And the people of al-Hijaz said: A judge does not rule based on his own knowledge, whether he witnessed it during his tenure or before it. Even if a party admits to another a right in the court of judgment, he does not rule against him.

The reader: "And the people of al-Hijaz said: A judge does not rule based on his own knowledge, whether he witnessed it during his tenure or before it. Even if a party admits to another a right in the court of judgment, he does not rule against him, according to some of them, until he calls for two witnesses to be present with his admission. And some of the people of Iraq said: Whatever he heard or saw in the court of judgment, he rules by it; and whatever was outside of it, he does not rule by it except with two witnesses. And others among them said: Rather, he rules by it, because he is a trustee, and the purpose of testimony is to ascertain the truth, so his knowledge is greater than testimony. And some of them said: He rules by his knowledge in matters of wealth, but not in other matters. And al-Qasim said: It is not befitting for a judge to proceed with a ruling based on his knowledge without the knowledge of others, even though his knowledge is greater than the testimony of others, but in it is exposure to suspicion of himself among the Muslims and causing them to fall into conjecture. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) disliked conjecture, so he said:

Indeed, this is Safiyyah

إنما هذه صفية

".

The Shaykh : We have previously spoken about this issue: does he rule by his knowledge or not? And we mentioned that he rules by his knowledge in three matters, and this is one of them: what became famous, Sharafi, and what he knew in the court of judgment. Muhammad, yes. And regarding the integrity of the witnesses, yes.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Wealth, because it is lighter than hudud. Hudud are repelled by doubts. Yes, we took three. Good.