does not make the unlawful lawful. Rather, a Muslim is forbidden to take, on the strength of his judgment, anything awarded to him that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Knowledge of the lawful and the unlawful encompasses both outward appearances and underlying realities. Thus, whoever is most knowledgeable concerning it is more knowledgeable about the religion.

Moreover, judicial adjudication is of two kinds. The first is adjudication when the two litigants contradict one another—for example, when one makes a claim that the other denies. Judgment is then given on the basis of evidence and the like. The second concerns matters on which they do not contradict one another—they agree on the facts—but do not know what each is entitled to. Examples include disputes over the division of an inheritance, what each spouse owes the other, or what each partner is entitled to, and similar matters. This category falls within knowledge of the lawful and the unlawful. If someone whose opinion they both accept gives them a legal ruling, that suffices, and they have no need for someone to adjudicate between them. They need a judge only when they contradict one another, which generally involves wrongdoing, though it may also arise from forgetfulness.

Knowledge of the lawful and the unlawful, however, is needed by everyone, righteous and wicked alike, whereas what is specific to judicial adjudication is needed by only a few of the righteous. This is why, when Abū Bakr instructed ‘Umar to judge between the people, an entire year passed without two people bringing any dispute before him. If all the cases of this kind adjudicated by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were counted, they would not amount to ten. How can this compare with his teachings concerning the lawful and the unlawful, which are the mainstay of the religion of Islam and are needed by the elite and ordinary people alike?