the tribes. If their dispute is settled through them, well and good; otherwise, judicial adjudication between them would be the final recourse, according to what he deemed appropriate—whether to undertake the decisive judgment himself or to appoint a deputy to do so. Sometimes cases involving obscure rulings and difficult disputes would be brought before the grievance authorities, and their associates would guide them toward a solution while the scholars would elucidate it for them. They should not reject their associates’ initial suggestions, nor disdain acting upon them in the end.

The Directives of the Grievance Adjudicator

As for the directives issued by the grievance adjudicator in response to the petitions of those who bring their grievances before him, asking him to adjudicate between them, the person to whom the directive is addressed must be in one of two situations: either he has jurisdiction over the matter specified in the directive, or he does not. If he has jurisdiction over it—as when the adjudicator directs a judge to hear the case between the two parties—the directive itself must likewise be understood in one of two ways: either as authorization to adjudicate, or as authorization to investigate the facts and mediate between the litigants. If it is authorization to adjudicate, the judge may adjudicate between them by virtue of his original jurisdiction, and the directive merely confirms that authority; any deficiency in its wording does not affect it. But if it authorizes him only to investigate the matter or mediate between the two litigants, and the directive also prohibits him from adjudicating it, he may not adjudicate between them. This prohibition constitutes his removal from adjudicating between them, and it was