his tongue from harming the general public, for he is merely settling the quarrel that has arisen among them, and once the session is over he is, after all, one of them. He should not hurry the litigants through their proofs by frightening them, except a person whose behavior he finds suspicious and whom he fears may attempt some deceit.

When the two parties come before him and he seats them in front of him, he should ask them—according to Mālik—“Which of you is the claimant?” and he begins with that party. When the claimant has exhausted his evidence, the judge says to the defendant, “Present your proof.” There is no harm if the judge assists the weaker of the two to complete the argument he has begun.

He must not issue a verdict until he says to the one against whom judgment is to be rendered, “Do you have any evidence left?” Only after he has thoroughly inquired about that—and about any request for a postponement—may he pronounce his decision.

It does not befit him to coach a witness; he should leave the witness to relate what he knows, unless he sees that the witness is incapable of expressing himself. If one of the litigants becomes blatantly contentious, the judge should forbid it and warn him; if he refuses to desist, the judge disciplines him, and for someone of his sort a stern rebuke or temporary banishment is the better course of discipline.

Should a litigant persist in harassing the judge with grievances or verbal attacks, the judge is entitled to discipline him; forgiving is superior, unless discipline would deter others.

The judge ought to select a clerk known for chastity, uprightness, and sound understanding, whose testimony would be admissible. He should station that clerk where he can observe whatever the man writes or does. Mālik said, “I do not think the judge should employ a dhimmī (a protected non-Muslim) as his scribe, for the clerk is often consulted, and an unbeliever is not to be consulted concerning the affairs of Muslims.”

The clerk records for the litigants—in a single document—whatever testimony, admission, and denial occurs between them; he then folds the sheet, seals it with the judge’s seal, writes on it, “This is the dispute of so-and-so,” and dates the statements by day and month.

If the judge accepts testimony against a man in that man’s absence, there is no harm, provided the man’s identity is well known and he cannot be confused with anyone else of his time. Even so, I prefer that this be done only in his presence, except in matters that do not require his personal appearance. When