What is the ruling if a man admits he mortgaged the slave to one of them, then to the other, but claims ignorance of which transaction preceded the other?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Pledges (Collateral)
Primary text
If the defendant states he mortgaged the slave to one and then to the other without knowing the sequence, the ruling follows the same procedure as the previous scenario concerning possession. If the defendant asserts one transaction clearly preceded the other by contract and delivery, the slave is given to that affirmed party, and the other party receives an oath from the defendant. If the defendant refuses to swear the oath (nukul) and the slave is in the possession of the first recognized party or a third party, the defendant must pay the second claimant the value of the slave. This is analogous to a case where a man admits a slave belongs to Zayd but states he unlawfully took it from Amr; the slave goes to Zayd, and the possessor compensates Amr for its value.
Supporting text
If the defendant refuses to swear the oath and the slave is in the possession of the second recognized party, the admission establishes the slave's status in the second party's hands, and the defendant compensates the first party for the value. This is because the admission to the second party occurred after an action that barred the first party's right, necessitating compensation for the first party. Al-Qadi posits two views regarding whether the possessor or the one acknowledged receives recourse when the defendant admits ownership to someone other than the possessor.