A discussion on the titles used for judges or scholars

The questioner : By Allah, this may be a form of lying, unless he is a shaykh in the linguistic sense, because the term for old age is very broad. Even an elderly person is called a shaykh, and in the usage of some regions, every male is called a shaykh. Yes, in any case, if a shaykh is deserving of the title because he is great in knowledge or in age, or great in speech, and is generous, bountiful, and beneficial, then there is no harm. For this reason, the term shaykh is now used by custom even for someone who is not a scholar or elderly, if he is a man of value in his community and beneficial to it; he is called the shaykh of so-and-so. The title shaykh is applied to him even if he is a prominent elder or a shaykh, although this is not the custom of the Companions and those who came after them.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed, what is your opinion on this?

The presenter : This is permissible, why? Because he is only a chief, not a judge, I mean, he is a chief.

The Shaykh : He is not a ruler, he is not a ruler. By Allah, it appears that he is not like the Qadi al-Qudat (Judge of Judges). It appears that he is not like the Qadi al-Qudat. I also know that the title Qadi al-Qudat is a problem; it has been used even in the custom of the scholars and jurists. Ibn Hajar is called the Qadi al-Qudat, even those who write about his life call him the Qadi al-Qudat. It is as if they, may Allah have mercy on them, are being lenient in this matter and saying that it is not like the King of Kings. Yes, because the King has an influence, authority, and control that the judge does not have. So some scholars are lenient in this. And for that reason, the author, may Allah have mercy on him, made the title Qadi al-Qudat instead of King of Kings, even though in the hadith it is King of Kings, to indicate that the Qadi al-Qudat is like the King of Kings. Yes. No, or Egypt, his place, this is the weakness, this is the weakness, because even in the time of Ibn Hajar the schools of jurisprudence were established, and they are still established now. So there is no doubt that they do not consider him the Qadi al-Qudat of the Hanbalis, for example, or the Qadi al-Qudat of the Malikis, or the Qadi al-Qudat of the Hanafis, because all of these have their own judges. So they want this; perhaps this also mitigates the issue. Yes.

The presenter : The best of judges, the best of judges.

The Shaykh : The best of judges? Aqda, meaning the most severe, more severe than this, unless it is said "Aqda-hum" meaning the most knowledgeable of them. It is not that "Aqda-hum" means the one to whom they refer; if that is the case, there is no harm in it if it is true.