Chapter: The one who holds that a judge may rule based on his own knowledge in matters concerning people, provided he does not fear suspicion or accusation.

The Reciter: Chapter: The one who holds that a judge may rule based on his own knowledge in matters concerning people, provided he does not fear suspicion or accusation. As the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Hind: And that is if it is a well-known matter.

The Shaykh : This issue is a subject of disagreement among jurists: does a judge rule based on his own knowledge or not? Some scholars said he rules based on his knowledge, because his ruling relies on witnesses, for example, which is a reliance on the knowledge obtained through those witnesses or on the predominant probability. If he himself knows the truth, then ruling is even more appropriate. For instance, if two men dispute before him, one claiming that the other lent him a thousand dirhams, and the judge knows that the claimant is truthful in his claim but has no evidence, in this case, if we proceed as usual, we would say to the defendant: "Swear that he did not lend you, and your liability is cleared." But if the judge knows that he did lend it, does he rule based on his knowledge or not? This is the issue. Some scholars said he does not rule based on his knowledge, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: Thus, he made the judiciary reliant on tangible matters. Also, this is further from accusation, because if his ruling is based on tangible matters, people will not accuse him of anything. But if it is based on his knowledge, his knowledge is hidden within himself and is subject to suspicion. And because this opens the door to evil for judges who do not fear Allah, who rule in favor of those they wish, claiming that they know it, on the pretext that they know it. Therefore, they said that a judge's ruling based on his knowledge is not executed, and it is not permissible for him to rule based on his knowledge absolutely, in order to block the door. Some scholars said, rather, he rules based on his knowledge if it is a well-known matter. For example, if Zayd claims against 'Amr that the house 'Amr lives in belongs to Zayd, and this house is well-known to all people as 'Amr's house, including to the judge, then here he rules based on his knowledge because it is a widespread, well-known matter in which the judge is never accused. If it is not so, then he does not. The Hanbali jurists chose that he rules based on his knowledge in only three cases. The first case is regarding the integrity of the witnesses and their lack of integrity; that is, if two witnesses testify before him and he knows that they are upright, he rules based on their testimony and does not need to ask about their status. This is one. The second is what he knows in the court of judgment; he rules based on his knowledge in that. For example, if a person claims against another for a hundred dirhams and they go to the judge, and the defendant admits it before the judge in the court of trial, then changes his mind and denies it, here does he rule based on his knowledge or not? He rules based on his knowledge because this is the court of judgment, so he rules based on his knowledge because it is in the court of judgment. The third is the well-known matter, in which he rules based on his knowledge. So the judge's ruling based on his knowledge is in these three issues. We will complete the rest of the discussion, as there is only a little left, if Allah wills, after the adhan. So he rules based on his knowledge in three cases: the case of the witnesses, what he knows in the court of judgment, and what is well-known.