Adalah haram untuk lebih daripada seorang hakim mengetuai sebuah mahkamah dan memiliki kuasa untuk menjatuhkan hukuman. Dibolehkan bagi seorang atau lebih hakim untuk hadir bersamanya, tetapi mereka tidak mempunyai hak untuk menghakimi. Mereka hadir supaya dapat dirujuk atau untuk menyuarakan pendapat, dan pendapat mereka tidak akan mengikat.

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.

Ini kerana Rasulullah (ﷺ) tidak pernah melantik dua orang hakim untuk memutuskan satu perkara, sebaliknya Baginda (ﷺ) melantik seorang hakim bagi satu perkara. Selain itu, kehakiman ialah pengumuman hukum Syari'ah secara paksaan, dan hukum Syari'ah mengenai seorang Muslim yang sama tidak boleh berbeza, kerana ia adalah hukum Allah, dan hukum Allah itu satu. Benar, tafsirannya mungkin berbeza, tetapi bagi Muslim tersebut dari segi praktikal ia kekal satu dan tidak pernah berubah. Tafsirannya itulah hukum Allah bagi dirinya, dan sebarang tafsiran lain bukanlah hukum Allah (swt) yang terpakai ke atasnya, walaupun pada pendapatnya ia dianggap sebagai hukum Syari'ah. Apa-apa taqlid (ikutan) yang dia anuti dan amalkan dianggap sebagai hukum Allah (swt) bagi dirinya, manakala taqlid lain tidak terpakai ke atasnya. Apabila hakim mengumumkan hukum Allah dalam perkara yang dibicarakan secara paksaan, pengumuman itu mestilah satu, kerana ia merupakan pengumuman hukum Allah (swt) secara paksaan. Dengan itu, ia bermakna beramal dengan hukum Allah (swt), dan hukum Allah (swt) dari sudut praktikal tidak berbeza, walaupun pemahaman boleh berbeza. Oleh itu, adalah haram mempunyai lebih daripada seorang hakim, kerana mustahil hukum Allah (swt) boleh berbeza. Ini adalah bagi kes individu, iaitu mahkamah atau tribunal. Adapun bagi negara, dibenarkan mempunyai dua mahkamah berasingan yang mengendalikan semua jenis kes di satu kawasan, kerana kehakiman diwakilkan oleh Khalifah, maka ia seperti jawatan wakil yang membenarkan kepelbagaian, dengan itu dibenarkan mempunyai beberapa hakim di satu kawasan. Jika pihak-pihak yang bertikai tidak dapat bersepakat tentang mahkamah mana yang harus mereka bawa kes mereka, atau hakim mana yang harus meneliti kes mereka, maka pilihan penuntut akan diutamakan berbanding pilihan tertuduh, dan kes itu akan diserahkan kepada hakim pilihannya, kerana dia sedang menuntut haknya, dan ini lebih diutamakan daripada tertuduh.

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.

Hakim hanya boleh memutuskan di mahkamah kehakiman, dan keterangan serta sumpah hanya boleh dipertimbangkan di mahkamah kehakiman.

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

Ini kerana telah diriwayatkan daripada ‘Abdullah Ibnuz-Zubayr yang berkata; “Rasulullah ﷺ telah memerintahkan agar dua pihak yang bertelingkah duduk di hadapan hakim.” [Diriwayatkan oleh Abu Dawood dan Ahmad] Hadith ini menunjukkan bentuk yang mana proses kehakiman hendaklah dijalankan, dan ia adalah bentuk yang sah pada dirinya sendiri, iaitu mesti ada bentuk tertentu yang digunakan untuk menjalankan proses kehakiman, iaitu dua pihak yang bertelingkah duduk di hadapan hakim, dan ini ialah mahkamah kehakiman. Oleh itu, ini menjadi syarat bagi sahnya prosedur kehakiman, iaitu hendaklah ada tempat khusus di mana penghakiman dijalankan supaya ia layak dianggap sebagai penghakiman yang sah, dan ini ialah dua pihak yang bertelingkah duduk di hadapan seorang hakim. Perkara ini disokong oleh hadith ‘Ali (rta) ketika Rasulullah ﷺ bersabda kepadanya:

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:

"Wahai Ali, jika dua pihak yang bertikai duduk di hadapanmu, jangan engkau memutuskan untuk memihak kepada salah satu daripada mereka sehingga engkau mendengar apa yang dikatakan oleh pihak yang satu lagi sebagaimana engkau telah mendengar apa yang dikatakan oleh pihak yang pertama." Ia juga menunjukkan satu bentuk khas, di mana baginda ﷺ bersabda: "Jika dua pihak yang bertikai duduk di hadapanmu." Oleh itu, mahkamah kehakiman adalah wajib jika penghakiman itu hendak sah, dan ia juga wajib bagi sumpah untuk diambil kira. Ini kerana Rasulullah ﷺ bersabda: "Sumpah mesti diberikan oleh pihak yang didakwa." [Diriwayatkan oleh Al-Bukhari daripada Ibnu Abbas] Dia tidak dianggap sebagai pihak yang didakwa kecuali di dalam mahkamah kehakiman. Perkara yang sama berlaku bagi keterangan. Ia tidak boleh diambil kira kecuali di hadapan mahkamah kehakiman, kerana Rasulullah ﷺ bersabda: "Pihak penuntut hendaklah mengemukakan keterangan, dan sumpah wajib ke atas pihak yang menafikan." [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]

Dia juga tidak boleh dianggap sebagai penuntut kecuali di hadapan mahkamah kehakiman.

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

Dibolehkan untuk mempunyai pelbagai peringkat mahkamah mengikut jenis kes. Oleh itu, adalah dibolehkan untuk sebahagian hakim dihadkan kepada menguruskan kes-kes tertentu setakat tertentu, dan merujuk kes-kes lain kepada mahkamah-mahkamah lain.

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.

Ini kerana Khalifah mewakilkan kehakiman, dan ia sama seperti jawatan wakil (niyabah), tanpa sebarang perbezaan. Malah, kehakiman ialah satu bentuk perwakilan, yang boleh bersifat umum dan boleh juga bersifat khusus. Oleh itu, dibenarkan melantik seorang hakim untuk menangani kes-kes tertentu sahaja, dan dalam keadaan itu, beliau tidak dibenarkan menangani kes-kes selain daripada kes-kes yang ditetapkan. Dibenarkan juga melantik hakim lain untuk meneliti semua jenis kes, termasuk kes-kes yang disebutkan tadi, walaupun di lokasi yang sama, atau untuk meneliti kes-kes selain daripada yang disebutkan. Oleh itu, dibenarkan adanya pelbagai peringkat mahkamah, dan umat Islam pernah mengamalkannya pada zaman dahulu. Al-Mawardi menulis dalam kitabnya yang bertajuk Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah; "Abu 'Abdullah Az-Zubayri berkata; 'Untuk seketika, para 'Umara di Basrah ini biasa melantik seorang hakim di Masjid pusat (Al-Masjid Al-Jami'), dan mereka memanggilnya hakim Masjid. Beliau biasa mengadili pertikaian yang melibatkan jumlah yang tidak melebihi dua puluh Dinar dan dua ratus Dirham, dan beliau biasa mengenakan Nafaqah (nafkah). Beliau tidak melampaui batasnya mahupun tugas yang diamanahkan kepadanya.'" Rasulullah ﷺ mewakilkan orang lain bagi pihak baginda dalam kehakiman; baginda ﷺ melantik 'Amru bin al-'As untuk meneliti satu kes, dan baginda ﷺ melantik Ali bin Abi Talib sebagai hakim di Yaman dengan kuasa untuk meneliti mana-mana kes. Ini menunjukkan bahawa dibenarkan adanya kehakiman yang khusus dan kehakiman yang umum.

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.

Tidak ada mahkamah rayuan dan tidak ada mahkamah pembatalan, maka dari segi kaedah pengendalian kes, badan kehakiman adalah satu dan sama. Jika hakim mengeluarkan suatu hukuman, ia menjadi mengikat, dan hukuman hakim lain tidak sekali-kali boleh membatalkannya. Ini berlaku kecuali hukuman itu bercanggah dengan nas yang jelas daripada Kitab Allah, atau Sunnah Rasul-Nya ﷺ, atau Ijma' para Sahabat.

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.

Oleh itu, keputusan hakim tidak boleh dibatalkan oleh dirinya sendiri atau oleh mana-mana hakim lain, jika keputusan asal itu berdasarkan dalil yang bersifat zanni (kemungkinan) daripada Kitab atau Sunnah. Dalil bahawa keputusan hakim yang berasaskan dalil zanni tidak boleh dibatalkan ialah ijmak umum para Sahabat. Ini kerana Abu Bakar pernah memutuskan sesetengah kes mengikut ijtihadnya sendiri sedangkan 'Umar tidak bersetuju dengannya, namun beliau tidak membatalkan keputusannya. Ali tidak bersetuju dengan ijtihad 'Umar tetapi beliau tidak pernah membatalkan keputusannya; Ali berbeza pendapat dengan Abu Bakar dan 'Umar tetapi keputusan mereka tidak pernah dibatalkan. Penduduk Najran datang kepada Ali dan berkata kepadanya:

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:

“Wahai Amirul Mukminin, kitabmu ada di tanganmu sendiri dan pengampunanmu ada di lidahmu sendiri.” Ia berkata: “Celakalah kamu! ‘Umar telah diberi petunjuk dengan betul, dan aku tidak akan membatalkan keputusan yang telah dijatuhkan oleh ‘Umar.” Diriwayatkan bahawa ‘Umar pernah memutuskan dalam kes Musharraka (pusaka bersama) dengan menggugurkan hak saudara-saudara seibu sebapa, kemudian beliau memerintahkan agar mereka diberi bahagian, lalu berkata: “Keputusan itu terpakai bagi kes tersebut dan keputusan ini terpakai bagi kes ini,” dan beliau melaksanakan kedua-dua keputusan itu walaupun bercanggah. Beliau juga membuat keputusan yang berbeza berkaitan datuk, dan beliau tidak pernah membatalkan mana-mana keputusan yang terdahulu. Adapun riwayat mengenai Syuraih yang memutuskan dalam kes dua orang sepupu sebelah bapa, salah seorang daripadanya adalah saudara seibu kepada si mati, bahawa harta pusaka hendaklah diserahkan kepada saudara tersebut, maka perkara itu dirujuk kepada ‘Ali, lalu beliau berkata: “Bawakan lelaki itu kepadaku.” Apabila lelaki itu datang, beliau bertanya kepadanya: “Di manakah kamu dapati hukum ini dalam Kitab Allah?” Lelaki itu menjawab: Allah (SWT) berfirman: {“Dan orang-orang yang mempunyai hubungan kerabat sebahagian mereka lebih berhak terhadap sebahagian yang lain”} [TMQ Al-Anfal: 75]. Allah (SWT) juga berfirman: {“Jika seorang lelaki atau perempuan yang diwarisi hartanya tidak mempunyai bapa dan tidak mempunyai anak, tetapi mempunyai seorang saudara lelaki atau perempuan seibu, maka bagi masing-masing dari keduanya seperuh daripada harta itu, tetapi jika mereka lebih daripada itu, mereka bersekutu dalam sepertiga”} [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],

Kemudian beliau membatalkan hukumannya. Ibn Qudamah menjawab berkenaan perkara ini dalam kitabnya Al-Mughni, dalam bab al-Qadaa (Kehakiman), halaman 56, bab kesembilan, dengan berkata: "Tidak sabit pada pandangan kami bahawa Ali membatalkan hukumannya. Walaupun sekiranya terbukti bahawa beliau berbuat demikian, maka kemungkinan Ali (rta) berpendapat bahawa Sharih menyalahi nas Kitab pada ayat yang beliau sebutkan, lalu beliau membatalkannya." Apa yang telah disahkan ialah bahawa para Sahabat pada sesetengah ketika telah menghukum dalam sesetengah perkara berdasarkan ijtihad mereka sendiri, dan Khalifah pernah menyalahi mereka. Perkara ini berlaku pada zaman Abu Bakr, 'Umar dan Ali, dan tidak pernah seorang pun daripada mereka membatalkan hukuman yang lain. Apa yang juga telah disahkan ialah bahawa 'Umar mengeluarkan hukuman yang bercanggah dan berbeza dalam satu isu yang sama, dan beliau melaksanakan semua hukuman tersebut serta tidak pernah membatalkan hukuman pertama dengan hukuman kedua walaupun terdapat perbezaan antara keduanya. Telah disahkan bahawa 'Umar berkata mengenai perkara ini:

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:

"Hukuman itu untuk kes tersebut, dan hukuman ini untuk kes ini." Ini menjadi dalil bahawa keputusan hakim tidak boleh dibatalkan. Ibnu Qudamah menulis dalam 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:

“Dan jika ijtihadnya telah berubah tanpa bertentangan dengan nas atau ijmak umum, atau jika ijtihadnya berbeza daripada ijtihad mereka yang terdahulu, maka dia tidak boleh membatalkannya semata-mata kerana ia berbeza, kerana para Sahabat sebenarnya telah bersepakat mengenai cara tindakan ini. Namun, jika dia menukar ijtihadnya sebelum mengeluarkan keputusan, maka dia boleh menghukum dengan ijtihad yang baharu.”

“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.

Selanjutnya, dalil mengenai larangan berbilangnya hakim juga menjadi dalil mengenai larangan membatalkan keputusan hakim. Ini kerana hukum Allah itu satu dan tidak berubah-ubah, dan hukum Allah mengenai satu perkara, apabila telah dilaksanakan, bermakna ia telah dikuatkuasakan, maka adalah salah untuk membatalkannya. Apabila hakim memutuskan sesuatu kes, dia sebenarnya sedang melaksanakan hukum Allah, dan kemudian pelaksanaannya menjadi wajib. Oleh itu, ia tidak boleh sekali-kali dibatalkan, kerana itu bermakna pembatalan hukum Allah, dan perkara tersebut adalah haram. Maka hakim tidak boleh membatalkan keputusannya sendiri, dan tidak seorang pun boleh membatalkan keputusannya, kerana hukum Allah tidak berubah-ubah. Pembatalannya, selain menjadi pembatalan hukum Allah, juga merupakan perubahan terhadap hukum Allah (SWT), dan itu adalah haram.

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.

Adapun riwayat tentang surat ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab yang beliau kirimkan kepada Abu Musa, di dalamnya beliau menulis: “Jangan biarkan keputusan yang engkau jatuhkan kelmarin, yang engkau telaah kembali lalu engkau mendapat petunjuk yang benar, menghalangimu untuk kembali kepada kebenaran, kerana kebenaran itu lama, dan kembali kepada kebenaran lebih baik daripada terus dalam kebatilan.” Andaikan surat itu sahih, ia tetap merupakan perkataan ‘Umar dan bukan dalil syar‘i. Tidak tepat untuk mengatakan bahawa para Sahabat diam mengenainya dan bahawa diam itu menunjukkan adanya ijmak secara umum. Diam hanya dapat dianggap sebagai ijmak umum apabila peristiwanya masyhur, berkaitan dengan hukum yang menyangkut seluruh manusia, dan para Sahabat mengetahuinya, serta perkara seumpama itu biasanya ditolak oleh syariat kerana mereka tidak diam terhadap kemungkaran. Namun, surat jenis ini ditujukan kepada seorang hakim tertentu dan bukan alamat umum. Walaupun kemudian ia menjadi terkenal, ia bukan peristiwa yang masyhur di kalangan para Sahabat pada waktu itu. Selain itu, surat tersebut tidak mengandungi sesuatu yang biasanya ditolak, kerana tidak ada di dalamnya apa-apa yang dicela oleh syariat. Lebih jauh lagi, yang dimaksudkan ‘Umar dalam suratnya ialah: “Jika engkau telah memutuskan hukum kelmarin lalu engkau menyedari bahawa ia salah, janganlah ini menghalangimu daripada mengubahnya dan memutuskan hukum yang berbeza dalam kes yang lain.” Ia tidak bermaksud bahawa engkau mesti membatalkan keputusan kelmarin. Kerana itulah ‘Umar menulis “kembali kepada kebenaran” dan tidak menulis “membatalkan keputusanmu”. Kembali kepada kebenaran bermakna meninggalkan pendapat yang salah dan mengambil pendapat yang benar. Oleh itu, surat tersebut tidak menjadi dalil bahawa sesuatu keputusan boleh dibatalkan secara sah. Inilah sebabnya dalam Islam tidak ada apa yang dinamakan duluan kehakiman (judicial precedent), iaitu dalam kes sekian keputusannya begini dan begitu. Jika sesuatu keputusan telah dijatuhkan atas kes tertentu, keputusan itu tidak mewajibkan sesiapa pun yang lain untuk menghukum dengan cara yang sama. Sebaliknya, dibenarkan bagi seorang hakim lain, malah bagi hakim yang sama, untuk memutuskan kes yang serupa dengan keputusan yang berbeza. Adapun kes itu sendiri, hukum Allah telah pun dilaksanakan ke atasnya, maka hakim diharamkan untuk membatalkan hukum tersebut atau menukarnya. Inilah sebabnya tidak wujud mahkamah rayuan dalam Islam, dan tidak juga mahkamah kasasi. Dari sudut pengadilan, badan kehakiman hendaklah berada pada tahap yang sama. Kaedah Shari‘ah menyatakan: ‘Ijtihad tidak membatalkan ijtihad lain.’ Oleh itu, tiada seorang Mujtahid pun boleh menjadi sumber yang berwibawa bagi Mujtahid yang lain, dan dengan demikian adalah haram untuk mewujudkan Tribunal yang membatalkan keputusan Tribunal lain.

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.

Namun, jika hakim meninggalkan penghakiman berdasarkan Syariah dan menghukum menurut peraturan kekufuran, atau jika ia menghukum dengan peraturan yang bertentangan dengan nas qat'i dari Kitab dan Sunnah atau Ijma' para Sahabat, atau ia mengeluarkan keputusan yang bertentangan dengan kenyataan, seperti jika ia menghukum seseorang sebagai pembunuh yang disengaja, kemudian pembunuh yang sebenarnya muncul, maka dalam kes-kes sedemikian keputusan hakim itu dibatalkan. Ini kerana Rasulullah ﷺ bersabda: "Sesiapa yang mengada-adakan sesuatu dalam urusan kami (agama) yang bukan daripadanya, maka ia akan ditolak." [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]

Ia juga diriwayatkan daripada Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

It was also narrated by Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

“…seorang lelaki berzina dengan seorang perempuan, maka Nabi ﷺ memerintahkan agar dia disebat. Kemudian dia diberitahu bahawa dia telah berkahwin, lalu dia memerintahkan agar dia direjam.” Malik bin Anas juga meriwayatkan, bahawa dia berkata: “Saya mendapat maklumat bahawa seorang perempuan dibawa kepada ‘Uthman (rta), dan dia melahirkan anak selepas enam bulan, maka dia memerintahkan agar perempuan itu direjam. Ali (rta) berkata kepadanya: ‘Tidak sah merejamnya, kerana Allah (swt) berfirman: “Mengandung dan menyusukannya hingga disapih ialah tiga puluh bulan” [TMQ Al-Ahqaf: 15] dan Dia (swt) berfirman: “Ibu-ibu hendaklah menyusukan anak-anak mereka selama dua tahun penuh, bagi orang yang mahu menyempurnakan penyusuan.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 233] Maka tempoh mengandung itu ialah enam bulan, oleh itu dia tidak boleh direjam.’ Lalu ‘Uthman (rta) memerintahkan agar perempuan itu dibawa balik, tetapi dia mendapati bahawa perempuan itu telah pun direjam.” Abdur Raziq meriwayatkan daripada Al-Imam Ath-Thawri bahawa dia berkata: “Jika seorang hakim mengeluarkan keputusan yang bertentangan dengan Kitab Allah atau Sunnah Rasulullah ﷺ, atau apa-apa yang telah disepakati dengan ijma‘, maka hakim lain selepasnya boleh membatalkannya.” Dan pihak yang mempunyai kuasa wajib untuk membatalkan keputusan-keputusan ini ialah qadi 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.