so what he contracted for another person does not become void, just as if the guardian (wali) in a marriage contract were to die, the marriage would not be voided. It is for this reason that the Imam does not have the authority to dismiss a judge without a change in his status, and the judge is not dismissed upon his dismissal, unlike the deputy of the judge; for the latter's authority is contracted for his own self as a deputy on his [the judge's] behalf, and thus he [the judge] possesses the right to dismiss him. Furthermore, if the judge were to be dismissed upon the death of the Imam, harm would befall the Muslims, as it would lead to the dismissal of judges throughout all the lands of the Muslims, and legal rulings would be disrupted. Once it is established that he [the deputy] is dismissed, it is not for him to accept the letter; because he is, at that point, no longer a judge.

1876 - Issue: He said: "And the translation from a non-Arabic speaker who seeks judgment before him is not accepted if he does not know his language, except from two trustworthy persons who know his language."

The summary of this is that if two non-Arabic speakers seek judgment before an Arab judge, and he does not know their language, or if one is a non-Arabic speaker and the other is an Arab, there must be a translator for them. Translation is not accepted except from two trustworthy persons. Al-Shafi'i held this view. There is another narration from Ahmad that it may be accepted from one person. This is the choice of Abu Bakr Abd al-Aziz and Ibn al-Mundhir, and it is the view of Abu Hanifa. Ibn al-Mundhir cited the hadith of Zayd ibn Thabit that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered him to learn the writing of the Jews. He said: So I used to write for him when he wrote to them, and I would read for him when they wrote. Moreover, it is a matter that does not require the wording of testimony, so one person is sufficient for it, like reports of religious laws (akhbar al-diyanat). Our view is that it is the transmission of what was hidden from the judge to him regarding the disputing parties, so a number [of witnesses] is required, like testimony. It differs from reports of religious laws, for those do not pertain to two disputing parties. We do not concede that the wording of testimony is not considered in it, and because what the judge does not understand is, in his presence, as if it were absent. Thus, when it is translated for him, it is like the transmission of an admission to him from outside his session, and that is not accepted except from two witnesses; the same applies here. Therefore, according to