The same applies to leading the Friday and Eid prayers. If his appointment in this capacity is restricted, with his jurisdiction limited to what it specifies—for example, if he is appointed to adjudicate only some of the matters we have mentioned, or to rule on the basis of admissions but not other evidence, or in cases involving debts but not marriage, or only up to a specified sum of money—the appointment is valid, and he may not exceed its limits. This is an authority that may validly be conferred in either a general or a restricted form, like agency.

Ahmad expressly affirmed the validity of restricting it by monetary amount. In the report of Ahmad ibn al-Nadr, concerning a man who had an acknowledgment of one thousand dirhams witnessed, while the judge had jurisdiction only over amounts of one or two hundred dirhams, he said: “Testify only to what you were called to witness.” Likewise, in the report of al-Hasan ibn Muhammad, concerning a man who had an acknowledgment of one thousand witnessed, while the judge in the locality had jurisdiction only over one hundred, he said: “Testify only to one thousand.” Thus, he expressly affirmed the permissibility of a judge’s jurisdiction over a specified sum of money. The basis for this is what we have already mentioned.

He prohibited dividing the testimony when it concerns an amount exceeding the limit of the judge’s authority. Rather, the witness should testify to the entire amount, and the judge should adjudicate from it only what he has been authorized to adjudicate. For if a witness testifies to five hundred before one judge and to the other five hundred before another judge, the acknowledging party might claim that the second five hundred was the same amount to which the witness had testified initially. One of the two testimonies would then be invalidated, according to the view that repeating an acknowledgment in two sittings constitutes a single acknowledgment of one thousand. This is supported by the saying of Allah Most High: (5:108—“That is more likely that they will give testimony in its proper form.”) If he divides it, he has not delivered it in its proper form.

A judge may also have comprehensive jurisdiction within a defined locality. He may therefore be appointed to consider all cases in a particular district of the city. All his judgments would then be effective in the district assigned to him, and he may adjudicate there between its residents and those who come to it, because a visitor to it is like a resident therein. This is unless he is restricted to adjudicating between its residents, excluding those who come to it; in that case, he may not go beyond them.

Ahmad expressly affirmed the validity of such an appointment for a specified place. In the report of Mihna, he said concerning a village such as Qatrabbul, al-Rabadhah, al-Taghlibiyyah, and similar villages: “If a judge is appointed there, his judgments there are valid.” If another judge appoints him as his deputy, while the caliph himself did not appoint him, Ahmad expressly affirmed the permissibility of adjudication in a single village. The rationale is what we have already mentioned concerning the permissibility of restricting his authority to a specified sum of money.

He also affirmed the permissibility of a judge’s appointing another judge as his deputy. He did not distinguish between the case in which the caliph had authorized him to do so and the case in which the matter had been left unrestricted, without either authorization or prohibition, because once he appoints him, the latter becomes an overseer of the Muslims, not on behalf of the one who