is a witness to what he says. The translator testifies that the speaker meant such-and-such in the target language, as translated from the source language. Likewise, the one who attests to integrity and the one who impugns report on this person’s condition; thus, in reality, both are providing identification. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam held, in all these matters, that one upright person suffices.

His statement, “and identification,” means that, according to the author’s view, identification likewise requires two witnesses.

His statement, “and identification,” means identifying a person as So-and-so, son of So-and-so. In reality, this is identification before the judge of the party in whose favour judgment is given, the party against whom judgment is given, and the matter adjudicated.

The party in whose favour judgment is given is the one whose right is established; the party against whom judgment is given is the one upon whom the right rests; and the matter adjudicated is the thing claimed. For example, if two men dispute over a book, the party in whose favour judgment is given is the one entitled to the book, the party against whom judgment is given is the one not entitled to it, and the matter adjudicated is the book itself.

How is this identification to be made? The judge may say, “How can I write, ‘So-and-so and So-and-so litigated before me,’ when I do not know who you are?” So they bring someone who knows them, and he says, “This claimant is So-and-so, son of So-and-so; this defendant is So-and-so, son of So-and-so; and the item claimed is, for example, this book over which they have disputed.”

Thus, identification before the judge has three elements: the party in whose favour judgment is given, the party against whom judgment is given, and the matter adjudicated. All of these require identification. If one person identifies them, that suffices according to Shaykh al-Islam’s view; whereas according to the view followed by the author, there must be—