but if he has not been appointed as an arbitrator, nor appointed by the ruler, then he merely clarifies the ruling; he does not make it binding. This is the difference between the mufti and the judge.

“It is a collective obligation: the Imam must appoint a judge in every region, ...”

His statement, “It is a collective obligation”: As for its being obligatory, this is because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, commanded it. He says:

“O David, We have made you a successor upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth.” [Surah Sad 38:26]

And the Exalted says:

“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due, and when you judge between people, to judge with justice.” [Surah al-Nisa 4:58]

Thus, He commanded us, when we judge, to judge with justice; and He commanded His Prophet David, peace be upon him, to judge between people. This indicates that it is obligatory.

As for its being a collective obligation, that is because what is intended is the act itself, rather than the particular person performing it. We have explained this in Naẓm al-Qawāʿid (1): when what is intended is the act itself, it is a collective obligation; but when what is intended is the person performing it, it is an individual obligation—or a collective sunnah or an individual sunnah—according to the nature of the command. Judicial office is therefore a collective obligation, because the aim is that there be a judge who rules between people; the aim is not that every individual should become a judge. What is intended is the act itself—that judgment should exist among people—regardless of the particular person who performs it.

His statement, “The Imam must”: The author now turns to those upon whom this obligation is incumbent. It is directed to two parties: the Imam and the person commanded—that is, the Imam who issues the command and the appointee who is placed in office. Thus, if the Imam says to someone, “Be a judge in this town,” then serving as judge becomes an individual obligation upon that person, as will follow.