But if the claim is devoid of factors that might strengthen or weaken it—if nothing accompanies it to support it or undermine it—then the grievance authority must consider the circumstances of the two disputants in light of the preponderance of probability. Their situation in this regard can only fall into one of three categories: first, the preponderance of probability may favor the claimant; second, it may favor the defendant; or third, the indications may be evenly balanced.

What a preponderance of probability in favor of either party warrants is that both parties be subjected to intimidation and that the investigation be pursued more vigorously in that direction. It has no bearing, however, on the final judgment between them, for prevailing presumptions are not a basis to be taken into account in adjudicating the dispute. If the preponderance of probability favors the claimant and suspicion is directed toward the defendant, this may be for one of three reasons.

First, although the claimant has no evidence to present, he may be of little power and gentle in disposition, while the defendant is a person of strength and authority. Thus, if the claimant accuses him of usurping a house or landed estate, it will be more likely than not that a person of such meekness and vulnerability would not bring a false claim against someone possessing courage, strength, and power.

Second, the claimant may be widely known for truthfulness and trustworthiness, while the defendant is widely known for lying and treachery. In that case, the claim’s truthfulness will be more likely than not.

Third, their circumstances may be equal, except that it is known that the claimant had prior possession, while no subsequent cause is known for the defendant’s possession having entered his hands. In these three circumstances, the grievance authority’s investigation requires two measures: first, intimidating the defendant because suspicion is directed toward him; and second, asking him about the cause by which the property came into his possession and how he acquired ownership. Mālik regarded this as a proper judicial approach when suspicion exists, so the grievance authority has even greater reason to adopt it.

The defendant may, despite his elevated status, disdain lowering himself to litigate with his opponent on equal terms, and so relinquish what he possesses to the claimant voluntarily. The governor overseeing grievance cases may also deal delicately with the matter, helping the aggrieved person obtain his right while preserving the dignity of the person against whom the grievance was brought, or arranging the claim in a way that preserves his own dignity, lest he be accused of unfairness and of denying someone his rightful due.