spoken on the issue and composed numerous works on narrator criticism and accreditation, examining both the transmitters and the reports themselves. Thus, people fall into several categories. Some are known for truthfulness and precision; such a person is upright, and his narration is accepted. Others are generally truthful, yet their memory or accuracy is unreliable; about someone like this, the critics say, “He is truthful, but reservations have been raised regarding his retention.” Still others are known to fabricate. When a hadith is reported by someone of poor memory or by a potential liar, the scholars do not rule on the basis of that report or authenticate it.

At times, evidence emerges that establishes the report’s falsehood; at other times, they simply withhold judgment, unsure whether it is true or false. A narration of this sort is neither believed nor confirmed, nor is it used as proof—much like the testimony of a witness who speaks for the claimant but lacks the requisite uprightness, or who is himself a litigant or suspected of bias. If such testimony is rejected, this does not amount to declaring the witness a liar or mistaken; it merely means that no proof is established by his word and no verdict is issued on its basis, because his truthfulness is unknown, not because his falsehood is proven.

Likewise, when the defendant is in actual possession of the property, or when his liability has not been demonstrated, that presumption itself tips the balance in his favor. The Lawgiver has further reinforced this position by requiring the defendant’s oath, as recorded in the Ṣaḥīḥ