and others testify that its boundaries are such-and-such without affirming ownership; on the basis of these two complementary testimonies Malik rules in favour of the claimant and awards him the land.

Testimony that relies solely on handwriting is admissible only when a man has written in his own hand, “So-and-so has with me such-and-such,” and then denies it. In precisely this situation testimony about his handwriting is taken: if two upright witnesses declare, without any doubt, that the writing is his, judgment is entered against him and the claimant is not required to swear an oath. If, however, the judge decides—out of due diligence—to have the claimant swear that the witnesses have spoken truthfully, that is commendable; such a procedure is also reported from Malik.

Other reports from Malik differ: one permits handwriting testimony in every matter without restriction, while another disallows judgment on the basis of handwriting in any case at all. The opinion he ultimately adopted, by way of independent reasoning, is that testimony to a witness’s handwriting may be accepted in the case of ancient endowment deeds.

It has been said that when two witnesses attest to the handwriting of an adversary acknowledging the debt he now denies, judgment is not rendered on that testimony alone until the claimant adds an oath. Once he swears that the writing is genuine and that he has not yet collected anything, he is given his due. If the claimant has died, his heirs must likewise swear categorically that the debt is real and that, to their knowledge, nothing has been received; all of this is also related by Ibn Wahb from Malik.

Should the person whose handwriting is in question be deceased, judgment is executed against his estate. No one is made to swear in addition to valid evidence—apart from the case just mentioned—except one who claims a debt from a deceased person: even after producing proof he is not awarded anything until he swears that he has received nothing, and has neither released the debt nor accepted a gift in its place. This is a precaution taken for the sake of the deceased.

Malik voiced two opinions about a case supported by only one witness to the handwriting: on one occasion he said that judgment is given together with the claimant’s oath, and on another he said that no judgment is to be rendered on that basis. The discussion continues with