لا يجوز أن يتشكل مجلس القضاء من أكثر من قاضٍ واحد له صلاحية إصدار الحكم؛ ومع ذلك يجوز أن يحضر معه قاضٍ أو أكثر، لكن لا يكون لهم حق الحكم، وإنما يُستشارون أو يُبدون رأيهم فقط، ولا يكون رأيهم ملزماً.

It is not allowed for a tribunal to be formed of more than one judge that has the power to render judgement; it is however permitted for one or more judges to be present with him but they would not have the right to judge, but merely to be consulted or to voice an opinion, and their opinion would not be binding. .

لِأَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ لَمْ يُعَيِّنْ قَاضِيَيْنِ لِلنَّظَرِ فِي قَضِيَّةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ، بَلْ عَيَّنَ قَاضِيًا وَاحِدًا لِكُلِّ قَضِيَّةٍ. وَعِلَاوَةً عَلَى ذَلِكَ، فَإِنَّ الْقَضَاءَ هُوَ إِيصَالُ حُكْمِ الشَّرْعِ عَلَى سَبِيلِ الْإِلْزَامِ، وَحُكْمُ الشَّرْعِ فِي شَأْنِ الْمُسْلِمِ الْوَاحِدِ لَا يَتَعَدَّدُ، لِأَنَّهُ حُكْمُ اللهِ، وَحُكْمُ اللهِ وَاحِدٌ. وَصَحِيحٌ أَنَّ فَهْمَهُ قَدْ يَتَعَدَّدُ، لَكِنَّهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ التَّطْبِيقُ بِالنِّسْبَةِ لِلْمُسْلِمِ يَبْقَى وَاحِدًا وَلَا يَتَعَدَّدُ. فَإِذَا أَوْصَلَ الْقَاضِي حُكْمَ اللهِ فِي الْقَضِيَّةِ الْمَطْرُوحَةِ عَلَى سَبِيلِ الْإِلْزَامِ، وَجَبَ أَنْ يَكُونَ هَذَا الْإِيصَالُ وَاحِدًا، لِأَنَّهُ إِيصَالُ حُكْمِ اللهِ عَلَى سَبِيلِ الْقَهْرِ، فَيَكُونُ بِذَلِكَ عَمَلًا بِحُكْمِ اللهِ، وَحُكْمُ اللهِ مِنَ النَّاحِيَةِ العَمَلِيَّةِ لَا يَتَعَدَّدُ، وَإِنْ تَعَدَّدَ الْفَهْمُ. لِذَلِكَ يَحْرُمُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لِلْقَضِيَّةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ أَكْثَرُ مِنْ قَاضٍ وَاحِدٍ، أَيْ فِي الْمَحْكَمَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ. أَمَّا الْبِلَادُ، فَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ فِيهَا مَحْكَمَتَانِ مُسْتَقِلَّتَانِ تَنْظُرَانِ فِي جَمِيعِ أَنْوَاعِ الْقَضَايَا فِي مِنْطَقَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ، لِأَنَّ الْقَضَاءَ مُفَوَّضٌ مِنَ الْخَلِيفَةِ، فَهُوَ كَالْوِلَايَةِ الَّتِي يَجُوزُ فِيهَا التَّعَدُّدُ، فَيَجُوزُ إِذَنْ أَنْ يَكُونَ فِي الْمِنْطَقَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ عِدَّةُ قُضَاةٍ. وَإِذَا لَمْ يَتَّفِقِ الْمُتَخَاصِمَانِ عَلَى أَيِّ الْمَحْكَمَتَيْنِ يَرْفَعَانِ إِلَيْهَا قَضِيَّتَهُمَا، أَوْ أَيُّ الْقَاضِيَيْنِ يَنْظُرُ فِي قَضِيَّتِهِمَا، فَإِنَّ اخْتِيَارَ الْمُدَّعِي يُقَدَّمُ عَلَى اخْتِيَارِ الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ، وَتُعْطَى الْقَضِيَّةُ لِلْقَاضِي الَّذِي يَخْتَارُهُ، لِأَنَّهُ يَطْلُبُ حَقَّهُ، وَهَذَا يُرَجَّحُ عَلَى حَقِّ الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ.

This is because the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) never appointed two judges to deal with one matter, rather He (PBUH) appointed one judge for each matter. Besides, the judiciary is the conveying of the Shariah rule by way of enforcement, and the Shariah rule concerning the one Muslim cannot vary, for it is the rule of Allah, and the rule of Allah is one. It is true that its interpretation may vary, but concerning the Muslim from the practical side it remains one and it never varies. When the judge conveys the rule of Allah in the matter at hand by way of enforcement, this conveyance must be one, for it is the conveying of the rule of Allah by way of compulsion. Thus it would be acting upon the rule of Allah, and the rule of Allah from a practical point of view does not vary, even if the understanding does vary. Therefore, it is forbidden to have more than one judge for the same case, i.e. in the same court. As for the country, it is permitted to have two separate courts dealing in all types of cases in one area, because the judiciary is delegated by the Khalifah, so it is like the deputyship where plurality is permitted, thus it would be permitted to have several judges in one area. If the disputing parties could not agree on which tribunal they should take their case to or which judge should look into their case, the choice of the plaintiff would outweigh that of the defendant and the case would be given to the judge of his choice, as he would be seeking his right and this outweighs the defendant..

لا يحكم القاضي إلا في مجلس القضاء، ولا تُعتبر البيّنة واليمين إلا في مجلس القضاء؛ وذلك لأنه قد رُوي عن عبد الله بن الزبير أنه قال:

The judge can only rule in a judicial court; and the evidence and the oath can only be considered in the judicial court. This is because it has been reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibn al-Zubayr who said: .

قال رسول الله ﷺ: «أَمَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ أَنْ يَجْلِسَ الْخَصْمَانِ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الْحَاكِمِ»، وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ رَوَاهُ أَبُو دَاوُدَ [السُّنَن، رقم ٣٥٨٨]، وَهُوَ يُبَيِّنُ الصُّورَةَ الَّتِي تُجْرَى عَلَيْهَا الْإِجْرَاءَاتُ الْقَضَائِيَّةُ، وَهِيَ صُورَةٌ شَرْعِيَّةٌ فِي ذَاتِهَا، أَيْ أَنَّ لِلْإِجْرَاءَاتِ الْقَضَائِيَّةِ هَيْئَةً مُعَيَّنَةً يَجِبُ أَنْ تُجْرَى عَلَيْهَا، وَهِيَ أَنْ يَجْلِسَ الْخَصْمَانِ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الْحَاكِمِ، وَهَذَا هُوَ مَجْلِسُ الْقَضَاءِ. وَمِنْ ثَمَّ فَإِنَّ هَذَا شَرْطٌ لِصِحَّةِ الْإِجْرَاءِ الْقَضَائِيِّ، أَيْ أَنَّهُ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَكُونَ هُنَاكَ مَكَانٌ خَاصٌّ يُجْرَى فِيهِ الْحُكْمُ حَتَّى يُعَدَّ حُكْمًا مُعْتَبَرًا، وَهُوَ أَنْ يَجْلِسَ الْخَصْمَانِ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الْقَاضِي.

“The Messenger of Allah has ordered that the two disputing parties should sit before the judge.” This hadith is narrated by Abu Dawud [Sunan, #3588], and it demonstrates the form in which the judicial process should be conducted, and it is a lawful form in itself, i.e. there must be a specific form in which the judicial process is to be conducted, which is for the two disputing parties to sit before the judge, and this would be the judicial court. Therefore this is a condition for the validity of the judicial procedure, i.e. that there ought to be a special place where the judgement is to be conducted for it to qualify as a legitimate judgement, and this would be for the two disputing parties to sit before a judge. .

يُستدلّ على ذلك بحديث علي (رضي الله عنه) حين قال له رسول الله ﷺ:

This is supported by the hadith of ‘Ali (ra) when the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said to him: .

«يا عليُّ، إذا جلس إليك الخصمان فلا تقضِ لأحدهما حتى تسمع كلام الآخر كما سمعت كلام الأول، فإنه أحرى أن يتبين لك القضاء». ويدل كذلك على صورة خاصة قال فيها ﷺ:

“O ’Ali, if two disputing parties sat before you, do not judge (in favour) for either of them until you hear what the other party has to say as you have heard the first one.” It also indicates a special form where He (PBUH) said: .

"إذا جلس أمامك طرفان متنازعان"

"If two disputing parties sat before you"..

فلذلك فإن مجلس القضاء أمرٌ لا بد منه لصحة الحكم، وهو أيضًا أمرٌ لا بد منه لاعتبار اليمين، لأن رسول الله ﷺ قال:

Therefore the judicial court is a must if the judgement is to be valid, and is also a must for the oath to be considered, for the Messenger of Allah ( PBUH) said: .

"اليمينُ على المدَّعى عليه"، كما رواه البخاري عن ابن عباس [صحيح، رقم ٢٦٦٨]. ولا يُعتبر المرءُ مدَّعًى عليه إلا في مجلس القضاء. وكذلك البيّنةُ لا تُعتبر إلا أمام المحكمة القضائية، لقول رسولِ الله ﷺ: .

The oath must be given by the defendant,” as narrated by Al-Bukhari on the authority of Ibn Abbas [Sahih, #2668]. He would not be considered as a defendant except in a judicial court. The same applies for the evidence, it cannot be considered except before a judicial court, for the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: .

"البَيِّنَةُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِي، وَالْيَمِينُ عَلَى مَنْ أَنْكَرَ." رَوَاهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ.

"It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is obliged on the one that contests." As narrated by Al-Bayhaqi. .

ومع ذلك لا يُعتبر مدّعياً إلا أمام المحكمة القضائية.

Additionally he cannot be considered a plaintiff except before a judicial court. .

يجوز أن تكون للمحاكم درجات متعددة بحسب أنواع القضايا، فيجوز إذن أن يُقصر بعض القضاة على النظر في قضايا معيّنة إلى حدٍّ ما، وأن تُحال القضايا الأخرى إلى محاكم أخرى.

It is permitted to have various levels of court according to the type of cases. Thus it would be permitted to have some judges confined to dealing with specific cases to a certain extent, and to refer other cases to other courts. .

وذلك لأنّ القضاء توكيلٌ من الخليفة، وهو كالإمارة لا فرق بينهما البتة. بل إنّ القضاء صورةٌ من صور الإمارة، وقد يكون عامًّا وقد يكون خاصًّا. ولذلك يجوز أن يُولَّى القاضي للنظر في قضايا معيّنة فقط، فلا يجوز له حينئذٍ أن ينظر في غيرها من القضايا غير المحدَّدة له. ويجوز أيضًا أن يُولَّى قاضٍ آخر للنظر في جميع أنواع القضايا، بما فيها تلك القضايا المذكورة، ولو كان ذلك في المكان نفسه، أو للنظر في قضايا غير المذكورة. ولذلك يجوز أن تتعدّد درجات المحاكم، وقد عرف المسلمون ذلك في الماضي.

This is because, the judiciary is a delegated by the Khalifah and it is just like the deputyship, with no difference at all. In fact, the judiciary is one form of deputyship, which can be general and can also be specific. Therefore, it would be permitted to have a judge appointed to deal in specific cases only, in which case he would not be allowed to deal with other than those cases specified. It is also permitted to appoint another judge to look into all sorts of cases including those mentioned, even in the same location, or to look into cases other than those mentioned. Therefore it is permitted to have various levels of tribunal, and Muslims had this in the past. .

قال الماوردي في كتابه المسمى الأحكام السلطانية: "قال أبو عبد الله الزبير: كان الأمراء هنا في البصرة مدةً يولّون قاضياً في المسجد الجامع، يسمونه قاضي المسجد، وكان يحكم في الخصومات التي لا تتجاوز عشرين ديناراً ومائتي درهم، وكان يفرض النفقات، ولا يتجاوز المكان المعيّن له والحدود المعطاة له."

Al-Mawardi wrote in his book entitled Al Ahkam Al Sultaniyya: "Abu Abdullah Al-Zubayr said: For some time, the Amirs here in Basra used to appoint a judge at the central mosque (Al-Masjid Al-Jami'), they called him the judge of the mosque. He used to judge in disputes involving sums not exceeding twenty Dinars and two hundred Dirhams, and he used to impose the maintenances. He would not go beyond the place assigned to him and the limits given to him." .

رسول الله ﷺ كان يُوكِّل غيره نيابةً عنه في القضاء، فولّى عمرو بن العاص للنظر في قضيةٍ واحدة، وولّى علي بن أبي طالب ﷺ على القضاء في اليمن بصلاحيةِ النظر في أيّ قضية. وهذا يدلّ على جواز أن يكون القضاء خاصًّا وعامًّا.

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) delegated others on his behalf in the judiciary; he appointed Amr Ibnul Aas to look into one case, and he appointed Ali Ibnu Abi Talib over the judiciary in Yemen with powers to look into any case. This indicates that it is permitted to have a specific and general judiciary. .

لا توجد محاكم استئناف ولا محاكم نقض، فالقضاء، من حيث طريقة نظر القضايا، واحد لا يتعدد. فإذا أصدر القاضي حكماً صار نافذاً ملزماً، ولا يُنقض حكمه بحكم قاضٍ آخر بأي حال من الأحوال. وقد قرّر الأصل الشرعي: "الاجتهاد لا يُنقض باجتهاد مثله". فالمجتهد ليس حجةً على مجتهدٍ آخر، ولذلك يكون إنشاء محاكم تُبطل أحكام المحاكم الأخرى باطلاً.

There are no courts of appeal and there are no courts of cessation, so the judiciary, as far as the method by which the cases are treated, is one and the same. If the judge pronounced a sentence, it would become binding, and the sentence of another judge would not under any circumstances reverse it. The divine principle states: "ijtihad is not annulled by similar ijtihad." So, a mujtahid is not proof against another mujtahid; so it is invalid to have courts that nullify the verdicts of other courts. .

لكن إذا ترك القاضي الحكم بالشريعة وحكم بقاعدة من الكفر، أو حكم بقاعدة تخالف نصًّا شرعيًّا من الكتاب أو السنة أو إجماع الصحابة، أو أصدر حكمًا يخالف الواقع، كأن حكم على شخص بأنه قاتل عمدٍ ثم ظهر القاتل الحقيقي، ففي هذه الحالات يُنقض حكم القاضي.

However, if the judge abandons ruling by the Shariah and judged according to a rule of disbelief, or if he judged by a rule that contradicts a Shariah text from the Book, Sunnah or the Ijmaa of the Sahabah, or he issued a verdict that contradicts with the reality, such as if he judged on somebody as a deliberate killer, then the real killer appeared. In such cases, the verdict of the judge is reversed. .

لِأَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قَالَ:

This is because the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: .

"مَنْ أَحْدَثَ فِي أَمْرِنَا (دِينِنَا) هَذَا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ"، رواه البخاري [صحيح، #2697] ومسلم [صحيح، #1798] عن عائشة.

“Anyone who invented something in our matter (deen) that which is not from it, it would be rejected”, as narrated by Al-Bukhari [Sahih, #2697] and Muslim [Sahih, #1798] on the authority of ‘A’ishah. .

وَرَوَى جَابِرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ أَيْضًا: «أَنَّ رَجُلًا زَنَى بِامْرَأَةٍ، فَأَمَرَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ بِجَلْدِهِ، ثُمَّ أُخْبِرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ مُتَزَوِّجًا، فَأَمَرَ بِرَجْمِهِ». وَرَوَى مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ أَيْضًا، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: «بَلَغَنِي عَنْ عُثْمَانَ (رضي الله عنه) أَنَّهُ أُتِيَ بِامْرَأَةٍ وَلَدَتْ لِسِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ، فَأَمَرَ بِرَجْمِهَا، فَقَالَ لَهُ عَلِيٌّ (رضي الله عنه): لَيْسَ لَكَ ذَلِكَ، لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ (عَزَّ وَجَلَّ) يَقُولُ: {وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ} وَيَقُولُ: {وَحَمْلُهُ وَفِصَالُهُ ثَلَاثُونَ شَهْرًا}».

It is also narrated by Jabir b. Abdullah: “That a man committed adultery with a woman, so the Prophet PBUH) ordered that he be lashed. Later on he was informed that he was married, so he ordered that he be stoned”. Malik b. Anas also narrated, that he said: “I got knowledge about ‘Uthman (ra), that a women was brought to him where she gave delivery after six months so he ordered her to be stoned, Ali (ra) said to him: ‘It is not valid to be stoned, because Allah (S.W.T) says: .

وَحَمْلُهُ وَفِصَالُهُ ثَلَاثُونَ شَهْرًا، وَقَالَ تَعَالَىٰ: {…}

The carrying of the (child) to his weaning is period of thirty months” [46:15] And He (PBUH) says: .

{وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ لِمَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يُتِمَّ الرَّضَاعَةَ} [٢:٢٣٣]

“The mother shall give suckle to their children for two whole years, for them who desire to complete the term.” [2:233].

فَمُدَّةُ الحَمْلِ سِتَّةُ أَشْهُرٍ، فَلَا تُرْجَمُ. وَعَلَى ذَلِكَ أَمَرَ عُثْمَانُ (رضي الله عنه) بِرَدِّهَا، فَوَجَدَ أَنَّهَا قَدْ رُجِمَتْ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ. وَرَوَى عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ عَنِ الإِمَامِ الثَّوْرِيِّ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: "إِذَا أَصْدَرَ القَاضِي حُكْمًا مُخَالِفًا لِكِتَابِ اللهِ أَوْ لِسُنَّةِ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ، أَوْ لِمَا فِيهِ إِجْمَاعٌ، فَلِلْقَاضِي الَّذِي يَأْتِي بَعْدَهُ أَنْ يَنْقُضَهُ".

Thus, the pregnancy period is six months, so she should not be stoned.’ Accordingly ‘Uthman (ra) ordered that she be returned back, but he found that she had already been stoned.” ‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated from Al-Imam Al-Thawri that he said “If a judge gave a verdict opposite to the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger (PBUH) or anything where there is an Ijmaa over it, then another judge after him may reverse it”. .

ومع ذلك، فإن مسؤولية نقض هذه الأحكام تقع على قاضي المظالم.

However, the responsibility of reversing these verdicts is to the Judge of Mazalim.