Explanation of the author's statement: "And if he denies it, he says to the claimant: If you have evidence, bring it if you wish. If he brings it, he hears it and rules based on it, and he does not rule based on his own knowledge."

The Shaykh : The integrity of the two witnesses, good. And is it permissible to test them? To test them by repeating the questions to them, like how much was sold for, and how was it, and when, and where, and was he angry or satisfied, and did he just wake up or was he still drowsy, and the like? We say it is not permissible, it is not permissible. It is being difficult with them, being difficult with the witnesses, because this leads to people disliking giving testimony. And because if he is difficult with them, some people do not have that strength; perhaps they will become weak and their performance of the testimony will be compromised. So it is not permissible to be difficult with them, nor to shout at them, nor to test them, except if he has doubt. If he has doubt, there is no harm in separating the witnesses and asking each one for his testimony, and looking to see if the testimonies contradict each other or not. He said "and he rules based on it". Of course, ruling based on it is after the completion of the conditions of ruling, such that the Shari'ah ruling becomes clear to him; otherwise, he should wait. He said "and he does not rule based on his own knowledge". He does not rule based on his own knowledge. This means, for example, if two people dispute before him, and he knows that the claimant is truthful in what he claimed, does he rule based on his knowledge? The author says he does not rule based on his knowledge. Even if he knows as clearly as the sun that he is truthful, he does not rule based on his knowledge. Good, and what does he do? He says to the claimant: Do you have evidence? He says: I have no evidence. And he knows that if he asked the defendant to take an oath, he would swear. Yes, but he knows that the matter is as the claimant said. Does he rule based on his knowledge? The author says no, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said and he did not say "based on what I know." So he made the ruling based on apparent, tangible matters. Why? So that the judge does not become a target of suspicion. Because if he rules based on his knowledge, and people say he ruled for so-and-so against so-and-so, and he is a claimant without witnesses, people know this, they will suspect him. Will they or not? They will suspect him. Then, if we open the door and say that this judge is among the most just of Allah's servants and does not rule except with the truth, another judge will come and rule with falsehood, saying, "This is what I know." This is not possible. If we opened the door for ruling based on knowledge, every judge would be invalidating [rulings]. He would say, "By Allah, so-and-so claimed such and such against so-and-so, and I know that the claimant is truthful, and I have ruled for him with what he claimed against his opponent, who is lying." Do you know if this could happen? It is possible. So if the door of ruling by the judge based on his knowledge were opened, the affairs of people would be corrupted, because not every person is trustworthy. Closing the door is better. So it is not permissible to rule based on knowledge, due to the evidence and the reasoning. What is the evidence? Not based on what I know. So judgment is built on apparent matters. The reasoning: if the door were opened, the judge would become a target of suspicion, and those who are not trustworthy would enter into it, and those who are not trustworthy would enter into it. Clear. Good. If two litigants come to me, and I know with certainty that the right is with the claimant, because the defendant came to me yesterday and confessed, and there is no doubt in my mind, what do I do? It is referred to another judge, and he becomes a witness. Do you see how it is referred to another judge? If he is the head of the court, he refers it to a member of the court, saying, "Dispute before so-and-so, and I am a witness for you, O claimant." Clear. And in that case, the difficulty is removed. In that case, the difficulty is removed. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that the judge does not rule based on his knowledge absolutely. But here, the scholars have excepted three issues, saying that he rules based on his knowledge in them. The first issue is the integrity of the witnesses and the criticism of the witnesses. Integrity and criticism: he rules based on his knowledge, because this is not a direct ruling where the judge would be suspected. So if he knows the integrity of the two witnesses, he accepts them without asking for their certification. And if he knows their criticism, he rejects their testimony without a critic, because this is not a direct ruling, but a ruling regarding the ruling or a ruling regarding what the ruling is built upon. This is one. The second issue is what he knows in the session of judgment; he rules based on it. How did he know it in the session of judgment? Yes, two people dispute before him, and at the beginning of the session, the defendant confesses to the right, and then after that he denies it. Does he rule against him or not? Yes, he rules against him, because he is still in the session of judgment, and he has heard the confession from the defendant, so he must rule based on it. Even if he denies it after the third [witness is heard]. If the matter is famous and clear and evident, equal in his private knowledge and public knowledge, not just the judge but others, then here he rules based on his knowledge. An example of that: it became famous in the town that this property was endowed for the poor. It is famous among all people since a long time ago that it is for the poor. Then the descendants of the endower came and said, "This is for our father or our grandfather." And the judge knows, as all people know, that this property is an endowment. Does he rule based on his knowledge or not? He rules. Why? Because it is famous, and suspicion is absent, and the entry of those who are not trustworthy is also absent. And on this basis, he rules based on his knowledge in three cases or three issues: the state of the witnesses, what is established in the session of judgment, and what is famous among people and widespread, such that suspicion does not attach to the judge in it in any way. Yes.