Ni haramu kwa mahakama kuwa na zaidi ya hakimu mmoja anayeongoza na mwenye mamlaka ya kutoa hukumu. Inaruhusiwa kwa hakimu mmoja au zaidi kuwepo pamoja naye, lakini hawatakuwa na haki ya kuhukumu. Wanahudhuria ili waweze kushauriwa au kutoa maoni, na maoni yao hayatakuwa ya lazima.

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.

Hii ni kwa sababu Mtume wa Allah ﷺ hakuwahi kumteua majaji wawili kushughulikia jambo moja, bali alimteua jaji mmoja kwa jambo moja. Zaidi ya hayo, mahakama ni kutangaza hukumu ya Shari'ah kwa njia ya kulazimisha, na hukumu ya Shari'ah kuhusu Muislamu yule yule haiwezi kubadilika, kwa kuwa ni hukumu ya Allah, na hukumu ya Allah ni moja. Ni kweli kwamba tafsiri yake inaweza kutofautiana, lakini kwa upande wa vitendo kwa Muislamu huyo inabaki kuwa moja wala haibadiliki. Tafsiri yake ndiyo itakayokuwa hukumu ya Allah (SWT) kwake, na tafsiri nyingine yoyote si hukumu ya Allah (SWT) itakayomhusu, ingawa kwa maoni yake inachukuliwa kuwa hukumu ya Shari'ah. Taqleed (kufuata maoni ya mwingine) yoyote anayoichagua na kuitendea kazi inachukuliwa kuwa hukumu ya Allah (SWT) kwake, wakati taqleed nyingine yoyote haitamhusu. Jaji anapotangaza hukumu ya Allah katika jambo lililopo kwa njia ya kulazimisha, tangazo hilo lazima liwe moja, kwa kuwa ni kutangaza hukumu ya Allah (SWT) kwa njia ya kulazimisha. Hivyo itakuwa ni kutenda kwa hukumu ya Allah (SWT), na hukumu ya Allah (SWT) kwa mtazamo wa vitendo haibadiliki, hata kama uelewa unaweza kutofautiana. Kwa hiyo, ni haramu kuwa na jaji zaidi ya mmoja, kwa kuwa haiwezekani hukumu ya Allah (SWT) ikabadilika. Hii ni kwa kadiri ya kesi moja moja, yaani baraza au mahakama. Kwa upande wa nchi, inaruhusiwa kuwa na mahakama mbili tofauti zinazoshughulikia kesi za aina zote katika eneo moja, kwa sababu mamlaka ya kimahakama imekabidhiwa na Khalifa, hivyo ni kama uwakilishi ambapo wingi unaruhusiwa, na hivyo itaruhusiwa kuwa na majaji kadhaa katika eneo moja. Iwapo wahusika wanaogombana wangeshindwa kukubaliana juu ya mahakama ipi wapeleke kesi yao, au ni hakimu yupi achunguze kesi yao, basi chaguo la mlalamikaji lingepewa uzito zaidi kuliko la mshtakiwa, na kesi ingepelekwa kwa hakimu wa chaguo lake, kwa kuwa yeye anatafuta haki yake, na hilo lina uzito zaidi kuliko la mshtakiwa.

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.

Hakimu anaweza kutoa hukumu tu katika mahakama ya kisheria, na ushahidi pamoja na kiapo vinaweza kuzingatiwa tu katika mahakama ya kisheria.

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

Hii ni kwa sababu imepokewa kutoka kwa ‘Abdullah Ibnuz-Zubayr aliyesema: “Mtume wa Allah ﷺ ameamuru kwamba pande mbili zinazogombana ziketi mbele ya hakimu.” [Imesimuliwa na Abu Dawood na Ahmad] Hadithi hii inaonyesha namna ambavyo mchakato wa kimahakama unapaswa kuendeshwa, nayo ni namna halali kwa yenyewe, yaani, lazima kuwepo namna maalum ambayo mchakato wa kimahakama unapaswa kuendeshwa, nayo ni pande mbili zinazogombana kuketi mbele ya hakimu, na hili litakuwa mahakama ya kimahakama. Kwa hiyo, hili ni sharti la uhalali wa utaratibu wa kimahakama, yaani, kwamba inapaswa kuwepo mahali maalum ambapo hukumu itatolewa ili iweze kuhesabiwa kuwa hukumu halali, nayo ni pande mbili zinazogombana kuketi mbele ya hakimu. Hili linaungwa mkono na Hadithi ya Ali (rta) alipomwambia Mtume wa Allah (pbuh):

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:

"Ee Ali, kama wadai wawili wameketi mbele yako, usimhukumu mmoja wao kwa kumpendelea hadi usikie kutoka kwa upande mwingine kama ulivyosikia kutoka kwa wa kwanza." Pia inaonyesha aina maalum ambayo yeye ﷺ alisema: "Kama wadai wawili wameketi mbele yako." Kwa hiyo, mahakama ya kisheria ni lazima ikiwa hukumu itakuwa halali, na pia ni lazima ili kiapo kikubaliwe. Hii ni kwa sababu Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Kiapo lazima kitolewe na mshtakiwa." [Imepokelewa na Al-Bukhari kwa mapokezi ya Ibnu Abbas] Hatachukuliwa kuwa mshtakiwa isipokuwa katika mahakama ya kisheria. Vivyo hivyo kwa ushahidi. Hauwezi kukubaliwa isipokuwa mbele ya mahakama ya kisheria, kwa kuwa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Ni mdai ndiye anayepaswa kutoa ushahidi, na kiapo ni wajibu wa anayekataa." [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]

Hawezi pia kuchukuliwa kuwa mlalamikaji isipokuwa mbele ya mahakama ya kisheria.

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

Inaruhusiwa kuwa na ngazi mbalimbali za mahakama kulingana na aina ya kesi. Hivyo basi, inaruhusiwa kwa baadhi ya majaji kujizuia kushughulikia kesi maalum kwa kiwango fulani, na kupeleka kesi nyingine kwa mahakama nyingine.

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.

Hii ni kwa sababu Khalifa huwakabidhi wengine mamlaka ya mahakama, na hiyo ni sawa kabisa na uwakilishi (naibu), bila tofauti yoyote. Kwa kweli, mahakama ni aina moja ya uwakilishi, ambayo inaweza kuwa ya jumla na pia inaweza kuwa maalumu. Kwa hiyo inaruhusiwa kumteua hakimu kushughulikia kesi maalumu tu, na katika hali hiyo hataruhusiwa kushughulikia kesi nyingine zisizo zile zilizobainishwa. Pia inaruhusiwa kumteua hakimu mwingine kushughulikia kesi za aina zote, zikiwemo zile zilizotajwa, hata katika mahali pamoja, au kushughulikia kesi nyingine zisizotajwa. Hivyo, inaruhusiwa kuwa na ngazi mbalimbali za mahakama, na Waislamu walikuwa nazo zamani. Al-Mawardi aliandika katika kitabu chake kiitwacho Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya: "Abu ‘Abdullah Az-Zubayri alisema: ‘Kwa muda fulani, ‘Umara hapa Basra walikuwa wakimteua hakimu katika Msikiti mkuu (Al-Masjid Al-Jami’), nao walimwita hakimu wa msikiti. Alikuwa akihukumu katika migogoro inayohusu kiasi kisichozidi dinari ishirini na dirhamu mia mbili, na alikuwa akiamuru Nafaqah (matunzo). Hakuvuka mipaka yake wala majukumu aliyopewa.’" Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ aliwakabidhi wengine kwa niaba yake katika mahakama; alimteua ‘Amru Ibn al-‘A‘as kushughulikia kesi moja, na alimteua Ali Ibnu Abi Talib kuwa na mamlaka ya mahakama huko Yemen, akiwa na uwezo wa kushughulikia kesi yoyote. Hii inaonyesha kwamba inaruhusiwa kuwa na mahakama maalumu na mahakama ya jumla.

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.

Hakuna mahakama za rufaa wala mahakama za kubatilisha hukumu, kwa hiyo mfumo wa mahakama, kwa upande wa namna kesi zinavyoshughulikiwa, ni mmoja na uleule. Ikiwa hakimu ametoa hukumu, hukumu hiyo itakuwa ya lazima, na hukumu ya hakimu mwingine haitaibatilisha kwa namna yoyote ile. Hii ni isipokuwa pale hukumu hiyo itakapopingana na maandiko yaliyo wazi kutoka kitabu cha Allah, au Sunnah ya Mtume wake ﷺ, au Ijmaa' ya Maswahaba.

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.

Hivyo, hukumu ya kadhi haiwezi kubatilishwa na yeye mwenyewe wala na kadhi mwingine yeyote, ikiwa hukumu ya awali imejengwa juu ya ushahidi wa Zanni (wa uwezekano) kutoka katika Kitabu au Sunnah. Ushahidi kwamba hukumu ya kadhi iliyotokana na ushahidi wa Zanni haiwezi kubatilishwa ni makubaliano ya jumla ya Maswahaba. Hii ni kwa sababu Abu Bakr alihukumu katika baadhi ya kesi kwa kufuata Ijtihad yake mwenyewe, ilhali 'Umar hakukubaliana naye, lakini hakubatilisha hukumu zake. Ali alikhitilafiana na Ijtihad ya 'Umar lakini hakubatilisha hukumu zake kamwe; Ali alitofautiana na Abu Bakr na 'Umar, lakini hukumu zao hazikubatilishwa kamwe. Watu wa Najran walimwendea Ali wakamwambia:

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:

"Ee Amiri wa waumini, kitabu chako kiko mikononi mwako na msamaha wako uko kwenye ulimi wako mwenyewe." Akasema: "Ole wako, 'Umar aliongozwa kwa uongofu, na sitabadilisha hukumu iliyotolewa na 'Umar." Imepokewa kwamba 'Umar alitoa hukumu katika suala la Musharraka (urithi wa pamoja) ya kuwanyima haki ndugu wa upande wa baba. Kisha akaamuru wapewe sehemu, kisha akasema: "Hukumu hiyo inahusu kesi ile, na hukumu hii inahusu hii", akatekeleza hukumu zote mbili licha ya kupingana kwake. Pia alitoa hukumu tofauti kuhusiana na babu, lakini hakubadilisha hata moja ya hukumu zilizotangulia. Kuhusu yale yaliyopokewa kwamba Sharih alitoa hukumu katika kesi ya binamu wawili wa upande wa baba, mmoja wao akiwa ndugu wa mama, kwamba urithi uende kwa ndugu huyo, jambo hili lilipelekwa kwa Ali, naye akasema: "Nileteeni mtu huyo." Alipofika, akamwambia: "Umeipata wapi hii katika Kitabu cha Allah?" Akasema: Allah (SWT) anasema: "Lakini jamaa wa damu wana haki ya kwanza dhidi ya wenzao." [TMQ Al-Anfal: 75] Allah (SWT) pia anasema: "Ikiwa mtu mwanamume au mwanamke ambaye urithi wake unajadiliwa hana wazazi wala watoto, lakini ana ndugu wa kiume au wa kike, kila mmoja kati ya hao wawili atapata sehemu ya sita." [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],

Kisha akageuza hukumu yake. Ibn Qudamah alijibu kuhusu jambo hili katika kitabu chake Al-Mughni, katika mada ya al-Qadaa (Uamuzi wa Kadhi), ukurasa wa 56, sura ya tisa, kwa kusema: "Haijathibitika kwetu kwamba Ali aligeuza hukumu yake. Hata kama ingethibitika kwamba alifanya hivyo, basi huenda Ali (rta) alidhani kwamba Sharih alipingana na maandishi ya Kitabu katika Aya aliyoitaja, kwa hiyo akaigeuza." Kilichothibitika ni kwamba Masahaba walitoa hukumu katika baadhi ya mambo kwa kufuata Ijtihadi zao wenyewe, na Khalifa alikuwa akipingana nao. Hili lilitokea wakati wa Abu Bakr, 'Umar na Ali, na hakuna hata mmoja wao aliyewahi kugeuza hukumu ya mwenzake. Pia imethibitika kwamba 'Umar alitoa hukumu zinazopingana na tofauti kuhusu suala moja, akazitekeleza hukumu zote, na hakuwahi kubatilisha hukumu ya kwanza kwa ya pili licha ya tofauti iliyokuwepo kati yake. Imethibitika kwamba 'Umar alisema kuhusu hili:

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:

"Hukumu hiyo ilikuwa kwa kesi ile, na hukumu hii ni kwa kesi hii." Hii ni dalili kwamba hukumu ya mahakimu haipaswi kubatilishwa. Ibnu Qudama aliandika katika 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:

"Na ikiwa ijtihadi yake imebadilika bila kupingana na maandiko ya wazi au makubaliano ya jumla (ijma'), au ikiwa ijtihadi yake imetofautiana na ijtihadi ya wale waliomtangulia, hapaswi kuibadilisha kwa sababu tu ni tofauti, kwa kuwa Maswahaba kwa kweli walikubaliana juu ya mwenendo huu. Hata hivyo, ikiwa alibadilisha ijtihadi yake kabla ya kutoa hukumu, basi anaweza kuhukumu kwa ijtihadi mpya."

“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.

Zaidi ya hayo, dalili kuhusu katazo la wingi wa majaji pia ni dalili kuhusu katazo la kubatilisha hukumu ya hakimu. Hii ni kwa sababu hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu ni moja na haibadiliki, na hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu kuhusu jambo moja, mara inapotekelezwa, maana yake ni kwamba imekwishatekelezwa, hivyo itakuwa si sahihi kuibatilisha. Hakimu anapotoa hukumu juu ya kesi, anakuwa anaitekeleza hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu, na kisha utekelezaji wake unakuwa wajibu. Kwa hiyo haipaswi kamwe kubatilishwa, kwa kuwa hilo lingekuwa ni kubatilisha hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu, na hilo ni haramu. Hivyo hakimu hawezi kubatilisha hukumu yake mwenyewe, wala mtu mwingine yeyote hawezi kubatilisha hukumu yake, kwa kuwa hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu haibadiliki. Kubatilisha kwake, pamoja na kuwa ni kubatilisha hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu, kungekuwa pia ni kubadilisha hukumu ya Mwenyezi Mungu (swt), na hilo ni haramu.

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.

Kuhusu hadithi inayohusu barua ya ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab aliyomtumia Abu Moussa, ambamo aliandika: “Usiruhusu hukumu uliyotoa jana, ambayo ukiipitia ukapata uongofu wa kweli, ikuzuie kurejea kwenye haki, kwani haki ni ya zamani, na kurejea kwenye haki ni bora kuliko kuendelea na batili.” Hata kama barua hiyo ni ya kweli, ingewakilisha maneno ya ‘Umar, na si dalili ya Shari‘ah. Ni makosa kusema kwamba Maswahaba walinyamaza kuhusu jambo hilo na kwamba kunyamaza kwao kunaonyesha kwamba kulifanyika ijmaa‘ (makubaliano ya jumla). Kunyamaza kunaweza kuchukuliwa kuwa ijmaa‘ ya jumla tu iwapo tukio lilikuwa maarufu, linahusiana na hukumu inayowahusu watu wote, na Maswahaba wangelijua. Vilevile ni jambo ambalo Shari‘ah kwa kawaida huikataa, kwa kuwa hawanyamazi juu ya munkari. Lakini barua ya aina hii ilielekezwa kwa qadhi maalum, wala haikuwa ujumbe wa jumla. Ingawa baadaye ilipata umaarufu, wakati huo haikuwa tukio maarufu lililojulikana kwa Maswahaba. Zaidi ya hayo, haikuwa na kitu ambacho kwa kawaida Shari‘ah huikataa, kwa kuwa haikuwa na kitu chochote ambacho Shari‘ah inakilaani. Aidha, alichokusudia ‘Umar katika barua yake ni: “Ukitoa hukumu jana kisha ukagundua kwamba ilikuwa si sahihi, usiache hilo likuzuie kuibadilisha na kutoa hukumu nyingine katika kesi nyingine.” Haimaanishi kwamba unapaswa kubatilisha hukumu ya jana. Ndiyo maana ‘Umar aliandika “kurejea kwenye haki” wala hakuandika kubatilisha hukumu yako. Kurejea kwenye haki maana yake ni kuacha maoni yasiyo sahihi na kuchukua maoni sahihi. Kwa hiyo barua hiyo haitumiki kama dalili kwamba hukumu inaweza kubatilishwa kisheria. Hii ndiyo sababu katika Uislamu hakuna kitu kinachoitwa utangulizi wa kimahakama (judicial precedent), yaani kwamba katika kesi fulani hukumu ilikuwa kadhaa. Hukumu iliyotolewa juu ya kesi fulani haimlazimishi mtu mwingine yeyote kuhukumu kwa namna hiyo. Ni ruhusa badala yake kutoa hukumu tofauti juu ya kesi inayofanana na hiyo kutoka kwa hakimu mwingine, na hata kwa hakimu yuleyule. Kuhusu kesi yenyewe, hukumu ya Allah ingekuwa imetumika juu yake, kwa hiyo hakimu angekatazwa kubatilisha hukumu hiyo au kuibadilisha. Hii ndiyo sababu katika Uislamu hakuna mahakama za rufani, wala mahakama za kubatilisha hukumu (cassation). Mfumo wa mahakama, kwa mtazamo wa kutoa hukumu, unapaswa kuwa wa ngazi moja. Kanuni ya Shari'ah inasema: 'Ijtihadi haibatilishi Ijtihadi nyingine.' Kwa hiyo hakuna Mujtahid anayeweza kuwa chanzo chenye mamlaka kwa Mujtahid mwingine, na hivyo itakuwa haramu kuwa na mahakama zinazobatilisha hukumu za mahakama nyingine.

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.

Hata hivyo, ikiwa hakimu ataacha kuhukumu kwa mujibu wa Shari'ah na akahukumu kwa kanuni ya kukufuru, au ikiwa amehukumu kwa kanuni inayopingana na andiko la qat'i (lisilo na shaka) kutoka katika Kitabu na Sunnah au Ijmaa' ya Masahaba, au ametoa hukumu inayopingana na uhalisia, kama vile amemhukumu mtu kuwa muuaji wa makusudi kisha muuaji halisi akajitokeza, basi katika hali kama hizi hukumu ya hakimu hiyo hubatilishwa. Hii ni kwa sababu Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Yeyote atakayebuni jambo katika jambo letu (Dini) ambalo si sehemu yake, litakataliwa." [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]

Pia ilisimuliwa na Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

It was also narrated by Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

…mwanamume mmoja alizini na mwanamke, basi Mtume ﷺ akaamuru apigwe mijeledi. Baadaye alipoarifiwa kwamba alikuwa ameoa, akaamuru apigwe mawe. Malik bin Anas pia alisimulia kwamba alisema: "Nilipata habari kwamba mwanamke mmoja alipelekwa kwa ‘Uthman (rta), ambaye alijifungua baada ya miezi sita, basi akaamuru apigwe mawe. Ali (rta) akamwambia: ‘Si sahihi kumpiga mawe, kwa sababu Allah (swt) anasema: {Kubeba kwake (mimba) na kumwachisha kunyonya ni miezi thelathini} [TMQ Al-Ahqaf: 15] na Yeye (swt) anasema: {Akina mama watawanyonyesha watoto wao miaka miwili kamili, kwa wale wanaotaka kutimiza muda huo.} [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 233]. Kwa hiyo kipindi cha ujauzito ni miezi sita, hivyo asipigwe mawe.’ Kwa hiyo ‘Uthman (rta) akaamuru arudishwe, lakini akakuta tayari amekwisha pigwa mawe." Abdur Raziq alisimulia kutoka kwa Al-Imam Ath-Thawri kwamba alisema: "Ikiwa hakimu atatoa hukumu kinyume na Kitabu cha Allah au Sunnah ya Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, au kitu chochote ambacho kuna Ijma‘ juu yake, basi hakimu mwingine baada yake anaweza kuibatilisha." Na mwenye mamlaka ya lazima ya kubatilisha hukumu hizi ni 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.