Explanation of the author's statement: "The chapter on the path of judgment and its description: If two litigants appear before him, he says"

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. This is the beginning of today's lesson. The path to a thing is what leads to that thing, such as the road to a city, because it leads to the city. Judgment is the decision, meaning the chapter on the path by which we arrive at a judgment between people, i.e., how one judges. This meaning of how one judges has come before us, where the two litigants enter upon the judge, and it is obligatory for him to be fair between them in his words, his gaze, their entry upon him, and his sitting place—four things. If they enter upon him in this manner, how does he arrive at a judgment between them? The author says: "If two litigants appear before him, he says: 'Which of you is the claimant?' If they remain silent until he begins, that is permissible." The litigants appear and sit before him, and he is given the choice. If he wishes, he may say, "Which of you is the claimant?" Now, if he were to say something else instead of "Which of you is the claimant," such as "What do you have?" is that permissible or not? It is permissible, because these are not words of worship; the important thing is that he asks them which of them is the claimant. If he says a different word that conveys the same meaning, there is no harm. This is one option. Or he may remain silent. He remains silent and says, "The matter is yours," or "The matter is theirs," and he remains silent until they begin. So, if the litigants appear, he is given the choice between asking them or remaining silent until they begin. But if they remain silent, until when? How will the judge be in a position to handle transactions that he needs to look into? If he fears that the two claimants will think he is busy with them, let him leave the matter to give them room to speak. The important thing is that if he remains silent, there is no harm. But there is no doubt that the author does not intend for the judge to remain silent indefinitely, because that would be a waste of his time and their time. Rather, he remains silent for a period during which he sees that if they wished to speak, they would speak. If a period has passed during which, if they wished to speak, they would speak, he says to them, "What do you have?" Because they may also remain silent out of reverence for the position, is that not so? Especially if the judge is one who commands respect. The important thing is that the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) say that if the litigants appear before the judge, he is given the choice between asking them or remaining silent until they begin. He says "If one precedes the other in the claim, he is given priority". This is in the case where the claim is from both sides, meaning that each of them claims against the other. In that case, the one who precedes in the claim is given priority. The common case is that the claim is from one side only; the common case is that one of the litigants is the claimant and the other is the defendant. So the author's statement, "If one precedes the other in the claim, he is given priority," is for the case where each of them has a claim against the other. If there is no claim against the other, it is known that the claimant is the one who speaks. He says "If one precedes the other in the claim, he is given priority. If the defendant admits it, judgment is rendered in favor of the claimant against him". If he admits it—the subject refers to the defendant; the pronoun "for him" refers to the claimant. That is, if the defendant admits it to him, i.e., to the claimant, judgment is rendered, i.e., by the judge, in favor of him, i.e., the claimant, against him, i.e., the defendant. And I think this is clear. Zayd and 'Amr appear before him, and he says, "Which of you is the claimant?" or he remains silent until one of them begins. Zayd says, "I claim against 'Amr one hundred thousand riyals. I claim against 'Amr one hundred thousand riyals." He says, "What do you say, O 'Amr?" He says, "Yes, it is true. I owe him one hundred thousand riyals." All right, judgment is rendered in favor of the claimant against him. It is clear. All right, but do you think this is a common occurrence? This does not happen except rarely, because if he wanted to admit it, he would not have needed to come to the judge. Except in a matter mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in the paths of judgment, where he says that there is a person who, whenever a claim is made against him before the judge, he admits it, and then says, "I cannot... I have nothing..."