sealed. He adopted a seal. His limiting it to the letter without the seal is evidence that the seal is not a condition for acceptance. 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. Once this is established, it is only their grasping of the meaning of the letter and what pertains to the judgment that is considered. Al-Athram said: I heard Abu Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) being asked about people who testified regarding a document, some of whom looked at it and some of whom did not look at it. He said: "If he memorized it, then let him testify." It was said: "How can he memorize it when it is a long text?" He said: "He memorizes what the content and the situation were." I said: "He memorizes the meaning?" He said: "Yes." It was said to him: "And the limits (hudud), the price, and such like?" He said: "Yes." If he folded the letter and sealed it, and said: "This is my letter; bear witness for me regarding what is in it," or said: "I have made you bear witness against myself regarding what is in it," this acquisition of testimony is invalid. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Yusuf said: If he seals it with his seal and address, it is permissible for them to acquire the testimony regarding it while it is folded; when the letter arrives, they testify before him that it is the letter of so-and-so. We can derive a similar ruling for ourselves; because they testified to what is in the letter, it is permissible, even if they did not know its details, just as if they testified to the dirhams in this bag; their testimony is valid even if they do not know their amount. Our view is that they have testified to an unknown that they do not know, so their testimony is not valid, just as if they testified that so-and-so has money belonging to so-and-so. This differs from what he mentioned, for his specifying the dirhams that are in the bag dispenses with the need to know their amount, whereas here the testimony is regarding what is in the letter, not the letter itself, and they do not know it. The second condition is that the judge must write it from the place of his jurisdiction and his seat of administration. If he writes it from outside his jurisdiction, its acceptance is not permissible because he has no valid judgment outside of his jurisdiction; thus, in that regard, he is