If he says, without naming anyone, “Whoever adjudicates between litigants on Saturday is my deputy,” this is invalid, because the person appointed is unknown, and someone who is not qualified for independent legal reasoning might adjudicate their case. If he says, “Whoever among those qualified for independent legal reasoning adjudicates it is my deputy,” this is likewise invalid, because the person appointed remains unknown, and determining who is qualified for independent legal reasoning would be left to the judgment of the litigants.
Likewise, if he says, “Whoever among the muftis of Ahmad’s school, Abu Hanifa’s school, or al-Shafi‘i’s school adjudicates it is my deputy,” this is invalid. The same applies if he names a number of people and says, “Whoever among so-and-so or so-and-so adjudicates it is my deputy.” This is invalid whether the number is small or large, because the particular person appointed from among them is unknown. But if he says, “I have delegated the adjudication of it to so-and-so and so-and-so; whichever of them adjudicates it is my deputy,” this is valid, whether the number is small or large, because all of them have been appointed. Once one of them adjudicates it, he is thereby designated and the others’ authority to adjudicate it ceases. This is because he did not appoint them all jointly to adjudicate it; rather, he appointed one of them individually. If he appoints them all jointly to adjudicate it, this is invalid when they are numerous. Whether it is valid when they are few is subject to the possibility discussed above concerning the appointment of two judges.
As for seeking the office of judge and soliciting rulers to appoint one to it, the ruling requires further distinction. If he is not qualified for independent legal reasoning, putting himself forward to seek the office is prohibited, and he is thereby discredited. If he is qualified for it and legally eligible to exercise judicial authority, the matter requires further consideration. If the office of judge is held by someone undeserving of it—either because of deficient knowledge or because his injustice has become manifest—and he seeks the office in order to prevent someone unqualified from holding it, so that it may instead be held by someone more deserving, there are two reports.
The first is that it is disliked for him to seek the office of judge. The basis for this is what Ahmad said, as reported by his son Abdullah, concerning a man in a town where, because of his knowledge and understanding, no one was more deserving than he to serve as judge. He said, “I do not approve of a man entering the judiciary; it is safer for him.” Thus, Ahmad considered it disliked for him to assume the office even when it was needed.
The rationale for this is the report transmitted by Abu Hafs through his chain of transmission from Anas, who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Whoever asks for the office of judge is left to himself. But whoever is compelled to take it has an angel sent down to guide him aright.” Another wording states: “Whoever seeks the office of judge and solicits intercessors on his behalf is left to himself, whereas whoever is compelled to take it has an angel sent down upon him to guide him aright.”