settled his debt to you, because it is possible that he may have done so. Yes, the witnesses testified to the أصل الحق (the underlying entitlement), but it remains possible that he settled it without the witnesses’ knowledge. Therefore, as a precaution to safeguard the absent party’s right, we say: “Swear that he has not settled his debt to you.”

If the claim concerns a specific item, we likewise take precautions. We say to the claimant: “We will rule in your favor, but we require from you a financially solvent guarantor or secured collateral. We will then hand the item over to you. So bring someone wealthy who will guarantee that, if it becomes clear that the item does not belong to you, you will either return it or provide its equivalent. If you cannot find a guarantor, then give us collateral from your property sufficient to secure the item and to provide its equivalent, and we will hand it over to you.” This protects the defendant’s right, since the claim may be invalid.

His statement: “If a claim is made against someone who is present in the town but absent from the court session, and the claimant brings evidence, neither the claim nor the evidence is heard.” That is, if someone makes a claim against a person who is present in the town but absent from the court session—such as a man living on the outskirts of the town—and says, “I claim one thousand dirhams from so-and-so,” and brings evidence, while so-and-so is at the other end of town, then neither the claim nor the evidence is heard. The judge says to the claimant: “I will not hear your claim. Bring your opponent so that I may examine the case,” because it is not difficult to bring the defendant forward. Either he may go to him and say, “You and I must go before the judge,” or he may summon the police against him, or something similar.

The point is that bringing the defendant in this situation is neither impossible nor unduly difficult. Therefore, neither the claim nor the evidence is heard, because hearing