The ruling on authority applies to the one who does not possess the authority to judge, for he does not possess the authority to admit to it, like one who admits to the emancipation of a slave after selling him. Then they differed: Al-Awza'i, [Ibn al-Mundhir], and Ibn Abi Layla said: He is in the position of a witness; if there is another witness with him, it is accepted. The jurists of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y) said: It is not accepted unless there are two witnesses besides him testifying to that. This is the manifest view of the Shafi'i school, because his testimony regarding his own action is not accepted. Our position is that if he were to write to another, then be dismissed, and the letter arrived after his dismissal, the recipient would be obligated to accept his letter after the dismissal of the writer; likewise, this is the case here. Furthermore, he is reporting what he has judged, and he is not suspected of bias, so it is mandatory to accept it, just as in the state of his jurisdiction.

Section: As for if he says during his tenure: "I had judged for so-and-so regarding such-and-such," his statement is accepted, regardless of whether he says: "I passed judgment against him based on two upright witnesses," or says: "I heard his evidence and confirmed their uprightness," or says: "I passed judgment against him due to his refusal to swear an oath," or says: "So-and-so admitted to me in favor of so-and-so regarding a right, and I passed judgment accordingly." Abu Hanifa, Al-Shafi'i, and Abu Yusuf held this view. It was narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that it is not accepted until an upright man testifies with him, because it is [a report] of a right against another, so it is not accepted because it is the statement of one person, like testimony. Our position is that he possesses the authority to judge, therefore he possesses the authority to admit to it, like a husband when he reports a divorce, and a master when he reports an emancipation. Furthermore, if he were to report that he saw such-and-such and passed judgment accordingly, it would be accepted, so it is the same here. It differs from testimony, for a witness does not possess the authority to establish what he reports. As for if he says: "I judged based on my own knowledge," or "due to the refusal to swear an oath," or "based on one witness and an oath" in matters of property, it is also accepted. Al-Shafi'i said: His statement is not accepted regarding judgment based on refusal to swear an oath. His statement "I judged against him based on my own knowledge" depends on the two views regarding the permissibility of judging based on one's own knowledge, for he does not possess the authority to judge by that, so he does not possess the authority to admit to it. Our position is that he reported his judgment in a matter which, had he judged by it, his judgment would have been effective, so it is mandatory to accept it, like the scenarios mentioned previously. Furthermore, he is a judge who reported his judgment during his tenure, so it is mandatory to accept it, like the one he transferred, and because