speaking. In any case, if he remains silent, there is no problem. But undoubtedly, the author does not mean that the judge should remain silent indefinitely, for that would waste both his own time and theirs. Rather, he should remain silent for a period in which, had they wished to speak, they would have done so. If such a period passes and they have not spoken, he should ask them, “What is your case?” For they may remain silent out of awe for the setting, particularly if the judge is imposing.

His statement, “Whoever is first to make a claim is heard first”: this applies when each side has a claim—that is, when each of them claims something against the other. In that case, the one who is first to make his claim is heard first. Usually, however, the claim comes from only one side: one litigant is the claimant and the other is the defendant. In that case, it is evident that the claimant will be the one to speak.

His statement, “If he acknowledges it, he rules against him in the claimant’s favor”: in the phrase “if he acknowledges,” the subject refers to the defendant, while “it” refers to the claimant. That is, if the defendant acknowledges the claimant’s claim, the judge rules for the claimant against the defendant.

An example of this is when Zayd and Amr appear before the judge. He asks, “Which of you is the claimant?” Or he remains silent until one of them begins. Zayd then says, “I claim one hundred thousand riyals from Amr.” The judge asks, “What do you say, Amr?” He replies, “Yes, that is correct; I owe him one hundred thousand riyals.” The judge then rules in the claimant’s favor against him. This happens only rarely, because if he wished to acknowledge the claim, he would not need to come before a judge—except in a case mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah: a person who, whenever a claim is brought against him before a judge, acknowledges it and says, “I am unable to pay; I have nothing.” He is then ordered detained and imprisoned, and then