and he said: "Are you satisfied?" They replied: "No." The Emigrants (Muhajirun) intended to deal with them, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came down, gave them [the compensation], then ascended again and addressed the people, after which he said: "Are you satisfied?" They replied: "Yes" (11). This clarifies that he did not act upon his [own prior] knowledge.

It was narrated from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: "If I were to see a prescribed punishment (hadd) committed against a person, I would not execute it (12) until evidence is established." Furthermore, permitting a judge to rule based on his own knowledge leads to accusing him of bias and judging according to his desires, as he could justify it by his own knowledge. As for the hadith of Abu Sufyan, there is no proof in it; for it was a legal opinion (fatwa), not a judicial judgment (hukm), evidenced by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) issued a legal opinion regarding the right of Abu Sufyan in his absence, and had it been a judicial judgment against him, he would not have judged against him in his absence. The hadith of 'Umar which they narrated was an act of forbidding a wrong he witnessed, not a judgment (13), evidenced by the fact that there was no claim and denial between them according to their formal conditions, and proof of that is what we have narrated from him. Furthermore, even if it were a judgment, it would be contradicted by what we have narrated from him. This is distinct from a judgment based on two witnesses, for that does not lead to suspicion, unlike our current issue. As for impugnment and accreditation (al-jarh wa al-ta'dil), the judge rules on it based on his own knowledge without disagreement; because if he were not to rule on it based on his own knowledge, it would lead to an infinite regress. For the two certifiers would require their own probity and impartiality to be known, and if he did not act upon his knowledge, each of them would require two other certifiers, and then each of those would require two certifiers, leading to an infinite regress, whereas the case we are discussing is not like that.

Section: There is no disagreement that a judge may rule based on evidence and confession in his court if two witnesses heard it along with him. If no one heard it with him, or only one witness heard it, Ahmad explicitly stated that he may rule by it. The Qadi said: He does not rule by it until two witnesses hear it along with him, because [otherwise] he would be ruling by his own knowledge.