the scholars among Ahmad’s followers and others differed over whether the ruler should establish a prison, holding two views. Those who held that he should not establish a prison said that he should restrain the person in some location or appoint a guard over him—a practice known as “guarded custody.”

Accordingly, since attendance at the judge’s court entails restraint and restriction akin to imprisonment and detention, the scholars differed: should the defendant be summoned merely on the basis of a claim? Or, if appearing would demean him, should he not be summoned until some basis for the claimant’s case becomes apparent? There are two views, both reported from Ahmad. The second is Mālik’s view, while the first is that of Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī.

Some scholars held that detention on suspicion falls within the authority of the governor responsible for military affairs, not the judge. This view was mentioned by a number of al-Shāfi‘ī’s followers, such as Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Zubayrī, Chief Judge al-Māwardī and others, as well as by some of Ahmad’s followers who wrote on judicial conduct, and others.

They also differed over the duration of detention on suspicion: is it fixed, or is it left to the ruler’s judgment? These are two views mentioned by Judge Abū Ya‘lā, Judge al-Māwardī and others. It was said that it is fixed at one month; this is the view of Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Zubayrī. It was also said that it has no fixed duration; this is the view preferred by al-Māwardī.