and exercises control over it as owners do over their property: opening one door and closing another, opening a window and closing it, bringing in workers to carry out repairs, and sometimes renting it out. May I testify that it belongs to him? The sound view is that I may testify that it is his property, although some scholars say that one should not testify to ownership; rather, one should testify only to possession, saying: “I testify that it is in his possession and that he deals with it as owners deal with their property.” They say this because he may be an agent rather than the owner. If you testify to possession, that is safer and more absolving of your liability. Yet the school’s position is that it is permissible to testify to ownership.
His statement: “and marriage.” One may testify to a marriage on the basis of widespread report. I pass by one of the wedding halls and find it illuminated. I ask, “Who is getting married tonight?” They say, “So-and-so, son of so-and-so.” Thus it becomes widely known that so-and-so, son of so-and-so, was married that night. Were you present at the marriage contract? No, but you learned of it through widespread report.
His statement: “and endowment.” Endowments are likewise of two types:
The first is a private endowment. One does not testify to this on the basis of widespread report. Thus, I do not testify that this house is an endowment for so-and-so, because this is private.
The second is an unrestricted endowment: it is known that this house has been endowed for charitable causes—for shrouding the deceased, for the cost of graves, for students of knowledge, and the like. In such an endowment, one may testify on the basis of widespread report.
Likewise, it may become commonly known among people that this mosque was built by so-and-so, son of so-and-so. I was not present for the agreement concluded between the contractor and the man, but it is widely known among the people that so-and-so was the one who built it; therefore, I may testify to that. The point is that whatever is known through widespread report may be testified to on the basis of widespread report.
If it is the custom of some tribes that, when a relative testifies against his relative, this results in severing kinship ties, is testimony obligatory upon him in that case? Most scholars hold that testimony in this situation is not obligatory.