Explanation of the author's statement: "It is permissible to appoint a general judge for general jurisdiction, or to appoint a specific judge for both, or for one of them."

The Shaykh : We begin now with "It is permissible to appoint a general judge for general jurisdiction" "It is permissible to appoint a general judge for general jurisdiction, or to appoint a specific judge for both, or for one of them". It is permissible to appoint the one who assumes the authority of the ruler, the general judge, to have general jurisdiction over general matters. "General jurisdiction" means the cases in which he adjudicates. For example, he may be appointed to handle all rulings in sales, pledges, leases, marriages, inheritance, and anything related to litigation. This is what we call general jurisdiction. "Jurisdiction" here means cases. He is appointed to handle all cases in general matters. "General matters" refers to the place where he exercises his authority. In general matters, naturally, general jurisdiction cannot be absolute, because absolute generality is inconceivable. However, it is relative generality. Relative generality in general matters is when the ruler says, "I appoint you as judge in all the regions of the world." Is this possible? No, it is not possible, because it is impossible to encompass everything. So, general jurisdiction in general matters is relative. For example, if he says, "I appoint you as judge in al-Qasim, in the region of al-Qasim," is this general or not? It is general with respect to each town individually, but it is not absolute generality. Broader than that is if he says, "I appoint you as judge in Najd." Yes, this is broader. But is it absolute generality? No. If he says, "I appoint you as judge in the region of Madinah," this is broader than that. If he says, "In the region of al-Hijaz," is that not broader? But broader than all of that is if he says, "I appoint you as judge in all of al-Hijaz and Najd." This is the broadest. The point is that general jurisdiction in general matters means the place where the judge rules. It is permissible to appoint someone for general jurisdiction and to appoint someone for specific jurisdiction. If he says, "I appoint you to handle all rulings in the general region of al-Qasim," what is this? It is general jurisdiction in general matters. Good. He says "and to appoint a specific judge for both". "Appoint a specific judge for both." The pronoun "both" in his statement refers to jurisdiction and matters. I told you that jurisdiction is the rulings in which he adjudicates, and matters are the places where he rules and works. Good. Specific in both: in jurisdiction and in matters. In jurisdiction, for example, if he says, "I appoint you for marriages in Unaizah," and in matters, "I appoint you for marriages in Unaizah." This is specific jurisdiction and specific matters. It is specific jurisdiction because he restricted the judiciary to marriages. It is specific matters because he restricted it to a specific town. Good. If he says, "I appoint you for inheritance in Buraydah," this is specific jurisdiction in specific matters. It is specific jurisdiction because I told you it is only for inheritance. If two people come to the one appointed for inheritance and they dispute over a marriage, does he judge between them? No, he does not judge between them. In fact, if he judges between them without being appointed as an arbitrator, his ruling is not valid, because he restricted the jurisdiction to inheritance. Good. In Buraydah, he judges in inheritance. Does he have the authority to rule between two people in an inheritance issue in Unaizah? No, why? Because the matters are specific to Buraydah. These are two opposing scenarios. The first scenario is general jurisdiction in general matters. The second scenario is specific jurisdiction in specific matters. Good. "Or in one of them," because he said "or in one of them". We begin with jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction in general matters. Specific jurisdiction in general matters is when we say, "I appoint you for inheritance in the region of al-Hijaz." "I appoint you for inheritance in the region of al-Hijaz." This is specific jurisdiction in general matters. The entire region of al-Hijaz refers to this man for inheritance only. Good. Now we want general jurisdiction in specific matters. This is when he says, "I appoint you for all rulings in Makkah." "I appoint you for all rulings in Makkah." This includes sales, leases, endowments, marriages, inheritance, criminal offenses, hudud punishments, and so on. Because what did he say? "I appoint you for general jurisdiction in Makkah," meaning all rulings in Makkah. "I appoint you for all rulings in Makkah." So he adjudicates in all rulings, but only in Makkah. If he goes to Jeddah to visit, he is not a judge there. Clear? So the scenarios are now four. The first one, Ya Faisal?

The questioner : The first one is in general jurisdiction.

The Shaykh : In the locative case, it is in the place. Specific jurisdiction in general matters. I say, the ruler says, "I appoint you for marriages in al-Hijaz." Is that right or not? Good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says "It is permissible to appoint a general judge for general jurisdiction, or to appoint a specific judge for both, or for one of them". Good. Is it permissible to appoint him for specific matters in specific jurisdiction, meaning, "I appoint you to judge in the abrogating and abrogated verses of the science of inheritance"? Is it permissible or not? It is permissible. It is permissible, meaning this man, for example, has reached the pinnacle in the science of inheritance, so he says, "I appoint you to judge only in the abrogating and abrogated verses." Yes. This is most common in temporary appointments. In temporary appointments, you find complex issues in inherited properties from long ago, and there are abrogating and abrogated verses involved, so a specific person is appointed to look into them. Is that right or not? As for permanent appointment, this is rare. But even so, it is valid. Now, judges are appointed for specific jurisdiction in specific matters. For example, it is said, "The judge for marriages in Riyadh." This exists now in Riyadh. The judge for marriages handles the contracting and annulment of marriages. Yes. But if a sales issue comes to him, he says, "I have no jurisdiction over that." The benefit of the author's statement, or of mentioning these four scenarios, is that whoever is appointed in one scenario does not have authority over the others. He does not have authority over the others. So, if someone is appointed for marriages and he looks into inheritance, even if he rules, his ruling is not valid. See, if he rules according to the Shari'ah, his ruling is not valid. This indicates that Islam looks at these issues with precision. Because if the matter were left loose, and everyone spoke and ruled as they pleased, things would be lost. Except in the issue of arbitration. That is, if two men agree to appoint someone to arbitrate a matter between them, even if it is not within his appointed jurisdiction, there is no harm in that. Even if they agree to appoint a non-judge as an arbitrator, as will come later. But the judiciary that is based on the appointment of the ruler cannot have its ruling executed except according to what was delineated for him. Clear, brothers? Good.