Is the Prophet's ruling based on personal knowledge when witnesses or testimony are required?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
The ruling must be based only on what is heard in court, not solely on personal knowledge. Evidence for this is the Prophet's statement: 'I am only a human, and you bring your disputes to me. Perhaps some of you are more eloquent in presenting your argument than others, so I judge for him according to what I hear from him.' Furthermore, in the dispute between the Hadrami and the Kindite, the Prophet stated, 'Your two witnesses or his oath; you have nothing more than that.' Similarly, Umar refused to testify when asked to be a witness, stating he would either testify and not rule, or rule without testifying, indicating a separation between personal knowledge and judicial ruling.
Supporting text
A narrative concerning the Prophet and a man who suffered a wound while collecting Zakat suggests he did not rule based on his knowledge initially, as he sought consensus from the parties after offering compensation, indicating his reliance on their acceptance rather than immediate self-evident knowledge. Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq stated that if he witnessed a *hadd* punishment being carried out, he would not enforce it until evidence was established. Allowing judgment based on personal knowledge risks leading to suspicion against the judge and ruling according to personal desire. The alleged proofs concerning Abu Sufyan are invalid because the first was a *fatwa* (legal opinion) given in Abu Sufyan's absence, not a binding judgment, and the second incident involving Umar was deemed an admonition against a perceived wrong, not a formal judicial ruling, especially since it lacked the necessary procedural claims and denials required for a formal judgment.