the provincial capitals, the plaintiff may sue him wherever he encounters him. Asbagh and others said that a judge may rule only in those matters that the supreme ruler has delegated to him; should he pass judgment outside that mandate, the ruling is invalid, and he is like one who decides a case without a written commission authorizing him. The same was stated by Ibn al-Majishun, Muẓarrif, Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, and others, and this is the ruling in practice.

The judge is not entitled to appoint a deputy while he is present in the district nor merely on account of illness, unless the imām grants him that prerogative. When he intends to travel, however, he may designate—for the matters that will arise in his absence—someone whom people of integrity unanimously regard as trustworthy. Even then, I do not approve of entrusting that deputy with the verification of evidence or the execution of a judgment until he has first consulted the judge, so that the latter may examine the matter himself; for the judge’s own error or injustice is less to be feared than the injustice of his subordinates. He may repent personally and restore what he has wronged, whereas that is impossible with respect to what is unknown of his aides and followers. Yet he shares their wrongdoing in the present world and bears a grievous sin in the Hereafter.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that he may not appoint anyone to office effective after his death, nor make a bequest to that effect, and the same applies once he has been dismissed.

A judge may act upon a letter sent to him by another judge when the letter is attested by two or more witnesses. Whether the letter is delivered sealed or open is immaterial, provided the witnesses testify to the contents of the case in accordance with the ruling for which the judge had asked them to bear witness. It has also been said that secondary testimony confirming the judge’s handwriting is acceptable even without his spoken declaration. If the witnesses are a group and the letter is in the possession of one of them, their testimony is valid once they recognize the seal and entertain no doubt about any part of it.

The death of the issuing judge or of the judge to whom the letter was addressed does not impair the validity of the judicial document. For the addressee, the testimony of those who delivered the letter suffices; the deceased author’s testimony is not required. And if the addressee himself were the one who had died, then whoever succeeded him or was appointed in his stead would act on