The authority to adjudicate and to enforce the law for the settlement of various disputes among the people enjoys a very eminent and honourable position in human society. From the Shi’a view-point adjudication is one of the most fruitful trees of the garden of Prophethood and one of the stages of public administration and vicegerency of Allah on earth, as He says:

“O Dawud! We have appointed you Our Vicegerent on Earth. Therefore, judge rightly between the people on the basis of justice” (38:26).

And also, the Holy Qur’an says:

“But by your Lord, they will not believe [in truth] until they make you judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which you decide, and submit with full submission” (4:65).

Why is the status of the Judge so lofty and honourable? It is because he is the Trustee of Allah on earth for three sacred things namely, the life, property and the honour of the people. However, just as the status of the judge is high, his perils and blunders are also great and irreparable. Expressions regarding the perils of adjudication can be observed in the traditions of the Holy Prophet and the members of his progeny which make one tremble, for example: “The judge sits at the edge of Hell and his tongue is between the two flames of Fire”.

It has been reported in a tradition that the Holy Prophet said to Shurayh, the judge “O Shurayh, you are sitting at a place where none other than a Prophet or the Successor of a Prophet or a tyrant sits”.

In another tradition it has been reported that the Holy Prophet said: “The head of a person appointed to the office of a judge is cut off without the use of a knife”.

Specimens of such traditions are numerous. A point necessary to mention here is: When the orders extracted and inferred by a jurist or a Mujtahid by means of reason· ing related to a topic they are generally called Fatwa (decree) e.g. when, it is said, ‘No one has a right to utilise possession of another’s property’ or ‘it is lawful to have sexual intercourse with one’s wife but it is unlawful to have such an intercourse with a stranger woman.

However, if the order relates to a personal or a particular matter it is called Qazawat and Hukumat (Judgement and Decision) as for example when it is decided, “This woman is the wife of such and such person and that one is a stranger or this property belongs to such and such person”. Both of them are the functions of a righteous Mujtahid who possesses the office of a general representative entrusted to him by the Imam.

However, this fact should not be ignored that a Judgement which in fact consists of assessment of matters, whether or not it is linked with dispute and litigation (for example decision about a place being endowed or about the parentage of a person) carries much severer conditions as compared with Fatwa and deducing decrees. The reason for this is that correct adjudication is not possible without special aptitude, enormous intelligence, strong insight and quickness of communication. Harm from those people who occupy this office without possessing the said intellectual merits will be greater than the benefit to be derived from them and the number of their mistakes will be larger than their correct judgement.

Now, if a person other than a righteous Mujtahid holds charge of this sensitive office, this would, in the opinion of Shi’a, be one of the Major sins and will even border on infidelity. Hence, we have always seen that the distinguished Shi’a Ulama’ and teachers have, as far as possible, desisted from giving decisions and pronouncing judgements and have usually endeavoured to settle by compromise matters involving disputes and litigation. We too follow this admirable practice of our pious predecessors.

Another thing necessary to mention here is that the main evidence on which a judge should base his judgement has three factors, namely confession, oath and Bayyinah i.e. two righteous witnesses. Very extensive discussions have been made by Shi’a Ulama’ as to whose evidence be given preference if two or more witnesses are opposed to one another (i.e. two people testify something and another two give evidence to the contrary). Some hold the view that the internal witness should be preferred to the external one1.

Others, however, believe that extra preferences should be resorted to. Fortunately, a large number of our jurists have written independent and detailed books particularly on the subject of adjudication. Furthermore, all the scholars who have reviewed Shi’a Jurisprudence have made discussions under the heading Kitab al-Qaza which covers this field. It is not possible for us to mention here the names of even a few of those books.

We have cited some important portions of discussions relating to adjudication in the fourth volume of Tabrir al-Majallah. Those interested in the subject may refer to it. The last point which we consider necessary to mention in connection with this discussion is that if a judge or a ruler who fulfils all the conditions, gives a decision, nobody has a right to oppose it or to find fault with it, and rejection of his decision is in fact rejection of Allah’s decision so much so that even another Mujtahid does not have the right to interfere in the matter when the aforesaid decision has been given. It is only the chief ruler who has a right to review his own decision and to reverse it if he finds that there has been some error in arriving at it.

• 1. If something is in the possession of a person and another person claims its ownership each one of them might produce Bayyinah. In that case Bayyinah of the first party will be internal and that of the second party will be the external one. There is a difference of opinion among our scholars as to which of them should be given preference.