Explanation of the author's statement: "It is recommended that the jurists of the schools of jurisprudence attend his session and he consults them regarding what is difficult for him"

The Shaykh : He said, "It is recommended that the jurists of the schools of jurisprudence attend his session and he consults them regarding what is difficult for him". It is recommended that the jurists of the schools of jurisprudence attend his session. If there are several schools of jurisprudence in the town, it is recommended that the jurists of the schools of jurisprudence attend his session, as many as there are schools in the town. They said there are five schools in it: Yes, the Shafi'i, the Maliki, the Hanafi, the Hanbali, and the Zahiri, for example. We say, "O Allah, gather for us a jurist from each one to attend with me." Yes, so that if something is difficult for him, he consults them in the session of judgment. Do you understand? The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said this following other jurists of the school of jurisprudence, that it is recommended for the judge to have the jurists present to consult them regarding what is difficult for him. The correct view is that this is not recommended; rather, leaving it is what is recommended. Because having the jurists present involves several dangers. The first danger is that some cases are ones where both parties wish to remain secret and not be known to anyone. If he brings in people he may not need, and the issue may not be difficult for him such that he needs to consult them, then if he brings in someone, the two parties will be embarrassed by it. Second, some of the jurists may be talkative speakers who strive to snatch a word. He looks for the largest session, sits down, and talks. "I was present with the judge, and so-and-so was present with him, and so-and-so said such and such, and the other said such and such." Yes, and their voices rose before the judge, and the judge silenced them, then he returned, then he mentions the entire case, and the cases of the Muslims spread among the people. People begin to comment on them... Third, in that there is a weakening of the judge's position. How is this? They say, "This judge does not judge, and the people have jurists with him," meaning he does not have knowledge, meaning he does not have knowledge or not? This weakens the judge's position before the people. His rulings become questioned, and every person can object to him. Fourth, if he chooses the jurists of the schools of jurisprudence, in that there is a display of division among the people. Because we love to reduce disagreement as much as we can, and not to say, "What is so-and-so's school of jurisprudence?" and "You are on which school of jurisprudence?" and the like of this. So the obligatory thing is to gather all the people, as much as possible, on one statement, which is what the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) indicate. As for displaying division among the people through the sects, this is a matter that is not recommended. Therefore, always some of the common people come to seek a ruling and say, "Rule for us according to the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, according to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, and the like of that." We say to them, "All the schools of jurisprudence are equal; they all return to one thing: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)." One of these dangers is sufficient for us to say that it is not recommended to have the jurists present in his session. So what does he do with what is difficult for him? He postpones the issue. We say not every judge is prepared with knowledge of every case that comes to him. But if something is difficult for him, the obligatory thing for him is to postpone the judgment and say to the two parties, "Go and come back after a day, or two days, or three days, according to what he thinks the issue requires in terms of time. Then he reviews it himself and consults the scholars in his town or those outside his town. Like in our current time, the judge, while in the session of judgment, can contact any scholar he trusts in his knowledge and consult him and judge. Is that not so? So, if the author did not say this, there is a consideration in it; rather, it is weak. The correct view is that it is not recommended.