the plaintiff, and if judgment is passed against him for a debt, and property is found belonging to him, it is settled from it; for he (Ahmad) said, in a report by Harb, regarding a man who established evidence that he had a share of an estate in the hands of a group of people, and they hid from him: It shall be divided among them, whether they bear witness or are absent, and his right is delivered to him. This is because his right was established by evidence, so it is delivered to him, as if his opponent were present. It is possible that nothing is delivered to him until he provides a guarantor that whenever his opponent arrives and invalidates his claim, he is liable to guarantee what he took, so that the plaintiff does not take what was judged for him, then his opponent comes and invalidates his proof, or establishes evidence of satisfaction or acquittal, or the object for which the evidence was established is owned (by another) after the departure and absence or death of the plaintiff, causing the defendant's property to be lost. The apparent view of Ahmad is the first; for he said regarding a man who had a stolen beast, and he said: It is with me as a trust: If evidence is established that it belongs to him, it is delivered to the one who established the evidence, until the owner of the trust comes and proves his claim.

Section: As for the person present in the city, or near it, if he is not prevented from attending, judgment shall not be passed against him before his attendance, according to the position of the majority of scholars. The companions of al-Shafi'i said, in one of their opinions: It is permitted to pass judgment against him in his absence, because he is absent, so he resembles one who is absent from the city. Our view is that it is possible to summon him, so it is not permitted to pass judgment against him before summoning him, like one present in the judge's assembly, and he differs from the far-away absent party; for it is not possible to summon him. If he refuses to attend, or hides, the apparent view of Ahmad is the permissibility of passing judgment against him, for what we mentioned regarding him in the report by Harb. Abu Talib reported from him, regarding a man who found his slave with a man, and he established evidence that it was his slave, and the man who had the slave said: A man entrusted this to me. Ahmad said: The people of Medina pass judgment [against the absent party, saying: It belongs to this one who established the evidence. This is a good school of thought. The people of Basra pass judgment] against an absent party, and they call it 'al-i'dhar' (notification/formal warning). It is when he makes a claim against a man for a thousand (dirhams) and establishes evidence, and the defendant hides, so a messenger is sent to his door, and the messenger calls out three times; if he comes, (well and good), otherwise they have served him with formal notification. This strengthens the opinion of the people of Medina, and it is a sound concept. And it has been mentioned by