The third circumstance concerning the strength of a claim is that the document accompanying it names witnesses who are present, but whose uprightness has not been established before the judge. What is distinctive about the jurisdiction over grievances is that the official overseeing it takes the initiative to summon them and investigate their circumstances. He will find them to be of one of three kinds.

They may be people of dignity and propriety, in which case greater reliance can be placed on their testimony. Or they may be disreputable, in which case their testimony is not relied upon, though the intimidation of the opposing party may be strengthened by their presence. Or they may be of middling standing. In that case, after investigating their circumstances, the official overseeing grievances may seek support from their character, if he deems it appropriate, whether before or after they testify.

With respect to the testimony of these latter two classes, he has three options. He may hear it himself and issue a ruling on its basis. Or he may refer the hearing of it to the judge, so that the judge may convey it to him, with any judgment based upon it depending on the judge’s determination. This is because a judge may rule only on the testimony of someone whose uprightness has been established before him.

Alternatively, he may refer the hearing of the testimony to witnesses whose uprightness has already been established. If he entrusts them merely with transmitting the testimony to him, he need not require them to investigate the witnesses’ circumstances. But if he entrusts them with testifying before him on the basis of whatever testimony he deems valid, they must investigate what is necessary for accepting that testimony, so that they may testify to it after verifying its soundness and he may enforce the judgment accordingly.

The fourth circumstance concerning the strength of a claim is that the document accompanying it names deceased witnesses whose uprightness had been established, and the document itself is known to be authentic. In such a case, the jurisdiction over grievances is distinguished by three measures.

First, the defendant may be intimidated in a manner that compels him to speak the truth and acknowledge what is right. Second, he may be asked how the property came into his possession, since his answer may clarify the truth and distinguish the rightful party from the false claimant. Third, the circumstances may be investigated through the neighbors of the property and the neighbors of the parties disputing it, so as to arrive at clarity concerning the truth and identify the rightful party.

If the truth cannot be reached by any of these three means, the two parties may be referred to the mediation of a respected and influential person who knows them both and is familiar with the matter over which they are disputing. Through prolonged proceedings and repeated appearances, he may pressure them into mutual acknowledgment or reconciliation. If the matter leads them to either of these outcomes, that is the end of it; otherwise, he shall issue a definitive judgment between them according to what the judges’ ruling requires.

The fifth circumstance concerning the strength of a claim is that the claimant possesses a document in the defendant’s handwriting containing the substance of the claim. The jurisdiction over grievances requires that the defendant be asked about the handwriting: “Is this your handwriting?” If he acknowledges that it is, he is then asked whether the contents are true. If he acknowledges their truth, he has thereby made an admission and is bound by the legal consequences of his admission.

If he does not acknowledge the truth of the contents, some officials who administer grievance cases have held that he may nevertheless be ruled against on the basis of his handwriting once he acknowledges it, even without acknowledging the truth of what it contains. They regarded this as one of the indications establishing rights, in consideration of custom.

A group of jurists—indeed, the majority—held that an official overseeing grievances may not rule solely on the basis of handwriting until the writer acknowledges the truth of its contents, because the jurisdiction over grievances does not permit rulings that the Sharia has prohibited, and the jurisdiction over grievances