Is the ruling of an arbitrator, mutually appointed and accepted by two disputants, valid and binding?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
The ruling of an arbitrator whom two men choose between themselves, and whose decision they both accept, is valid and binding upon them, provided the arbitrator is qualified for judging. This position is held by Abu Hanifa. The basis for this validity is the report of Abu Shurayh that the Prophet, peace be upon him, commended his practice of judging between people by stating, "What a fine thing this is!" Furthermore, a severe curse is reported upon whoever judges unjustly between two parties who consented to his judgment, which implies the binding nature of the judgment, otherwise the curse would not apply. Historical precedent shows figures like Umar and Ubayy referring a dispute to Zayd, and Umar referring an Bedouin to Shurayh before appointing him, and Uthman and Talha referring a dispute to Jubayr ibn Mut'im, none of whom were established judges.
Supporting text
Al-Shafi'i holds two views: the first is that the ruling is not binding upon them unless they consent to it, as the ruling only becomes binding through explicit consent, which must follow knowledge of the arbitrator's judgment. A counterargument to the precedence of the ruler's appointment is that the acceptance of the arbitrator's ruling is specific to that instance, unlike the proxy's actions which bind the principal before knowledge of the action.