According to the first view, whenever a legal dispute arises for these individuals, the Imam, another judge, or one of his deputies shall judge between them. If the dispute is between his parents, his children, or his father and his child, it is not permissible for him to judge between them, according to one of the two views, because his testimony is not accepted for one of them against the other, so judging between them is not permitted, just as if his opponent were a stranger. According to the other view, it is permissible. This is the view of some of the followers of al-Shafi'i, because both parties are equal in his sight, so the suspicion of partiality is removed, and they are thus akin to strangers.

Section: If two men appoint a man as an arbitrator between them and are satisfied with him, and he is someone qualified for judgeship, then he judges between them, that is permissible, and his ruling is binding upon them. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. For al-Shafi'i, there are two views; one of them is that his ruling is not binding upon them unless they are both satisfied with it, because his ruling is only binding by virtue of being satisfied with him, and satisfaction only exists after knowledge of his ruling. Our position is what Abu Shurayh reported: the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to him: "Allah is the Judge (al-Hakam), so why are you surnamed Abu al-Hakam?" He replied: "When my people disagree about something, they come to me, and I judge between them, and both parties are satisfied (45)." He said: "How good this is! Who is your eldest son?" He replied: "Shurayh." He said: "Then you are Abu Shurayh." Narrated by al-Nasa'i (46). It is also narrated from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he (47) said: "Whoever judges between two who are satisfied with him, and does not act justly between them, he is cursed" (48). Were his ruling not binding upon them, this reproach (49) would not have attached to him. Furthermore, Umar and Ubayy arbitrated before Zayd, Umar arbitrated an Arab before Shurayh before appointing him, and Uthman and Talhah arbitrated before Jubayr ibn Mut'im, none of whom were judges. If it is said: "Umar and Uthman were Imams, so when they referred the judgment to a man, he became a judge," we reply: nothing was transmitted from them except satisfaction with his arbitration specifically, and by this alone one does not become a judge. What they mentioned is invalidated by [the case] where one is satisfied with the disposal of his agent, for it is binding upon him even before he has knowledge of it.