Can a judge rule based solely on personal knowledge of a matter, independent of evidence presented in court?

Primary text

It is ruled that a judge shall not rule based on knowledge acquired either before or after assuming office, nor concerning matters outside the scope of the current case. This is the position held by Shurayh, Al-Sha'bi, Malik, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and one of the two opinions attributed to Al-Shafi'i. The supporting evidence for the opposing view includes the Prophet's instruction to Hind: 'Take what suffices you and your children with good measure,' where he ruled in her favor without witness or confession, indicating a ruling based on his knowledge of her truthfulness. Further support comes from an incident where Umar compelled Abu Sufyan to move a stone based on a past injustice, ruling based on his knowledge of the event. Scholars argue that if a judge rules based on witnesses, who primarily produce a strong presumption (*dhann*), then ruling based on certainty derived from personal knowledge is superior. Furthermore, a judge rules on the qualification (validity or invalidity) of witnesses based on personal knowledge, so by analogy, he should rule on the establishment of the right itself.