not reach him, and he is not obligated to pay from it. If the claimant is unable to properly articulate the claim, may the judge prompt him to articulate it? There are two possibilities: One is that it is permissible, because there is no harm to his opponent in that. The second is that it is not permissible, because it involves assisting one of the two litigants in his lawsuit.

Section: When the claimant has articulated his claim, the judge may ask his opponent for a response before the claimant requests him to do so, because the situation indicates that this is expected. For the summons and the claim are only intended so that the judge may ask the defendant, so that suffices for the claimant's request. Thus, he says to his opponent: 'What do you say regarding what he is claiming against you?' If he confesses, it becomes binding upon him, and the judge may not rule against him except upon the request of the one to whom the confession was made, because the judgment against him is a right belonging to the claimant, and he cannot obtain it except by a justified request. This is what our companions have stated. It is possible that it is permissible for him to judge against him before the claimant's request, because the situation indicates his desire for that, so it is sufficient, just as it is sufficient for the judge to ask the defendant for a response. Also, many people are unaware of the requirement for the judge to do so, so they abandon demanding it due to their ignorance, and their right is lost; therefore, according to this view, it is permissible for him to judge before his request. According to the first opinion, if the opponent asks him, saying: 'Judge in my favor,' he judges against him. The judgment is to say: 'I have made this binding upon you,' or 'I have decided against you for him,' or he says: 'Fulfill this for him.' Whenever he says one of these three to him, it constitutes a judgment based on right. If he denies it and says: 'You have no right against me,' then this is the point at which evidence is required. The judge says: 'Do you have evidence?' in accordance with what is narrated that two men disputed before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—a Hadrami and a Kindi. The Hadrami said: 'O Messenger of Allah, this man has overpowered me regarding a piece of land of mine.' The Kindi said: 'It is my land, and it is in my possession, so he has no right to it.' The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the Hadrami: 'Do you have evidence?' He said: 'No.' He said: 'Then you have the right to his oath.' This is a hasan sahih (good and authentic) hadith. If the claimant is aware that this is the point for evidence, the judge has the choice between saying: 'Do you have evidence?' and remaining silent. If he says to him: 'Do you have evidence?' and he mentions that he has evidence present, the judge does not tell him: 'Produce it.' Because that is his right, and he may do as he sees fit. When he produces it, the judge does not ask the witnesses about what they have until the claimant asks him to do so;