His statement, “Nor may judgment be given on its basis unless the testimony of the original witness is unavailable due to death, illness, or absence at the distance permitting the shortening of prayer”: this is the second condition—that the testimony of the original witness be unavailable. If he is able to testify, testimony based on testimony is not accepted, for two reasons:

First, it is more lengthy. In testimony based on testimony, one must establish the integrity of both the original witnesses and the secondary witnesses, whereas in direct testimony one need only establish the integrity of the original witnesses. For example, Zayd and ‘Amr testify and wish to entrust their testimony to Bakr and Khalid. When judgment is to be given, we will need to establish the integrity of the original witnesses—Zayd and ‘Amr—as well as that of the secondary witnesses—Bakr and Khalid. This makes the matter more prolonged, and it is well known that when brevity is possible, there is no need for prolixity.

Second, in conveying testimony, something may perhaps be added to it or omitted from it. The likelihood of forgetfulness among four people is greater than among two. Thus, in addition to the greater length of the process, there is a possibility that the testimony may be altered, because the two individuals to whom the testimony was entrusted may err. For this reason, recourse is not made to secondary witnesses when the original witnesses are available. The testimony of the original witnesses must therefore be unavailable. This may be likened to water and earth in purification: when water is available, there is no resort to dry ablution.

His statement, “A secondary witness may not testify unless the original witness has asked him to bear witness to it”: this is the third condition—that the original witness must ask him to bear witness. Such a request is derived from the notion of care, and it means that he asks him to testify