If, however, he is put in that predicament, he must not testify until he has heard the confessant’s words in their entirety—both the first and the last—and he must relate what he heard both for and against the party who summoned him. Should the confessant be weak, deceived, or intimidated, their testimony against him is inadmissible; instead, he must swear that his admission concerned only part of what has been reported. If this does not apply, the claim stands proven against him.

Some people will admit the truth in private yet refuse to do so in public; when such a trait is known of someone, it is permissible to conceal oneself in order to grasp his confession.

Once the testimony of a mute person is understood, it is valid. When the qassāmūn (official partitioners) testify regarding the division they themselves carried out, their testimony is accepted according to Mālik, provided the judge appointed them for that task. Ibn al-Qāsim maintained that neither the qassām nor the judge may testify about a matter he has already adjudicated.

The court scribe’s testimony is admissible concerning whatever he recorded, both before and after he leaves office.