Before judgment, the ruling is suspended until his attendance. If he impugns the witnesses, he (the judge) shall not rule against him. If he asks the judge for a delay, he shall grant him a respite of three days; if he impugns them (within that time), he does so, otherwise, he rules against him. If he claims that the judgment was already satisfied or that he was acquitted, and he has evidence for that, he is acquitted; otherwise, the plaintiff takes an oath, and the judge rules in his favor. If he arrives after the judgment and impugns the witnesses based on a matter that existed before the testimony, the judgment is voided. If he impugns them based on a matter occurring after the giving of testimony, or without qualification, the judgment is not voided, and the judge shall not accept his challenge, because it is possible that it occurred after the judgment, and thus it does not invalidate it. If he requests a delay, he is granted three days; if he impugns them, he does so, otherwise, the judgment is carried out. If he claims satisfaction or acquittal and has evidence for it, he provides it; otherwise, the other party takes an oath, and the judgment is carried out.

Section: Judgment shall not be passed against an absent party except in the rights of humans (huquq al-adamiyyin). As for the hadd punishments which belong to Allah the Almighty, judgment shall not be passed against him regarding them, because their foundation is on leniency and dismissal. Thus, if evidence is established against an absent party for theft of property, a ruling is passed regarding the property but not for the hadd of amputation.

Section: If evidence is established against an absent party or a non-legally responsible person, such as a child or an insane person, the plaintiff is not required to take an oath along with his evidence, according to the most famous of the two reports, due to the saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him: "The evidence is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the defendant." And because it is credible evidence, the oath is not mandatory with it, just as if it were against a present party. The second report states that he is required to take an oath with it, which is the position of al-Shafi'i; because it is possible that he (the defendant) already fulfilled that for which the evidence was established, or that he (the plaintiff) gifted the object for which the evidence was established to him. If he were present and claimed that, an oath would be necessary; thus, when that is impossible for him due to his absence or lack of legal responsibility, the judge must stand in his place in what is possible for his claim. And because the judge is commanded to exercise caution regarding the rights of the child, the insane person, and the absent party, because each of them cannot speak for themselves, and this is part of that caution.

Section: The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that if judgment is passed against an absent party regarding a specific object, it is delivered to