Hukm chiqarish mas'uliyatini o'z zimmasiga olgan kishi musulmon, ozod, balog'atga yetgan, aqli raso, adolatli, faqih (fiqhni biladigan kishi) va hodisalarga hukmlarni qanday qo'llashni biladigan bo'lishi shart. Zulmlarni bartaraf etish (Mazolim) sudini o'z zimmasiga olgan kishi esa yuqorida zikr qilingan shartlarga qo'shimcha ravishda erkak bo'lishi hamda mujtahid (o'z fiqhini chiqarishga, ijtihad qilishga qodir) bo'lishi kerak.

Whoever undertakes the responsibility of judgement must be a Muslim, free, adult, sane, just, a Faqih (person who knows jurisprudence/Fiqh), and aware of how to apply the rules to the events. And the person who undertakes the judiciary of injustices (Madhalim) in addition to the conditions mentioned, must also be male and a Mujtahid (capable of deriving his own Fiqh/conducting Ijtihad).

Uning dalili oldin zikr qilingan Oliy qozi dalili bilan bir xil, faqat nizolarni hal qiluvchi qozi va hisbah qozisi uchun erkak bo‘lish sharti yo‘q, aksincha, qozi ayol bo‘lishi mumkin, chunki bu hukmronlik lavozimi emas, balki qozilikdir, ya’ni ular shariat hukmini yetkazadilar, lekin uni amalga oshiruvchi emasdirlar. Shunga ko‘ra, rivoyat: «لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة» — «Ishlarini ayolga topshirgan qavm hech qachon najot topmaydi».

Its evidence is what was mentioned previously for the evidence for the Supreme judge, except that it is not a condition in the judge who settles the disputes and the judge of Hisbah to be male, rather it is permitted for the judge to be a woman, since it is not a position of ruling but rather a judge, in other words, they convey the Shari’ah rule while they are not the one who implements it. Accordingly, the narration. .» لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

“Hech qachon, o‘z ustiga ayolni hokim qilgan qavm muvaffaqiyatga erishmaydi”, degan hadis Al-Buxoriy tomonidan rivoyat qilingan. U davlat boshqaruvi, ya’ni hokimlik haqida bo‘lgani uchun bu bu o‘rinda qo‘llanilmaydi. Hadisning sababi esa Fors xalqi Kisroning qizi tomonidan boshqarilgani bilan bog‘liq bo‘lgan. Abu Bakra rivoyat qiladi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Fors xalqi Kisroning qizi tomonidan boshqarilayotgani haqida xabar berilganda, u zot shunday dedilar:”

“Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their ruler.” reported by Al-Bukhari, does not apply, since it is regarding governorship which is ruling. And the reason for the narration was when the people of Persia were ruled by a woman; it is narrated from Abu Bakrah who said “When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was notified that the people of Persia were ruled by the daughter of Kisra, he said:

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

“Hech qachon o‘z ishini ayolga topshirgan qavm muvaffaqiyatga erishmaydi”, deb rivoyat qilingan (al-Buxoriy tomonidan). Demak, hadis aytilishining sababi matnda aniq zikr qilingan muayyan masala edi, ya’ni hukmronlik, boshqacha aytganda, hokimiyat; sud esa hokimiyat emas. Shunga ko‘ra, hadis hukmronlik haqida xos bo‘lib, sud ishini o‘z ichiga olmaydi, va buning sababi ikki xil:

‘Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their ruler’” (reported by Al-Bukhari). So the reason for the words of the narration was a specific subject which was mentioned explicitly in the text of the narration, which is ruling, in other words, authority, and the judiciary is not an authority. Accordingly the narration is specific to ruling and does not encompass the judiciary, and that is for two reasons:

Birinchidan, muayyan masala bilan bog'liq matn, xuddi savolga javob bo'lgan matn kabi, savol yoki voqeaning muayyan masalasiga xos qilinishi kerak va u barcha masalalarda umumiy bo'lishi to'g'ri emas, chunki savol javobda aks etadi. So'zlar muayyan masala haqida bo'lgani uchun ularni o'sha masala bilan cheklash zarur, chunki Rasulullah ﷺ ning so'zi savol yoki voqea bilan bog'liqdir va hukm ham o'shunga bog'lanadi. Bu, Rasulullah ﷺ uni dastlab (biror voqeaga javob sifatida emas) aytgan holatdan farq qiladi; o'shanda u umumiy bo'lib, umumiylikka bog'lanadi. Agar uning so'zi muayyan voqeaga izoh yoki muayyan savolga javob bo'lsa, vaziyat boshqacha. Agar matn, ya'ni Allohning kalomi yoki Rasulullah ﷺ ning so'zi, shubhasiz savol yoki voqea bilan bog'liq bo'lsa, u holda hukm shubhasiz o'shunga bog'lanadi. Bu, savol yoki voqeadan kelib chiqqan masala yuzasidandir. Va bu savol bergan kishiga yoki voqea kimga yuz bergan bo'lsa, o'shanga nisbatan emas, chunki ikkalasida ham e'tibor so'zlarning umumiyligiga beriladi, muayyan sababga emas. Shu sababli sabab bilan masala o'rtasida farq qilinadi: e'tibor so'zlarning umumiyligiga beriladi, muayyan sababga emas, chunki so'zlar sababga bog'lanmagan va shuning uchun o'z umumiyligida qoladi. Bu voqea yoki savol, ya'ni voqea o'z ichiga olgan masala yoki savol o'z ichiga olgan masalaga nisbatan boshqacha, chunki so'zlar unga shubhasiz bog'langan va bunda shubha yo'q, chunki rivoyat faqat o'sha masala uchun yoki o'sha tufayli aytilgan. Shu sababli u muayyan masalaga xos bo'ladi, umumiy emas. Rivoyat shunday.

Firstly, the text which is related in a specific subject is like the text which is an answer to a question, and so it is necessary to make it specific to the issue of the question or event, and it is not correct for it to be general in all issues, because the question is reflected in the answer, and because the words are in a specific subject it is necessary to limit them to that subject, since the word of the Messenger (pbuh) is connected to the question or event, and so the rule is connected to that. This is different than if the Messenger (pbuh) had said that initially (not in response to an event) in which case it would be general and connected to the generality. As for if his word is a comment upon a specific event, or an answer to a specific question, then the situation is different. If the text, in other words, the words of Allah (swt) or the words of the Messenger (pbuh) , were definitely connected to a question or event, then the rule is connected to that without any doubt. This is with respect to the subject that either came from a question or event. And it is not with respect to the questioner or whom the event occurred upon, since the consideration in both of them is given to the generality of the words and not to the specific cause. And this is why there is a difference made between the cause and the subject, so the consideration is to the generality of the words and not to the specific cause, since the words are not connected to the cause, and so they remain upon their generality. This is different to the event or question, in other words, different to the subject which was included by the event, or the subject which was included by the question, since the words are definitely connected to it, and there is no doubt in that, since the narration was only for its sake, or due to it, and due to this it is specific to the subject, and not general. Accordingly the narration.

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة « .

"Bunday xalq hech qachon muvaffaqiyatga erishmaydi, ular o'zlariga hukmdor qilib ayolni tayinlasa" degan hadis faqat hukmronlikka tegishli bo'lib, sudyalik (qozilik) lavozimini o'z ichiga olmaydi.

“Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their ruler” is specific to ruling, and does not encompass the judiciary.

Birinchi sabab shu. Ikkinchi sabab esa: "bir ayolni o'zlariga hukmdor qilgan" degan so'zlar hukmronlik (wilayah) so'zidan olingan, bu esa amr (buyruq berish) hukmronligidir. Qozi esa hukmdor emas va amr bo'yicha hokim ham emas. Shunga ko'ra qozi bu hadisga kirmaydi, demak hadis sud tizimini qamrab olmaydi.

This is the first reason. As for the second reason, the words “makes a woman their ruler” are from governorship, and this is the governorship of the command, and the judge is not a governor, and is not a governor for the command. Accordingly the judge does not come under this narration, so the narration does not encompass the judiciary.

Bu hadisning ko‘rsatmasi (dalolat) jihatidan qaraganda, sudyaning ayol bo‘lishi jihatiga kelsak, sudya boshqa davlat xizmatchilari kabi bir xizmatchidir. Xizmatchi erkak ham, ayol ham bo‘lishi joizdir: “Agar ular sizning uchun emizsalar, unda ularga ularning haqini bering” (TMQ 65:6). Sudya Shariat bo‘yicha bir ishni amalga oshirish uchun tayinlanadi, ya’ni ikki nizolashuvchi tomonga ular uchun majburiy bo‘ladigan Shariat hukmini bildirish uchun, Shariatni joriy etish uchun esa tayinlanmaydi. Shu sababli xizmatchining ta’rifi unga tatbiq etiladi, chunki bu ma’lum xizmat uchun haq evaziga tuzilgan shartnomadir. Buning aksi hokimga nisbatan, ta’rif unga tatbiq etilmaydi, chunki u ma’lum bir xizmat bo‘yicha shartnoma bilan tayinlanmaydi, balki Shariatni joriy etish buyrug‘i beriladi. Shu sababdan ayolning hokim bo‘lishi joiz emas, chunki u amr egasi (Vali al-Amr) hisoblanadi. Sudya esa xizmatchi bo‘lib, hokim emas, shuning uchun sudyaning ayol bo‘lishi joizdir.

This is from the angle of the indication of the narration and as for the angle of the permission for a judge to be a woman, the judge is an employee like the rest of the civil servants. And it is permitted for an employee to be male or female; “And if they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment.” (TMQ 65:6). The judge is appointed to undertake an action according to the Shari’ah, or in other words, to inform the two disputing parties of the Shari’ah rule which would be binding upon them, and he is not appointed in order to implement the Shari’ah. Due to this the definition of the employee would apply to him, since it is a contract upon a service for compensation, which is opposite to the ruler since the definition would not apply to him, since he is not contracted over a specific service, rather he is given the command to execute the Shari’ah, and for this reason it is not permitted for a ruler to be a woman because he is a governor of a command (Wali Al-Amr). It is permitted for the judge to be a woman, since the judge is an employee and not a ruler.

Qozi uchun qolgan shartlarga kelsak, ularning dalillari Xalifaning shartlari haqidagi bo'limda muhokama qilingan. Xuddi shunday, ularning faqih (fiqhni biluvchi) bo'lishi shartining dalili rivoyatdir.

With regards to the rest of the conditions for the judge, their proofs were discussed in the section about the conditions of the Khalifah. Similarly the evidence for the condition that they be a faqih (to know jurisprudence) is the narration.

. "القضاة ثلاثة" .

. "القضاة ثلاثة" .

“The judges are of three kinds” until he said. .» وَرَجُلٌ قَضَى لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى جَهْلٍ فَ هُوَ فِي النَّارِ « .

“The judges are of three kinds” until he said. .» وَرَجُلٌ قَضَى لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى جَهْلٍ فَ هُوَ فِي النَّارِ « .

“va jaholat ichida odamlar o‘rtasida hukm chiqaradigan kishi do‘zaxda bo‘ladi” (Abu Dovud va an-Nasoiy rivoyat qilgan, al-Hokim Buraydadan sahih deb baholagan).

“and a man who passess judgement on the people in ignorance will be in hellfire” (reported in the Sunan and authenticated by Al-Hakim from Buraydah).

Bu Hisbah sudi va ixtilofli masalalarni hal qiluvchi xalq o'rtasidagi nizolarni hal qiluvchi sud uchun bo'lib, unda ayolning sudya bo'lishi ruxsat etilgan. Zulmlar sudi (Mazolim) sudyasi esa, Oliy sudya kabi, erkak bo'lishi shart, chunki uning vazifasi ham hukm chiqarish, ham sudlashdir: u hokimni hukm qiladi va uning ustidan Shariat hukmini ijro etadi. Shu sababli u erkak bo'lishi shart, sudyaning boshqa shartlari bilan birga, ulardan biri faqih bo'lishdir. Lekin bundan tashqari, u mujtahid bo'lishi ham shart, chunki zulmlar tarkibida u hokimning Alloh (SWT) nozil qilgan narsadan boshqasi bilan hukm qilganini yoki Shariat dalili bo'lmagan qonun bilan hukm qilganini, yoki ishlatilgan dalilning voqeaga tatbiq etilmasligini tekshirishi lozim bo'lishi mumkin. Bunday zulmni faqat mujtahid hal qila oladi, chunki agar u mujtahid bo'lmasa, o'zi kam bilgan yoki umuman bilmagan narsa ustida hukm chiqargan bo'ladi, bu esa harom va ruxsat etilmagandir. Demak, hokim va sudyaning shartlariga qo'shimcha ravishda, u mujtahid ham bo'lishi kerak.

This is for the judiciary of Hisbah and the judiciary that resolves the disputes between the people, where it is permitted for the judge to be a woman. As for the judge of the Court of Injustices (Madhalim), it is a condition that he is male, like the Supreme Judge, because his work is both ruling and judging, since he rules upon the ruler, and implements the Shari’ah upon him, and for that reason it is a condition that he is male along with the rest of the conditions of the judge, of which being a Faqih is one. However, in addition to that, it is a condition that he should be a Mujtahid, because as part of the injustices (Madhalim) he may be required to look into whether the ruler has ruled by other than that which Allah (swt) has revealed, or in other words, has ruled by a law that has no Shari'ah evidence, or to look into whether the evidence he used does not apply to the event. This type of injustice (Madhlamah) can only be dealt with by a Mujtahid, since if he were not a Mujtahid, he would be judging on something he knows little about or has no knowledge about at all, and that is forbidden and not permitted. Therefore, in addition to the conditions of the ruler and those of the judge, he should also be a Mujtahid.