Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:46:58.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The qāญī's dīwān (sijill) before the Ottomans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Wael B. Hallaq
Wael B. Hallaq
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Studies on Ottoman society and law through the so-called court sijills have lately proliferated, surpassing in volume all previous studies based on other archival sources, including tax and land registers. The comparatively massive size of these sijills, and the fact that their majority did survive, even in a good state, have led some scholars to the conclusion that only the Ottoman qāḍīs kept records of their court proceedings in a systematic fashion, and that they were the first to establish the sijill as a formal institution. Even those who do not share this view of a uniquely Ottoman achievement seem in no sense clear as to the pre-Ottoman history of this important institution. My purpose in this article, therefore, is to attempt to unravel some important aspects of the sijill's history, including the less consequential issue of the terminological confusion which has engulfed it in modern scholarly discourse.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , October 1998 , pp. 415 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See ‘Ādel Mannā’, ‘The sijill as source for the study of Palestine during the Ottoman period, with special reference to the French invasion’, inDavid, Kushner (ed.), Palestine in the late Ottoman period (Jerusalem: Yad, IzhakBen-Zvi, 1986), 351–62Google Scholar, esp. 351–3; Najwa, al-Qattan, ‘Dhimmin the Muslim court: documenting justice in Ottoman Damascus, 1775–1860’ (Harvard University: Ph.D. Dissertation, 1996)Google Scholar, 89 ff.

2 Faroqhi, Suraiya, ‘Sidjill’, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–), IX, 539b;Google Scholar ‘We do not know when the practice of keeping these registers [viz., sijills] was first instituted, and can only speculate from which Muslim state the practice was copied.’ Jon Mandaville argues that the practice had Islamic antecedents, but his statement on the matter is couched in suppositional terms: ‘There is every reason to suppose that the maintenance of written records was standard judicial procedure for the courts of every Islamic government that had some established form of administrationߞand for perhaps a few that did not.’ See his ‘The Ottoman court records of Syria and Jordan’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 86, 1966, 311–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 311. Ebied and Young are more explicit, arguing on the basis of one historical report that the court records played an important role in Islamic law from 'a very early period, even though they have generally been neglected in the legal theory of the Shan‘;ah.’ The report tells of a qādī who was dismissed from his post because he failed to take proper care of his books. See Ebied, R. Y. and Young, J. L., Some Arabic legal documents of the Ottoman period (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976)Google Scholar, 1. Later on, we shall see that it is not true that court records were neglected in the theory, by which Ebied and Young seem to mean the doctrine of positive law.

3 Mannā', ‘The sijill as source’, 352.

4 ‘A collection of medieval Arabic documents in the Islamic Museum at the Haram al-Šarīf’, Arabica, 25, 1978, 282–91Google Scholar.

5 Arabische und persische Privaturkunden des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts aus Ardabil (Aserbaidschan) (Berlin: Karl Schwarz, 1982)Google Scholar. H. Rabie has also found court records belonging to the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk periods. The majority of these documents, however, belong to the latter period. See his Financial system of Egypt, a.h. 564–741 a.d. 1169–1341 (London: Oxford University Press, 1972)Google Scholar, 6f. For other Mamluk legal documents, See Maḥmūd, Ḥammūda, al-Madkhal ilā dirasāt al-wathā'iq al-'Arabiyya (Cairo: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1980), 187–213.Google Scholar

6 In fact, the present article was primarily precipitated by a deep conviction that pre-Ottoman court records have once existed in multitudes, and that, more importantly, at least some of these will eventually be discovered. The explanation I advance in section VIII, below, should not be construed to contradict the premises of this conviction, for accounting for the failure of these records to survive does not mean that some will not finally be recovered. Monika Gronke's discovery (see preceding note) is an eloquent attestation of the soundness of this conviction.

7 For a good survey of Ottoman court records in various regions, see Faroqhi, ‘ Sidjill’, ix, 541; Mandaville, ‘Ottoman court records’, 312–9; Jennings, Ronald C., The judicial registers (Ser'i Mahkeme Sicilleri) of Kayseri (1590–1630) as a source for Ottoman history (University of California, Los Angeles: Ph.D. dissertation, 1971)Google Scholar, 21 ff.

8 See sections IV and VIII, below.

9 Shams al-Dīn, Ibn ṪTūlūn,Oudāt dimashq aw al-thaghr al-bassām fī dhikr man wullī qadā' al-Shām, ed. ṡalāh, al-Dīn al-Munajjid (Damascus: al-Majma' al-'Ilmī al-'Arabī, 1956), 309–21;Google Scholar Sharaf al-Dīn al-Anṣārī's Dhayl to Ṭbn Tulun's work, 322 ff., which covers the period up to the year 1000/1591. See also the extensive account of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt by Muhammad b. Ahmad Ibn Iyas, Bada‘i’ al-zuhiir fiwaqa‘i’ al-duhur, 6 vols. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1960), v, 151 ff.

10 This is based on a fairly thorough reading of these works, especially the sections which cover the Ottoman period.

11 Mannā, ‘The sijill as source’, 353.

12 5th ed. (St Paul: West Publishing Co., 1979), 318. The other definitions are certainly alien to the Islamic ‘judicial assembly’ (majlis al-hukm), since the structure and jurisdiction of Western courts differ considerably from their Islamic counterpart.

13 The only obvious exception are the witnesses who are irreplaceable. The scribe, the muzakkun, the hajib, and other less central court officials may, theoretically at least, be disposed of at will. In fact, it was at times the case that the qādī himself would fulfil one or another function otherwise occupied by a court official. Abī ‘Umar Muḥammad b. Yīsuf al-Kindī, Akhbār quḍāt Miṣr, ed. Rhuvon Guest (repr., Cairo: al-Fāruq al-Ḥadītha li'l-Ṭibā'a wa'I-Nashr, n.d.), 386, states that it was only towards the end of the second/eighth century that the qāḍī's staff included a number of officials. During earlier periods, he observes, ‘no one accompanied the qadi except his scribe’ (kātib).

14 Black's law dictionary, 320.

15 Ibrāhīm al-Ḥalabī, Multaqā al-abḥur, ed. Wahbi Sulaymān al-Albānī, 2 vols. (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risāla, 1409/1989), ii, 70; Ibn Iyās, Badā'i' al-Zuhūr, v, 243. The prime consideration in choosing a location to hold court is accessibility. ‘Allāma al-Ḥillī states, relying on the authority of other scholars, that any spacious and open location, including the desert, would be fit for holding court. See his Mukhtalaf al-Shīa fī ahkām al-sharīa, 8 vols. (Qum: Markiz al-AbḤāth wal-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyya, 1991), vm, 374; Ibrāhīm Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Farḥūn, Tabṣirat al-hukkām ft usūl al-aqḍiya wa-manāhij al-aḥkam, 2 vols, (repr., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al- 'Ilmiyya, 1987), i, 26–8; Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Ibn al-Najjār, Muntahā al-irādāt, ed. 'Abd al-Mughnī 'Abd al-Khāliq, 2 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat Dār al-'Urūuba, 1381/1962), n, 579.

16 Ibn Abīi al-Damm, A dab al-qadā ', 64, 65, 442, 443, and passim; Muḥammad 'Ilīsh, Minaḥ al-jalīl: sharḥ 'aiā mukhtaṣar sīdī Khalīl, 9 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1989), VIII, 297, 298, 305; Abū '1-Qāsim Najm al-Dīn al-Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥilli, Sharā'i' al-Islām fī masā'il al-halāl wa'l-ḥarām, ed. ‘Abd al-Ḥusayn Muḥammad 'Alī (Beirut: Dār al-Aṣwā’, 1389/1969), iv, 78.

17 Or such phrases as ‘ḥarrara mawlānā qādī…’. See, for instance, the Egyptian court dīwāns in 'Abd al-Raḥim 'Abd al-Raḥīm and 'Abd al-Jalīl al-Tamīmī, ed., Wathā'iq al-maḥākim al-shar'iyya al-miṣriyya 'an al-jāliya al-Maghāribiyya ibān al-'asr al-'uthmānī, vol. 1 (Zaghouan: Manshīrāt Markaz al-Dirāsāt wa'1-Buhūth al-'Uthmāniyya wa'1-Mūriskiyya wa'l-Tawthīq wa'l-Ma'lumāt, 1992), 17, 18, 19, and passim; Amnon Cohen, A world within, pt. 2 (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, 1994), 39/173(b), 39/253(b), and passim.

18 The fact that_some records were characterized as sijills in the front page of the ledger (as, e.g., in al-Bāb al-'Alī, for the year 1055/1645–46) should not necessarily be taken to mean sijill in the technical sense discussed here. In such contexts, where the usual expression is something like ‘ibtada'a hādhā al-sijil’ (so and so began writing this sijill) the word sijill should be understood to mean a record of writing or a register. This is common usage in Arabic, and is attested widely since early classical times. In light of the fact that the qāḍī's register was relatively of a large size, Ibn Manzīr's definition becomes particularly relevant. In his Lisān al-'Arab, 15 vols. (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1392/1972), xi, 326b, he defines ‘sijill’ as ‘a large ledger’ (huwa al-kitāb al-kabīr).

19 It is quite telling that the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam treats court records under the entry ‘Sidjill‘ (ix, 539ff.), whereas under ‘Dīwān’ (n, 323–37) they receive no mention whatsoever.

20 For the designations 'dīwān al-qadā”, ‘dīwīn al-qāi’, or ‘dīwān al-ḥukm’, and for the fact that it contained subject matter in addition to the sijillāt, see the following: 'Alī b. Muḥammad b. Ahmad al-Simnānī, Rawḍat al-qudāt wa-Ṡarīq al-najāt, ed. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Nāhī (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risāla, 1984), i, 111–, 317, 318, paras. 1608, 1611, 319; Ab؛ Y؛suf Ya'qub b. Ibrāhīm, Ikhtilāf Abī Ḥanifa wa-Ibn Abī Laylā (Cairo: Matba‘at al-Wafa’, 1357/1938), 158, 162; Kindī, Akhbādr quḍāt miṣr, 360, 398, 410, 450; Muhammad b. Khalaf Wakī', Akhbār al-quḍāt, 3 vols. (Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub, n.d.), n, 174; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Salāma al-Ṫaḥāwī, Mukhtasar (Haidarabad: MaṠba'at Dār al-Kitāb al-'Arabī, 1370/1950), 329; Aḥmad b.'Alī b. Hajar al-'Asqalānī, Raf al-isr 'an quḍāt Misr, ed. Hamid 'Abd al-Majīd, 2 vols. (Cairo: al-Hay'a al-'Amma li-Shu’؛n al-MaṠãabi' al-Amīriyya, 1966), n, 269; Ab؛ Naṣr al-Samarqandī, Rus؛mal-quḍāt, ed. Muḥammad Jāsim al-Ḥadlthl (Baghdad: Dār al-Ḥurriyya li'1-Tiba'a, 1985), 34, 36, 37, 43; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qadā', 71, 75–6; Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Qaffāl al-Shāshā, Hulyat al-‘ulamā’ fī ma'rifat madhāhib al-fuqahā', ed. Yāsīn Darārka, 8 vols. (Beirut: Maktabatal-Risāla, 1988), vm, 141; Muḥammad Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Turuq al-ḥukmiyya fī 'l-siyīsa al-shar'iyya, ed. Aḥmad al-'Askarī (Cairo: al-Mu'assasa al-'Arabiyya li'1-Ṫiba'a wa'1-Nashr, 1380/1961), 240; al-Shaykh al-Niẓām, ed., al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya (also known as al-Fatāwā al-'alamgīriyya),6 vols. (repr., Beirut: Dār Iḥyā' al-Turāth al-'Arabā, 1980), m, 341, 346, 350; Muḥammad b. 'Īsa Ibn, al-Munasif, Tanbīh al hukkīm 'alā ma'ākhidh al-ahkām, ed. 'Abd al-Hafīz, Marisŭr (Tunis: Da73c0101;r al-Turkī li'i-Nashr, 1988Google Scholar), 67, 163, 170; 'al-Baghdadī, Abd al-Wahhāb, al- Ma'ŭna, ed. al-Haqq, Humaysh 'Abd, 3 vols. (Riyad: Maktabat Nizār al-Bāz, 1415/ 1995), in, 1506Google Scholar; ' al-Dīn Abŭ 'l-Hasan al-Tarābulusī, ‘Alā, Mu'īn al-hukkām fi-mā yalaraddad bayna al-khasmayn min al-ahkām (Cairo: Mustafā Bābī al-Halabī, 1393/1973)Google Scholar, II, 81; Ahmad, b. 'Alī al-Rāzī al-Jassās, Sharh adab al-qādī (of Khassāf), ed. Farhāt, Ziyāda (Cairo: Qism al-Nashr bi'1-Jāmi'a al-Amrīkiyya, 1979)Google Scholar, 59, 60, 61, 335, 336, 337; Ibn Farhun, Tabsirat al-hukkdm, I,39; Muwaffaq, al-Dīn īAbd Allāh Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughriī, 12 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-'Arabī, 1983), vol. xi, 433, 434–5;Google ScholarShams, al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsŭt, 30 vols. (Cairo: Matba'at al-Sa'ada, 1906–1912), xvi, 94Google Scholar; Kamāl, al-Dīn b. al-Humām, Sharh fath al-qadīr, 10 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, n.d.), VII, 264–5Google Scholar; Ahmad, b. 'AIī al-Qalqashandī, Subh al-a'shā fi sinā'at al-inshā, 14 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'IImiyya, 1987), x, 274, 283, 284, 290Google Scholar. In Santa Cruz Museum in Toledo, Spain, there is on permanent exhibit an original deed of sale of real property ‘from Dīwan Ibn Sahl’. For the dīwān of qādi al-Jamā'a in Cordoba, see the unpublished paper of Christian Mŭller, ‘Judging with God's law on earth: judicial powers of the Qādīl-gamā'a of Cordoba in the 5th/llth Century’, 6.

However, our assertion that the qādīs records were designated as dīwān is in no way undermined by the highly infrequent uses of other terms, such as dafātir (sg., daftar), dustŭ qimatr. See Tanŭkhī, , Nishwār al-muhadara, iv, 72, 94Google Scholar; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qadā', 16; Samarqandī, Rusiŭn al-qudāt, 46. For qimatr, see n. 70, below.

21 Halabī, Multaqā al-abḥur, II, 70; Zayn al-Dīn Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-rā'iq: sharh kanz aḷdaqā'iq, 8 vols. (Cairo: al-Matba'a al-'Ilmiyya, 1311/1893), vi, 299; Muhammad Amīn b. ‘Abidīn, Ḥāshiyat radd al-muḁtār, 8, vols. (repr., Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1979), v, 369, 370. Rudolph Peters tells me that the nineteenth-century Egyptian court records he has investigated bear on their front page the designation ‘Dīwān majlis al-hukm’.

22 āshiyat radd al-muhtār, v, 369 (11. 3, 26–8). It is perhaps in this general sense that the Ottomans used the term ‘skill’. See, for instance, Heyd, U.,Ottoman documents on Palestine, 1552–1615 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), 54 and passim.Google Scholar

23 For further detail on mahāḁir and sijillāt, see Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab, 427–28; Shihāb al-Dīn Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab Ji funūn al-adab, 31 vols. (Cairo: Matba'at Dār al-Kutub al-Misriyya, 1351/1933), xi, 75 ST.; al-Shaykh al-Nizām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, VI, 160; Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-rā'iq al-'uqū wa-mu'in al-qudā wa'l-muwaqqi'īn wa'l-Shuhūd, 2 vols. (Cairo: Matba'at al-Sunna al-Muhammadiyya, 1374/1955), II, 456, 495. It is noteworthy that one of the functions of keeping maḥāḁir had to do with the qādī consulting muftīs concerning difficult cases. By keepingsuch a record and by stating therein that he issued an istiftā', the qāḁī would apparently make his request for afatwā official. See b. 'Abd al-'Azīz al-Husām al-Shahīd, 'Umar, Sharh adab al-qādī, ed. Abū, x0027;l-Wafa al-Afghāī and Muhammad, al-Hāshimī (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1414/1994), 69.Google Scholar

24 Jaṣṣās, Sharḥ adab al-qāḁī, 372; Asyūtṭ, Jawāhir al-'uqūd, II, 495. For two types (suwar) of sijillāt that were iri common use in Samarkand, Bukhara and the surrounding regions, see Niżām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, VI, 162–4, especially 164, 1. 11. For Mamluk sijills according to the ‘Damascene convention’, see I bn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qaḁā’, 428 ff. See also section vi, below.

25 Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā', vi, 299.

26 Hāshiyat radd al-muhtār, v, 369.

27 The maḥāọir and sijillāt are issued in two copies; one would remain in the qaāTī's dīwān, and the other would be given to the party who solicits it. SeeIbn, al-Najjār, Muntahā al-irādāt, ii, 617;Google ScholarIbn Qudāmā, Mughnī, xi, 433;Google ScholarAhmad, Abū Ja‘faral-Tahāwī, b. Muhammad, al-Shurūt al-saghīr, ed.Rūhī, Uzaján, 2 vols. (Baghdad:)Matba'at al-‘Anī, 1974), II, 823. In the practice of fifťh/eleventh-century Cordoba, three copies were issued, one given to each of the litigating parties and the third was lodged in the qāqī's diwan. See Müller, ‘Judging with God's law on earth’, 6.Google Scholar

28 Nujaym, Ibn, al-Bahr al-rāiq, vi, 299;Google Scholar‘Abidīn, Ibn, Hāshiyat radd al-muhtār, v, 369;Google Scholaral-Shahīd, al-Husām, Sharh adab al-qādī, 38; Kindī, Akhbār qudāt Misr, 319; Jassas, Sharh adab al-qādī, 57–62; Wakī, ‘Akhbar al-qudāt, II 136, 174; Simnānī, Rawdat al-qudāt, I, 112, 117; Shāshī, Hulyat al-‘ulam’, VIII, 141; Qalqashandī, Subh al-a'sha, x, 284; Nizām, al-Fatārdquo;;wā al-hindiyya, III 346; Samarqandīeta;, Rusūm al-qudāt, 36. I include records of debt under this category, although my sources do not positively verify this classification.Google Scholar

29 Kindī, Akhbār quḍat Miṣr, 394; Simnānī, Rawḍat al-quḍat, I, 112; Tanūkhī, Nishwār al-muḥaḍara, iv, 204; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qaḍā', 75; 'Asqalāanī, Raf al-iṣr, n, 280; Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfi'ī, al-Umm, 8 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1413/1993), vi, 305–6.

30 Kindī, Akhbār quḍat Miṣṣr, 450; Niẓām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 346; Samarqandī, Rusūm al-quḍat, 36, 38; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qadā', 71; Muḥammad 'Alī al-Ḥa'irīi al-Ṭabātabā'ī, al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghīr fī sharḥ al-mukhtaṣar al-nāfi', ed. Mahdī al-Rajā 'I' 3 vols. (Qum: Maṭba'at Sayyid al-Stiuhadā', 1409/1988), III, 257; Jaṣṣaṣ, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 61–2.

31 Simnānī, Rawdat al-qudāt, 112; Niẓām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 346; Kindī, Akhbār quḍāt Miṣr, 355; Jaṣṣaṣ, Sharḥ aāab al-qāḍī, 61; al-Ḥusām al-Shahīd, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 38. QalqashandT, Subh al-a'sha, x, 284; KindT, Akhbar qudat Misr, 379.

32 Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-a'shā, X, 284;Kindā, Akhbār quḍāt Miṣr, 379.

33 Samarqandī, Rusūm al-qudāt, 46; Kindī, Akhbār al-quḍāt, 410; Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Ibn Mufliḥ al-Hanbalī, Kitāb al-Furū', ed. ‘Abd al-Sattār Farrāsh, 6 vols. (Beirut; 'Alam al-Kutub, 1985), vi, 504; Wael B. Hallaq, ‘Qādīs communicating: legal change and the law of documentary evidence’, Al-Qantara (forthcoming, 1999).

34 Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-a'shā, x, 274, 291.

35 ibid., x, 274, 290–1; Samarqandī, Rusūm al-quḍāt, 34.

36 Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, vi, 299; Ibn ‘Ābīn, Ḥāshiyat radd al-muḥtār, v, 369; Ḥalabī, Multaqā al-abḥur, n, 70; 'Abd al-Ghanī al-Ghunaymī, al-Lubāb fī sharh al-kitāb, ed. Muḥammad 'Abd al-Ḥamīd, 4 vols. (Cairo: Muḥammad 'Alī Ṣubayḥ, 1383/1963), iv, 79–80.

37 On dīwāns, see, under this entry, the Encyclopedia of Islam, n, 323–37. Also see As'ad b. Mamātī, Kitāb Qawānīn al-dawānīn, ed. 'Azīz Sūryal 'Aṭiyya (Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī, 1411/1991), 297–358.

38 See, for instance, Ibn Iyās, Badā'i' al-zuhūr, v, 224, 245, 277, 279, 307, 336, 338, 394 and passim. ‘Abd al-Mun'im Mājid, Nuẓum dawlat salātīn al-mamālīk wa-rusūmuhum fī Miṣr, 2 vols. (Cairo: al-Maṭba'a al-Anjlü-Miṣriyya, 1979), i, 97–9. In the Sultanate period in India, the head of diwān al-maẓālim was at one and the same time in charge of the dīwān al-qada', which was subsidiary to trie maẓālim. See under ‘Diwān’, Encyclopedia of Islam, ii, 336.

39 In fact, the scribe seems to have been historically the first member of the qāḍī's. staff. Kindī, Akhbār quḍāt Miṣr, 386, reports that until around the middle of the second century (c. 770 a.d.), the qādīs' staff consisted of a single scribe; ‘lam yakun yatba'u al-qāṣi ghayra kātibihi, thumma tawassa'a majlisu al-ḥukm.’.

40 Sarakhsī, Mabsūṭ, xvi, 94; al-Ḥusām al-Shahīd, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 69–70.

41 Qudāma, Ibn, Mughnī, XI, 433Google Scholar; Sarakhsī, , Mabsūt, XVI, 94Google Scholar; Rushd, Muḥammad b. Ahmad Ibn, Fatāwā, , ed. al-Taīlī, al-Mukhtār b. Tāhir, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1981), III, 1291Google Scholar. Tyan, Emile, Histoire de I'organisation judiciaire en pays d'Islam (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), 255 ff.Google Scholar; idem, ‘Judicial organization’, in Khadduri, Majid and Liebesney, Herbert J. (ed.), Law in the Middle East (Washington, D.C., 1955), 255Google Scholar. Although the normative practice was to issue a hujja for the party who demands it, the request was denied in certain instances. See, for instance, Bā'alawū, 'Abd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad, Bughyat al-mustarshidīn fī talkhīs fatāwā ba'ḍ al-a'imma min al-‘ulamā’ al-muta'akhkhirīn (Cairo: Muṣṭafā Bābā al-Ḥalabī, 1952), 273.Google Scholar

42 Qudāma, Ibn, Mughnī, XI, 428Google Scholar.

43 al-Māwardī, Muḥammad b. Habīb, al-Aḥkām al-sultāniyya wa'l-wilāyāt al-dīniyya (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr, 1404/1983), 71Google Scholar; al-Farrā’, Abū Ya'lā Muḥammad b., al-aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1403/1983), 76Google Scholar.

44 On the nature of the shurūṭ and the shurūṭīs function, see Tyan, Emile, ‘Le, notariat et le régime de la preuve par écrit dans la pratique du droit musulman’, Annales de I'École Française de Droit de Beyrouth, 2, 1945, 1–99Google Scholar; Hallaq, , ‘Model shurūt works’, 109–34Google Scholar. It is to be noted that the scribe, when drafting documents outside the dīwān, did often charge a fee. See Ibn, Farḥūn, Tabsirat al-hukkām, I, 188–9Google Scholar. In fact, the qādī himself was allowed to charge fees for having his scribe register cases and a variety of other matters in the dīwān. According to Ibn al-Shiḥna, the fee usually amounted to one half a per cent of the value of objects involved in registration, although the length and difficulty of the documents also remains an important consideration. See al-Shiḥna, Ibrāhīm Muḥammad Abū 'l-Faḍl Ibn, Lisān al-ḥukkām fī ma'rifat al-aḥkām (Cairo: Matba'at Muṣṭafe Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1393/1973), 219Google Scholar.

45 al-Damm, Ibn Abī, Adab al-qadā', 63Google Scholar; Farhūn, Ibn, Tabṣirat al-ḥukkām, I, 24, 25Google Scholar; Ṭarābulusī, , Mu'īn al-ḥukkām, 16Google Scholar; Qudāma, Ibn, Mughnī, XI, 428Google Scholar; Ṭahāwī, , Mukhtaṣar, 329Google Scholar. For an exhaustive list of the scribe's qualities, see Nuwayrī, , Nihāyat al-arab, IX, 1.Google Scholar

46 Qalqashandī, , Ṣubḥ al-a'shā, X, 273, 282 and passimGoogle Scholar.

47 ṭarābulusī, , Mu'īn al-hukkām, 16Google Scholar; Farḥūn, Ibn, Tabṣirat al-hukkām, I, 24Google Scholar.

48 ṭaḥāwī, , Mukhtaṣar, 329Google Scholar; idem, al-Shurūt al-ṣaghīr, II, 913Google Scholar; Ṭarābulusī, , Mu'īn al-ḥukkām, 16Google Scholar; Farhūn, Ibn, Tabṣirat al-ḥukkām, I, 25Google Scholar; Jaṣṣās, , Sharh adab al-qādī, 86Google Scholar; Simnānī, , Rawḍat al-quḍādt, I, 115–6Google Scholar; Qudāma, Ibn, Mughnī, XI, 429Google Scholar; al-Najjār, Ibn, Muntahā al-irādāt, II, 582Google Scholar; 'Ilhīsh, , Minaḥ al-jalīl, VIII, 291Google Scholar. al-Haṭṭāb, Muḥammad, Mawāhib al-jalīl fī sharḥ mukhtasar kha;īl, 6 vols. (Tripoli, Libya: Maktabat al-Najāh, 1969), VI, 115, states that the authoritative doctrine (almadhhab) in the Malikite school is that irrespective of whether or not the kātib has a just character ('adl), the qāḍī must inspect what he writes.Google Scholar

49 Kindī, , Akhbār al-qudāt, 398Google Scholar.

50 Simnānī, , Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 115–16 (especially para. 297)Google Scholar. For al-Dāmghānī's judicial practice, see ibid., I, 106, 120 f., 123, 134, 145, 160, 161, 163, 167, 232, 245, 333, 245 f., 247.

51 Ibn, Iyās, Badāi' al-zuhūr,v, 319.Google Scholar

52 Aḥmad b. 'Abd al-Raḥīm b., al-Ḥusayn, al-Dhayl 'aiā al-āibar fi khabari man ghabar, ed. Ṣālih, 'Abbās, 3 vols. (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risāla, 1989),II, 327Google Scholar.

53 ibid., i, 81; n, 333, 418, 531.

54 'Asqalānī, Raf al-iṣr, 337, 342, and passim.

55 Tanūkhī, Nishwār al-muḥāḍara, VI, 171. I bn 'Abd al-'Azīz was appointed judge by the Caliph al-Mu'tadid Bil-Lāh in 283/896.

56 Sarakhsī, Mabsūt, XVI, 94; Ṭarābulusī, Mu'īn al-ḥukkām, 16.

57 See, for instance, Ibn al-MunāṢif, Tanbīh al-hukkām, 68, 202; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qaḍā', 71, 75; Ṭaḥāwī, al-Shurūṭ al-ṣaghīr, II, 833; Ṡimnānī, Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 112; Ṭarābulusī, Mu'īn al-ḥukkām, 16; Marghīnānī, al-Hidāya, III, 102; Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, VI, 299; Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ fatḥ al-qadīr, VII, 264. Admittedly, not all jurists and judges forthrightly articulated the matter of future exigency. But this in no way weakens our argument, for thecentrality of the institutions of the kātib and the dīwān in their discourse unambiguously means that that was the raison d'êetre of keeping the registry.

58 Tanbīh al-Ḥukkām, 68; ‘li-ya'tamid al-qā 73x1E0D;ī taqyīda kulli shay'in ḥukima fih mimmā lahu bāl wa-'āqibatuhu mutawaqqa'a aw khiṢām mutaṭāwil.’

59 ibid., 201–2; ‘kāna sha'n al-quḍāt qabla al-yawm taqyīd maqālāt al-khuṢūm wa-shahādāt al-shuhūd fi-mā baynahum min al-ḥuqūq wal-ṭab' 'alayhd ba'da an yu'arrikhūhā wa-yushhidū 'alayhā 'udūlan, wa-yarfa'ūnahā 'inda anfusihim aw 'inda man yathiqūna ilayh ⃛ fa-qad ikhtaṢara al-nāsu al-yawma mithla hādhā.’

60 Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 112.

61 Niżam, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, 346; I bn al-Humām, Sharh fath al-qadīr, VII, 264; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qaḍā', 71; Ibn al-Munāṣif, Tanbīh al-ḥukkām, 67; Ṡamarqandī, Rusūm al-quḍāt, 36; Ibn al-Najjār, Muntahā al-irādāt, II, 579; I bn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, VI, 299; Ṭabāṭabā'ī, al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghūr, III, 257; al-Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillū, Sharā'i' al-Islām, IV, 72.

62 See, for example, Ṭaḥāwū, Mukhtaṣar, 329–30; Samarqandū, Rusūm al-quḍāt, 34, 36; Ibn Abū al-Damm, Adab al-qaḍā', 71, 75; Ibn al-Munāṣif, Tanbūh, 67; Niżām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 227, 346; 'Asqalānū, Raf al-iṣr, n, 269; Simnānū, Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 319; Jaṣṣāṣ, Sharḥ adab al-qādū, 57; Ghunaymū, al-Lubābfi sharḥ al-kitāb, IV, 79.

63 Qalqashandū, Ṣubh al-a'shā, X, 274. See also Samarqandī, Rusūm al-quḍāt, 34.

64 Qalqashandū, Ṣubh al-a'shd, X, 290–1.

65 Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ fatḥ al-qadūr, VII, 265; Niżām, al-Falāwā al-hindiyya, III, 346; Simnānū, Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 112; I bn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-rā'iq, vi, 300; Jaṣṣāṣ, Sharḥ adab al-qādū, 57–8. This is not preferable, however, since by doing so, the qādū may expose himself to the charge of misconduct or forgery in the course of copying the dūwān.

66 Wakī', Akhbār al-quḍāt, II, 125. This account clearly suggests that before Khālid's time the outgoing qādīs surrendered their dīwāns to those who replaced them.

67 Tanūkhī, Nishwār al-muḥāḍara, VIII, 151; Jaṣṣāṣ, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 86. On qimaṭr, see n. 70, below.

68 Kindī, Akhbār quḍāt Miṣr, 360.

69 'Asqalānī, Raf al-iṣr, II, 269.

70 Wakī', Akhbār quḍāt miṣr, 11, 159. T h e word qimaṭr seems to have acquired a variety of meanings, depending on time and place. Murtaḍā al-Ḥusayn al-Zabīdī defines it merely as ‘that in which books are preserved’. See his Tāj al-'arūs min jawāhir al-qāmūs, ed. Ḥusayn Naṣṣār, 25 vols. (Kuwait: Matba'at Ḥukūmat al-Kuwait, 1394/1974), XIII, 472–3. However, in a more technical sense, ḤaṬṬāb defines it ‘as the register (zimām) in which documents are recorded, and it may be called the qāḍīs zimam’. See his Mawāhib al-Jatūl, VI, 116. Ibn al-Najjār defines it as the sealed register in which cases are recorded (huwa mā tajtami'u fi-hi al-qaḍāyā makhtūma). See his Muntahā al-irādāt, II, 582.

71 Wakī', Akhbār al-quḍāt, II, 156.

72 Simnānī, Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 112. See also al-Ḥusām al-Shahūd, SharḤ Adab al-qādī, 38; Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ fatḥ al-qadīr, VII, 264–5; Niżām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 346; Qaiqashandī, Ṣubh al-a'shā, X,290–1.

73 Simnānī, Rawḍat al-quḍāt, I, 112; al-Ḥusām al-Shahīd, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 38; Wakī', Akhbār al-qudāt, II, 125.

74 al-Ḥusām al-Shahīd, Sharḥ adab al-qādī, 38–9; Niżām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 346; Samarqandī, Rusūm al-quḍāt, 34; Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ fatḥ al-qadīr, VII, 265; Simnānī, Rawdat al-quḍāt, I, 112; Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, VI, 300; Qaiqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-a'shā, X, 290–1; Jaṣṣā, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 58.

75 On this and other similar works, see Hallaq, ‘Model shurūṭ works’, 113 ff.

76 Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-rā'iq, VI, 299; ‘al-diwān lughat jandat al-hisāb wa-hwa al-kharā'iḷ al-latī fī-hā al-sijillāl wa'l-maḥāḁir wa-ghayruhā, wa'l-dīwān nafs al-maḥāḁirwa'l-sijillāt.’.

77 Samarqandī, Rusūm al-qudāt, 36–8.

78 See also Tahāwī, al-Shurūṭ al-saghīr, II, 834.

79 Samarqandī, Rusūm al-quḁāt, 39–47.

80 al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, VI, 300.

81 Adab al-qaḁā', 75.

82 Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qadā', 75–6; Ibn al-Najjār, Muntahā al-irādāt, II, 617. On idbdra being a collection of loose leaves of paper or scrolls, see Ibn Manżūr, Lisān al-'arab, IV, 479b.

83 Mughnī, XI, 434. See also al-Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillī, Sharā'i' al-Islām, IV, 77.

84 Mukhtaṣar, 329.

85 Ibn al-Munāṣif, Tanbīh al-hukkām, 37–8, 67, 77; Ibn Qudāma, Mughnī, XI, 407; 'Illlsh, Minaḥ al-jalīl, VIII, 339 f.

86 These are causes that precipitate an enquiry, but are insufficient, indeed irrelevant to overturn a decision. Overturning must be based on an articulated proof that the decision was not in conformity with one or another fundamental principle upon which law rests. See Tahawl, al-Shurūṭ al-ṣaghīr, II, 833; Ibn Farhīn, Tabṣsirat al-hukkām, I, 50–60; 'Illīsh, Minah al-jalil, VIII, 340–59; al-Rassā, Abū 'Abd Allāh Muhammad', Sharḥ ḥudīd al-Imām Abī 'Abd Allāh Ibn 'Arafa (Rabat: Matba'at Faḁāla, 1992), 626–7. Cf. David Powers, 'On judicial review in Islamic law’, Law and Society Review, 26, 1992, 315–41.Google Scholar

87 Niżām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 346; Samarqandī, Rusūum al-qudāt, 36; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Tanbīh al-hukkḁm, 71; I bn al-Najjār, Muntahā al-irādāt, II, 583; 'Illīsh, Minaḥ al-jalīl, VIII, 289; Tabāṭabā'ī, al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghīr, III, 257; al-Muḥaqqiq al-Hillī, Sharā'i' al-Islām, IV, 73.

88 The juristic discourse of all schools revolves around the basic positions adopted by Abū Hanīfa, his two major disciples and Ibn Abī Laylā. Abī Ḥanīfa held that if the qāḁi records his decision in the dīwān but later, upon further litigation, he forgets what he wrote, then he cannot proceed with the litigation on the basis of evidence established earlier. Ibn Abī Layla and Abū Yūsuf disagreed with Abū Ḥanīfa, arguing that his written record provides grounds for further litigation. Shaybānī's position is not entirely clear. See Abū Yūsuf, Ikhtilāf, 158–9. Taḥāwī, Mukhtasar, 329–30; Niżām, al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, III, 341, 340, 350; Jaṣṣās, Sharh adab al-qāḁī 335–6; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qaḁā', 76; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Ṭuruq al-ḥukmiyya, 240; al-Qaffāl al-Shāshī, Ḥulyat al-'ulamā, VIII, 141.

89 Hallaq, ‘Model shurūṭ works’, 113 ff.

90 VI, 160–248.

91 Hallaq, ‘Model shurūṭ works’, 121 ff.

92 For instance, see VI, 164 (1. 11).

93 VI, 163, 164, 177, 182, 185, 190, 194–5, 201–2, 204, 216, 217, 218, 222, 223, 224, 227,229, 231, 237, 238, 238–40, 247, and passim. See also Hallaq, ‘Model shurūṭ works’, 122, n. 61.

94 Adab al-qaḁā', 423–62.

95 ‘ādīs communicating’, section II ff. Also see idem, ‘Model shurūṭs works’, 113 ff.

96 In al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, VI, 160 ff., for instance, the subject-matter included thefollowings (in the order given): debts, marriage, dowry, alimony, divorce, paternity, manumission, theft, partnership (various types), waqf, property rights, homicide, qadhf, inheritance, bequests, bankruptcy, written communications between qāḁīs, preemption, rent, gifts and pledge.

97 Akhbār qudāt Misr, 309–10.

98 ibid. See aiso ‘Asqalānī, Raf al-isr, II, 254.

99 Shihāb al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Hajar al-'Asqalānī, Talkhīṣ al-habīr ft takhrīj aḥādīth al-rāifi'ī al-kabīr, ed. 'Abd Allāh al-Madanī, 4 vols. (Madina: n.p., 1964), IV, 189.Google Scholar

100 Accepting the sixth decade of the Hijra (670s A.D.) as the beginning of recording sijillātdoes not preclude the possibility that the practice may have been pre-Islamic. For it must have taken the prototypal Muslim qāḁīs sometime before they could assimilate foreign elements.

101 Wakī, , Akshbār al-quḍāt, II, 58.Google Scholar

102 Kindī, Akshbār quḍāt Miṣr, 379.

103 ibid., 355, 379

104 ibid., 450.

105 ibid., 346.

106 ibid., 394.

107 That the sheets of writing in this period were made of papyri is attested by Kindī, Akhbār quḍāt Misr, 362; Rabie, Financial system, 3–4. 108 Kind!, Akhbar qudat misr, 391–2. Using a bag or a basket to store the documents of the diwan does not seem to have been uncommon. See Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-rd'iq, vi, 299; Ibn Abi al-Damm, Adab al-qadd', 75.

108 Kindī, Akhbār quḍat miṣr, 391–2. Using a bag or a basket to store the documents of the diwān does not seem to have been uncommon. See Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, vi, 299; Ibn Abī al-Damm, Adab al-qadā', 75.

109 Kindī, Akhbār quḍat Miṣr, 360, 394, 398, 407, 410, 432, 450, and passim; Wakī', Akhbāral-qudāt, II, 125, 136, 156, 159, 161, 164, 172, 174 and passim; Tan؛khī, Nishwār al-muḥāḍara, n, 14, 15; iv, 204; vi, 72, 94, 171; vm, 151, and passim; 'Asqalānī, Raf al-isr, n, 269, 280, 294, 296, 297, 298, 337, 342 and passim. See also Niẓām, , al-Fatāwā al-hindiyya, VI, 227; Ebied and Young, Some Arabic legal documents, 1.Google Scholar

110 The the qimaṠr may also be a sort of bag (kīs) is attested by Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, VI, 299.

111 Mandaville, ‘Ottoman court records’, 316.

112 In this court, many records consisted of loose leaves, especially those belonging to the periods of 1098–1127/1686–1715 and 1215–25/1800–10. See Khālid Ziyāda, ‘Wathā'iq maḥkamat Ṫarāblus al-shar'iyya ka-maṣdar li'l-dirāsāt al-Islāmiyya’, in ‘Abd al-Jalīl Tamīmī (Temimi), ed., al-Wilāyāt al-'arabiyya wa-maṣādir wathā'iqihā fī 'l-'ahd al-'uthmānī (Les provinces arabes et leurs source documentaires a I'epoque ottomane) (Tunis: Matba'at al-Ittiḥād al-'Amm, 1984), 228–9.

113 Rabie, Financial system, 4–.

114 See section VI, above.

115 On the On the dīwān-keeper (khāzin) as a member of the qāḍī's entourage, see Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-a'shā, x, 284, 291 and passim; Jaṣṣāṣ, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 86; Samarqandī, Rus؛m al-quḍāt, 34. On the basis of an elliptic statement made by 'Asqalānī, Tyan concluded that sometime during the first or second decade of the fifth century (c. 1010–1030 A.D.) the qādīs in Egypt began to store their dīwāns in the grand mosque. See his Histoire, 260; idem, ‘Judicial organization’, 257. His interpretation, however, seems too sweeping. What ‘Asqalānī's statement declares is that Ibn Ab al-'Awwām was the first to deposit his dīwāwān in the mosque. Tyan perhaps thought that Ibn Abīl al-'Awwā;m transferred a collection of dī;wāns belonging to him and to other qāḍdīs, but this interpretation is not borne out by the text. The same text also announces that other qddis kept their dīwāns in their residences. Furthermore, this attestation to the centralization of the dīwān-maintenance remains solitary and unique in our sources. 'Asqalānī's account is found as an appendix to Kindī's Akhbār quḍāt Miṣr, 612.

116 We should recall here that not all cases were copied down in the incoming qāḍī's dīwān. Those which have become inconsequential because they are considered, for example, old (where all the concerned parties have died), would expectedly be left out. This practice has the important implication that the bulk of the diwdn's material did not grow cumulatively but was constantly subjected, at the stage of copying, to a measure of trimming. See section iv, above.

117 That the qāḍīs often purchased from their own pockets the paper on which they used to record their dīwāns is clearly stated in the sources. See, for example, al-Ḥusām al-Shahīd, Sharḥ adab al-qāḍī, 39.

118 It is significant that in his extensive legal work, the Ottoman jurist Ibn 'Ābidīn is strikingly silent over the modality of copying down the dīwān of the outgoing qāḍī. This singular omission should in no way be interpreted as accidental. The practice of depositing the dīwāns in a public building must have become by his time a normative practice, and the activity of copying down the dīwāns consequently came to a halt. Nowhere does he discuss the issue, not even in the most expected place. See his Hāshiyat radd al-muḥtār, v, 370. Admittedly, however, I have not thus far been able to find direct evidence which attests to such an Ottoman practice.

119 See section III above.

120 And in certain areas, down to the present.