Third: It weakens the standing of the judge, for people will say, “This judge does not issue a judgment unless the jurists are with him,” implying that he has no knowledge of his own. When the judge’s standing is weakened in the eyes of the people, his judgments become undermined, and anyone can object to him.

Fourth: It openly displays division among the people. What is required is to reduce disagreement as far as we are able; we should not ask, “What is so-and-so’s legal school?” or, “Which legal school do you follow?” and the like. Rather, people should, insofar as possible, be united upon a single position: that indicated by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. As for displaying division among people through sectarian factions and multiple legal schools, this is not appropriate.

Any one of these cautions is enough for us to say that it is not appropriate for a group of jurists to be present. As for a matter that perplexes him, he should defer consideration of it and say to the two litigants, “Go, then return after one day, two days, or three,” according to the time he thinks the issue requires. He should then review it himself and consult the scholars in his town, or outside his town, as is possible in our present time. A judge, while sitting in court, can contact any scholar whose knowledge he trusts, consult him, and then issue judgment. In sum, the author’s statement—may Allah have mercy on him—regarding the attendance of jurists from the legal schools is open to criticism; indeed, it is weak.

“It is prohibited to issue judgment while one is intensely angry, or suppressing the urge to urinate, or suffering from severe hunger, thirst, distress, boredom, lethargy, drowsiness, painful cold, or troubling heat, …”

His statement, “It is prohibited to issue judgment while one is intensely angry”: this is among the obligatory etiquettes. That is, one must avoid issuing judgment in a state of intense anger; issuing judgment in a state of intense anger is prohibited.