whether the distance is far or near. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Yusuf said: If it is possible for him to attend and return to his place [in the same day], he summons him; otherwise, he does not summon him, and instead directs someone to adjudicate between them. It was also said: If the distance is less than the distance of qasr (shortening prayers for travelers), he summons him; otherwise, he does not. Our view is that it is necessary to resolve the dispute between the two litigants, so if it is not possible except with hardship, he shall do so, just as if he refused to attend, for he would be disciplined and ta'zir (discretionary punishment) would be applied to him. Furthermore, causing hardship to him is more appropriate than causing it to the person whom the judge sends to adjudicate between them. If the person is a prominent woman (barzah), a mahram is not a requirement for her travel. Ahmad stated this explicitly, because this is for the right of a human being, and the rights of human beings are based on strictness and tightness.

Section: If someone seeks help against a dismissed judge, he shall not assist him until he knows what he is claiming, and he shall ask him about it to protect the judge from humiliation. If he mentions that he is claiming a right against him, such as a debt or usurpation, he shall assist him and adjudicate between them just as he would with anyone other than a judge. The same applies if he claims that he took a bribe from him for a judgment; for taking a bribe is not permitted for him, so it is like usurpation. If he claims against him injustice (jawr) in judgment and the claimant has evidence, he shall summon him and judge based on the evidence. If he does not have evidence, there are two opinions: one is that he does not summon him, because summoning and questioning him contains humiliation. Judges have many enemies, and if this were done to him, no one would be safe from entering into the judiciary for fear of its consequences. The second is that he does summon him, for it is possible that he might confess; if he attends and confesses, he judges against him, and if he denies, then his word is accepted without an oath, because the word of a judge is accepted after dismissal, just as it is accepted during his tenure. If he claims against him that he killed his son unjustly, is he to be summoned without evidence? There are two opinions. If he summons him and he confesses, he judges against him; otherwise, his word is accepted. If he claims that he took an object from his possession without right, the word of the judge is accepted without an oath, and his word is accepted in favor of the one for whom he adjudicated, according to what we will mention, if Allah the Exalted wills.

Section: If he claims against two witnesses that they testified falsely against him, he shall summon them. If they confess, he makes them pay damages. If they deny, and the claimant has evidence of their confession to that and presents it, it becomes binding upon them. If