and your child, in a reasonable manner.” (1) Thus, he ruled against him while he was absent. They said: This proves that judgment may be given against an absent person.

As for the reasoning, if we did not rule in his favour, his right would be lost, for he is absent and we do not know whether he will return, fail to return, or die.

Likewise, if he is in the town but is concealing himself and hiding from people, his concealment indicates that he is in the wrong. Therefore, we do not allow the right of this man, whose claim has been established, to be lost; rather, we rule in his favour. This is the established position of the school.

There is, however, a difference of opinion on this issue. Some hold that no judgment may be given against an absent person, citing evidence from the Quran, the sunnah, and rational consideration. Thus, in addition to the first two proofs, they cite evidence from the Quran. As for the Quran, they say that the apparent meaning of the story of David, peace be upon him, is that Allah reproached him for ruling for one of the two disputants before hearing the argument of the other. Allah the Exalted says:

“Has the story of the disputants reached you, when they climbed over the wall into the prayer chamber? When they entered upon David, he was alarmed by them. They said, ‘Do not fear. We are two disputants; one of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth, do not be unjust, and guide us to the straight path.’” [Sad]

Then the claimant said:

“Indeed, this brother of mine has ninety-nine ewes, while I have one ewe. Yet he said, ‘Entrust her to me,’ and he overpowered me in speech.” [Sad]

This is the description of the claim. The judgment was: “He has certainly wronged you by asking for your ewe to add to his own ewes.” [Sad: 24] Yet he did not hear the argument of the other disputant.

Thus, in this story, David, peace be upon him, secluded himself