According to this narration, the translation serves as testimony, and thus it requires number and uprightness ('adalah), and the same conditions as those required for testimony regarding the admission of that right are considered. If it is a matter pertaining to fixed penalties (hudud) or retaliation (qisas), liberty is a condition, and it does not suffice except with two male witnesses. If it is a matter of property, the translation of one man and two women suffices, and liberty is not required. If it pertains to the fixed penalty for adultery (zina), two views are derived regarding the translation: the first is that no fewer than four free, upright men suffice. The second is that two suffice, based on the two narrations regarding testimony on the admission of it. The wording of testimony is considered, as it is testimony. But if we say that one person suffices, his uprightness is necessary, and it is not accepted from a disbeliever or a wicked person (fasiq). It is accepted from a slave because he is a person of testimony and transmission (riwayah). Abu Hanifa said: It is not accepted from a slave because he is not a person of testimony. Our view is that it is a report for which the statement of one person is sufficient, so the report of a slave is accepted, just like reports of religious laws. We do not concede that this is testimony, nor that the slave is not a person of testimony, nor is the wording of testimony considered in it, just as in transmission. Based on this principle, it is appropriate to accept the translation of a woman if she is a person of uprightness, because her transmission is accepted.

Section: The ruling regarding identification (ta'rif), message delivery (risalah), and impugnment and validation (jarh wa ta'dil) is the same as the ruling for translation, and there is the same disagreement regarding it. This was mentioned by Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far and Abu al-Khattab. We have already mentioned impugnment and validation previously.

1877 - Issue: He said: "And when he is dismissed, if he says: 'I had judged in my jurisdiction for so-and-so against so-and-so regarding a right,' his statement is accepted, and that right is executed."

Ishaq held this view. Abu al-Khattab said: It is possible that his statement is not accepted. The view of the judge (Al-Qadi) in the branches of this issue implies that his statement is not accepted here, and this is the view of the majority of jurists; because he who does not possess the authority to judge does not possess the authority to admit to it, like one who admits to the emancipation of a slave after selling him.