for a human is prone to forgetfulness, and he cannot judge based on his [own] confession. If a right is established before him through the refusal (nukul) of the defendant to swear, or by the oath of the plaintiff after the refusal, and the plaintiff asks him to bear witness to it, he is obligated to do so, because the plaintiff has no proof other than the witnessing. If proof (bayyina) is established before him and he asks him to witness, there are two views; one is that he is not obligated to do so because there is already proof for the right, so it is not necessary to provide another proof. The second is that it is obligatory, because there is a new benefit in the witnessing, which is the validation of his proof and the binding of his opponent. If the denier takes an oath and asks the judge to witness his innocence, he is obligated to do so, so that it may be a proof for him regarding the dismissal of the claim in the future. In all of these cases, if he asks him to write a record (mahdar) of what transpired, there are two views; one is that he is obligated to do so, because it is a documentation for him, like the witnessing, as the two witnesses might forget the testimony or forget the adversaries, and nothing would remind them except seeing their own handwriting. The second is that he is not obligated, because the witnessing suffices him. The first is more correct, because many testimonies are given before witnesses and a long time passes, and it is likely that they will not realize the testimony with a certainty that allows for its performance; thus, it is not restricted except through writing. If he chooses to write a record for him, its format is: "Judge so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative, judge for the servant of Allah, the Imam so-and-so, was present regarding such and such." If he is a deputy of the judge, he says: "The deputy of the judge so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative, judge of the Imam, at his seat of judgment and adjudication." If he knows the plaintiff and the defendant by their names and lineages, he says: "So-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative, and he brought with him so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative." He traces their lineage until they are distinguished. It is recommended to mention their physical appearance; if he omits it, it is permissible, because mentioning their lineage, when traced, suffices for mentioning their physical appearance. If the judge does not know the two adversaries, he says: "A plaintiff who stated that he is so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative, brought with him a defendant who stated that he is so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative." He traces their lineage and mentions their physical appearance, because reliance is placed upon it, for one might borrow a lineage. He says: "bald" or "receding hairline," and he mentions the description of the eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, complexion, and height and shortness. "Whatever he claimed against him, such and such, he confessed it to him." And he...