gifted with a sharp tongue, lucid expression, cogent proof, and powerful debating skills, while the other lacks these qualities—even though the truth may rest with him. The judge therefore rules in favour of the first. For this reason the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “I only judge according to what I hear.”
His words, “I judge only according to what I hear,” grant judges wide latitude: they are not charged with what lies beyond their knowledge. They must decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them. If they err, they still earn one reward; if they are correct, they earn two. They are not accountable for anything further. Indeed, it is impermissible for them to rule against the outward evidence, for doing so would lead to chaos, confusion, suspicion, and allegation—people would say, “The judge ruled contrary to the evidence for some hidden reason.”
Consequently, a judge is obliged to rule by what is apparent, while the unseen is left to Allah. Suppose one person claims that another owes him one hundred riyals and produces two witnesses. The judge must establish the debt against the defendant, even if he harbours doubts about the witnesses. In a case of doubt he should investigate, but when no clear ground for discrediting them exists he must pass judgement—even if he is personally convinced the reality is otherwise—because the Prophet said, “I only judge according to what I hear.”
Yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) threatened anyone who is granted a judgment that is not rightfully his, saying, “Whoever I judge in his favour concerning his brother’s right, I am only cutting for him a slice of the Fire.” This shows that a judge’s verdict does not make the unlawful lawful. If the judge, on the strength of outward claims, rules for the wrongdoer, the property awarded does not become permissible; rather, the recipient’s sin is greater, for he attained falsehood by a deceptive route—graver than had he seized it without such a pretext.
This hadith, therefore, contains a severe warning against a judge ruling on any basis other than the evidence laid before him.