“There are thus four possibilities”:

First, resolution through reconciliation. This is the ideal, for it achieves all three objectives in full. Second, resolution through a judgment that leaves bitterness. This ensures that the right reaches its holder and ends the dispute, but does not restore harmony between the parties.

Third, reconciliation whereby someone relinquishes part of what he claims as his right. This too achieves reconciliation and ends the dispute. Although the objective of ensuring that rights reach their holders is not achieved, voluntary relinquishment takes its place. This shows that settling a case through reconciliation is better than resolving it through a judgment that leaves bitterness. Both end the dispute, but reconciliation has the added merit of restoring harmony, although one party relinquishes his right. The other approach ensures that the rightful claimant receives his due, but leaves resentment behind. The former benefit is more complete, especially if the right is established only outwardly, while the underlying reality may be otherwise.

As for neither resolution nor reconciliation, this is unacceptable, for it brings about the harm of leaving matters unadjudicated.

If a right is already in its holder’s possession—as with an endowment or the like—and it is feared that, unless safeguarded by evidence, a stipulation may be forgotten, the right denied, and its holder fail to receive it, or something similar, then hearing the claim and testimony without an opposing party safeguards the right against denial by a hypothetical adversary. This is one of the two purposes of adjudication; hence such claims and testimony are heard.

Those jurists who hold that they should not be heard—as do groups among the Hanafīs, Shāfi'īs, and Hanbalīs—consider the sole purpose of adjudication to be the settlement of disputes: where there is no dispute, there is no adjudication. Accordingly, evidence is heard only in the presence of a defendant, so that a dispute is manifest.

Those who permit the appointment of a nominal adversary thereby introduce the harm of a dispute and then put an end to it. Those who hold that such evidence may be heard preserve an existing right without introducing a harm that was not there. And Allah knows best.