by asking them, once they have entered, “What is your case?” This is so that he does not waste time or put himself in the awkward position of having to silence one of them while he is speaking.

Thus, justice must be observed in these four matters, as well as in others. The author specifically mentioned these four because they are subtle matters to which some judges may pay no attention or attach no importance. As for justice in the manner of issuing judgment, hearing the evidence, and conducting the litigation, there is no doubt that it is obligatory. He mentioned these matters because if justice is obligatory in them, then it is even more obligatory in matters of greater importance.

His statement: “It is recommended that jurists of the legal schools attend his court, and that he consult them regarding matters that perplex him.” If there are several legal schools in the town, then jurists from those schools should attend his court. Thus, if there are five schools in the town—the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali, and Zahiri—he should bring a jurist from each school, so that whenever something perplexes him, he may consult them. This is what the author said, following others among the jurists of the Hanbali school. The correct view, however, is that this is not recommended; rather, not doing so is what is recommended, because having jurists present entails several drawbacks:

First: Some cases are matters which the two litigants wish to keep confidential, so that no one else becomes aware of them. If the judge brings in people whom he may not even need, the two litigants will feel embarrassed by this.

Second: Some jurists may be excessively talkative, and thus the disputes of the Muslims may become circulated among the people.