Explanation of the author's statement: "And it is forbidden to judge while one is very angry, or holding in urine, or in extreme hunger or thirst"

The Shaykh : The author said "And it is forbidden to judge while one is very angry". This is among the obligatory etiquettes, which is avoiding judging in a state of intense anger. Judging in a state of intense anger is forbidden. Anger, as we all know, is an emotional reaction that occurs in the soul due to something that provokes it by contradicting one's desire. You find a man's neck veins bulging, his eyes and face turning red, his hair standing on end, and he sometimes loses his consciousness. Sometimes the situation reaches a point where the angry person does not know whether he is in the sky or on the earth, and does not know what he is saying. Anger has three categories: the extreme, the beginning, and the middle. The middle does not harm, because there is no person who is free from it except rarely. As for the extreme, there is no ruling for one who is characterized by it, meaning the extreme of anger, in any statement he makes. The middle is a point of disagreement among scholars. We give an example of this in a man who divorces while angry. If he divorces at the beginning of his anger, his divorce is effective and valid. If he is at the extreme of his anger, his divorce is not effective and does not take place. These are two points on which there is agreement. The third is if he divorces in moderate anger. Scholars have two well-known opinions on this, the most correct of which is that the divorce does not take place, that the divorce does not take place, because this man is angry and feels that something is forcing him. He is aware of himself and knows what he is saying and knows that he is on the earth, but it is as if something is compelling and forcing him to divorce. And there is a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) . The anger that forbids the judge from judging includes any of the three types: the extreme and the middle. It is forbidden for him to judge in this state. The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "A judge should not judge between two people while he is angry" . This is the evidence. The reasoning is that the angry person cannot fully visualize the case, nor can he fully visualize its application to the sacred texts. A ruling requires that a person visualize the case and then visualize the application of the evidence to it, because ruling on a matter is a branch of visualizing it, and ruling on a matter requires knowing the cause of the ruling. The angry person cannot visualize that, neither the case nor the application of the rulings to it. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade judging between two people while angry. Also, if the anger is caused by one of the litigants, who is the one who provoked the judge's anger, then there is a third prohibition, which is that his anger may lead him to rule against this litigant, even though the right is with him, even though the right is with him. In these three prohibitions, it is forbidden to judge while angry, based on the evidence and the reasoning. And the author's statement "very angry" implies that if the anger is slight in its beginning, judging is not forbidden. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) judged while angry in the story of the Ansari and al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the water channel they disputed over. They disputed over it before the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). They disputed over it before the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding a water channel that flowed to al-Zubayr's wall before the Ansari's wall. So al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) would water from it and leave the rest for his Ansari neighbor. The Ansari complained to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and they referred the matter to him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to al-Zubayr . "Water until it reaches the wall, then release it to your neighbor" is a general command implying that he should water his crops, just watering, just watering is sufficient, then he releases it to the neighbor. So the Ansari, may Allah forgive him, said, "Is it because he is your cousin, O Messenger of Allah, that you have taken the upper hand in sin?" And a person is human, and no one should accuse the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of such an accusation. Yes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) became angry, an anger in retribution for himself, not in retribution for Allah, but in retribution for Allah, because he judges by the command of Allah and His Shari'ah, not by himself or his desire. He became angry, then he said . So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) preserved al-Zubayr's right when the Ansari angered him. But this was a slight anger that does not prevent visualizing the ruling, nor prevent visualizing the case, nor the application of the Shari'ah ruling to it. "And it is forbidden to judge while one is very angry". Do you know the implied evidence? No, the explicit evidence? . The implied evidence is the story of al-Zubayr and the Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him). Good. The author said "Judging while one is very angry or holding in urine". This means not judging while holding in urine. One who is holding in urine is one who is retaining urine, or one who is retaining feces. He should not judge between two people in this state. Why? Because this state resembles the state of anger in not visualizing the case and the application of the Shari'ah ruling to it. A person who is holding in urine, yes, two litigants come to him to dispute. It is obligatory for him to say to them, "Go away, or stay until I relieve myself." As for him trying to judge between them in this state, it is forbidden for him. Good. The author said "or in extreme hunger". It is also forbidden for him to judge in extreme hunger, even if the cause is fasting. If they come to him to dispute at the end of the day and he is hungry, very hungry, we say, "Do not judge between them and do not rule between them." Good. If he sends them away, will he benefit from that by eating? No, he does not benefit, because he is not eating until the sun sets. But he benefits by not making a mistake in the ruling. Unlike a person who is praying, if he is very hungry and fasting, we say, "Do not pray until you break your fast and eat." No, because the time for prayer is missed. As for ruling between two people, its time is not missed. Likewise, or in extreme thirst. Very thirsty. We say, "Do not judge between two people." Why? Because his mind is confused. Thirsty, not just thirsting for water, but extreme thirst. We say, "Do not judge until when? Until he drinks. Until he drinks, then he judges between them."