The legitimacy of arbitration in Islamic religious jurisprudence

Consolidating judgment is an Islamic jurisprudential (Fiq'hi) institution to resolve the disputes between the conflicting parties which today appear in the legal laws under the title of "arbitration". Due to respect for the sovereignty of the will of the parties in choosing a judge or judges as arbitrators, it is expanding progressively and is popular with the people. The legitimacy of arbitration or consolidation is disputed among Islamic Madhāhib, that is, schools of thought within Fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence. Despite the well-known opinion, which trusts the legitimacy of this Fiq'hi (jurisprudential) and legal institution, a group has completely denied its legitimacy, and another group has considered its permissibility only during the presence of the Infallible Imams (PBUH), and others have considered it dependent on the absence of an Islamic government or the dearth of an appointed judge in the city or region. The most basic question is that the different points of view raised around this debate are based on what evidence, and to what extent are the implications of each of the evidence of Islamic schools of thought? In this paper, various theories proposed about the legitimacy of arbitration are examined and criticized and then, the renowned opinion of Islamic schools (the legitimacy of arbitration institution) has been accepted according to the conducts of the wise and lastly the hadīth narrated by Abu Basir and the other hadīths to prove the theory of legitimacy (such as the well-known hadīth of Abi Khadijeh and Maqbūla Umar ibn Hanzalah) and the reason for the obligation to fulfill the condition has been deliberated.