As for the fourth duty, namely auditing the officials, its ruling differs according to the responsibilities entrusted to them, as we have already explained. If they are kharāj officials, they are required to submit their accounts, and the dīwān clerk must audit them to verify the accuracy of what they have submitted. If they are officials responsible for the ʿushr (tithe), then according to the Shāfiʿī school they are not required to submit accounts, nor is the dīwān clerk required to audit them, because in his view the ʿushr is a charitable due whose disbursement does not depend on the governors’ independent legal reasoning. Even if those liable for it distributed it themselves, the obligation would be fulfilled. According to Abū Ḥanīfa, however, they are required to submit accounts, and the dīwān clerk must audit them, because in his view the disbursement channels of the ʿushr and kharāj are shared.
When an official who is required to undergo an audit is audited, the matter is examined. If no dispute arises between the official and the dīwān clerk, the clerk’s word is accepted concerning the account’s outstanding balance. If the ruler suspects him, he requires him to produce his witnesses. If the suspicion is dispelled, the oath is no longer required of him.
If the suspicion is not dispelled and the ruler wishes to have him swear an oath, the official is made to swear, not the dīwān clerk, because the claim is directed against the official rather than the clerk. If the two differ over the account, the matter is examined. If their disagreement concerns receipts, the official’s word is accepted, because he is the denying party. If it concerns expenditures, the clerk’s word is accepted, because he is the denying party. If their disagreement concerns a measured area that can be remeasured, it is remeasured after the disagreement, and the result of the sound assessment is adopted. If it cannot be remeasured, the landholder is made to swear concerning it, not the surveyor.
As for the fifth duty, namely disbursing funds, this amounts to calling upon the dīwān official to testify concerning the regulations and entitlements established in the dīwān. It is therefore analogous to testimony, and two conditions apply to it.
The first is that he must disburse only what he knows to be valid, just as a witness does not testify unless called upon to do so. The person who requests the disbursement of funds is one whose signed orders have taken effect, just as the person before whom testimony is given is one whose judgments are enforceable. Thus, if the dīwān official immediately disburses whatever the signatory has ordered to be disbursed, that disbursement must be accepted and acted upon, just as a judge must enforce a judgment on the basis of the testimony given by witnesses before him. If the signatory has doubts about the disbursement in a particular case, he may ask from what source it was made and require the official to produce the dīwān records supporting it, even though a judge may not ask a witness about the basis of his testimony.