JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syaria.
Vol.
No.
, pp.
ISSN: 1412-6109.
E-ISSN: 2580-2763
DOI: 10.
31958/juris.
Re-evaluation of JudgesAo Conditions for Disabilities:
A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Amin Mujahid bin Hurbi1*.
Ahmed bin Saleh bin Atiqillah Al-Refai2.
Andi Yaqub2.
Zamakhsyari Baharuddin3 1PhD Candidate at the Department of Judicial Studies.
Islamic University of Madinah.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2Professor at the Department of Judicial Studies.
Islamic University of Madinah.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 3Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari.
Indonesia 4Sakarya University.
Turkey Corresponding Author: 421000677@stu.
Received: 06-12-2025 Revised: 10-04-2026 Accepted: 13-04-2026 Abstract: Contemporary judicial systems increasingly recognize disability inclusion as a matter of equal access to justice, yet classical Islamic jurisprudence is often perceived as conditioning judicial office on bodily integrity.
This article re-evaluates the eligibility of persons with physical disabilities, particularly blindness, to serve as judges by comparing classical fiqh positions across the four madhAhib with Saudi judicial practice under NizAm al-QasAAo and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Employing library-based legal research with a normative, comparative, and maqAid-oriented analysis, the study examines authoritative juristic texts.
Saudi judicial regulations, and core CRPD provisions on legal capacity and access to justice.
The findings demonstrate a crosystem consensus that mental competence .
alAmah al-aq.
and moral integrity .
l-adAla.
constitute the fundamental requirements for judicial office, whereas physical conditions function as instrumental requirements .
subject to institutional accommodation.
Saudi precedents, most notably the appointments of blind judges such as Ibn BAz and Ibn umayd, demonstrate compatibility in law in action between Islamic legal reasoning and inclusive judicial standards.
The article contributes by articulating a maqAid-based reconciliation between fiqh and disability rights norms and proposes an implementable framework for inclusive judicial recruitment through functional capacity assessment and reasonable accommodation.
Keywords: Disability.
Blind Judges.
Shur al-QAs.
CRPD.
Saudi Judiciary.
Islamic Jurisprudence.
MaqAid Introduction he issue of inclusivity of persons with disabilities in the justice system has become a global concern as awareness of access to justice and reasonable accommodation are strengthened.
A paradigm shift has occurred from a medical and charitable approach to a rights-based approach that demands the equal participation of persons with disabilities in all public institutions.
This shift is emphasized in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities .
(CRPD) with the principle of equality before the law for all individuals, and in its update by 192 countries, several countries have ratified it, such as Saudi Arabia in 2008 and Indonesia in 2011 (Docherty, 2023.
Dufour, 2020.
Finkelstein & Gross, 2025.
Knevel, 2023.
Lafferriere, 2020.
Matar, 2023.
Vyron, 2.
The declaration, as a follow-up to ratification, encourages states to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities, not only as litigants but also as law enforcers and judges (Martynez-Pujalte, 2018.
Nor et al.
, 2.
In line with this direction, the inclusive justice discourse not only questions the access of people with disabilities as justice seekers, witnesses, or litigants, but also addresses the internal configuration of judicial 116 ic JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syaria.
, 25 .
, 2026 institutions: who may serve as judges and how the system assesses eligibility and provides institutional Recent literature on justice for persons with disabilities emphasizes that exclusion from judicial positions, when not based on relevant competency standards, has the potential to create institutional inequalities that reduce the legitimacy of the judiciary itself as society becomes more pluralistic and human rights-conscious (Cuervo-Botero et al.
, 2025.
DomaEski & LackoroEski, 2023.
Piray Rodryguez & Narvyez Inca, 2023.
Ramadhan & Muslimin, 2022.
White et al.
, 2.
Therefore, the key question moves from whether persons with disabilities can participate to how the judicial system should assess capacity and ensure accommodation without lowering the standards of the judiciary.
(Ferri, 2.
The Islamic legal tradition describes the requirement that judges be bound by the concept of ahliyyah, or legal proficiency, which includes the capacity for reason .
l-ahliyyah al-Aoaqliyya.
and physical perfection .
l-ahliyyah al-jasadiyya.
(Al-MAward, 2000.
Al-QarAf, 1994.
Al-Sarakhs, 1993.
Ibn Farun, 1.
This is where the normative tension arises when classical jurisprudence places emphasis on ahliyyah al-Aoaqliyyah, while al-ahliyyah al-jasadiyyah is considered a criterion that has the potential to restrict access for persons with sensory disabilities, such as those who are visually impaired (DomaEski.
Ferri, 2.
This tension is even more relevant when the issue of disability is examined within the framework of maqAid al-sharAoah, which emphasizes the protection of reason .
ife al-Aoaq.
, dignity .
arAma.
, and the elimination of hardship .
af al-uara.
as normative ethical orientations of Islamic law (Ibn Ashr.
Kamali, 2.
In an effort to avoid a pseudo-contradiction between fiqh and modern law, this study adopts Saudi Arabia as the context for a case-based legal reasoning analysis.
Saudi Arabia is a particularly relevant case because it is a jurisdiction rooted in the Islamic legal tradition, yet in practice it demonstrates a form of Aulaw in actionAy through the precedent of appointing blind scholars to high judicial positions, such as Shaykh AoAbd al-AoAzz bin BAz and Shaykh AoAbd AllAh bin umayd, as well as through modern institutional arrangements under NizAm al-QasAAo (Alsalem, 2023.
Bani Younes et al.
, 2012.
Nor et al.
, 2.
This choice of context allows the study to assess whether classical terms are better understood as goals .
hAya.
or merely as instruments .
that can be adjusted through institutional support and assistive technology.
Previous research tends to develop in three relatively separate paths: .
doctrinal studies of ahliyyah and the requirements of judges in classical jurisprudence.
international human rights studies on the CRPD, which emphasize legal capacity, access to justice, and reasonable accommodation.
studies of Sharah judicial policies in Muslim countries that address institutional reform and accessibility (Efendi et al.
, 2025.
Ferri, 2017.
Ghaly, 2009.
Kamali, 2020.
Morrison-Dayan, 2023.
Nor et al.
, 2025.
Quraishi & Kamali, n.
Sopyan, 2022.
Ugli et al.
, 2025.
Wescott, 2.
However, there is still an analytical gap at the comparative level in integrating these three strands to explain, on the basis of empirical precedents and a systematic reading of fiqh, how standards of judicial eligibility can be reconstructed into an inclusive framework without sacrificing the principles of judicial prudence .
utiyA) and the quality of adjudication.
This gap is reflected in the limited number of studies that treat concrete cases of blind judges in the Islamic world as legal data to bridge fiqh, national regulations, and international norms (DomaEski, 2023a.
DomaEski & LackoroEski, 2023.
White et al.
, 2.
Based on this background, this article formulates the following research questions: first, how do the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence interpret judicial eligibility in cases involving physical disabilities, particularly visual impairment, within the framework of ahliyyah and shur al-qAs? Second, how do NizAm al-QasAAo and judicial practices in Saudi Arabia reflect, modify, or institutionalize these classical conditions in relation to CRPD principles, particularly reasonable accommodation and effective access? The contribution of this article is multiple.
Theoretically, this article asserts that the suitability of judges in the Islamic legal tradition and modern human rights norms shares a common ground in the fundamental requirements of mental competence .
alAmah al-Aoaq.
and moral integrity .
l-AoadAla.
, while physical requirements are more appropriately understood as instrumental means .
that can be accommodated through institutional support, in line with the principle of al-mashaqqah tajlib al-taysr (Kamali, 2020.
Quraishi & Kamali, n.
In practical terms, this article offers a policy argument for structuring the recruitment and feasibility assessment of judges with disabilities based on functional capacity assessment and reasonable accommodation, by positioning the Saudi experience as a relevant Re-evaluation of JudgesAo Conditions for Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ic117 comparative reference for Sharah judicial reform in other Muslim jurisdictions (Bani Younes et al.
, 2012.
Jafar & Yaqub, 2021.
Nor et al.
, 2.
To situate the argument within a clearer academic framework, the following section reviews the development of the literature on ahliyyah, maqAid.
CRPD, and inclusive judicial reform as the basis for determining the position of this research.
Literature Review The review of the eligibility of judges with disabilities has developed along three streams of study that often run in parallel but are not yet fully integrated.
The first stream comes from the fiqh tradition, which formulates ahliyyah and shur al-qAs as the basis for judicial legitimacy, with an emphasis on salAmah al-Aoaql .
anity of reaso.
and salAmah al-hawAs .
dequate functioning of the five sense.
as conditions of legal competence (Al-Sarakhs, 1993.
Al-ShAib, 1997.
Ibn QudAmah, 1.
The second stream emerges from international human rights discourse, especially through the CRPD, which promotes the elimination of structural discrimination and affirms reasonable accommodation as a condition for substantive equality in access to justice (DomaEski, 2023b.
Ferri, 2020.
Kakoullis, 2.
The third stream derives from studies of judicial reform, including Sharah-based justice systems, which highlight institutional strategies to expand accessibility, professionalism, and institutional legitimacy (Bani Younes et al.
, 2012.
Nor et al.
The problem is that these three streams are often read partially: fiqh is positioned as a purely normative discourse, the CRPD is treated as an external standard, while judicial practice is framed in administrative terms.
As a result, the issue of judges with disabilities often remains an abstract debate, lacking a framework for assessing their operational suitability-that is, whether or not to allow them to In classical jurisprudence, the debate about disability in judicial office mainly arises when physical limitations are linked to judicial functions, such as the examination of evidence, the assessment of testimony, and the communication of verdicts.
A number of classical texts cite salAmah al-uawAs as a functional requirement for the performance of judgesAo duties because sight and hearing are seen as essential to procedural accuracy (Al-MAward, 2000.
Al-QarAf, 2.
However, the fuqahAAo do not always equate physical disability with absolute incapacity.
Ibn Farun .
distinguishes between obstacles that undermine the core of legal competence and those that relate only to the means of carrying out tasks.
Within this framework, mental disabilities such as Aoatah, junn, or khafq al-Aoaql tend to be positioned as a principled barrier to ahliyyah al-adAAo, while physical disabilities are more often debated at the procedural Ghaly .
explains that this classical construction emerged within a pre-modern epistemic context, in which judicial accuracy was highly dependent on individual sensory abilities and was not supported by administrative mechanisms or assistive technologies, as in modern justice systems (Al-Uawj, 2023.
Kamali, 2020.
Mavani, 2.
Arifinsyah et al.
argue that elaborating the principles of maqAid allows for the reinterpretation of ahliyyah from mere physical fitness to moral and intellectual competence.
This approach is in line with the theory of firAsah put forward by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah .
s analyzed by Hilal, 2.
, in which the sharpness of intuition and moral integrity are considered judicial competence, rather than merely physical attributes (Al-Mazrou, 2.
Thus, the concept of ahliyyah in Islamic law is not a static entity but a dynamic construct that can evolve in response to social, ethical, and public interest considerations.
The integration between ahliyyah al-adAAo and the principle of reasonable accommodation as developed in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) indicates an emerging direction toward a more humanistic and inclusive interpretation of legal competence in Islamic law (Al-umays, 1984.
DomaEski.
Ferri, 2017.
Lypez San Luys, 2.
The reading of fiqh does not stop at the literal interpretation of technical requirements.
rather, this study employs maqAid as an evaluative framework.
Specifically, maqAid refers to two main axes.
First, the concept of maqAid as legal purposes that protect human interests, as formulated by Ibn Ashr .
, is further elaborated by Kamali .
, who emphasizes that maqAid is not merely an ethical theory but an operational tool for assessing whether a legal requirement functions as a means .
that achieves its objective .
hAya.
or has instead become an obstacle that generates uaraj.
Within this framework, the issue 118 ic JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syaria.
, 25 .
, 2026 of disability in the judiciary is analyzed through three key maqAid indicators: .
uife al-Aoaql .
rotection of rational capacity as the foundation of judicial decision-makin.
, .
karAmah .
ignity and equality of participation in public space.
, and .
raf al-uaraj .
he elimination of disproportionate burdens through adjustment of procedures/tool.
This framework is important because it allows for a more rigorous assessment: physical requirements are not automatically rejected but are critically evaluated to determine whether they genuinely contribute to the realization of justice or merely reflect technical assumptions that can now be addressed through accommodation.
Ghaly .
shows that the way the Islamic tradition understands disability is not singular but is shaped by theological, cultural, and socio-epistemic contexts.
The criticism that arises does not seek to negate fiqh, but rather to challenge the reduction of disability as an unnecessary reason for social exclusion.
Mavani .
argues that jurisprudential responses to human complexity, including medical issues, require contextual readings that combine normative principles and practical realities.
At this point, maqAid becomes a means of shifting the focus from bodily perfection to moral and intellectual competence, as well as the guarantee of supporting mechanisms.
In a more applied context.
Sodiqin .
asserts that barriers to legal participation that are not based on qaAo postulates have the potential to conflict with the mandate of raf al-uaraj and the realization of the public good.
Hilal .
, complementing this debate from an ethical-professional perspective, argues that the sharpness of judgment and integrity as essential qualities of justice are not synonymous with physical perfection.
Meanwhile.
Arifinsyah et al.
reinforce the epistemic claim that the relationship between Islam and human rights should not be framed as a conflict, but rather as a field of reconciliation grounded in universal values that are also embedded within the Islamic tradition.
On the international legal side, the CRPD emphasizes two clusters of norms relevant to this research such as the principle of equality or anti-discrimination, and the obligation to ensure effective access to justice (Azcona, 2.
Ferri .
shows that reasonable accommodation is not a form of dispensation that lowers standards, but rather a feature of justice design that shifts the focus from individual incapacity to shortcomings in institutional design.
Vivanco .
demonstrates variations in national implementation and highlights the importance of policy instruments to ensure that accommodation is not merely a normative promise.
However, the majority of CRPD studies still position persons with disabilities as users of the judicial system .
, litigants or witnesse.
, rather than as institutional actors who perform judicial DomaEski & LackoroEski .
highlight the dynamics of legal capacity and decision-making support as systemic issues influencing policy, but the literature on judges with disabilities remains relatively limited and is often overlooked in studies of the legal profession.
This is where a critical gap emerges: the need to move from treating the CRPD as a general normative framework to employing it as a more specific analytical tool for judicial office.
Empirical studies of the disability within the legal profession corroborate the thesis that inclusion will not be effective without changes in organizational culture and work design.
White et al.
, for example, show that barriers to participation are often structural .
, document access, workspace design, and internal procedure.
, and therefore require institutional rather than merely normative solutions.
In the context of sharia justice.
Nor et al.
demonstrate that accessibility can be built through procedural adjustments and administrative support, in line with the principle of reasonable accommodation.
In the Saudi context.
Bani Younes et al.
provide a comparative basis for judicial requirements in Saudi law that are rooted in the sharia framework but have been institutionalized through modern regulatory forms.
The limitation of this empirical strand lies in two main aspects.
First, studies often focus on access to justice for persons with disabilities as parties, rather than on the design of eligibility and feasibility frameworks for judicial office.
Second, studies of the Muslim world rarely use historical precedents .
, the appointment of blind judge.
as empirical legal data to test the comparative compatibility of jurisprudence, regulations, and international norms.
This limitation makes it clear that the issue of judges with disabilities has not been sufficiently examined at both the conceptual and operational levels.
Accordingly, there remains a need for an analytical model that integrates fiqh, institutional practices, and international norms in a systematic manner.
Re-evaluation of JudgesAo Conditions for Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ic119 Based on the literature map, there are four gaps that are directly addressed by this research: .
Integrative gap: there is no analytical model that unifies fiqh al-qasAAo, maqAid, and the CRPD into a single coherent and testable framework based on documentary data (Azcona, 2022.
Ibn QudAmah, 1986.
Kakoullis, 2020.
Kamali, 2.
Gap in actorsAo focus: CRPD literature highlights access for persons with disabilities as users of the judiciary, while their position as judges, as part of institutional legitimacy, remains underexplored (Abobaker, 2024.
Claessen, 2024.
Ferri, 2017, 2020.
Ruiz-Calderyn, 2023.
Vivanco, .
Practice-based gap: research on modern sharia justice has not sufficiently utilized concrete cases in Muslim countries as evidence that norms can operate through institutional design (Bani Younes et al.
Nor et al.
, 2.
The gap in operationalization of maqAid: maqAid is often presented as an ethical justification but has not been adequately translated into measurable standards for feasibility assessment and the design of accommodation in the context of judicial office (Ibn Ashr, 2004.
Jafar & Yaqub, 2021.
Sodiqin, 2.
Thus, this study positions itself as a document-based normative-comparative inquiry that examines whether physical requirements in fiqh should be understood as objectives .
hAya.
or as instruments .
that may be substituted through accommodation, and how such an interpretation can be aligned with CRPD principles without compromising judicial prudence.
The maqAid framework of Ibn Ashr and Kamali is used not merely as a complementary perspective but as an analytical tool for testing the consistency of legal objectives across three normative regimesAifiqh.
Saudi regulatory and judicial practice, and the CRPD.
Method This research is a library-based legal study with a comparative qualitativeAenormative design, which aims to assess the normative validity and institutional application of judicial requirements for persons with disabilities .
specially the visually impaire.
across three regimes: .
fiqh of the four schools of ahliyyah and shur al-qAs.
Saudi ArabiaAos judicial law and practice through the NizAm al-QasAAo and the precedent for the appointment of blind judicial figures.
international legal standards through the CRPD .
specially the principles of access to justice and reasonable accommodatio.
A comparative approach is used to place each regime on its own normative basis, then to assess the convergence and divergence.
strengthen the cutting-edge and state-of-the-art dimension, this research also draws on reputable scholarly references that discuss Saudi legal reform.
CRPD implementation, and judicial accessibility practices in the context of Muslim countries and across jurisdictions.
The research data are divided into primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources include: .
authoritative fiqh works that are referenced by the madhhabs (Al-MAward, 2000.
Al-QarAf, 1994.
AlSarakhs, 1993.
Ibn Farun, 1996.
Ibn QudAmah, 1.
positive Saudi legal documents (NizAm al-QasAA.
as well as biographical and institutional materials documenting the practice of appointing blind judges (Ibn BAz and Ibn umay.
the international human rights instrument, the CRPD (United Nations, 2.
, along with explanatory literature on reasonable accommodation and access to justice (DomaEski.
Ferri, 2017, 2020.
Vivanco, 2.
Secondary sources include reputable international journal articles relevant to the Saudi context and the implementation of the CRPD, e.
, a review of Saudi legal reform and judicial authorities (Al-Subhi, 2023.
Bashayreh, 2.
, the Saudi disability policy paradigm in line with the CRPD (Abobaker, 2024.
Alsalem, 2023.
Wu, 2.
, and studies on access to justice in the context of religious justice (Maftuhin & Cammack, 2025.
Nor et al.
, 2.
Saudi Arabia was chosen as a comparative context because it offers a unique combination of the normative basis of sharia and modern judicial practice.
The analysis technique used is a maqAidAecomparativeAenormative approach (Jafar & Yaqub, 2021.
Khairina et al.
, 2024.
Ramadhan & Muslimin, 2022.
Sulaeman et al.
, 2025.
Yaqub et al.
, 2.
Operationally, the analysis is carried out through four stages: .
the extraction of norms from fiqh texts and regulations .
dentification of the fundamental conditions of salAmah al-Aoaql and al-AoadAlah, as well as the instrumental conditions of salAmah al-uawA.
comparative mapping in the SaudiAeCRPD matrix to assess the function of each condition .
hAyah/wasla.
and its consequences on the eligibility of judges with disabilities.
testing the coherence of maqAid by using a framework that refers explicitly to Ibn Ashr .
imensions of karAmah and public benefi.
and Kamali .
ctualization of maqAid and raf al-uara.
, so 120 ic JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syaria.
, 25 .
, 2026 that the conclusion does not stop at permissibility or disagreement, but rather at the rationality of the legal and .
the triangulation of norms and practice by linking the comparative results to Saudi judicial precedents (Ibn BAz and Ibn umay.
to explain the difference between the law in the books and the law in action.
With this design, the research output is not only normative conclusions, but also policy arguments based on functional capacity assessment and reasonable accommodation that are compatible with maqAid.
Results and Discussion Highlights of the Fiqh School on JudgeAos Requirements for Persons with Disabilities The transformation of the judgeAos conditions .
hur al-qA.
is undeniably part of progressive fiqh alqasAAo (Rohman et al.
, 2.
, which defines a personAos eligibility to occupy judicial office.
The majority of the fuqahAAo require seven main criteria: .
Islam, .
puberty, .
sanity, .
independence, .
male gender, .
fairness and trustworthiness, and .
the ability to perform ijtihAd.
Some scholars add physical requirements, such as the ability to speak and hear, which are directly related to the implementation of judicial functions (Al-MAward, 2000.
Al-QarAf, 1.
In this framework, disability is viewed through two lenses: as AoAris .
emporary barrie.
or AoAjiz .
ermanent barrie.
The fuqahAAo, including Al-SamnAn .
, emphasize that the sharpness of the mind and the honesty of the heart are more important than the perfection of the body, thus distinguishing between temporary conditions that hinder the performance of duties, such as fever, loss of voice, or severe illness that can be cured, and permanent conditions, such as blindness or muteness.
The basic principle in Islamic jurisprudence is that the position of the judge .
is the highest symbol of public trust .
ilAyah AoAmma.
, so that the fuqahAAo set strict conditions to maintain their integrity, competence, and worthiness, including Islam and puberty .
harAo maturit.
AoadAlah.
al-Aoilm.
and salAmah aluawAs wa al-Aoaql (Al-MAward, 2000.
Al-QarAf, 1.
However, differences among the madhhabs arise in the interpretation of salAmah al-uawAs .
hysical conditio.
and ahliyyah al-Aoaql .
ntellectual capacit.
These two aspects constitute the main points of discussion when related to persons with physical and sensory The Hanafi mazhab emphasizes the functional aspect in the implementation of judicial duties.
AlSarakhs .
, in al-Mabs, states that a judge must be able to examine evidence, understand testimony, and write judgments independently.
This emphasis on the perfection of the senses is reflected in the statement that AuMan faqata uissan min uawAsihi al-muAoAwinah Aoala al-qasAAo, lA yaiu qasAAouhuAy (Whoever loses one of the five senses that helps the implementation of justice, then his judgment is invali.
Hanafi scholars such as al-Sarakhs and Ab Ysuf argue that sensory disabilities such as blindness or deafness would hinder the functions of istidlAl .
egal deductio.
and mushAhadah .
bservation of evidenc.
Therefore, in this framework, the Hanafi mazhab rejects the appointment of blind judges, except in extreme emergencies .
However, in the context of modern maqAid, this view is fiqhAeijtihAd, not tawqf .
, so it can be reviewed with the help of legal technology and institutional support.
The principle held by Hanafi scholars, namely the necessity of being able to understand facts correctly, can now be realized without the need for fully functioning sensory faculties, as shown by the blind judge in Riyadh.
The Maliki mazhab is known to be more flexible and considers al-malauah al-mursalah .
he common goo.
and Aourf .
ocial contex.
Ibn Farhn, in Tabirat al-ukkAm, states: AuLA yuAozal al-qAs illA bi AoAjiz Aoan aladAAo aw kharq al-AoadAlahAy (A judge is only dismissed if he is incapable of carrying out his duties or violates The Maliki mazhab assesses that abilities .
udrah AoalA al-adAA.
do not have to be physical, but include rational and administrative abilities.
Therefore, a judge who loses his sight but is still able to understand the evidence, preside over the trial, and assess substantive justice is still considered valid.
the contemporary context, the principle of al-Aourf muuakkam .
ocial customs as the basis of la.
can be used as a basis for modern judicial institutions to reinterpret the feasibility of judges based on the context of technology and available support systems.
It is this Maliki view that is ethically most compatible with the CRPD framework and the concept of reasonable accommodation (Ferri, 2.
Re-evaluation of JudgesAo Conditions for Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ic121 The ShafiAoi mazhab, as explained by Al-MAward .
in Al-AukAm as-SulAniyyah and Al-Nawaw .
in Rawsat al-Alibn, holds that judges must have adequate physical prowess, especially sight and hearing, as both are considered the main instruments of justice.
The emphasis is expressed in the statement:
AuWa lA yajzu an yakna al-qAs aAomA aw akhra, li Aoadam al-qudrah AoalA al-samAAo wa al-baarAy (It is not valid for a judge to be blind or dumb because he is unable to hear or se.
However, the ShafiAoiyyah also open up space for rukhsah .
, based on the principle of al-sarrah tubu al-mauerAt, if there are no other qualified judges in a region.
In the modern context, this condition can be broadly interpreted as a systemic for example, when technology allows the replacement of vision functions, physical conditions are no longer a barrier.
This ShafiAoi approach reflects the spirit of sadd al-dharAoah .
revention of legal error.
, which in the modern era can be translated as the obligation of the judicial system to provide technological and procedural support to prevent injustice against judges with disabilities.
The Hanbali mazhab places salAmah al-Aoaql .
anity of min.
as the core of ahliyyah.
Ibn QudAmah .
, in al-Mughn, affirms: AuFa idhA baqiya Aoaqluhu wa dnatuhu, fa-lA yuAozal bi AoArisin jismAy (If his intellect and religion are still preserved, then he should not be dismissed for physical disabilit.
This view shows the distinction between physical and mental disabilities, which is very relevant to the concept of legal capacity in CRPD Article 12.
The Hanabilah, in principle, reject discrimination based on physical conditions that do not affect reason and integrity.
This approach is the basis for the legitimacy of the appointment of blind judges in Saudi Arabia, as stipulated in NizAm al-QasAAo Articles 31Ae35, which only require al-ahliyyah al-sharAoiyyah wa al-AoadAlah, without mentioning physical perfection.
In contemporary practice, the Hanbali opinion is considered to be the closest to the principle of maqAid because it assesses the worthiness of judges based on cognitive and moral capacity, rather than physical attributes.
The comparative analysis of the four schools shows the thought patterns that can be extracted as follows:
Table 1.
Comparative Synthesis of Madhhab Perspectives on Judges with Sensory Disabilities (Blindnes.
Madhhab Dominant Position toward the Visually Impaired Rationality of Fiqh (Core Argumen.
Adaptation Space (Indicato.
Hanafi Tends to be strict.
problematic The accuracy of proof and fact Open if accuracy is guaranteed by if it interferes with the verification depends on the the system .
dministration/tool.
verification of evidence function of the senses Relatively flexible.
focuses on Malauah, functional capacity, and High: adjustment of procedures to Maliki the ability to uphold justice safeguard the purpose of justice Physical Requirements Are Instruments ShAfi More restrictive.
emphasizes Vision and hearing are considered Medium: can be fulfilled through procedural prudence core instruments of evidentiary institutional adjustment Hanbali More inclusive.
High: institutional support in line SalAmah al-aql and al-adAlah as reason and integrity fundamental conditions.
physical with raf al-uaraj aspects are operational Sources: Al-MAward .
Al-Sarakhs .
Ibn Al Ibn Farun .
Ibn QudAmah, .
Modern framework reinforcement: DomaEski .
Ferri .
Ibn Ashr .
Kamali .
Vivanco, .
Based on Table 1, the comparison of schools shows a consistent pattern: .
consensus on the fundamental conditions of mental prowess .
alAmah al-Aoaq.
and moral integrity .
l-AoadAla.
, and .
differences in sensory conditions that, in many arguments, actually function as tools to maintain the quality of proof, not ends in themselves.
Thus, the differences among the schools can be understood as procedural variations of the iutiyA level, not as a conflict of principle against the participation of persons with Based on the framework of maqAid referred to in Ibn Ashr .
and the operationalization of maqAid by Kamali .
, the physical condition is most appropriately placed as a waslah, the value of which depends on whether it is still necessary to attain the ghAyah in the form of justice and benefit.
Therefore, the doctrine adopted in this article is to locate the eligibility of judges in rational and moral capacity as a core condition, and to place physical conditions into the realm of institutional design through 122 ic JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syaria.
, 25 .
, 2026 reasonable accommodation as developed in modern international law (DomaEski, 2023b.
Ferri, 2.
This synthesis forms the basis for the legal test through textual analysis, in comparison with Saudi judicial regulations and practices and their relevance to the norms of the CRPD.
The maqAid synthesis of the views of the madhhabs, when compared with the framework of modern maqAid and the CRPD, shows that the four madhhabs can be reunderstood through three key principles: First, the principle of al-Aoadl .
: all madhhabs depart from the effort to maintain substantive Thus, when technology and the legal system allow judges with disabilities to uphold equal justice, the legitimacy of the judiciary is guaranteed.
Second, the principle of al-karAmah al-insAniyyah .
uman dignit.
: the rejection of disability solely due to physical limitations is contrary to maqAid uife al-Aoird and the principle of lA sarar wa lA sirAr .
here should be no harm or discriminatio.
Third, the principle of almashaqqah tajlib al-taysr .
ifficulty brings eas.
: in the modern context, this principle is translated into reasonable accommodation, which is the obligation of the judiciary to provide supporting facilities for judges with disabilities so that they can carry out their duties without excessive difficulty.
Recontextualization of Saudi Arabian Positive Law and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The juridical and historical context in the Saudi Arabian judicial system is governed by the NizAm alQasAAo (Law of Justic.
, which affirms in Articles 31Ae34 that judges .
must meet two main requirements:
al-ahliyyah al-kAmilah .
ull legal proficienc.
and al-adAlah .
oral and scholarly integrit.
Interestingly, the NizAm al-QasAAo does not list physical conditions such as sight or hearing as part of ahliyyah, signaling a significant shift from the literal understanding of classical jurisprudence (HanafiAeShafiAo.
towards a maqAid paradigm that emphasizes the substance of justice.
This is in line with actual practice, in which two prominent Saudi judgesAiShaykh Abd al-Azz bin BAz and Shaykh Abd AllAh bin umaydAiheld high judicial positions even though they were both blind.
They constitute juridical and moral precedents demonstrating that physical disability does not negate judicial eligibility if the requirements of integrity, intellectual capacity, and the ability to uphold justice are met.
An examination of the case of Shaykh Abd al-Azz bin BAz, a blind qAs in al-Kharj .
7Ae1371H).
Shaykh Abd al-Azz bin BAz lost his sight completely at a young age .
0H), but in 1357H was appointed by King Abd al-Azz Al Sad as a judge in the al-Kharj region, on the recommendation of Shaykh Muuammad bin IbrAhm Al al-Shaykh, the Mufti of the Kingdom.
Official documents of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, namely the Council of Ministers .
, as cited in Masrah bin BAz, explain that Auhe was appointed judge of al-Kharj by order of King Abd al-Azz in 1357H at the age of 27, despite having completely lost his sight a few years earlier.
Ay As a blind judge.
Ibn BAz showed a judicial model based on ahliyyah al-aql and al-adAlah, rather than on physical ability.
Ibn BAz organized the court system with the help of an official scribe, applied case recording, and was known for his sharp deductive skills and legal It is reported that Ibn BAz carefully examined the evidence and testimony, such that people accepted and carried out his verdicts voluntarily without coercion.
This fact shows that in al-tabq almaqAid .
he application of legal purpose.
in real practice, judges with disabilities are considered legitimate as long as they are able to guarantee substantive justice.
This model predates the practice of modern legal inclusion as set out in CRPD Article 13, which affirms the right of persons with disabilities to effective access to justice.
Historical parallels can be drawn with Shaykh Abd AllAh bin umayd .
2Ae1.
as another monumental figure in Saudi ArabiaAos legal history.
He lost his sight at a young age but went on to pursue a judicial career to the highest level, including: .
Head of the Council of al-QasAAo al-AlA (Supreme Judicial Counci.
Imam of the Grand Mosque.
Mufti of the Kingdom .
efore Shaykh Ibn BA.
The biographical source AlAm MuAirn Ae al-Shaykh Abd AllAh bin umayd explains that Auhe was blind but had inner clarity that made him able to understand matters and make decisions with wisdom and sharpness of reason.
Ay His decisions are known to be fair, consistent, and accepted by the wider community without resistance (Al-umays, 1.
Thus, the Saudi judicial system has demonstrated functional recognition of the ahliyyah of blind individuals, long before the concept of reasonable accommodation was formalized by the CRPD .
Re-evaluation of JudgesAo Conditions for Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ic123 The comparative juridical analysis of NizAm al-QasAAo with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities establishes the principle of ahliyyah shariyyah without mentioning physical aspects.
The interpretation of the law .
ased on the practice of Ibn BAz and Ibn umay.
shows that ahliyyah al-aql wa al-adAlah is the core criterion.
The assessment of ability is carried out through scientific competence and moral integrity, not physical condition.
The CRPDAos Article 13 provides that: AuStates shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, including through appropriate accommodations.
Ay This principle is compatible with the rules of al-mashaqqah tajlib al-taysr and raf al-uaraj in Islamic law.
The CRPD and maqAid al-sharah both reject discrimination based on physical conditions, and it can be concluded that the Saudi system is a concrete example of the integration of classical fiqh with modern maqAid and the principles of the CRPD.
The cases of Ibn BAz and Ibn umayd demonstrate the reevaluation of judgesAo conditions within the framework of maqAid al-sharah and modern positive law.
inclusive Islamic legal framework, integrating maqAid and human rights principles, can be formulated as Table 2.
Integration of MaqAid Principles and the CRPD Dimensions MaqAid Principles Al-Aoadl, al-karAmah, uife alAoaql Ahliyyah al-Aoaql wa aladAlah RafAo al-uaraj .
emoval of CRPD and Human Rights Principles Human dignity, equality before law Legal capacity & nondiscrimination Reasonable Implementation (Saud.
Al-ahliyyah al-kAmilah and aladAlah NizAm al-QasAAo (Articles 31-.
NormativeAeLegal al-ahliyyah al-syarAoiyyah StructuralAe Assistive technology, clerks.
Institutional administrative adjustments Participation of judges with disabilities (Ibn BAz & Ibn SocialAePublic Justice Al-malauah al-AoAmmah Participatory justice umay.
Sources: (Al-umays, 1984.
Al-Lajnah al-DAAoimah lil Buuth al-AoIlmiyyah wal IftA,Ao 1982.
Masud, 1984.
Raihan & Muzainah, 2.
EthicalAeTheological This framework affirms that substantive justice can only be achieved if Islamic law and modern positive law complement each other in ensuring equal access to public office.
Based on this projection, it is determined that the points of convergence and divergence between fiqh.
Saudi ArabiaAos positive law, and the CRPD are identified through the existence of three main relationships as follows: First, consensus:
mental competence as a fundamental requirement, with all legal systems .
lassical Islam, modern Saudi, and the CRPD) agreeing that mental competence is an absolute requirement for judges: .
In fiqh: AuMan faqada Aoaqlahu lA tauu qasAAouhu.
Ay (Ibn QudAmah, al-Mugh.
In Saudi law: al-ahliyyah al-shariyyah includes thinking skills and moral responsibility.
In CRPD Article 12: every individual is considered to have the same legal capacity as long as they possess rational capacity that can be facilitated.
The maqAid point of convergence is uife al-aql as the basis of the legitimacy of universal law.
Second, the convergence in the form of recognition of the capacity of persons with physical disabilities in both fiqh .
specially the Maliki and Hanbali madhhab.
, the Saudi Arabian legal system, and the CRPD shows a shared recognition of the capacity of persons with physical disabilities, provided that they are able to uphold substantive justice: .
The Hanbali madhhab: Aufa idhA baqiya Aoaqluhu wa dnatuhu, fa-lA yuAozal bi AoArisin jism.
Ay .
NizAm al-QasA' Articles 31Ae35: does not require physical perfection.
practice of Ibn BAz and Ibn umayd is historical evidence.
CRPD Article 13: the right to access justice without discrimination based on disability.
The point of convergence is emphasized by rational ability and moral integrity as the basis of legitimacy, not physical condition.
Third, the divergence of maqAid positions classical jurisprudence as providing individual dispensation, whereas modern law makes it the responsibility of the state and judicial institutions.
However, from the perspective of maqAid, the two models can be harmonized: rukhsah shariyyah .
ndividual convenienc.
can be transformed into taysr muassas .
nstitutional convenienc.
this transformation represents the essence of maqAid reform in contemporary law.
124 ic JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syaria.
, 25 .
, 2026 Based on the description of consensus, convergence, and divergence, the comparative results give rise to three main implications for Islamic judicial law reform, including normative reform, which contains functional ahliyyah clauses .
ational and moral abilit.
as the basis for feasibility, replacing the paradigm of physical perfection.
institutional reform, which contains the provision of technological and regulatory facilities that ensure the participation of judges with disabilities.
and epistemological reform, which contains the view that the study of judicial jurisprudence needs to move from fiqh al-shur .
iqh of formal requirement.
to fiqh al-maqAid .
iqh of legal purpose.
, which emphasizes the values of adl, karAmah, and malauah.
This research brings significant theoretical, methodological, empirical, and practical novelties in the realm of Islamic judicial studies and comparative legal philosophy.
The description of these novelties is as follows: .
Theoretical novelty, integrating the theory of maqAid al-sharah with the concept of reasonable accommodation under the CRPD, thereby creating a new ethical-normative framework for inclusive Islamic law and affirming that al-mashaqqah tajlib al-taysr is not only a rule of worship, but also a principle of institutional equity.
Methodological and empirical novelty, combining the analysis of four-madhhab fiqh.
Saudi positive law, and international human rights law in one comparative maqAid framework, and treating the factual cases of Ibn BAz and Ibn umayd as primary empirical fiqh data, not merely scholarly .
Practical novelty, offering a maqAid-based framework of judicial capability with three pillars:
ustice and dignity as the legal basi.
, functional .
ssessment based on rational ability, not physical condition.
, and structural .
he stateAos obligation to provide institutional accommodatio.
This research confirms that maqAid al-sharah is not only an ethical theory, but also a living jurisprudential methodology, capable of bridging the classical jurisprudential tradition, modern Saudi practice, and international law toward a just, inclusive, and dignified Islamic justice system.
Conclusion Physical disability, especially blindness, cannot be used as an automatic basis for denying judicial validity in Islamic jurisprudence or modern legal standards, because the mapping of the four schools shows a consensus that salAmah al-aql .
ental prowes.
and al-adAlah .
oral integrit.
are fundamental requirements of ahliyyah al-qasA, while sensory requirements are more appropriately understood as waslah .
to ensure the accuracy of proof and procedural order, which can be fulfilled through institutional design.
By operationalizing maqAid according to Ibn Ashr and the approach to the actualization of maqAid by Kamali, especially the orientation toward karAmah, uife al-aql, and raf al-uaraj, this article shows that the reformulation of judgesAo requirements toward a functional capacity-based model is not a deviation from Sharah, but an actualization of the goals of justice and malauah.
These findings are reinforced by a reading of law in books versus law in action in the Saudi context: NizAm al-QasA and the precedent of the appointment of blind judicial figures (Ibn BAz and Ibn umay.
demonstrate a practical compatibility between Islamic legal traditions and institutional support, while the CRPD affirms the obligation of reasonable accommodation as a standard of non-discrimination in access to justice.
Therefore, the main contribution of this study is to present a coherent comparative argument for reframing the qualifications of judges in Muslim jurisdictions from a test of physical perfection to a substantive competency test with reasonable accommodation, so that the modern Islamic judiciary can be inclusive without compromising the independence, prudence, and quality of judgments.
Acknowledgement The author would like to express sincere gratitude to all parties who have contributed to this research, including academic mentors, colleagues, and institutional supporters for their guidance and Appreciation is also extended to the informants and participants whose valuable insights made this study possible.
Re-evaluation of JudgesAo Conditions for Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ic125 Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
References