And because she is considered married to the one for whom the evidence was established, according to the statement of some of the Imams, it is not permissible for her to be married to someone else, like a woman married without a guardian (wali). Abu al-Khattab narrated from Ahmad another report, similar to the school of Abu Hanifah, that the judge's ruling removes the dissolutions and the contracts. The former is the established school of thought (madhhab).
Section: If a man seeks help against another before a judge, there are two reports regarding this. The first is that it is binding upon the judge to assist him and summon the opponent, whether he knows of a transaction between them or does not know, and whether the one seeking help is someone who deals with the one against whom he seeks help or does not deal with him, such as a poor person claiming against someone of wealth and status. This was textually stated in the narration of al-Athram regarding a man who seeks help; the judge must bring him and make him take an oath. This is the choice of Abu Bakr, and the school of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, because in omitting this is a wasting of rights and an affirmation of injustice. For a right may be established for him against someone higher than him through usurpation, or he may purchase something from him and he does not fulfill it, or he entrusts him with something or lends it to him and he does not return it, while no transaction between them is known. So if he is not aided against him, his right is lost, and this is a greater harm than attending the judge's court, for there is no disparagement in that. 'Umar and Ubayy attended before Zayd, and he [Zayd] and another attended before Shurayh, and Ali attended before Shurayh, and al-Mansur attended before a man from the descendants of Talhah ibn Ubayd Allah. The second report is that he does not summon him unless he knows of a transaction between them and it becomes clear that his claim has a basis. This is narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and it is the school of Malik, because in his claim against everyone is the disparagement of people of noble character and the humiliation of people of status, for no one wishes to disparage them before the judge but they do so, and perhaps someone who has no right does this so that the defendant may ransom himself from his attendance and the evil of his opponent with a portion of
(25) In the original: "yajibu" (it is necessary). (26) In the original: "lam" (did not). (27) In the original: "falam" (so did not). (28) See what al-Bayhaqi recorded in: The Chapter of Treating the Two Opponents Equally..., from the Book of the Etiquettes of the Judge. Al-Sunan al-Kubra 10/136.
