the correct view is that his conclusion or annulment of a contract does not require a judicial ruling confirming it. All of this would apply if such a matter were brought before a Hanafi judge who does not recognize annulment on grounds of insolvency. If, however, the second judge recognizes it—as would someone who follows the school of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, or Imam Ahmad—he may not overturn this annulment, by agreement of the imams.

The scholars who stipulated that annulment of a marriage on grounds of a defect, insolvency, or similar disputed grounds must be authorized by a judicial ruling distinguished this from a woman’s annulment of her marriage to a slave upon her emancipation. They explained:

“This latter annulment is unanimously accepted and therefore does not require a judge, whereas the former is disputed. Its grounds, too, are subject to juristic judgment, unlike emancipation, which is a clear and ascertainable ground.”

Thus, they required that the annulment be authorized by a judicial ruling; they did not require the judge to rule on its validity after it had taken place. Such a subsequent ruling is not peculiar to these cases. Rather, whenever a judge rules that a disputed legal act is valid, no other judge may overturn it, provided it does not contravene a scriptural text or scholarly consensus.

If what mattered here were a ruling issued after the annulment, there would be no need for a judicial ruling at the outset. Rather, anyone entitled to annul the marriage could do so, and the judge’s subsequent ruling would prevent another judge from invalidating the annulment—just as when someone concludes a contract whose validity is disputed and a judge rules that it is valid. This is clear to anyone familiar with what the jurists have said on this matter. And Allah knows best.