Effect of testimony confirming revocation of only one unspecified prior bequest
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
If the third set of testimony confirms the testator revoked one of the two preceding bequests (to Zayd or Amr) without specifying which one, this testimony is rendered ineffective. Since the second testimony already established the revocation of the bequest to Zayd, confirming a revocation of 'one of them' adds no new legally established fact regarding Zayd's bequest. Therefore, the bequest to Amr stands established.
Supporting text
The view of Al-Qadi states that if the second testimony established the bequest to Amr but did not specify the revocation of Zayd's bequest, and the third testimony merely stated revocation of one of the two bequests without naming it, the testimony is invalid. This aligns with the position of Al-Shafi'i, as the witnesses did not specify the object of the revocation, equating it to cases where the object of a legal claim is indeterminate. Conversely, Abu Bakr suggested that, according to the known position of Abu Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal), the revocation of an unspecified bequest is invalid, requiring a draw (*qur'ah*) between the two bequests (to Zayd and Amr). The one whose bequest is drawn is deemed revoked, and that specific bequest is nullified. This is the position of Ibn Abi Musa. Furthermore, it is argued that if the revocation of one bequest is valid without specification, testimony confirming such an unspecified revocation should also be valid because bequests themselves can be established concerning an unknown amount or object, thus allowing revocation thereof without naming the specific item revoked.