Are the rulings issued by a judge appointed by the rebels (who is otherwise qualified) binding upon the return of the forces of justice?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Fighting Rebellious Groups
Primary text
If the rebels appoint a judge qualified for the position, his judgments are valid and enforceable like those of the just rulers, unless the ruling contradicts consensus (Ijma'). If the judge was known to permit the spilling of blood and confiscation of wealth of the just rulers, his judgments are not valid because he is not considered just. This is the position of Shafi'i. If the judge rules on matters not contradicting consensus, his judgment stands; otherwise, it is nullified, as the judgment of a just ruler's judge would also be nullified in such cases.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that the judge's appointment is never valid because the act of rebellion itself renders them sinful (fasik), and sin disqualifies one from judging. The counter-argument states that divergence in secondary issues based on permissible interpretation does not invalidate judgment or render them sinful, just as differences among jurists do not.