and the oath is merely a reinforcement for it. The second view is that he is not imprisoned, which is the correct view; because if he were imprisoned for his sake so that he could produce another witness to complete the evidence with them, it would be like rights that cannot be established except by two witnesses. And if he were imprisoned so that he might take an oath along with him, there is no need for that, for the swearing is possible immediately. If he swears, his right is established, and if not, nothing becomes due. It is possible to say: if the claimant is willing to take the oath and the delay is for the purpose of proving the uprightness of the witness, he is imprisoned, for the reasons we mentioned regarding the preceding case. But if the delay in judgment is for other than that, he is not imprisoned, for the reasons we have mentioned. Al-Qadi said: Every instance where one is imprisoned due to two witnesses, the imprisonment continues until the uprightness or the depravity of the witnesses is established. And every instance where one is imprisoned due to a single witness, the one in whose favor the testimony was given is told: "If you bring another witness by the third time, otherwise we shall release him."

Section: If a slave claims that his master has emancipated him and produces two witnesses, but their uprightness has not been confirmed, and the slave asks the judge to intervene between him and his master until the judge investigates the uprightness of the witnesses, the judge must do so. He shall hire him out to a trustworthy person, spend on him from his earnings, and reserve the remainder. If the two witnesses are confirmed as upright, the remainder of his earnings is delivered to him. If they are found to be depraved, he is returned to his master. We have intervened between them for the reason we mentioned in the section preceding this one, and because if we did not intervene between them, it might lead to her (if a slave woman) being considered a slave, and he might have intercourse with her. If he produces one witness and asks for intervention between them, there are two views. If a woman produces two witnesses testifying to her divorce and the uprightness of the witnesses is not known, intervention is made between him and her. If she produces only one witness, no intervention is made between them, because the evidence is not complete, and this is a matter that cannot be established except by two witnesses, so it is not established by a single witness. And Allah knows best.