Explanation of the author's statement: "And let his court be in the center of the town, spacious, and let him be just between the two litigants in his gaze, his words, his seating, and their entry upon him"

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And let his court be in the center of the town". Let his court be in the center of the town. "Center" here means the middle of the thing, and "al-wust" with a fathah means the choice. So let the court be in the center of the town, because he is the judge for all the people of the town. If it were in one side of it, it would be difficult for the people of the other side. Accordingly, one should look at the main part of the town, meaning its center, and the judge's court should be there, whether in his house or in another office. "Spacious". "Spacious" is another predicate for "let it be," meaning let it be spacious, because the litigants may be numerous and the space may be narrow for them. Also, a spacious place is more open for the chest and more expansive. The more spacious the place, the more a person relaxes in it and the more open and wide his chest becomes. He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And let him be just". From here the obligatory etiquettes begin. He said: "And let him be just between the two litigants". The introductory phrase here is "and let him be just," which is a predicate meaning a command, meaning it is obligatory for him to be just between the two litigants. This is based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: and His saying: and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . So he commanded justice between the children, and likewise between others who are equal in rights. It is obligatory for him to be just between the two litigants. His saying "between the two litigants" includes the case where both are disbelievers, or both are Muslims, or one is a disbeliever and the other is a Muslim. It is obligatory for him to be just between them, because the situation is one of judgment, in which all individuals who are judged or for whom judgment is made are equal. So it is obligatory for him to be just between the two litigants, whatever their religion may be. "In his gaze, his words, his seating, and their entry upon him". Now, how many are these? Four. He must be just between them in his gaze, meaning looking at them. He must be just between the two litigants in looking at them. He should not look at one with a look of satisfaction and at the other with a look of anger. If he looks at one and his eyes are flashing with anger, and if he looks at the other and his eyes are cold, this is not permissible. Because the one who is looked at with the first look, even if he is in the right, will be afraid and fearful. So he must look at them with the same look, whether the situation requires a look of anger or a look of satisfaction. The important thing is that his look at the two litigants does not differ. In his words, his words also, he must be just between them. He should not be soft with one and harsh with the other. He should not say to one when he greets him, "Welcome, and peace be upon you, how are the children, how are the family, and how is the market today if he is a merchant, and how did you do if he is a student," and so on. And to the other, when he greets him, he says, "Peace be upon you, oh, and with his nose too, yes." This is also not permissible. It is not permissible to favor one by asking about his condition, his wealth, and his family, while not asking the other, even if he is a relative. Let us suppose that one of the litigants is his relative and he has not seen him for a long time, and he wants to ask about his family because they are his relatives. Is it permissible or not? It is not permissible, because he can ask him in another place. But here, people are equal. It is not permissible to prefer one over the other in words. Now, if they are equal in words, meaning in their letters and the number of words, but he speaks to one with anger and intensity, and to the other with gentleness and softness? Then in words, in terms of the number of words and in terms of their quality and the tones of the voice, likewise. "His seating". His seating means he does not let one sit on the right and tell the other, "Go there." Or one says, "Here on the cushion," and the other, "Go there on the mat." It is not possible for the seating to be one in terms of proximity to him, and also in terms of the type of what they sit on. So he does not prefer one over the other. It is clear. It is narrated that some judges had a man enter alone, so he sat next to him. The judge honored him, asked him questions, and favored him. Then another man entered and sat in a normal way in the place. The judge said, "Oh Shaykh, this is me, I am claiming so-and-so for such-and-such." He said, "You are the litigant." He said, "Yes." He said, "Get up from this place and sit with your companion." And so, he must be just between the two litigants in his seating. Likewise in "their entry upon him". He does not prefer one over the other, but they both enter together. Yes, so he does not say to one, for example, if he stands in front of him at the door, he does not say, "Please, so-and-so," but they both enter together, or they dispute between themselves. If one of them prefers the other, the right is for both of them. But considering that the judge enters one before the other, this is not permissible, because this is contrary to what? Contrary to justice. And there is no doubt that the situation is one of justice, and if justice is violated in this place, it will lead to the invalidation of the argument of the one who has the right and the victory of the one who does not have the right. So the obligatory thing is justice. Now, if the door does not allow more than one person to enter, they draw lots between them, unless one of them chooses to prefer his companion, in which case the right is for both of them. If you say, "Should we not prefer the older one?" We say, "No, the situation is one of justice. We do not prefer the older one, nor the more handsome one, nor the more noble one, nor the most lowly one. But we say, the right is for both of you to enter together and dispute between yourselves." Now, these are four things in which it is obligatory for him to be just between the two litigants. Now, in the greeting, if one of them greets, does he return the greeting or wait in case the other greets? He returns the greeting, because this person has preceded in his right by his action, which is the greeting. He has preceded in the right of returning the greeting by his action, by the action of the litigant. It is not by my action. So if he greets, I say, "By Allah, I will not return your greeting until your companion greets, so that I can be just between you." This is not permissible. If he greets, return the greeting to him. Now, if both greeted, or one greeted and the other was content with that, and then they sat, and one of the litigants relaxed toward him and stood up asking him, "How are you? How is your health? How is the one with you? How are your eyes? How is your hearing?" What do we say? Does he say, "Be quiet," or does he remain silent until he looks at the other litigant?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. If he remains silent, it is a disaster, truly. And if he remains silent for the other so that he can enumerate like the first one, time is wasted for him. So we say, from the day he brings what is necessary at the time of greeting and salutation, he says, "What is your case?" and he hastens so that time is not wasted for him. The author said, "And it should be..." It has become from the obligatory etiquettes. What is it? Justice?

The questioner : The four.

The Shaykh : Justice. No, it is not the four. Justice in these matters and in others as well. But the author specified these matters because they are the most delicate thing in the subject, and perhaps some judges do not pay attention to them or care about them. As for justice in the manner of judgment, and in receiving the argument, and in the argumentation, this is a matter in which there is no doubt. This is an obligatory matter, and a chapter on the way of judgment or its description will come, if Allah wills, how he addresses the two litigants and how he arranges the case. But he mentioned these things because if justice is obligatory in them, it is obligatory in what is more important than them.