And if we apply this definition of uprightness to the condition of people today, I think you would scarcely find more than one in a hundred—that is, ten in a thousand! The point is that it is rare to find anyone who possesses uprightness according to this interpretation. Yet whoever adheres to the school must follow it in this regard.

Uprightness in moral propriety means that one does not do anything that compromises moral propriety—that is, honour and customary decorum. If he does something that compromises it, he is not deemed upright, even if he is upright in his religion. They gave as examples one who eats or drinks in the marketplace; one who walks with his outer garment draped to one side, dragging it on one side and raising it on the other; and one who wears neither a headcloth nor a cap—though this naturally applies in a land where such conduct runs contrary to its customs. All such people violate moral propriety. This also includes one who chews gum in the gatherings of people of dignity and moral standing.

In any case, if moral propriety is governed by customary practice, it will change as customs change. This differs from what is tied to the Sacred Law, which does not change; rather, it remains fixed until the Day of Resurrection.

His statement, “Judgment may be given against an absent person if the right against him has been established”: the absent person is either within the town or outside it. One who is within the town is either concealing himself and in hiding, or is not concealed—that is, he goes out and comes among the people. Thus, there are three categories:

The first: one who is absent within the town but is not in hiding; that is, he is not present in the court session, though he is not concealing himself.

The second: one who is absent within the town but is concealing himself and hiding from people.

The third: one who is absent from the town, outside it.