Research on judicial independence will subconsciously lead us to the question of how a judge, as the agent of the political system, can remain independent of this system. To what extent does the interest between the judge and the political system require the judge to follow the decisions of the political system? In this article, while expressing the authority of the judge and the judge's employment relationship with the judiciary as one of the three pillars of the nation-state as the reasons for the judge's dependence on the political system, the law and legal rules are mentioned as two-edged razor blades. It is reminiscent of the judge's dependence and the means of declaring her independence from the political system. By stating the specific nature of judicial action and distinguishing it from other actions of system agents, as well as distinguishing the behavior of agents of the political system with its whole, the way to balance for judges in protecting their independence is stated. Finally, the use of interpretive jurisdiction as well as the rule of law is the best way to balance the judge's relationship with the political system.

To settle arguments or conflicts of the parties, two judges may be involved, a judge who is appointed in the Islamic Law, and a judge who makes judgements on the basis of arbitration institution. The study of the legitimacy of this highly helpful institution to the judiciary constitutes the basic question of this article. There have been little disputes over the legitimacy of this institution among the Muslim jurisconsults, and finally its legitimacy has been generally accepted at the time of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them). Regarding the possibility of personal judgement on the basis of arbitration institution when the Infallible Imams are not present, the well-known religious scholars, basing their arguments on certain traditions (transmitted reports), believe that if the judge is a mujtahid (a jurisprudent who can infer Islamic rulings from resources and is an authority on Divine Law), his decision is legally binding (operative) whether he is an appointed judge or he is a judge by arbitration; and if the he is not a mujtahid, his decision, even if there is a mutual agreement between parties on his decision, is not legally binding or operative. They have made the conclusion that the judge by arbitration can be attributed to someone who, despite of being qualified to occupy the office of a judge, is not appointed as a judge by the Infallibles (peace be upon them) when they are present. This article tries to cast light on the arguments for the legitimacy of judgement on the basis of arbitration institution. However, due to the fact that the traditions concerning the judge by arbitration are said to have general application, that no attention is paid to the distinction between presence and nonpresence of the Infallibles (peace be upon them) as an important factor as regards traditions, and that the assumption of the wise is to be taken into consideration, the commonly accepted view regarding the issue in question has been scrutinized. To sum up, taking into consideration the traditions quoted by Abikhadijah, the ability to make judgements (being a mujtahid) is considered not to be the necessary and special qualification of a judge by arbitration. In addition, in the Islamic government, when the Infallibles (peace be upon them) are not present, the legitimacy of this institution as the one which can settle the disputes has been established.