What is the ruling when one witness testifies the deceased revoked the bequest to Zayd and bequeathed the share to Amr?

Primary text

If one witness testifies that the deceased revoked the bequest to Zayd and bequeathed that share to Amr, there is no conflict between the pieces of evidence. Amr takes his bequest upon taking the accompanying oath. This ruling is valid because in this case, the evidence is not in direct opposition, but rather the revocation, which concerns wealth, is established by the witness and the oath. This position aligns with the doctrine of Al-Shafi'i.