like the layman. The third condition is that the letter must reach the addressee within the judge's jurisdiction. If it reaches him outside of it, he may not accept it until he arrives within the scope of his jurisdiction. If two litigants refer their case to him outside of his place of jurisdiction, he does not have the authority to judge between them by virtue of his jurisdiction, unless they both consent to him, in which case his judgment is that of a non-judge when [litigants] consent to him, regardless of whether the two litigants are from the people of his district or not. If two litigants refer their case to him while he is in his place of jurisdiction, even if they are not from the people of his jurisdiction, he has the authority to judge between them; because the consideration is given to their location, unless the Imam grants a judge permission to judge between the people of his jurisdiction wherever they may be, and forbids him from judging between those who are not of the people of his jurisdiction wherever they may be; the matter then proceeds according to what he permitted and forbade, because jurisdiction is established by his appointment, so the judgment must be in accordance with it.

Section: Regarding the change in the status of the judge: The situation must involve either a change in the status of the writer, the addressee, or both. If the status of the writer changes due to death or dismissal after he has written the letter and caused himself to be witnessed, it does not invalidate his letter, and it is incumbent upon the one who received the letter to accept it and act upon it, regardless of whether his status changed before the letter left his hand or after. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: It is not to be acted upon in either case. Abu Yusuf said: If he dies before it leaves his hand, it is not acted upon, and if he dies after it has left his hand, it is acted upon; because the judge's letter is in the position of testimony [regarding testimony], as he is conveying the testimony of the two original witnesses. Thus, if he dies before the letter arrives, it is as if the two branch witnesses died before delivering their testimony. Our view is that the reliance in the letter is on the two witnesses who testify regarding the judge while they are alive, so his letter must be accepted just as if he had not died. Furthermore, if his letter concerns what he has already judged, his judgment does not lapse with his death or dismissal. If it concerns what was proven to him by testimony, he is an original (asl) and those who testified before him are the branch (far'), and the testimony of the branch does not lapse with the death of the witness of the original. What they mentioned is actually an argument against them, because the judge has caused himself to be witnessed, and only two witnesses testify regarding him before the addressee, and they are alive—they are the branch witnesses—and his death is not an impediment to their testimony, so it does not prevent its acceptance, like the death of the original witnesses. And if his state changes