Continuation: How to reconcile the warnings in the texts regarding the title "Judge of Judges" with what is found in the biographies of scholars, such as Ibn Hajar, who was referred to as the Judge of Judges
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : For there is no king in this world who does not have a king above him, and on the Day of Resurrection, all kingships will vanish and disappear, except for the kingship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So the King of Kings is Allah. Whoever calls himself the King of Kings, whether by assigning the title to himself or by people accepting it for him, has adopted the most despicable name in the sight of Allah, and Allah will place him where he raised himself.
As for "Judge of Judges," some scholars said: It is like "King of Kings." It is like "King of Kings." And if we accept that it is like it, then when "Judge of Judges" is said regarding a specific region, the meaning is the Judge of Judges in that region. So in which region was Ibn Hajar the Judge of Judges? In Egypt. He was not the Judge of Judges in every place. Therefore, we say: If we accept that saying "Judge of Judges" is like "King of Kings," then the reconciliation of what is mentioned in some scholars' biographies about being the Judge of Judges means the Judge of Judges in his region, not the Judge of Judges in every place. And the reason I said "if we accept that it is equated with King of Kings" is that "King of Kings" implies absolute authority, compulsion, and coercion. The authority, compulsion, and coercion of a judge are not like the authority of whom? Like the authority of the king. The king has effective power and command, and he is considered to have a status above people. But the judge is not like that. Even if the judge compels people to the truth and obligates it upon them, the one who has absolute authority over those under his protection is the king. In any case, scholars often say so-and-so is the Judge of Judges, meaning what? The region in which he is. It is not absolute. Yes.
As for "Judge of Judges," some scholars said: It is like "King of Kings." It is like "King of Kings." And if we accept that it is like it, then when "Judge of Judges" is said regarding a specific region, the meaning is the Judge of Judges in that region. So in which region was Ibn Hajar the Judge of Judges? In Egypt. He was not the Judge of Judges in every place. Therefore, we say: If we accept that saying "Judge of Judges" is like "King of Kings," then the reconciliation of what is mentioned in some scholars' biographies about being the Judge of Judges means the Judge of Judges in his region, not the Judge of Judges in every place. And the reason I said "if we accept that it is equated with King of Kings" is that "King of Kings" implies absolute authority, compulsion, and coercion. The authority, compulsion, and coercion of a judge are not like the authority of whom? Like the authority of the king. The king has effective power and command, and he is considered to have a status above people. But the judge is not like that. Even if the judge compels people to the truth and obligates it upon them, the one who has absolute authority over those under his protection is the king. In any case, scholars often say so-and-so is the Judge of Judges, meaning what? The region in which he is. It is not absolute. Yes.