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.

 Abd al-Raḥīm ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ed. Wathāʼiq al-maḥākim al-sharʿiyya al-Miṣriyya ʿan al-jālīya al-Maghāribīya ibbān al-ʿaṣr al-ʿUthmānī, vol 1 of 4 (Zaghwan: Markaz al-Dirāsāt wa-al-Buḥūth al-ʻUthmānīyya wal-Mūrīskīyya wal-Tawthīq wal-Maʿlūmāt, 1992-2004), pp. 220-221.

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 his work entitled al-Ashbāh wa-l-Naẓāʾir, Ibn Nujaym (d. 969/1563), examines similar historical legal cases and fatwas through collecting substantive legal canons and interpretive legal canons that “distinguish, explain, and guide varied outcomes in cases with seemingly similar facts.” As a principal work authored early in the Ottoman Era collecting legal canons in Ḥanafī law, Muslim jurists of many schools frequently reference his work. For example, drafters of the Ottoman Code of 1869, also known as the Mecelle, primarily relied on this work to select 99 legal canons to preface a new commercial code based on Ḥanafī law that would both modernize and reform Ottoman law based on traditional or classical Islamic legal norms, through reference to legal canons.

For more, view the full print edition or see Intisar Rabb, Doubt in Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press 2015) and “Experiments in Tracking Canons across the Mecelle” (Islamic Law Blog, March 16, 2022).

Suyūṭī’s (d. 911/1505) al-Ashbāh wa-l-Naẓāʾir is a treatise collecting Shāfiʿī legal canons. It examines the similarities and differences between legal and interpretive outcomes in Islamic law in ways that show how and why one judgment or outcome is distinguished from another, and in the process highlights the substantive and interpretive legal canons that guide those legal outcomes. 

For more, view the full print edition and see The Legal Thought of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti: Authority and Legacy (Oxford, 2017) by Rebecca Hernandez.

This excerpt is from Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-ʿAlāʾī's (d. 761/1359) al-Majmūʿ al-Mudhhab fī Qawāʿid al-Madhhab, which is a two-volume collection of substantive legal canons and interpretive legal canons, and the third-oldest known Shāfiʿī canons collection from the Mamlūk era. Substantive legal canons (qawāʿid fiqhiyya) are short formulas expressing fundamental principles and doctrines of Islamic law, while interpretive legal canons (qawāʿid uṣūliyya) are principles for interpreting textual sources. This excerpt provides the first few pages excerpted from the author's Introduction. 

For more, view the full print edition and read the commentary by Mariam Sheibani on the Islamic Law Blog.