If two people appoint between themselves a man qualified for judgeship, his ruling is enforceable in financial matters, prescribed punishments, cases of li'an (mutual oaths of condemnation), and other matters.

His statement, “If two people appoint between themselves a man qualified for judgeship,” means that they make him an arbitrator. The appointment of an arbitrator other than a judge is established in the Quran. Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“If you fear a breach between them, appoint an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from hers.” [al-Nisa 4:35]

Thus, the basis of arbitration is established in the Quran. Likewise, Umar and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, may Allah be pleased with them, referred their dispute to Zayd ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him, and he judged between them. (1)

His statement, “If two people appoint,” is mentioned merely by way of example. Thus, if four people were to appoint a man, that would also be permissible.

His statement, “a man,” is an incidental description, not a restriction. Thus, if a woman were appointed as an arbitrator, or if two women appointed a woman as an arbitrator, there would be nothing wrong with this; it is permissible. If, for example, a woman possessed knowledge, integrity, trustworthiness, and understanding, and two men referred their dispute to her and she judged between them, there would be nothing wrong with it, nor any impediment. This authority is not a public office for which maleness would be required. Rather, it involves two men—or two litigants—agreeing that this woman should arbitrate between them. In some respects, such arbitration resembles an amicable settlement.

His statement, “If two people appoint between themselves a man”: if one of the two litigants appointed the other—meaning, if one claimant appointed the other—would that be permissible or not?

The correct view is that it is permissible, even though the apparent meaning of the author’s words suggests that it is not. Thus, if a man made some claim against another person and said to him—