a written deed, and litigation is brought on its basis; the defendant claims that he has already discharged the obligation. In such a case the witness must not testify until the very document that carries his own handwritten testimony is produced, for most people, once they have paid a debt, take back the supporting papers.

There is disagreement about a debtor who appears in court holding the very deed that records the debt against him and says that it only reached him because the creditor handed it over after payment, while the creditor replies that the document merely fell from him and was later recovered, or that it had been stolen. Some jurists allow the witness to testify for the debtor, arguing that the debtor’s story is plausible; others disallow it, maintaining that the creditor’s explanation is improbable, since the common practice is indeed to give the deed to the debtor once the debt has been settled. The judge, for his part, must exercise his own judgment whenever such testimony reaches him.

If a party has sworn an oath regarding a claim and evidence is then produced against him, the ruling depends on the plaintiff’s reason for delay. If he had a valid excuse, judgment is rendered in his favour. If he had no excuse, there are two narrations from Malik. One states that the judge still rules for him on the strength of his evidence, because the upright testimony of witnesses is more deserving of acceptance than a false and sinful oath. The other says that no judgment is given, for it is as though he had relinquished the evidence when he knew of it and was content with the oath.

The scholars of Medina also transmitted from Malik that if a man hears another acknowledge a right belonging to someone, he may not testify for that person unless the acknowledger expressly asks him to bear witness, lest the statement be nothing more than information about a past matter—unless the acknowledger adds words such as, “It is still due from me up to this moment,” or other clear expressions that remove all doubt.

If someone confesses to his creditor while alone with him but then denies the debt in public, it is permissible for the creditor to place a man behind a wall or a curtain so that he may overhear the confession. By contrast, when the obligor is weak-minded, easily deceived, or afraid, it is not permissible for anyone to hide from him in order to listen to his words in that state; testimony obtained in such a manner is inadmissible.

A perjuring witness is to be disciplined, paraded publicly, and his disgrace made known; his testimony is never accepted thereafter—and Allah has coupled