the two witnesses. Our view is that what can be proven by testimony should not be limited to external appearances, such as the establishment of contracts. Furthermore, handwriting can resemble handwriting, and a seal can be forged, and it is possible to refer back to the testimony; therefore, one does not rely solely on the handwriting, just as a witness does not rely on handwriting in his testimony, and in this is a separation from what they mentioned. Once this is established, when a judge writes a letter, he calls upon two men who will travel to the town where the judge to whom the letter is addressed resides. He reads the letter to them, or someone else reads it to them. The most cautious approach is that they look at it with him as he reads it. If they do not look at it, it is permissible, because he would not have anyone read it except for a trustworthy person. When it is read to them, he says: "Bear witness for me that this is my letter to so-and-so." If he says: "Bear witness for me regarding what is in it," it is better. If he limits it to his saying: "This is my letter to so-and-so," the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement is that it does not suffice, because he is making them carry the testimony, so it was required that he say: "Bear witness for me," as in testimony regarding testimony. The Judge (al-Qadi) said: "It suffices." This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Then, if what is in the letter is brief, they rely on memorizing it. If it is long and they are unable to memorize it, each of them writes its contents and compares it to it so that it is with him, by which he remembers what he testifies to. They take possession of the letter before they depart, so that he does not hand them a different one. When the letter reaches him with them, the judge or someone else reads it to them. When they hear it, they say: "We testify that this is the letter of Judge So-and-so to you; he made us bear witness for him regarding what is in it," because his letter might be different from the one he had them bear witness to. Abu al-Khattab said: "It is not accepted unless they say: 'We testify that this is the letter of So-and-so,' because it is the performance of testimony, so it must contain the verbal expression of testimony." And it is necessary that they say: "From his jurisdiction," because the letter is not accepted unless it arrives from his seat of jurisdiction. It is the same whether the letter arrives sealed or unsealed, accepted or not accepted, because the reliance is upon their testimony, not upon the handwriting and seal. If the letter is erased and they happen to memorize what is in it, it is permissible for them to testify to that; but if they do not memorize what is in it, testimony is not possible for them. Abu Hanifa and Abu Thawr said: "The letter is not accepted until two witnesses testify regarding the judge's seal." Our view is that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) wrote a letter to Caesar and did not seal it. It was said to him: "He does not read a letter unless it is sealed." So he adopted a seal. His limiting it to the letter without the seal is evidence that the seal is not a condition for acceptance, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) only did so for them to read his letter. Furthermore, they testified to what is in the letter and knew what was in it, so it is obligatory to accept it, just as if it had arrived sealed and they testified to the seal.