—namely, the documentary proofs—whatever the circumstances, even if the litigant is your closest relative. The jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, have differed over whether a judge may rule on the basis of his own personal knowledge or not. One view says that he may not, citing the Prophet’s statement, “I judge only according to what I hear,” and arguing that if he ruled by what he alone knows it would give rise to suspicion, for such knowledge is not outwardly apparent to the people so they could see the grounds of his judgment. Some scholars, however, held that he may judge by his knowledge, while others said he should withhold judgment whenever the evidence presented to him contradicts what he personally knows.

The soundest position is that he should not rule according to his private knowledge except in specific, limited situations. One example is when that knowledge arises from the arguments of the disputants within the very session of the court itself. Suppose two people litigate and one of them admits the claim, then—after further discussion and back-and-forth—denies what he first acknowledged; here the judge may rule on the basis of what he knows, for he gained that knowledge in the courtroom.

Another example is when the fact in question is notorious, such as an estate that is publicly known to be a general endowment for all Muslims, or is widely recognised as the property of a particular person. In such a case the judge may rule by his knowledge, for no suspicion attaches to him, and no one would venture to judge on mere private knowledge that is false when the matter is so well-known.

Thus the correct view is one of nuance: except in these limited circumstances, judgment must rest on outward evidence, not on the judge’s personal knowledge. If the evidence presented runs contrary to what he knows, he should transfer the case to another judge and himself serve as a witness—such as when one person claims one hundred riyals from another