he requests more than three days, his request is not accepted and must not be granted, because this would harm his opponent—unless his opponent agrees, since the right belongs to him.

His statement, “The claimant may keep close watch over him”: that is, the claimant may stay with the opposing party who has impugned the witnesses, meaning that he remains with him and does not leave him. He goes with him and follows him: if he goes out to the mosque, he walks with him and prays beside him; if he goes out to buy and sell, he goes with him; if he goes to the university, he goes with him and sits beside him; and if he enters his house, he stands at the door. Why? They said: so that he does not flee. For he may claim to impugn the witnesses, saying, “These witnesses are discredited; they are guilty of such-and-such acts of sin,” then disappear after leaving the court. Thus, the claimant has the right to keep close watch over him.

In reality, keeping close watch is very difficult when the amount at issue is small—for example, ten riyals—so he may not follow him. But if the matter is substantial, he keeps close watch over him, either personally or through someone he appoints to act in his place.

His statement, “If he does not bring evidence, judgment is issued against him”: If he does not bring evidence supporting his allegation that the witnesses are discredited, judgment is issued against him, because the conditions for judgment have been fulfilled and its impediments removed. It must therefore be carried out, and the judge is not permitted to refrain from doing so.

His statement, “If he does not know the condition of the evidence, he asks the claimant to establish their probity”: This is so that their probity may be established and judgment may then be given in his favour. This was discussed previously in connection with the author’s statement, “Whoever’s probity is unknown is to be inquired about.” Thus, the judge either investigates their standing himself or asks the claimant to establish their probity.

Two upright men who testify to his probity suffice for this. The statement of fewer than two upright men is not accepted in interpretation, attestation of probity, impugning witnesses, identification, or conveying a message. Judgment may be issued against an absent person once the right against him has been established. But if someone brings a claim against a person who is present in the town but absent from the court session, and he produces evidence, neither the claim nor the evidence is heard.

His statement, “Two upright men suffice for this”: that is, for establishing probity.