Reevaluation of Judges' Conditions for Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Convention on the Persons with Disabilities

Abstrak

This study reconstructs the value of judge's requirements for persons with disabilities through a comparative analysis between the opinions of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and modern positive law, especially related to legal proficiency (ahliyyah). Normative-comparative methods are used to examine classical jurisprudence literature and contemporary legal frameworks in Saudi Arabia as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The main findings show that classical jurisprudence emphasizes mental proficiency as the main requirement, while physical disability does not automatically abort the eligibility of a judge. Modern positive law and practices in Saudi Arabia adopt an inclusive approach with reasonable accommodations and technological support. This study proposes a new paradigm based on maqāṣid al-syarī'ah that places justice, human dignity, and welfare as the foundation of judicial requirements reform, as well as introduces an Inclusive Judicial Qualification Framework (IJQF) model that integrates the principles of fiqh, human rights, and institutional accommodation to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in judicial service in a fair and dignified manner.