The first: general jurisdiction over a general area.

The second: limited jurisdiction over a limited area.

His statement, “or in one of them”: Let us begin with limited jurisdiction over a general area. This is for him to say, “I appoint you over inheritance cases throughout the Hijaz region.” Thus, the entire Hijaz region refers inheritance cases only to this man.

General jurisdiction over a limited area is for him to say, “I appoint you over all cases in Makkah.” This includes sales, leases, endowments, marriage cases, inheritance cases, criminal offences, prescribed punishments, and other matters, because he has said to him, “I appoint you with general jurisdiction in Makkah”—that is, over all cases in Makkah. He therefore hears all types of cases, but only in Makkah. If he went to Jeddah, he would have no judicial authority there. Thus, there are four categories.

Is it permissible for him to appoint someone with limited jurisdiction over a limited area, such as saying, “I appoint you to adjudicate cases of successive inheritance from among the issues of inheritance law”? It is permissible. Such a person may, for example, have reached the highest level of expertise in inheritance law, so he says, “I appoint you to deal only with cases of successive inheritance.” This occurs most often in temporary appointments: there may be complex cases involving properties inherited long ago and involving successive inheritances, so a particular person is appointed to examine them. As for appointing him as a permanent judge, this is uncommon; nevertheless, it is valid.

There are now judges who are appointed with limited jurisdiction over a limited area, such as when it is said, “The marriage judge in Riyadh.” He handles marriage matters, their conclusion and annulment; but if a sale dispute comes before him, he says, “I have no jurisdiction over it.”

The benefit of mentioning these four categories is that one who is appointed in a particular category