If he knows the matter and the requirement of the judiciary is to rule contrary to what he knows, what should he do?

The Shaykh : If someone were to say: If he knows the matter and the requirement of the judiciary is to rule contrary to what he knows, for example, Zayd claims against 'Amr that he lent him a thousand dirhams, and the claimant has no evidence, but the judge knows that the claimant is truthful, what should he do? If he rules according to the method of judgment, he tells the one denying the claim to swear that the claimant has nothing with him, so he swears and is absolved. But how can he rule in his favor when he knows that he is lying? The scholars said that in this case, the judge should refer the case to another judge, and he himself should act as a witness. He refers it to another judge and acts as a witness. If he is a witness along with the claimant's statement, the claimant is ruled in favor of what he claimed, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled based on one witness and an oath. In this way, the judge is absolved of responsibility, and the right reaches its rightful owner. And Allah knows best.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : What?