regarding a specific house or otherwise, and he confirms it, then there is no dispute. If he denies it and says, "This does not belong to me; it is in my possession on behalf of someone else," it is not accepted unless he acknowledges it to a specific person. If the person to whom he acknowledged it is present, you examine the situation: if he denies his acknowledgement, it is void, and his debt is paid from the wealth. If he confirms it, you examine: if he has evidence for it, he has priority, because he has evidence and the possessor acknowledges it for him. If he does not have evidence, the judge stated that the word of both is not accepted, and the debt is paid from it, because the evidence testified for the possessor regarding ownership, thus their testimony (65) implied the obligation of payment from it. When their testimony (65) is not accepted regarding his own self, it is accepted regarding what it implied, because it is a right for someone else; and because he is suspected in his acknowledgement for another, as he might do that to clear his wealth so it returns to him. Thus, an accusation is attached to him, and the evidence is not invalidated by his statement. There is another view: the acknowledgement is established, and the evidence is dropped, because it testifies to ownership for someone who does not claim it and denies it.

The third answer is that he says, "He imprisoned me because evidence testified against me for my adversary regarding a right, in order for him to investigate the condition of the witnesses." This is based on a foundational principle: does the judge have the authority for this or not? There are two views: One is that he does not have this authority, because imprisonment is a hardship, and it cannot be directed against him before the right is established against him. According to this, he does not return him to prison if his adversary confirms this. The second is that it is permissible to imprison him, because the plaintiff has presented what is required of him, and all that remains is what the judge must do regarding the investigation. The companions of Al-Shafi'i have two views similar to these two. According to this view, he returns him to prison until he verifies the condition of his witnesses. If his adversary denies it and says, "Rather, the judge has already recognized the probity of my witnesses and judged the right against him," his word is accepted, because the default assumption is that his imprisonment was for a just cause.

The fourth answer is that (66) he says, "The judge imprisoned me for the price of a dog or the value of wine I spilled for a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen), because he held that view." If his adversary confirms it, the judge stated that he releases him, because compensating for this is not obligatory. There is another view: the judge enforces the judgment of the first judge, because he does not have the right to overturn the judgment of another based on his own independent reasoning (ijtihad). There is another view: he pauses and exercises independent reasoning so that they may reconcile on something, because it is not possible for him to