is distressed and grieved. This is not what the author means; rather, he means a particular individual. That is why he said, “a person’s misfortune,” rather than speaking generally of people’s misfortune. Thus, if we know that whenever something distressing befalls a particular man, this person rejoices and is pleased by it, going about telling people, “Have you seen what happened to so-and-so, and what happened to so-and-so, and what happened to so-and-so?”—but becomes distressed whenever that man experiences happiness or joy—then he is an enemy. For a friend rejoices at your happiness and grieves at your sorrow.

In any case, if this matter were left to the judges, and it were said that the judge may discern such matters through circumstantial evidence, that would be a sound approach. For the criterion here is difficult to define. If we say that suspicion is the impediment, suspicion may be strong or weak, and setting a precise standard for it is difficult. But if we were to say that the judge should consider every matter and each individual case, and rule according to what Allah, Mighty and Majestic, enables him to see, that would be a sound approach.

It says in al-Rawd (1): “Nor—that is, the testimony of one known for partisanship and excessive tribal zeal is not accepted—such as the partisanship of one tribe against another, even if it does not reach the level of enmity.” This occurs frequently, especially among desert dwellers. Some people—may Allah protect us—have partisan zeal for their own tribe and partisan hostility toward another tribe. You will find such a person testifying in favor of his tribe whether he knows the facts to which he testifies or not, and testifying against another tribe whether he knows them or not. The author says that his testimony is not accepted. Thus, if it is known that a man is partisan toward his tribe, testifying in its favor truthfully or falsely, and partisan against another tribe, testifying against it truthfully or falsely, then his testimony is not accepted.