the Book of Allah, the Sunnah, or the consensus based on them. If no such conflict exists, the judgment is allowed to stand, and with respect to any new litigation he rules according to what he subsequently deems correct—unless the earlier verdict was issued by simply adopting the view of one jurist and he later realizes that the sound opinion lies with another scholar. Once that becomes clear to him, he annuls the decision that was based on imitation and gives a fresh ruling founded on his own ijtihad. Matters of this sort he may rescind only when they are his own judgments, not those of the judge who preceded him; as for the rulings of others, the principles already mentioned apply.
Ibn al-Qasim said that a judge may revoke any of his own decisions that he now believes to be incorrect so long as he is still in office. If he has been removed and then re-appointed, he may no longer annul any of his previous rulings, except to the extent that he is entitled to rescind the judgments of other judges.
If witnesses testify before him against a man whom he does not know, and the defendant acknowledges their uprightness, the judge may accept their testimony against that defendant and enforce his ruling, provided he does not consider them untruthful. He should not, however, accept their testimony against anyone else until he comes to know that they are upright.
The judge should not harass or badger the witnesses, for that might bewilder or confuse them. If he suspects the witnesses, he is permitted to separate them when they give their testimony.
He does not overturn the judgments or the appointments of officials responsible for water sources and watering places unless they are manifestly unjust or plainly erroneous.
Similarly, when two parties appoint an arbitrator between them, and, after hearing both sides, the arbitrator renders a decision, that decision is binding upon them and is not set aside except in the case of a clear error, whether or not it accords with the ruling of the official judge of their locality. The matter is different, however, when they merely agree to accept the testimony of a particular man between them, for either of the two may withdraw from that arrangement if he comes to suspect the witness’s reliability.
Malik said: When someone complains about a judge after the judge has been dismissed, alleging injustice in his rulings, it is not proper for the succeeding judge to examine the matter unless a written judgment is produced that contains obvious injustice; in that case he reviews it and annuls it. He is under no obligation to scrutinize all the decisions of his predecessor or to investigate them.
Muhammad ibn Maslama said: The ruling of the judge who preceded him remains in force.