the claim serves only to waste time and occupy the judge with something of no benefit. If the judge were to hear the claim, what would he gain from it? Could he pass judgment against him? That is not possible, since he is present in the town.

However, if he is concealing himself and in hiding—if we go to his house and do not find him, go to his workplace and do not find him, or go to his mosque and do not find him—then one who is in hiding is treated as absent. Thus, the claim and the evidence are heard, and judgment is passed against him, because his absence indicates that the claim against him is valid and that he has gone into hiding so that the right may not be enforced against him.

This occurs frequently when markets decline and cause hardship to some people. Because of the large number of their debts, they are unable to face people, so they flee from one place to another. Regarding such people, we do not say that they are present and therefore that no judgment may be passed against them, nor that their claims may not be heard unless they are personally present. That would be a waste of time.

His statement: “If he brings evidence, neither the claim nor the evidence is heard.” The author’s words here are clear: bringing him before the court is neither difficult nor impossible.