Explanation of the author's statement: "It is recommended that he not rule except in the presence of the witnesses, and his ruling is not executed for himself or for one whose testimony is not accepted for him, and if a claim is made against a non-public woman..."

The Shaykh : The author says "It is recommended that he not rule except in the presence of the witnesses". It is recommended for the judge not to rule except in the presence of the witnesses. It is permissible for him to rule in their absence. Yes, it is permissible if they have given their testimony, their testimony has been recorded, and he rules in their absence; there is no harm in that. However, the better course is not to rule except in their presence, because the witnesses are the means by which one reaches the ruling; without their testimony, there would be no ruling. Therefore, his ruling should be made while those through whom the truth is extracted are present. Also, this is more precise so that he does not lean to the right or the left, because he might forget some details of the testimony. And this is also closer to ensuring the witnesses' presence, because some witnesses might have testified falsely; if they see that the ruling will be established based on their testimony, they might retract it. These are three causes for the recommendation of the witnesses' presence for the judge's ruling. Now, he says "and his ruling is not executed for himself or for one whose testimony is not accepted for him". Yes, the judge's ruling for himself is not accepted. How can a judge rule for himself? This can be imagined: there is a dispute between him and a person, and he says, "I will judge between you and me for myself in my own court." This is not valid. Now, if the opponent accepts this and says, "You are the judge, and I trust you in the dispute..."

The questioner : It is permissible.

The Shaykh : ...it is permissible. Why? Because the right belongs to him. This sometimes occurs; the opponent of the judge trusts the judge and says, "You are the judge, and I trust your integrity, your religion, and your knowledge." If he accepts this, there is no blame on him. Likewise, he does not rule for one whose testimony is not accepted for him, such as his father, his son, or his wife. It is not accepted for him to rule for them, because the ruling, as we have passed over, includes testimony. Yes, the ruling includes testimony, because the judge is as if he is saying, "I testify that the right belongs to so-and-so against so-and-so." So if he rules for his father, his mother, his wife, or others whose testimony is not accepted for them, this is like testimony, and his ruling is not executed. Now, is his ruling executed against himself? Yes, by the saying of the Exalted . Now, is his ruling accepted or executed against one whose testimony is not accepted for him? The answer is yes; just as his testimony is accepted against them, his ruling is accepted against them. Then the author said "and if a claim is made against a non-public woman who did not attend, she is ordered to appoint a proxy, and if an oath is required of her, someone is sent to have her swear, and the same applies to the sick person". If a claim is made against a non-public woman, meaning a woman who is not public. A non-public woman is one who does not appear before men, because you know that some women are secluded and do not appear before men, while others are public, as people say, appearing before men and speaking with them, and it does not matter to them. So if a claim is made against a public woman, she attends like a man. And if a claim is made, O Muhammad Nur, against a non-public woman who does not go to the market or appear before men, she does not attend. Why? Because it is difficult for her, and because with modesty and shyness, she may not be able to express the argument in her heart. Is that not so? A woman who does not go out to men, how can she go out before the judge and defend herself? It is not possible. So we say: if a claim is made against a non-public woman, she does not attend and is ordered to appoint a proxy. This means the judge sends for her, and in our era, she is called by telephone to appoint a person to litigate on her behalf, to litigate on her behalf. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that it is permissible to appoint a proxy in litigation, and that is so. We have passed over this in the chapter of agency. It is permissible to appoint a person to litigate on her behalf. Now, is she allowed to choose a man who is more eloquent than her opponent? She is allowed to choose. Yes, she is allowed to choose, because she wants to defend herself against what was claimed against her, or to establish for herself what she claimed. So she is allowed to choose a man who is more eloquent than her opponent and has a stronger argument, on the condition that she believes she is in the right. But if she knows she is in the wrong, litigation is not permissible at all. But if she knows she is in the right, she is allowed to appoint someone who is more eloquent than her opponent. Now, he says "and she is ordered to appoint a proxy, and if an oath is required of her, someone is sent to have her swear". If an oath is required of her, meaning the non-public woman, meaning the non-public woman. If an oath is required of her, meaning she appointed a proxy, the proxy attended, and litigated with her opponent. Her opponent said, "I claim against so-and-so ten thousand riyals." The judge said to him, "Where is the proof?" He said, "I have no proof." What remains? The oath remains. Is the proxy sworn? No, the proxy is not sworn, because oaths do not admit representation or agency. But the judge sends a trustworthy person to have the woman swear. It is necessary that this messenger be one whose testimony is accepted against her and for her. That is, he does not send her father, because her father is suspected; perhaps her father would say she swore when she did not swear. Now, someone is sent to have her swear. She swears. Does he rule in her favor or not? He says, "So-and-so appeared before me as a proxy for so-and-so, and so-and-so appeared in person, and the second claimed against the first, against the first's client, such and such, and did not bring proof. I sent someone to have her swear, and she swore before him. Based on that, I rule in her favor." He said "and the same applies to the sick person". And the same applies to the sick person, meaning if an oath is required of the sick person, if an oath is required of him and he is unable to attend the court of judgment himself, then someone is sent to have him swear. Not every sick person is treated this way, but the sick person who is unable to attend the court of judgment. Illness is of two types: a type with which one is able to attend the court of judgment, in which case attendance is required of him; and another type with which one is unable, in which case attendance is not required of him, and he is told to appoint a proxy. And if the proxy is required to swear, someone is sent to have him swear. Yes.