—those that have been in force for so long that their origin lies far back in time.
If the witnesses declare, “We have always heard that this house is a waqf (endowment) set aside for such-and-such a purpose,” the property is treated with all the legal protections accorded to waqf holdings. Likewise, when they state that “So-and-so is the son of So-and-so,” or that “So-and-so, the son of So-and-so, is the client of So-and-so—his grandfather having manumitted him,” and similar reports, both lineage and clientage are thereby established.
Ibn al-Qāsim held, however, that lineage itself is not confirmed by this type of testimony; it merely entitles the claimant to property, unless the matter is already notorious—such as Nāfiʿ, the client of Ibn ʿUmar, or ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad.
It is permissible for a person to testify to the death of someone whose demise is well known to him—whether a trusted informant told him, and he became certain, or he learnt of it through public lamentation or by attending the funeral. One may also testify to the death of someone one never actually met, provided the fact has become firmly established through common knowledge.
In the same way, a witness may testify that a particular man is the husband of a particular woman, or that a woman is the wife of a given man, even though he did not attend the marriage contract—so long as he knows they are married because he has witnessed the public announcement, their cohabitation, or any other circumstance by which knowledge is ordinarily attained, as Allah wills.
A person may further testify that so-and-so served as the qāḍī of a certain district at a certain time, even if the ruler never formally recorded the appointment, just as one may testify to the caliphate of a caliph once the fact has been established by widespread report.
He may also state on oath that he has always heard that so-and-so was under the guardianship of so-and-so, who managed his affairs and supported him—whether by his father’s bequest or by a judge’s appointment—even though he did not witness either the bequest or the appointment, because he learnt of it through the continued circulation of the report among upright, reliable people and others. A ward’s legal incapacity (safaha) is thereby established when another witness corroborates the testimony. Concerning this point, and the one before it, our scholars have expressed different opinions. In such cases, adopting the course of caution is preferable for anyone faced with them, and ijtihād (independent reasoning) is required.