SHARIAsource

Al-Māwardī explains the position of the Ṣāḥib al-Maẓālim and his wide reaching investigative authority. He writes that the officer “uses extra intimation and looks for clues through indications and circumstantial evidence (al-amārāt al-dālla wa shawāhid al-aḥwāl).” These investigative tactics are not available to the judges.

In this excerpt from his manual on judicial practice, Khaṣṣāf describes the appropriate etiquette that the qāḍīmust observe when undertaking his judicial activities.  Khaṣṣāf describes the qāḍī’s preliminary rituals, the location of the parties within the courtroom, and the handling of the archive containing files pertaining to the day’s cases.In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this passage to provide a spatial description of a court’s setting in a mosque, confirming the presence of jurist-advisors next to the judge.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In these excerpts from his manual on judicial practice, Khaṣṣāf provides an overview of the approach to be taken by the qāḍīto consultation. The qāḍīmay consult jurists present in the city in which he operates. If his opinion agrees with theirs, he can judge accordingly; otherwise he should determine which view he deems closest to the truth. If he disagrees with the jurists of that city, he may consult other jurists outside the city, identify the most appropriate view, and act accordingly. He may also take into account the view of a single jurisconsult when he himself does not have a particular opinion on the issue at hand. If the consulted jurist has greater knowledge of Islamic law (fiqh) than does the qāḍī, and the latter is judicious, he may consider both views and choose the most appropriate and correct as the basis of his judgment. Finally, the qāḍīshould abstain from issuing a verdict that in his opinion is faulty, even if some jurisconsult has endorsed it. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses these excerpts to provide a vivid picture of judicial practice and, in particular, of the dynamics of judicial consultations between the judge and jurisconsults in a court setting. Samour concludes that consultations and joint deliberations were perceived as yielding a higher degree of accuracy compared with solitary deliberations.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In these excerpts from his manual on judicial practice, Khaṣṣāf provides an overview of the approach to be taken by the qāḍīto consultation. The qāḍīmay consult jurists present in the city in which he operates. If his opinion agrees with theirs, he can judge accordingly; otherwise he should determine which view he deems closest to the truth. If he disagrees with the jurists of that city, he may consult other jurists outside the city, identify the most appropriate view, and act accordingly. He may also take into account the view of a single jurisconsult when he himself does not have a particular opinion on the issue at hand. If the consulted jurist has greater knowledge of Islamic law (fiqh) than does the qāḍī, and the latter is judicious, he may consider both views and choose the most appropriate and correct as the basis of his judgment. Finally, the qāḍīshould abstain from issuing a verdict that in his opinion is faulty, even if some jurisconsult has endorsed it. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses these excerpts to provide a vivid picture of judicial practice and, in particular, of the dynamics of judicial consultations between the judge and jurisconsults in a court setting. Samour concludes that consultations and joint deliberations were perceived as yielding a higher degree of accuracy compared with solitary deliberations.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In these excerpts from his manual on judicial practice, Khaṣṣāf provides an overview of the approach to be taken by the qāḍīto consultation. The qāḍīmay consult jurists present in the city in which he operates. If his opinion agrees with theirs, he can judge accordingly; otherwise he should determine which view he deems closest to the truth. If he disagrees with the jurists of that city, he may consult other jurists outside the city, identify the most appropriate view, and act accordingly. He may also take into account the view of a single jurisconsult when he himself does not have a particular opinion on the issue at hand. If the consulted jurist has greater knowledge of Islamic law (fiqh) than does the qāḍī, and the latter is judicious, he may consider both views and choose the most appropriate and correct as the basis of his judgment. Finally, the qāḍīshould abstain from issuing a verdict that in his opinion is faulty, even if some jurisconsult has endorsed it. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses these excerpts to provide a vivid picture of judicial practice and, in particular, of the dynamics of judicial consultations between the judge and jurisconsults in a court setting. Samour concludes that consultations and joint deliberations were perceived as yielding a higher degree of accuracy compared with solitary deliberations.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In these excerpts from his manual on judicial practice, Khaṣṣāf provides an overview of the approach to be taken by the qāḍīto consultation. The qāḍīmay consult jurists present in the city in which he operates. If his opinion agrees with theirs, he can judge accordingly; otherwise he should determine which view he deems closest to the truth. If he disagrees with the jurists of that city, he may consult other jurists outside the city, identify the most appropriate view, and act accordingly. He may also take into account the view of a single jurisconsult when he himself does not have a particular opinion on the issue at hand. If the consulted jurist has greater knowledge of Islamic law (fiqh) than does the qāḍī, and the latter is judicious, he may consider both views and choose the most appropriate and correct as the basis of his judgment. Finally, the qāḍīshould abstain from issuing a verdict that in his opinion is faulty, even if some jurisconsult has endorsed it. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses these excerpts to provide a vivid picture of judicial practice and, in particular, of the dynamics of judicial consultations between the judge and jurisconsults in a court setting. Samour concludes that consultations and joint deliberations were perceived as yielding a higher degree of accuracy compared with solitary deliberations.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In this excerpt from his manual on judicial practice, Khaṣṣāf (d. 260–1/874–5) discusses the qualifications that ought to be present in a qāḍīand the procedures that he must follow to issue a valid judgment. “After listing the Quran, the Sunna of the Prophet, consensus, the precedent of the Prophet’s Companions and their followers (tābiʿūn), and personal discernment as valid bases for the qāḍī’s judgments, Khaṣṣāf adds that if jurisconsults are present in the city, the qāḍī might also consult them. If his opinion accords with theirs, he can issue a judgement accordingly; alternatively, he might use his own reasoning if their views do not converge. If his own view disagrees with all of theirs, he may write to other jurisconsultsin other cities and judge accordingly. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this passage to point to the presence of other professional figures in court, such as jurisconsults (muftīs), who, by virtue of their juridical knowledge, compete and cooperate with the qāḍīin judicial consultations.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts from Kindī’s book on governors and judges demonstrate that the appointment of a Ḥanafī judge in a traditionally Mālikī region such as Egypt could have serious repercussions on social life. In the case described by Kindī, Ismāʿīl b. al-Yasaʿ al-Kindī, a Ḥanafī of Iraqi origin, was appointed as judge in Egypt, where the population was not accustomed to this school of law and disliked it. Ismāʿīl al-Kindī adopted an oppressive attitude toward the population and abolished endowments (aḥbās). According to Kindī, the jurist Layth b. Saʿd confronted the judge about this decision and informed the caliph al-Mahdī, who promptly removed the qāḍīin response to Layth’s accusation that Ismāʿīl al-Kindī was harming the Sunna of the Prophet. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this source to illustrate the tensions between judges and jurisconsults belonging to different legal schools.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts from Kindī’s book on governors and judges demonstrate that the appointment of a Ḥanafī judge in a traditionally Mālikī region such as Egypt could have serious repercussions on social life. In the case described by Kindī, Ismāʿīl b. al-Yasaʿ al-Kindī, a Ḥanafī of Iraqi origin, was appointed as judge in Egypt, where the population was not accustomed to this school of law and disliked it. Ismāʿīl al-Kindī adopted an oppressive attitude toward the population and abolished endowments (aḥbās). According to Kindī, the jurist Layth b. Saʿd confronted the judge about this decision and informed the caliph al-Mahdī, who promptly removed the qāḍīin response to Layth’s accusation that Ismāʿīl al-Kindī was harming the Sunna of the Prophet. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this source to illustrate the tensions between judges and jurisconsults belonging to different legal schools.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts fromKindī’s (d. 350/961) book on governors and judges, which correspond to excerpts from Ibn Ḥajar’s Rafʿ al-iṣr,recount an anecdote about the Egyptian judge Bakkār b. Qutayba, a Ḥanafī native of Basra, who was appointed qādīof Cairo by the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 246/860. While heading to Egypt, Bakkār met Muḥammad b. Abī Layth, who was returning from Egypt to Iraq. The former asked the latter for advice on individuals whom he might consult and rely on in his new city, of which he knew nothing. Ibn Abī Layth mentioned the names of Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā and Mūsā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim. Upon his first meeting with Bakkār, Yūnus was able to persuade him to change his stance on a case of inheritance law disputed between the Mālikīs and the Ḥanafīs, known as “the house of the elephant.” In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour cites this passage as an example of cooperation across legal schools in the field of adjudication, with jurisconsults being chosen not on the basis of school affiliation but on the strength of their trustworthiness and their grasp of local laws and customs.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts fromKindī’s (d. 350/961) book on governors and judges, which correspond to excerpts from Ibn Ḥajar’s Rafʿ al-iṣr,recount an anecdote about the Egyptian judge Bakkār b. Qutayba, a Ḥanafī native of Basra, who was appointed qādīof Cairo by the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 246/860. While heading to Egypt, Bakkār met Muḥammad b. Abī Layth, who was returning from Egypt to Iraq. The former asked the latter for advice on individuals whom he might consult and rely on in his new city, of which he knew nothing. Ibn Abī Layth mentioned the names of Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā and Mūsā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim. Upon his first meeting with Bakkār, Yūnus was able to persuade him to change his stance on a case of inheritance law disputed between the Mālikīs and the Ḥanafīs, known as “the house of the elephant.” In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour cites this passage as an example of cooperation across legal schools in the field of adjudication, with jurisconsults being chosen not on the basis of school affiliation but on the strength of their trustworthiness and their grasp of local laws and customs.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.