Whoever undertakes the responsibility of judgement must be a Muslim, free, adult, sane, just, a Faqih (person who knows jurisprudence/Fiqh), and aware of how to apply the rules to the events. And the person who undertakes the judiciary of injustices (Madhalim) in addition to the conditions mentioned, must also be male and a Mujtahid (capable of deriving his own Fiqh/conducting Ijtihad).

Its evidence is what was mentioned previously for the evidence for the Supreme judge, except that it is not a condition in the judge who settles the disputes and the judge of Hisbah to be male, rather it is permitted for the judge to be a woman, since it is not a position of ruling but rather a judge, in other words, they convey the Shari’ah rule while they are not the one who implements it. Accordingly, the narration. .» لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

“Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their ruler.” reported by Al-Bukhari, does not apply, since it is regarding governorship which is ruling. And the reason for the narration was when the people of Persia were ruled by a woman; it is narrated from Abu Bakrah who said “When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was notified that the people of Persia were ruled by the daughter of Kisra, he said:

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

‘Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their ruler’” (reported by Al-Bukhari). So the reason for the words of the narration was a specific subject which was mentioned explicitly in the text of the narration, which is ruling, in other words, authority, and the judiciary is not an authority. Accordingly the narration is specific to ruling and does not encompass the judiciary, and that is for two reasons:

Firstly, the text which is related in a specific subject is like the text which is an answer to a question, and so it is necessary to make it specific to the issue of the question or event, and it is not correct for it to be general in all issues, because the question is reflected in the answer, and because the words are in a specific subject it is necessary to limit them to that subject, since the word of the Messenger (pbuh) is connected to the question or event, and so the rule is connected to that. This is different than if the Messenger (pbuh) had said that initially (not in response to an event) in which case it would be general and connected to the generality. As for if his word is a comment upon a specific event, or an answer to a specific question, then the situation is different. If the text, in other words, the words of Allah (swt) or the words of the Messenger (pbuh) , were definitely connected to a question or event, then the rule is connected to that without any doubt. This is with respect to the subject that either came from a question or event. And it is not with respect to the questioner or whom the event occurred upon, since the consideration in both of them is given to the generality of the words and not to the specific cause. And this is why there is a difference made between the cause and the subject, so the consideration is to the generality of the words and not to the specific cause, since the words are not connected to the cause, and so they remain upon their generality. This is different to the event or question, in other words, different to the subject which was included by the event, or the subject which was included by the question, since the words are definitely connected to it, and there is no doubt in that, since the narration was only for its sake, or due to it, and due to this it is specific to the subject, and not general. Accordingly the narration.