinion. By analogy with Asbagh’s opinion among his rulings on cases in the Book of Testimonies, however, his testimony is admissible on behalf of others but not on his own behalf. That ruling concerns two slaves who, after being emancipated, testify that the person who emancipated them had wrongfully seized them from another man, together with one hundred dinars. Their testimony is admissible concerning the hundred dinars, but not concerning the wrongful seizure of their persons, because they are suspected of wishing to have themselves enslaved, and a free person may not enslave himself. His opinion in this case implies that, when part of a testimony is rejected because of suspected bias, the part unaffected by such suspicion remains admissible. This is contrary to the established, well-known opinion.

As for the second category—where the testator calls witnesses to attest his will orally, without a written document, saying, “Such-and-such is for so-and-so, such-and-such for so-and-so, and such-and-such for so-and-so,” naming one of the witnesses among the beneficiaries—the bequest to that witness must likewise be either large or small. If it is small, his testimony on his own behalf is inadmissible by agreement, but it is admissible on behalf of others. If he is the sole witness, the beneficiaries supplement his testimony with their oaths and thereby become entitled to their bequests. If another witness joins him who likewise testifies to a small bequest in his own favour, each supplements the other’s testimony with his own oath and thereby becomes entitled to his bequest, while the other beneficiaries receive their bequests on the strength of the two witnesses’ testimony without taking an oath. If another witness joins him who does not testify to any bequest in his own favour, he takes an oath