If the opponent impeaches the witnesses, he is required to furnish proof of their impeachment, for the Prophet said, “The burden of proof rests upon the claimant.” The judge grants him three days; if he fails within that period to bring evidence, judgment is entered on the basis of the testimony, for his inability to substantiate the impeachment in the allotted time shows that his claim is unfounded.

When the judge does not know the status of the witnesses, he asks the plaintiff to provide their tazkiyah, so that their integrity may be established, after which he rules according to their testimony. Commendation normally requires two people who testify to the witness’s uprightness, although one opinion states that a single commendation suffices.

A judgment may likewise be issued against an absentee who is at a travel distance that permits shortening the prayer, once the right against him is proven. Evidence for this is the report of Hind, who said, “Messenger of Allah, Abu Sufyan is a miserly man and does not give me enough maintenance for myself and my children.” He replied, “Take what suffices you and your children, in a fair manner.” Agreed upon.

This demonstrates the validity of ruling against an absentee; when the absentee later appears, he may still present his case, for the impediment to attendance has disappeared.

For a judgment in absentia to be valid, the absentee must be outside the judge’s jurisdiction. If, however, he is absent within that jurisdiction and no other judge is present, the presiding judge writes to a qualified person to adjudicate between them; if that is not possible, then to someone capable of reconciling them; if that too proves impossible, he tells the claimant, “Substantiate your claim.” Should the claimant do so, the judge summons the defendant, even if the distance is considerable.