Is a written ruling enforceable concerning specific items identifiable only by description (non-distinct items)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
When the specific item (*ayn*) can only be identified by description, such as an undescribed slave or other items defined only by attributes, there are two scholarly opinions. The primary opinion, held by Abu Hanifa and one view among the Shafi'is, is that the written ruling is not accepted. This is reasoned because description alone is insufficient proof, evidenced by the rule that testimony concerning an item identified only by description and adornment is invalid, similar to the proof required for the object of the judgment itself.
Supporting text
The alternative view permits the written ruling's enforcement. This is based on the rationale that the item's value or responsibility is established in the debtor's liability (*dhimma*) through the contract based on that description, thus equating it to a debt. Furthermore, unlike testimony regarding a specific object which requires a claim first, here the item is proven by description. Under this view, the item must be delivered sealed, with identifying marks (such as a mark on the neck of a slave). If the required witnesses confirm the specific item before the receiving judge, it is handed over. If they fail to confirm it or state it is not the item in question, the taker must return it to the owner, assuming liability for it like usurped property (*maghsub*), including any loss of value or benefit, obligating payment of rent from the day of wrongful seizure until its return.