and so I may judge in his favor on the basis of what I hear. Therefore, if I award anyone any part of his brother’s right, let him not take it, for I am only allotting him a piece of the Fire.”(1)

Thus, the foremost of judges made it known that his judgment does not make the unlawful lawful. Knowledge of what is lawful and unlawful encompasses both the outward and the inward; hence, whoever has greater knowledge of it has greater knowledge of the religion.

Moreover, adjudication is of two kinds:

The first is adjudication when litigants deny one another’s claims, such as when one of them makes a claim that the other denies, and judgment is rendered on the basis of evidence or the like.

The second concerns matters in which they do not deny one another’s claims but agree on the facts, while not knowing what each of them is entitled to—such as when they disagree over the division of an estate, over what each spouse owes the other, over what each partner is entitled to, and similar matters.

This category pertains to what is lawful and unlawful. If someone whose opinion they both accept gives them a legal opinion, that suffices for them, and they do not need anyone to adjudicate between them. They need a judge only when they deny one another’s claims, and that usually occurs only through wrongdoing, although it may also occur through forgetfulness.

As for what is not exclusive to adjudication, only a few of the righteous need it. By contrast, both the righteous and the wicked need knowledge of what is lawful and unlawful. Hence, when Abu Bakr instructed Umar to adjudicate among the people, Umar remained(2) for a year without any two people bringing a dispute before him.

Indeed, if all the judgments of this kind rendered by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, were counted, they would amount to fewer than ten. How can this compare with his teachings concerning what is lawful and unlawful, upon which the religion of Islam rests?