Haramun ne a sami alƙalai fiye da ɗaya da ke jagorantar kotu kuma suna da ikon yanke hukunci. Halal ne ga alƙali ɗaya ko fiye da haka su kasance tare da shi, amma ba su da hakkin yanke hukunci. Suna halartar ne domin a tuntube su ko su bayyana ra'ayinsu, kuma ra'ayinsu ba zai zama dole a bi shi ba.

It is forbidden to have more than one judge presiding over a tribunal and having power to render judgement. It is permitted for one or more judges to be present with Him but they would not have the right to judge. They attend so as to be consulted or to voice an opinion, and their opinion would not be binding.

Wannan saboda Manzon Allah (pbuh) bai taba nada alkalai biyu don su yi hukunci a kan mas'ala guda ɗaya ba, a maimakon haka ya kan naɗa alkali ɗaya don mas'ala ɗaya ﷺ. Bugu da ƙari, shari'a ita ce furta hukuncin Shari'ah ta hanyar tilastawa, kuma hukuncin Shari'ah game da mutum Musulmi ɗaya ba ya iya canzawa, domin hukuncin Allah ne, kuma hukuncin Allah ɗaya ne. Gaskiya ne cewa fassararsa na iya bambanta, amma a ɓangaren aiki game da Musulmi ya kasance ɗaya kuma bai taba canzawa ba. Fassarar da ya yi ita ce hukuncin Allah ga abin da ya shafe shi, kuma duk wata fassara ta daban ba hukuncin Allah (swt) ba ne da zai shafe shi, ko da yake a ra'ayinsa ana ɗaukarta a matsayin hukuncin Shari'ah. Duk wata Taqleed (bin malami) da ya karɓa ya yi aiki da ita ana ɗaukarta hukuncin Allah (swt) a gare shi, alhali kuma wata Taqleed ta daban ba za ta shafe shi ba. Idan alkali ya furta hukuncin Allah a cikin mas'alar da ke gabansa ta hanyar tilastawa, wannan furucin dole ne ya zama ɗaya, domin furta hukuncin Allah (swt) ne ta hanyar tilastawa. Don haka yin aiki da hukuncin Allah (swt) ke nan, kuma hukuncin Allah (swt) daga mahangar aiki ba ya canzawa, koda fahimta ta bambanta. Saboda haka, an haramta a sami alkali fiye da ɗaya, domin ba zai yiwu hukuncin Allah (swt) ya canza ba. Wannan dai game da shari'ar mutum ɗaya ne, watau kotu ko majalisar shari'a. Amma game da ƙasa, an halatta a sami kotuna biyu daban-daban suna yin shari'a a dukkan nau'o'in shari'u a yanki ɗaya, domin ikon shari'a ana ba da shi ne daga Khaleefah, don haka yana kama da wakilci inda yawan wakilai ya halatta, saboda haka ya halatta a sami alkalai da dama a yanki ɗaya. Idan ɓangarorin da ke jayayya ba su iya yarjejeniya a kan wane kotu ya kamata su kai shari'arsu ko wane alkali ya kamata ya duba shari'ar tasu ba, to zaɓin mai ƙara zai fi na wanda ake ƙara muhimmanci, kuma za a ba da shari'ar ga alkalin da ya zaɓa, domin shi yana neman haƙƙinsa, kuma wannan ya fi muhimmanci fiye da na wanda ake ƙara.

This is because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) never appointed two judges to deal with one matter, rather He (pbuh) appointed one judge for one matter. Besides, the judiciary is the pronouncing of the Shari’ah rule by way of compulsion, and the Shari’ah rule concerning the same Muslim person cannot vary, for it is the rule of Allah, and the rule of Allah is one. It is true that its interpretation may vary, but concerning the Muslim from the practical side it remains one and it never varies. His interpretation would be the rule of Allah as far as He is concerned, and any other interpretation is not the rule of Allah (swt) that would apply to him, although in his opinion it is considered a Shari’ah rule. Whatever Taqleed (imitation) He adopts and acts upon is considered to be the rule of Allah (swt) as far as He is concerned, while any other Taqleed would not apply to him. When the judge pronounces the rule of Allah in the matter at hand by way of compulsion, this pronouncement must be one, for it is the pronouncement of the rule of Allah (swt) by way of compulsion. Thus it would be acting upon the rule of Allah (swt), and the rule of Allah (swt)from a practical point of view does not vary, even if the understanding does vary. Therefore, it is forbidden to have more than one judge, for it is impossible for the rule of Allah (swt) to vary. This is as far as the individual case is concerned, i.e. the tribunal or court. As for the country, it is permitted to have two separate courts dealing in all types of cases in one area, because the judiciary is delegated by the Khaleefah, so it is like the deputyship where plurality is permitted, thus it would be permitted to have several judges in one area. If the disputing parties could not agree on which tribunal they should take their case to or which judge should look into their case, the choice of the plaintiff would outweigh that of the defendant and the case would be given to the judge of his choice, as He would be seeking his right and this outweighs the defendant.

Alƙali zai iya yanke hukunci ne kawai a kotun shari'a, kuma hujja da rantsuwa ana iya la'akari da su ne kawai a kotun shari'a.

The judge can only rule in a judicial court, and the evidence and the oath can only be considered in the judicial court.

Wannan saboda an ruwaito daga Abdullahi Ibnuz-Zubair cewa ya ce: "Manzon Allah ﷺ ya umarta cewa jam'iyyun biyu masu jayayya su zauna a gaban alkali." [Abu Dawood da Ahmad ne suka ruwaito shi] Wannan Hadisi yana nuna tsarin da ya kamata a bi wajen gudanar da shari'a, kuma tsari ne halastacce a kansa, watau dole ne a sami takamaiman tsarin da za a gudanar da shari'a a cikinsa, wato jam'iyyun biyu masu jayayya su zauna a gaban alkali, kuma wannan shi ne kotun shari'a. Saboda haka, wannan sharadi ne na ingancin tsarin shari'a, watau dole ne a sami takamaiman wuri da za a yi hukunci a cikinsa, domin ya cancanci zama hukunci halastacce, kuma wannan shi ne jam'iyyun biyu masu jayayya su zauna a gaban alkali. Hadisin Ali (rta) ya tabbatar da haka, lokacin da Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce masa:

This is because it has been reported on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibnuz-Zubayr who said; “The Messenger of Allah has ordered that the two disputing parties should sit before the judge.” [Narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmed] This Hadith demonstrates the form, in which the judicial process should be conducted, and it is a lawful form in itself, i.e. there must be a specific form in which the judicial process is to be conducted, which is for the two disputing parties to sit before the judge, and this would be the judicial court. Therefore, this is a condition for the validity of the judicial procedure, i.e. that there ought to be a special place where the judgement is to be conducted for it to qualify as a legitimate judgement, and this would be for the two disputing parties to sit before a judge. This is backed by the Hadith of Ali (rta) when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said to him:

"Ya Ali, idan wasu bangarori biyu masu jayayya suka zauna a gabanka, kada ka yi hukunci ga kowanne daga cikinsu har sai ka ji abin da ɗayan bangaren zai ce, kamar yadda ka ji na farko." Yana kuma nuna wani salo na musamman inda ya ce: "Idan wasu bangarori biyu masu jayayya suka zauna a gabanka." Saboda haka, kotun shari'a wajibi ce idan hukunci zai inganta, kuma wajibi ne domin a dauki rantsuwa. Wannan kuwa saboda Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Rantsuwa tana wajaba ne ga wanda ake kara." [Al-Bukhari ya ruwaito daga Ibnu Abbas] Ba za a dauke shi a matsayin wanda ake kara ba sai a kotun shari'a. Haka kuma ya shafi hujja. Ba za a amince da ita ba sai a gaban kotun shari'a, domin Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Mai kara ne ya kamata ya kawo hujja, kuma rantsuwa tana kan wanda ya ƙi amincewa." [Narrated by Al-Baihaqqi]

“O Ali, if two disputing parties sat before you, do not judge for in favour of either of them until you hear what the other party has to say as you have heard the first one.” It also indicates a special form where He (pbuh) said; “If two disputing parties sat before you.” Therefore, the judicial court is a must if the judgement is to be valid, and is also a must for the oath to be considered. This is because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; “The oath must be given by the defendant.” [Narrated by Al- Bukhari on the authority of Ibnu Abbas] He would not be considered as defendant except in a judicial court. The same applies for the evidence. It cannot be considered except before a judicial court, for the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; “It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is due on the one who disapproves.” [Narrated by Al-Baihaqqi]

Ba za a iya ɗaukar shi a matsayin mai ƙara ba sai a gaban kotun shari'a.

He also cannot be considered a plaintiff except before a judicial court.

Ana halatta a sami matakai daban-daban na kotuna gwargwadon nau'in shari'o'i. Saboda haka, zai halatta a sami wasu alkalai da aka takaita aikinsu wajen yanke hukunci a wasu shari'o'i zuwa wani mataki, sannan a mayar da sauran shari'o'i zuwa wasu kotuna.

It is permitted to have various levels of courts according to the type of cases. Thus it would be permitted to have some judges confined to dealing with specific cases to a certain extent, and to refer other cases to other courts.

Wannan saboda Khaleefah yana wakilta shari'a ga wasu, kuma hakan yana kama da mataimakin shugaba (deputyship), babu wani bambanci a tsakaninsu. A gaskiya, shari'a wani nau'i ne na mataimakin shugaba, wanda zai iya zama na gaba ɗaya, kuma yana iya zama na musamman. Saboda haka, ya halatta a nada alkali da zai yi hukunci a wasu shari'o'i kawai, kuma a wannan yanayi ba zai halatta masa ya yi hukunci a wasu shari'o'in banda waɗanda aka ƙayyade ba. Haka kuma ya halatta a nada wani alkalin don ya duba dukkan nau'ikan shari'a, ciki har da waɗanda aka ambata, koda a wuri ɗaya, ko kuma ya duba shari'o'in da ba a ambata ba. Don haka, ya halatta a kafa matakai daban-daban na kotuna, kuma Musulmi sun yi haka a baya. Al-Mawardi ya rubuta a littafinsa mai suna Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya cewa: "Abu 'Abdullah Az-Zubayri ya ce: 'Na wani lokaci, 'Umara a nan Basra sukan nada alkali a babban masallaci (Al-Masjid Al-Jami'), kuma suna kiransa alkalin masallaci. Yana yanke hukunci a rigingimun da kuɗinsu bai wuce dinare ashirin da dirhami dari biyu ba, kuma yana ba da nafaqah (kuɗin kula). Ba zai wuce iyakokinsa ba, ko kuma ayyukan da aka danƙa masa.'" Manzon Allah ﷺ ya wakilta wasu a madadinsa a shari'a; ya nada 'Amru Ibn al-'A'as don ya duba wata shari'a guda ɗaya, kuma ya nada Ali Ibnu Abi Talib a kan shari'a a Yaman, da iko na duba kowace shari'a. Wannan yana nuna cewa ya halatta a sami shari'a ta musamman da kuma ta gaba ɗaya.

This is because the Khaleefah delegates the judiciary and it is just like the deputyship, with no difference at all. In fact, the judiciary is one form of deputyship, which can be general and can also be specific. Therefore, it would be permitted to have a judge appointed to deal in specific cases only, in which case He would not be allowed to deal with cases other than those cases specified. It is also permitted to appoint another judge to look into all sorts of cases including those mentioned, even in the same location, or to look into cases other than those mentioned. Therefore, it is permitted to have various levels of tribunal, and Muslims had this in the past. Al-Mawardi wrote in his book entitled Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya; “Abu ‘Abdullah Az-Zubayri said; ‘For sometime, the ‘Umara here in Basra used to appoint a judge at the central Masjid (Al-Masjid Al- Jami’), and they called Him the judge of the Masjid. He used to judge in disputes involving sums not exceeding twenty Dinars and two hundred Dirhams, and He used to impose Nafaqah (maintenances). He would not exceed his boundaries nor the duties entrusted to him.’” The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) delegated others on his behalf in the judiciary; He (pbuh) appointed ‘Amru Ibn al-‘A‘as to look into one case, and He appointed Ali Ibnu- Abi Talib over the judiciary in Yemen with powers to look into any case. This indicates that it is permitted to have a specific and general judiciary.

Babu kotunan daukaka kara, babu kuma kotunan soke hukunci, don haka hanyar da ake bi wajen shari'ar al'amura daya ce. Idan alkali ya yanke hukunci, to zai zama wajibi, kuma hukuncin wani alkali ba zai soke shi ba ta kowace hanya. Wannan haka yake sai dai idan hukuncin ya saba wa wata nassi bayyananne daga Littafin Allah, ko Sunnar ManzonSa ﷺ, ko ijma'in Sahabbai.

There are no courts of appeal and there are no courts of cessation, so the judiciary, as far as the method by which the cases are treated, is one and the same. If the judge pronounced a sentence, it would become binding, and the sentence of another judge would not under any circumstances reverse it. This is the case unless the sentence disagreed with a definite text from the book of Allah, or the Sunnah of His Messenger or the Ijma’a of as-Sahabah.

Saboda haka, hukuncin alkali ba za a iya soke shi ba, ko ta hannunsa ko ta hannun wani alkali, idan hukuncin na asali an dogara ne akan hujjar zanni (wadda ke da yuwuwar kuskure) daga Littafi ko Sunnah. Hujjar cewa hukuncin alkali wanda ya samo asali daga hujjar zanni ba za a iya soke shi ba, ita ce ijma'in Sahabbai baki ɗaya. Wannan kuwa saboda Abu Bakar ya yi hukunci a wasu shari'o'i bisa ijtihadin kansa, amma Umar bai amince da shi ba, kuma bai soke hukuncinsa ba. Ali ya saba wa ijtihadin Umar, amma bai taɓa soke hukuncinsa ba; Ali ya bambanta da Abu Bakar da Umar, amma ba a taɓa soke hukunce-hukuncensu ba. Mutanen Najran sun zo wurin Ali suka ce masa:

Thus, the sentence of the judge cannot be reversed by himself or by any other judge, if it (the original judgement) is based on Zanni (probable) evidence from the Book or the Sunnah. Evidence about the fact that the sentence of the judge derived from a Zanni evidence cannot be reversed is the general consensus of the Sahabah. This is because Abu Bakr judged in some cases according to his own Ijtihad while ‘Umar did not agree with him, and He did not reverse his sentences. Ali disagreed with ‘Umar’s Ijtihad but never reversed his sentences; Ali differed with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but their sentences were never reversed. The people of Najran came to Ali and said to him:

"Ya Amirul Mu'minina, littafinka yana hannunka, kuma gafararka tana ga harshenka." Ya ce: "Kaiwa! 'Umar ya kasance an shiryar da shi daidai, kuma ba zan soke hukuncin da 'Umar ya yanke ba." An ruwaito cewa 'Umar ya yanke hukunci a cikin al'amarin Musharraka (gadon hadin gwiwa) domin ya soke haqqin 'yan'uwa na uba, sannan ya umarce su da samun rabo, sannan ya ce: "Wancan hukunci yana aiki a kan wancan lamari, kuma wannan hukunci yana aiki a kan wannan lamari," kuma ya aiwatar da hukunce-hukuncen biyu duk da sabanin da ke tsakaninsu. Haka kuma ya yanke hukunci daban game da kakan, kuma bai taba soke wani daga cikin hukunce-hukuncen da suka gabata ba. Dangane da abin da aka ruwaito cewa Sharih ya yanke hukunci a cikin al'amarin 'yan uwan juna biyu na uba, daya daga cikinsu dan'uwan uwa ne, cewa gado ya tafi ga dan'uwan, wannan lamari an mayar da shi ga Ali, sai ya ce: "Ku kawo mini mutumin." Lokacin da ya zo, ya ce masa: "A ina ka same wannan a cikin Littafin Allah?" Ya ce: Allah (SWT) yana cewa: "Amma masu zumunta na jini suna da fifiko a kan juna." [TMQ Al-Anfal: 75] Allah (SWT) kuma yana cewa: "Idan wani namiji ko mace wanda ake batun gadonsa ba su bar iyaye ko 'ya'ya ba, amma sun bar dan'uwa ko 'yar'uwa, to kowannensu zai samu kashi daya cikin shida." [TMQ An-Nisa: 12]

“O Ameer of the believers, your book is in your own hands and your pardon is with your own tongue.” He said; “Woe to you, ‘Umar was rightly guided and I will not reverse a judgement pronounced by ‘Umar.” It has been reported that ‘Umar judged in the Musharraka (shared inheritance) to abrogate the rights of brothers from the father’s side. He then ordered that they have a share, and then said; “That sentence applies to that case and this sentence applies to this one”, and He executed both sentences despite the contradiction. He also judged differently in relation to the grandfather and He never reversed any of the earlier sentences. As for what has been reported about Sharih having judged in the case of two paternal cousins, one of them was one of the mother’s brother, that the estate should go to the brother, this was referred to Ali so He said; Bring me the man. When He came He said to him: “Where in the Book of Allah did you find this?” He said; Allah (swt) says; “But kindred by blood have prior rights against each other.” [TMQ Al-Anfal: 75] Allah (swt) also says; “If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left neither ascendants or dependants, but has left a brother or sister, each one of the two gets a sixth” [TMQ An-Nisa: 12],

Daga nan ya mayar da hukuncinsa. Ibn Qudamah ya amsa game da wannan a cikin littafinsa Al-Mughni, a babin al-Qadaa (Shari'ar Alkali), shafi na 56, babi na tara, inda ya ce: "Ba a tabbatar mana ba cewa Ali ya mayar da hukuncinsa. Ko da an tabbatar da cewa ya yi haka, to ana iya cewa Ali (rta) ya zaci cewa Sharih ya saba wa nassin Littafi a cikin Ayar da ya ambata, don haka ya mayar da hukuncin." Abin da aka tabbatar shi ne cewa Sahabbai a wasu lokuta sun yanke hukunci a wasu al'amura bisa ijtihadinsu, Khalifa kuma yana saba musu. Wannan ya faru a zamanin Abu Bakr, Umar da Ali, amma babu ɗaya daga cikinsu da ya taɓa mayar da hukuncin wani. Haka kuma an tabbatar da cewa Umar ya yanke hukunce-hukunce masu karo da juna kuma daban-daban a kan al'amari guda ɗaya, kuma ya aiwatar da dukkan hukuncen, bai taɓa mayar da hukuncin farko da na biyu ba duk da bambancin da ke tsakaninsu. An tabbatar cewa Umar ya ce game da wannan:

He then reversed his sentence. Ibn Qudamah replied with regards to this in his book Al-Mughni in the subject of al-Qadaa (The Judiciary), page 56, chapter nine by saying; “It has not been proved, in our view, that Ali reversed his sentence. Even if it was proved that He did so, then Ali (rta) possibly thought that Sharih disagreed with the text of the Book in the Ayah wich He mentioned, so He reversed it.” What has been confirmed is that the Sahabah had on some occasions judged in some matters according to their own Ijtihad, and the Khaleefah used to disagree with them. This happened in the times of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Ali, and never did any of them reverse the others’ judgement. What has also been confirmed is that ‘Umar passed contradictory and different sentences in relation to one single issue, and He executed all the sentences and never reversed the first judgement by the second one despite the difference between the two. It has been confirmed that ‘Umar said about this:

"Wannan hukuncin yana ga wannan shari'ar ne, kuma wannan hukuncin yana ga wannan shari'ar." Wannan yana zama hujja cewa hukuncin alkalai bai kamata a soke shi ba. Ibnu Qudama ya rubuta a cikin Al-Mughni:

“That judgement was for that case and this judgement is for this one.” This serves as evidence that the sentence of the judges should not be reversed. Ibnu Qudama wrote in Al-Mughni:

"Idan kuma ijtihadinsa ya canja ba tare da ya sabawa nassi ko ijma'in gaba ɗaya ba, ko kuma idan ijtihadinsa ya bambanta da ijtihadin waɗanda suka gabace shi, bai kamata ya soke shi kawai saboda ya bambanta ba, domin hakika sahabbai sun amince da wannan hanya. Sai dai idan ya canja ijtihadinsa kafin ya yanke hukunci, to yana iya yin hukunci da sabon ijtihadin."

“And if his Ijtihad has changed without contradicting a text or a general consensus, or if his Ijtihad differed from the Ijtihad of those before him, He should not reverse it just because it is different, for the Sahabah have in fact consented on this course of action.” However, if He changed his Ijtihad before pronouncing the verdict, then He can judge with the new Ijtihad.

Haka kuma shaida game da haramcin yawaitar alkalai tana zama shaida game da haramcin soke hukuncin alkali. Wannan saboda hukuncin Allah guda ɗaya ne, ba ya canzawa, kuma hukuncin Allah game da wani al'amari da zarar an shar'anta shi, yana nufin an riga an aiwatar da shi, don haka bai dace a soke shi ba. Idan alkali ya yanke hukunci a kan wata shari'a, to yana sanya hukuncin Allah a aikace, sai aiwatar da shi ya zama wajibi. Saboda haka, bai kamata a taɓa soke shi ba, domin hakan zai zama soke hukuncin Allah, kuma hakan haramun ne. Don haka alkali ba zai iya soke nasa hukuncin ba, haka kuma babu wanda zai iya soke hukuncinsa, domin hukuncin Allah ba ya canzawa, kuma soke shi, baya ga kasancewa soke hukuncin Allah, zai zama canza hukuncin Allah (swt), kuma hakan haramun ne.

Furthermore, the evidence about the prohibition of the plurality of judges, also serves as evidence about the prohibition of reversing the judge’s sentence. This is because the rule of Allah is one and does not vary, and the rule of Allah regarding one matter, once enacted means that it has been executed, so it would be wrong to reverse it. When the judge passes a verdict on a case, He would be putting the rule of Allah into application, and then its execution becomes compulsory. Therefore, it should never be reversed, as this would mean the reversal of Allah’s rule and that is forbidden. Thus the judge cannot reverse his own judgement, nor can anyone else reverse his judgement, for the rule of Allah does not vary, and its reversal would be, in addition to being the reversal of the rule of Allah, a variation of the rule of Allah (swt) and that is forbidden.

Game da rahoton wasiƙar ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab wadda ya aika wa Abu Musa, wadda a cikinta ya rubuta: “Kada wani hukunci da ka yanke jiya, wanda ka sake dubawa ka kuma samu shiriya a kansa, ya hana ka komawa ga gaskiya, domin gaskiya tsohuwa ce, kuma komawa ga gaskiya ya fi ci gaba da ɓata.” Ko da an ɗauka cewa wasiƙar ta sahihi ce, to za ta zama maganar ‘Umar, kuma ba hujja ce ta Shari’a ba. Ba daidai ba ne a ce Sahabbai sun yi shiru a kan wannan, kuma cewa shirun nasu yana nuna an samu ijma’i gaba ɗaya. Shiru ba zai zama ijma’i gaba ɗaya ba sai in al’amarin ya shahara, ya shafi hukuncin da ya shafi dukkan mutane, kuma Sahabbai sun san da shi, haka kuma irin wannan abu yakan zama wanda Shari’a ke ƙi, domin ba sa yin shiru a kan abin ƙi. Amma wannan irin wasiƙa an rubuta ta ne ga wani alƙali na musamman, ba a matsayin sanarwa ga kowa ba. Duk da cewa daga baya ta shahara, ba wani al’amari ne sananne ga Sahabbai a lokacin ba. Bugu da ƙari, ba ta ƙunshi abin da Shari’a ke ƙi ba, domin babu wani abu a cikinta da Shari’a ta hana. Haka kuma, abin da ‘Umar yake nufi a wasiƙar shi ne: “Idan ka yanke hukunci jiya, sannan ka gano cewa ba daidai ba ne, kada wannan ya hana ka canza shi, ka yanke wani hukunci daban a wani shari’ar.” Ba yana nufin ya kamata ka soke hukuncin jiya ba. Shi ya sa ‘Umar ya rubuta “komawa ga gaskiya,” bai rubuta “ka soke hukuncinka ba.” Komawa ga gaskiya na nufin barin ra’ayin da bai dace ba, da karɓar wanda ya dace. Saboda haka, wasiƙar ba ta zama hujja cewa hukunci yana iya a soke shi bisa doka ba. Shi ya sa a Musulunci babu abin da ake kira hukunci mai biɗar gaba (judicial precedent), wato a irin wannan shari’a an yanke wancan hukunci. Idan an yanke wani hukunci a kan wata shari’a ta musamman, wannan hukuncin ba ya wajabta wa wani kuma ya yanke hukunci haka. Ya halatta mai shari'a ya yanke hukunci daban a kan irin wannan shari'ar, ko ta wani alkali daban ko ma ta alkali guda ɗaya. Amma shari'ar kanta, dokar Allah ita ce da za a yi amfani da ita a kanta, saboda haka alkali zai haramta masa ya soke wannan doka ko ya canja ta. Shi ya sa babu kotunan ɗaukaka ƙara a Musulunci, haka nan babu kotunan ƙoli na sake duba hukunci. Ɓangaren shari'a, daga fuskar yanke hukunci, ya kamata ya kasance a matsayi ɗaya. Ƙa'idar Shari'a ta ce: 'Ijtihadi ba ya soke wani ijtihadi.' Don haka babu wani Mujtahid da zai zama abin dogaro ga wani Mujtahid, saboda haka ba zai halatta a kafa kotunan da ke soke hukuncin wasu kotunan ba.

As for the report concerning the letter of ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab which He sent to Abu Moussa in which He wrote; “Do not allow a sentence you passed yesterday, which you reviewed and gained the right guidance, prevent you from returning to the truth, for the truth is old, and to return to the truth is better than to continue with the falsehood.” Supposing that the letter were genuine, it would represent the word of ‘Umar, and it is not a Shari’ah evidence. It would be wrong to say that the Sahabah kept silent about this and that this indicates that a general consensus took place, for the silence can only be considered to be a general consensus if the event was well known, related to a rule that concerns all the people, and which the Sahabah would have knowledge of, and also the like of which is usually rejected by Shari’ah for they do not remain silent over a Munkar. However, this type of letter was addressed to a specific judge and it was not a general address. Although it became famous afterwards, it was not a famous event known to the Sahabah at that time. Besides, it did not contain anything that is usually rejected, because it contained nothing that Shar’a condemns. Furthermore, what ‘Umar meant in his letter was; ‘If you passed a judgement yesterday and then realised that it was wrong, do not let this stop you from changing it and passing a different judgement in another case’. It does not mean that you should reverse yesterday’s judgement. That is why ‘Umar wrote ‘to return to the truth’ and He did not write to reverse your judgement. To return to the truth means to abandon the wrong opinion and adopt the right one. Therefore, the letter does not serve as evidence that the judgement can lawfully be reversed. This is why in Islam there is nothing called judicial precedent, i.e. in such and such case the sentence was so and so. If a certain verdict was passed on a particular case, that verdict does not oblige anyone else to judge accordingly. It is rather permitted to pass a different judgement on a similar case by a different judge and even by the same judge. As for the case itself, the rule of Allah would have been applied to it, therefore the judge would be forbidden from reversing that rule or changing it. This is why there are no courts of appeal in Islam, and nor are there any courts of cassation. The judiciary, from the adjudication point of view, should be of the same level. The Shari’ah principle states; ‘The Ijtihad does not reverse another Ijtihad.’ So no Mujtahid could serve as an authoritative source for another Mujtahid, thus it would be forbidden to have Tribunals that reverse the sentences of other Tribunals.

Amma idan alƙali ya yi watsi da yin hukunci bisa Shari'a ya yi hukunci bisa wata doka ta kafirci, ko kuma ya yi hukunci bisa wata doka da ta saɓa wa nassi mai qat'i daga Littafi da Sunnah ko Ijma'in Sahabbai, ko kuma ya fitar da hukunci wanda ya saɓa da gaskiyar lamari, kamar ya yanke hukunci a kan wani cewa mai kisan kai ne da gangan, sannan sai ga mai kisan na gaskiya ya bayyana, to a irin waɗannan yanayi ana soke hukuncin alƙalin. Wannan saboda Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Duk wanda ya ƙirƙiro wani abu a cikin al'amarinmu (Addini) wanda ba ya cikinsa, to za a mayar da shi." [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of ‘Aiesha]

However, if the judge abandons ruling by the Shari’ah and judged according to a rule of disbelief, or if He judged by a rule that contradicts a qat’i (definite) text form the kitab and Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ of the Sahabah, or He issued a verdict that contradicts with the reality, such as if He judged on somebody as a deliberate killer, then the real killer appeared. In such cases, the verdict of the judge is reversed. This is because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; “Anyone who invented something in our matter (Deen) that which is not from it, it would be rejected.” [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of ‘Aiesha]

An kuma ruwaito daga Jabir bin ‘Abdullah cewa:

It was also narrated by Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

…wani mutum ya yi zina da wata mace, sai Annabi ﷺ ya umarta a yi masa bulala. Daga baya aka sanar da shi cewa yana da aure, sai ya umarta a jefe shi da duwatsu. Malik bin Anas ya kuma ruwaito cewa ya ce: "Na samu labari cewa an kawo wata mace wurin ‘Uthman (rta), inda ta haihu bayan watanni shida, sai ya umarta a jefe ta da duwatsu. Ali (rta) ya ce masa: ‘Ba ya halatta a jefe ta, domin Allah (swt) yana cewa: "Ɗaukar (ciki) da yaye shi wa’adinsa watanni talatin ne" [TMQ Al-Ahqaf: 15], kuma Ya (swt) yana cewa: "Uwaye su shayar da ’ya’yansu tsawon shekaru biyu cikakku, ga wanda yake son ya cika lokacin shayarwar" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 233]. Don haka mafi ƙarancin lokacin ciki shi ne watanni shida, don haka ba a jefe ta ba.’ Saboda haka ‘Uthman (rta) ya umarta a dawo da ita, amma sai aka same ta an riga an jefe ta.” Abdur Raziq ya ruwaito daga Al-Imam Ath-Thawri cewa ya ce: "Idan alƙali ya yanke hukunci sabanin Littafin Allah ko Sunnar Manzon Allah ﷺ, ko kuma duk wani abu da aka yi ijma’i a kansa, to wani alƙali bayansa zai iya soke shi." Kuma wanda yake da ikon wajibi na soke waɗannan hukunce-hukuncen shi ne alƙalin Mazaalim.

“…a man committed adultery with a woman, so the Prophet (pbuh) ordered, that He be lashed. Later on He was informed that He was married, so He ordered that He be stoned.” Malik bin Anas also narrated, that He said; “I got knowledge that a woman was brought to ‘Uthman (rta), where she gave delivery after six months so He ordered her to be stoned, Ali (rta) said to him: ‘It is not valid to be stoned, because Allah (swt) says; “The carrying of the (child) and his weaning (Fisal) is a period of thirty months” [TMQ Al-Ahqaf: 15] and He (swt) says; “The mother shall give suckle to their children for two whole years, for them who desire to complete the term.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 233] Thus the pregnancy period is six months, so she should not be stoned.’ Accordingly ‘Uthman (rta) ordered that she be brought back, but He found that she had already been stoned.” Abdur Raziq narated from Al-Imam Ath-Thawri that He said; “If a judge gave a verdict opposite to the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) or anything where there is an Ijma’a over it, then another judge after Him may reverse it.” And the one with the mandatory powers to reverse these sentences is the qadi Mazaalim.