Bir sudda bir nechta qozining bir vaqtda raislik qilishi va hukm chiqarish vakolatiga ega bo'lishi man etilgan. Bir yoki bir nechta qozining u bilan birga hozir bo'lishi ruxsat etilgan, ammo ular hukm chiqarish huquqiga ega bo'lmaydi. Ular maslahat so'ralishi yoki fikr bildirishi uchun ishtirok etadilar, va ularning fikri majburiy bo'lmaydi.

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.

Bu shundan kelib chiqadi, chunki Rasululloh ﷺ bir masalaga ikki qozi tayinlamaganlar, balki bir masala uchun bitta qozi tayinlaganlar. Bundan tashqari, qazo (sud) Shariat hukmini majburlash yo‘li bilan e’lon qilishdir, va bir xil musulmon shaxsga oid Shariat hukmi o‘zgarishi mumkin emas, chunki u Allohning hukmidir, Allohning hukmesa esa yagonadir. To‘g‘ri, uning talqini turlicha bo‘lishi mumkin, lekin musulmonga amaliy jihatdan qaraganda u yagona bo‘lib qoladi va hech qachon o‘zgarmaydi. Uning talqini Alloh (SWT) nazdida Allohning hukmi bo‘ladi, boshqa har qanday talqin esa unga nisbatan Allohning (SWT) hukmi emas, garchi uning nazarida u Shariat hukmi hisoblansa ham. U qabul qilib, unga amal qiladigan har qanday taqlid Alloh nazdida Allohning (SWT) hukmi hisoblanadi, boshqa har qanday taqlid esa unga tegishli bo‘lmaydi. Qozi ma’lum masalada Allohning hukmini majburlash yo‘li bilan e’lon qilganda, bu e’lon yagona bo‘lishi kerak, chunki u Allohning (SWT) hukmini majburlash yo‘li bilan e’lon qilishdir. Shunday qilib, bu Allohning (SWT) hukmiga amal qilish bo‘ladi va Allohning (SWT) hukmi amaliy nuqtai nazardan o‘zgarmaydi, garchi tushunish turlicha bo‘lishi mumkin bo‘lsa ham. Shuning uchun bir nechta qozi bo‘lishi harom, chunki Allohning (SWT) hukmi o‘zgarishi mumkin emas. Bu alohida ish, ya’ni sud yoki majlis doirasidagi holat uchundir. Mamlakatga kelsak, bir hududda barcha turdagi ishlar bo‘yicha ikkita alohida sud bo‘lishi mumkin, chunki qazo Xalifa tomonidan topshiriladi, shuning uchun u noiblik (vakolat berish) kabidir, bunda ko‘plik ruxsat etiladi; demak, bir hududda bir nechta qozi bo‘lishi mumkin. Agar nizolashayotgan tomonlar qaysi sudga yoki qaysi qozi ishini ko‘rishi kerakligi haqida kelisha olmasalar, da’vogarning tanlovi javobgarning tanlovidan ustun turadi va ish uning tanlagan qozisiga topshiriladi, chunki u o‘z haqini talab qilmoqda va bu haq javobgarnikidan ustundir.

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.

Sudya faqat sud majlisida hukm chiqarishi mumkin, guvohlik va qasamyod ham faqat sud majlisida ko'rib chiqilishi mumkin.

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

Shuning uchun, ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr (roziyallohu anhu) rivoyat qilgan: “Allohning Elchisi ikki da’vogar tomonning qozi oldida o‘tirishini buyurdilar.” [Abu Dovud va Ahmad rivoyat qilgan] Bu hadis sud jarayoni qanday shaklda olib borilishi kerakligini ko‘rsatadi va bu o‘zida qonuniy shakldir, ya’ni sud jarayoni aniq bir shaklda olib borilishi kerak, ya’ni ikki da’vogar tomon qozi oldida o‘tirishi lozim, bu esa sud majlisi bo‘ladi. Demak, bu sud jarayonining to‘g‘riligi uchun shartdir, ya’ni hukm qonuniy hukm sifatida tan olinishi uchun hukm chiqariladigan maxsus joy bo‘lishi kerak, bu esa ikki da’vogar tomonning qozi oldida o‘tirishidir. Buni Ali (roziyallohu anhu) rivoyat qilgan hadis ham tasdiqlaydi, unda Allohning Elchisi ﷺ unga shunday degan edilar:

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:

"EyAli, agar sening oldingda ikki tomon da'volashib o'tirsa, birining foydasiga hukm chiqarma, to ikkinchi tomonning gapini ham eshitmaguningcha, xuddi birinchisini eshitganing kabi." Bu yerda Uning ﷺ maxsus shakli ham ko'rsatilgan, u zot aytdilar: "Agar sening oldingda ikki da'vogar tomon o'tirsa." Shunday ekan, hukmning to'g'ri bo'lishi uchun sud majlisi zarur, qasamning qabul qilinishi uchun ham sud majlisi zarur. Chunki Allohning Rasuli ﷺ aytdilar: "Qasam javobgar tomonga beriladi." [Al-Buxoriy Ibn Abbos roziyallohu anhudan rivoyat qilgan]. Javobgar sud majlisidan tashqarida javobgar sanalmaydi. Dalil keltirish ham xuddi shunday: u sud majlisi oldida qabul qilinadi, chunki Allohning Rasuli ﷺ aytdilar: "Dalilni da'vogar keltirishi kerak, qasam esa rad etuvchiga lozim bo'ladi." [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]

U u ham faqat sud huzurida da'vogar sifatida qaralishi mumkin.

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

Ish turdagi ishlarga qarab sudlarning turli darajalari bo'lishi joizdir. Shunday qilib, ayrim qozilarning ma'lum ishlar bilan ma'lum darajada cheklanishi va boshqa ishlarni boshqa sudlarga yuborishi joiz bo'ladi.

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.

Bu, xalifaning sud ishini topshirishi bilan bir xil bo'lib, u noibliksiz (vakolat berish) bilan hech qanday farqi yo'q. Aslida, sud ishi noiblikning bir shaklidir, u umumiy ham bo'lishi mumkin, xususiy ham bo'lishi mumkin. Shuning uchun faqat ma'lum ishlarni ko'rish uchun qozi tayinlash joizdir, bunday holda u belgilangan ishlardan boshqa ishlarni ko'rish huquqiga ega bo'lmaydi. Shuningdek, yuqorida zikr qilinganlarni, hatto o'sha joyning o'zida, yoki zikr qilinmagan boshqa barcha turdagi ishlarni ko'rish uchun boshqa qozi tayinlash joizdir. Demak, turli darajadagi sudlar bo'lishi mumkin, va musulmonlarda buning amaliyoti o'tmishda ham bo'lgan. Al-Mawardiy o'zining "Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya" kitobida yozadi: "Abu 'Abdulloh Az-Zubayriy aytdi: 'Bir muddat Basradagi amirlar markaziy masjidda (Al-Masjid al-Jomi') qozi tayinlar edi va uni masjid qozisi deb atashardi. U yigirma dinor va ikki yuz dirhamdan oshmaydigan miqdordagi nizolarni hal qilar, nafaqalarni (ta'minotlarni) belgilar edi. U o'z chegaralaridan va unga topshirilgan vazifalardan chetga chiqmas edi.'" Allohning Elchisi ﷺ o'z o'rnida boshqalarni sud ishiga vakil qilgan; u ﷺ 'Amr ibn al-'Os ni bitta ishni ko'rish uchun tayinlagan, Ali ibn Abu Tolibni esa Yamandagi sud ishiga har qanday ishni ko'rish vakolati bilan tayinlagan. Bu xususiy va umumiy sud ishini joriy etish joiz ekanligini ko'rsatadi.

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.

Apellyatsiya sudlari ham, kassatsiya sudlari ham yo'q, shuning uchun ish ko'rish usuli jihatidan sud tizimi bir xildir. Agar qozi hukm chiqarsa, u majburiy kuchga ega bo'ladi va boshqa qozining hukmi hech qanday holatda uni bekor qila olmaydi. Faqat hukm Allohning Kitobidagi aniq matnga, Uning Elchisi ﷺ ning Sunnatiga yoki as-Sahobalarning ijmosiga zid bo'lgan holatda bundan istisno bo'ladi.

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.

Shunday qilib, qozining hukmini o'zi yoki boshqa biron-bir qozi bekor qila olmaydi, agar u (asl hukm) Kitob yoki Sunnatdan olingan zanniy (ehtimoliy) dalilga asoslangan bo'lsa. Qozining zanniy dalildan kelib chiqqan hukmini bekor qilib bo'lmasligi haqidagi dalil sahobalarning umumiy ijmosidir. Chunki Abu Bakr ba'zi masalalarda o'z ijtihodiga ko'ra hukm chiqargan, Umar esa uning bilan rozi bo'lmagan, lekin uning hukmlarini bekor qilmagan. Ali Umarning ijtihodiga qarshi bo'lgan, ammo uning hukmlarini hech qachon bekor qilmagan; Ali Abu Bakr va Umar bilan ixtilof qilgan, ammo ularning hukmlari hech qachon bekor qilinmagan. Najron aholisi Aliga kelib, unga dedilar:

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:

“Ey mo‘minlar amiri, sizning kitobingiz o‘z qo‘lingizda, va afvingiz o‘z tilingiz bilan.” U aytdi: “Voy sizga! ‘Umar to‘g‘ri yo‘lga yo‘llangan edi va men ‘Umar chiqargan hukmni bekor qilmayman.” Rivoyat qilinishicha, ‘Umar Al-Musharraka (ulushli meros) masalasida hukm chiqardi, unga ko‘ra ota tomonidan bo‘lgan aka-ukalarning huquqi bekor qilindi. Keyin u ularga ulush berilishini buyurdi va shunday dedi: “Bu hukm o‘sha holatga tegishli, bu hukm esa bu holatga tegishli”, va ikkala hukmni ham ziddiyatga qaramay ijro etdi. U bobo masalasida ham boshqacha hukm chiqardi va oldingi hukmlarning hech birini hech qachon bekor qilmadi. Shurayh esa ikki amakivachcha haqidagi masalada hukm chiqargan, deb rivoyat qilinganiga kelsak, ulardan biri onaning akasi tomonidan bo‘lgan edi; meros aka-ukaga berilishi kerak deb hukm qilingan, bu masala Aliy ibn Abu Solibga yetkazildi, u shunday dedi: “Menga o‘sha odamni olib keling.” U kelgach, unga dedi: “Allohning Kitobidan buni qayerdan topding?” U dedi: Alloh (SWT) aytadi: “Qarindoshlar esa Allohning Kitobida bir-birlariga boshqalardan ko‘ra haqliroqdirlar.” [TMQ Al-Anfol: 75] Alloh (SWT) yana aytadi: “Agar merosi haqida gap ketayotgan erkak yoki ayolning na ota-onasi va na farzandi bo‘lmasa, balki bir ukasi yoki singlisi bo‘lsa, ularning har biriga oltidan bir ulush tegadi.” [TMQ An-Niso: 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],

Keyin u o‘z hukmini qaytardi. Ibn Qudama bu masalada o‘zining "Al-Mug‘niy" kitobida, "Al-Qazo" (Sud ishi) bobida, 56-sahifada, to‘qqizinchi bobda shunday javob bergan: “Bizning nazarimizda Aliyning hukmini qaytarganligi isbotlanmagan. Agar u shunday qilgani isbotlangan taqdirda ham, Ali (roziyallohu anhu) Sharih zikr qilgan oyatdagi Kitob matniga zid ish qilgan deb o‘ylagan bo‘lishi mumkin, shuning uchun uni qaytargan.” Tasdiqlangan narsa shuki, sahobalar ba’zi hollarda ayrim masalalarda o‘z ijtihodlari bo‘yicha hukm chiqarganlar, halifa esa ularga qarshi chiqqan. Bu Abu Bakr, Umar va Aliy davrida yuz bergan, ularning hech biri boshqalarning hukmini bekor qilmagan. Shuningdek, tasdiqlangan narsa shuki, Umar bitta masala yuzasidan bir-biriga zid va turli hukmlar chiqargan, ikkala hukm o‘rtasidagi farqga qaramay, barcha hukmlarni ijro etgan va birinchi hukmni ikkinchisi bilan hech qachon bekor qilmagan. Umar bu haqda shunday degani tasdiqlangan:

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:

“Bu hukm o‘sha ish uchun edi, bu hukm esa mana bu ish uchun.” Bu hukmlarni bekor qilmaslik kerakligiga dalildir. Ibn Qudama “Al-Mug‘niy” kitobida yozgan:

“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:

“Agar uning ijtihodi matnga yoki umumiy ijmoga zid bo‘lmagan holda o‘zgargan bo‘lsa yoki uning ijtihodi o‘zidan oldingilarning ijtihodidan farq qilgan bo‘lsa, u faqat farq qilgani uchun uni bekor qilmasligi kerak, chunki sahobalar aslida bu yo‘nalishga rozi bo‘lganlar. Lekin agar u hukm chiqarishdan oldin o‘z ijtihodini o‘zgartirgan bo‘lsa, u holda yangi ijtihod bilan hukm qilishi mumkin.”

“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.

Shuningdek, ko'p qozilikka yo'l qo'yilmasligi haqidagi dalil qozining hukmini bekor qilishning man etilganiga ham dalildir. Bunga sabab shuki, Allohning hukmi yagona va o'zgarmasdir, Allohning biror masala bo'yicha hukmi joriy etilgach, uning ijro etilganligini anglatadi, shuning uchun uni bekor qilish noto'g'ri bo'ladi. Qozi biror ish bo'yicha hukm chiqarganida, u Allohning hukmini amalga tatbiq etgan bo'ladi va shu bois uning ijrosi majburiy bo'lib qoladi. Demak, u hech qachon bekor qilinmasligi kerak, chunki bu Allohning hukmini bekor qilishni anglatadi, bu esa harom. Shunday ekan, qozi o'z hukmini bekor qila olmaydi, boshqa hech kim ham uning hukmini bekor qila olmaydi, chunki Allohning hukmi o'zgarmaydi, uni bekor qilish Allohning hukmini bekor qilish bilan birga Allohning (SWT) hukmini o'zgartirish hamdir, bu esa harom.

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.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab ning Abu Musaga yuborgan xatiga oid xabarga kelsak, unda u shunday deb yozgan: "Kecha hukm chiqarganingiz, uni ko'rib chiqib, to'g'ri yo'lga kelganingiz sababli, haqiqatga qaytishingizga to'sqinlik qilmasin, chunki haqiqat qadimiydir va botildan davom etishdan ko'ra haqiqatga qaytish afzalroqdir." Agar bu xat haqiqiy bo'lsa ham, u ‘Umarning so'zi bo'lib, shar'iy dalil hisoblanmaydi. Sahobalarning bu haqda jim turganini aytib, shu orqali umumiy ijmo sodir bo'lgan deyish noto'g'ri, chunki sukut faqat hodisa keng ma'lum bo'lganda, barcha odamlarga taalluqli hukmga oid bo'lganda va sahobalar uni bilgan bo'lganda umumiy ijmo sifatida qaralishi mumkin. Shuningdek, shunday masalalarda sukut shariat tomonidan rad etiladigan narsaga nisbatan bo'ladi, chunki ular munkarga nisbatan jim turmaydilar. Biroq bu turdagi xat ma'lum bir qozига yozilgan bo'lib, u umumiy xitob emas edi. Keyinchalik u mashhur bo'lib ketgan bo'lsa-da, o'sha paytda sahobalar orasida mashhur hodisa bo'lmagan. Bundan tashqari, unda shariat qoralaydigan hech narsa yo'q edi. Yana, ‘Umarning xatdagi maqsadi shu edi: "Agar kecha hukm chiqarib, keyin uning noto'g'ri ekanini angladingiz, bu sizni boshqa bir holatda uni o'zgartirib, boshqa hukm chiqarishdan to'xtatmasin". Bu kecha chiqarilgan hukmni bekor qilish kerak degani emas. Shu sababli ‘Umar "haqiqatga qaytish" deb yozgan, "hukmingizni bekor qiling" demagan. Haqiqatga qaytish esa noto'g'ri fikrni tark etib, to'g'risini qabul qilish demakdir. Demak, bu xat hukmni qonuniy ravishda bekor qilish mumkinligiga dalil bo'la olmaydi. Shu bois Islomda sud presedenti deb ataladigan narsa yo'q, ya'ni "falon holatda hukm faloncha bo'lgan" degan qoida yo'q. Biror ish bo'yicha chiqarilgan hukm boshqa hech kimni ham xuddi shunday hukm chiqarishga majbur qilmaydi. Boshqa hakam tomonidan o‘xshash ish bo‘yicha boshqacha hukm chiqarish, hatto o‘sha hakamning o‘zi tomonidan ham, ruxsat etilgan. Ish o‘ziga kelsak, unga Allohning hukmi tatbiq etilgan bo‘lar edi; shuning uchun hakamga o‘sha hukmni bekor qilish yoki o‘zgartirish harom. Shu sababli Islomda apellyatsiya sudlari ham, kassatsiya sudlari ham yo‘q. Sudlov tizimi hukm chiqarish nuqtai nazaridan bir xil darajada bo‘lishi kerak. Shariat qoidasi shunday deydi: “Ijtihod boshqa ijtihodni bekor qilmaydi.” Demak, hech bir mujtahid boshqa mujtahid uchun vakolatli manba bo‘la olmaydi, shuning uchun boshqa sudlarning hukmlarini bekor qiladigan sudlarni tashkil etish harom.

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.

Ammo agar qozi Shariat hukmidan voz kechib, kufr hukmi bilan hukm qilsa, yoki Kitob va Sunnatdan qat’iy (aniq) nasga yoxud sahobalar ijmosiga zid keladigan hukm bilan hukm qilsa, yoki haqiqatga zid keladigan hukm chiqarsa, masalan, birovni ataylab qotil deb hukm qilsa, keyin haqiqiy qotil topilsa, bunday hollarda qozining hukmi bekor qilinadi. Buning sababi shuki, Allahning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar: “Kim bizning dinimizda undan bo‘lmagan biror narsani ixtiro qilsa, u rad etiladi.” [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]

Bu hadisni Jobir ibn Abdulloh ham rivoyat qilgan:

It was also narrated by Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

“…bir erkak bir ayol bilan zino qildi, shuning uchun Payg‘ambar ﷺ uni qamchilashni buyurdi. Keyinroq unga u turmush qurganligi xabar qilindi, shuning uchun u toshbon qilinishni buyurdi.” Malik ibn Anas ham rivoyat qilib aytdi: “Menga xabar yetdi, bir ayolni ‘Usmon (rta) huzuriga olib kelishdi, u olti oydan keyin tug‘di, shuning uchun u uni toshbon qilishni buyurdi. Ali (rta) unga dedi: ‘Uni toshbon qilish to‘g‘ri emas, chunki Alloh (SWT) aytadi: “Uni (homilani) ko‘tarish va uni ajratish (fisal) o‘ttiz oy davom etadi” [TMQ Al-Ahqof: 15], va U (SWT) aytadi: “Onalar farzandlarini to‘liq muddat, ya’ni ikki yil to‘liq emizadilar, bu muddatni to‘ldirmoqchi bo‘lganlar uchun” [TMQ Al-Baqara: 233]. Demak, homiladorlik muddati olti oy bo‘ladi, shuning uchun uni toshbon qilmaslik kerak.’ Shunda ‘Usmon (rta) uni qaytarib olib kelishni buyurdi, lekin u allaqachon toshbon qilinganini topdi.” Abdur Raziq Al-Imom Ath-Thavriydan rivoyat qildi, u aytdi: “Agar qozi Alloh Kitobiga yoki Alloh Elchisi ﷺ Sunnatiga zid hukm chiqarsa, yoki unda ijmo’ mavjud bo‘lgan biror narsaga zid bo‘lsa, undan keyingi boshqa qozi uni bekor qilishi mumkin.” Bu hukmlarni bekor qilishga vakolatli shaxs esa qozi mazolim hisoblanadi.

“…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.