distant [places] and the like. It is possible to interpret al-Sha'bi's statement in this way, whereby this disagreement is resolved. Our evidence for making the [impossibility of obtaining the testimony of the original witness] a condition is that if it were possible for the judge to hear the testimony of the two original witnesses, he would have no need to investigate the integrity of the two secondary witnesses, and that would be more cautious regarding the testimony. For his hearing from them is certain, whereas the veracity of the secondary witnesses regarding them is only conjectured, and acting upon certainty when possible is better than following conjecture. Furthermore, the testimony of the original witness establishes the right itself, while this [secondary testimony] only establishes the testimony concerning it. Also, there is a weakness in the secondary testimony because it is subject to two possibilities: the possibility of error by the original witnesses and the possibility of error by the secondary witnesses, which creates a flaw in it. For this reason, it does not suffice to establish prescribed punishments and retaliation, so it should not be established except in the absence of the testimony of the original witness, like other substitutes (abdāl). It is not valid to analogize it to the transmission of religious reports, because in that case, the rules were lightened; for this reason, the number, masculinity, freedom, and specific wording are not considered, and the need for it exists for the general public, unlike in our case. Our evidence for its acceptance when it is impossible to obtain for reasons other than death is that when the testimony of the original witness becomes impossible, the testimony of the secondary witness is accepted, just as if the two original witnesses had died. This differs from the case of them both being present, for hearing their testimony is possible, so nothing other than that is permissible. When this is established, the judge mentioned that the absence conditioned for the hearing of secondary testimony is that the original witness be in a location from which he cannot testify and return on the same day. This was stated by Abu Yusuf and Abu Hamid among the companions of al-Shafi'i, because it is burdensome for the witness to be required to undertake such a journey, and Allah the Almighty has said: "...and neither scribe nor witness should be harmed." Since he is not tasked with being present, the hearing of his testimony becomes impossible, so there is a need to hear the secondary testimony. Abu al-Khattab said: The distance for shortening prayer (qasr) is considered. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Abu al-Tayyib al-Tabari, although they differ regarding the distance of shortening prayer, each according to his own principle; because that which is less than that is within...