“Judge your own case: I am content for you to rule either in my favor or against me.” There is nothing to prevent this.

If someone were to say, “There is an objection: the claimant has ruled in his own favor that he is entitled, since he made the claim,” we reply: a person’s state when acting as an arbitrator may differ from his state when making a claim. He may claim something from another person, but when he says to him, “I appoint you as arbitrator,” there is no doubt that he will withdraw from his claim—either because he feels embarrassed and ashamed, or because he fears Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and dreads ruling unjustly. This differs from merely making a claim. In any case, there is nothing to prevent one litigant from saying to the other, “You are the arbitrator.” If he appoints him as arbitrator in his own favor or against himself, there is no harm in it.

His statement, “qualified for judgeship,” means that he possesses the ten qualities of a judge. Thus, no one is qualified for judgeship unless he possesses those qualities. However, the condition stipulated by the author here is clearly open to criticism. The difference between an arbitrator and a judge appointed by the ruler is evident: an arbitrator rules only in a particular case involving particular litigants; his jurisdiction is not general, such that we should say that the previously mentioned conditions must all be met. As for a judge appointed by the ruler, his jurisdiction is general: people bring their disputes before him whether they have appointed him as arbitrator or not. So how can we require the ten conditions? If two men say, “We accept this person, even if he is a slave,” how can we say that he is not qualified to judge?

And if the two litigants say, “We accept appointing him as arbitrator, even if he is blind,” what is there to prevent it?