Mısır Fâtımî Devleti’nde 525/1131 Yılında Dört Kadı Ataması, Yeni Bir Değerlendirme
İrfan İnceFâtımî Devleti hâkimiyeti altındaki Mısır’da 525/1131 yılında ikisi Şiî ikisi Sünnî olmak üzere dört kadı atandığı bilgisi, bunun Fâtımî Devleti’nin hem sosyopolitik hem de fıkıh tarihine ışık tutuyor olması sebebiyle modern araştırmacıların dikkatini çekmiştir. Bilgiyi olaydan muhtemelen yarım asır sonra not eden yerel kaynağımız bu düzenlemeyi İslam milletinde benzeri görülmemiş bir hadise olarak niteler. Bu değerlendirme modern araştırmalarda söz konusu tarihi bilginin yorumu konusunda da yönlendirici olmuştur. Haber kadıların önlerine getirilen davalara bakma konusunda herhangi bir sınırlamadan söz etmez ancak kadıların miras konusundaki yetkilerini ayrıca vurgular. Özellikle miras hukuku konusunda Şiî ve Sünnî öğretilerin ayrıştığı temel bazı hükümlerin Fâtımîler’in imamet anlayışıyla sıkı bir şekilde ilişkilendirildiği ve bu yüzden Fâtımîler’in özellikle Mısır hâkimiyetinin ilk dönemlerinde miras konusunda katı bir tutum sergiledikleri bilinmektedir. Bu yönüyle söz konusu bilgi Fâtımî yargı sistemi, büyük bir bölümü Sünnîler’den oluşan Mısır toplumunda Şiî hukukunun uygulanış şekli ve nihayet sosyopolitik bağlamla ilgili önemli ipuçları içerir. Olayın gerçekleştiği dönemle ilgili kaynakların sınırlı olması bir taraftan bu bilginin değerini artırırken diğer taraftan onun yorumunu da güçleştirir. Bu tarihi bilgiyi en geniş şekliyle Allouche 1985’te yayımladığı bir makalede ele almış ve bu atamanın siyasi saikleri, atanan kadıların statüsü ve kimliklerini sınırlı sayıdaki kaynaklar çerçevesinde açıklığa kavuşturmaya çalışmıştır. Sonraki literatürde Allouche’un yazısına birçok yazar tarafından atıf yapılmış, ancak Allouche’un temel yorumlarıyla ilgili farklı bir değerlendirme teklif edilmemiştir. Bu incelemede öncelikle Allouche’un dikkate almadığı bir konu olan söz konusu bilginin temel kaynağı meselesini ele aldık. Ardından bu bilginin ana metne nasıl yerleştirildiğini göstermeye çalıştık ve bunun atanan kadıların kimlikleri, atamanın yargı sistemi içindeki niteliği ve sosyopolitik saiklerine dair akla getirdiği soruları yeniden değerlendirmeye çalıştık. Bu çerçevede Allouche’un kaynak okumasındaki önemli eksiklik ve hatalara işaret ettik, cevaplamaya çalıştığı sorularla ilgili bu araştırmada ulaşılan sonuçlar çerçevesinde farklı değerlendirmeler teklif etik.
Appointment of Four Judges in Fāṭimid Egypt in 525/1131, A New Interpretation
İrfan İnceThe appointment of four judges in the Fatimid state in 525/1131 was significant enough to prompt an anonymous source to document it, and it was later taken up by modern scholars, who speculated about its meaning in its historical context. This event offers valuable insights into the Fāṭimid socio-political history and the history of Islamic law. Notably, two of these judges were from two Shīʿa schools and the other two from two Sunnī schools. A local source, writing approximately half a century after the event, described it as an unprecedented occurrence in the Muslim community. While the exact implications of this statement remain ambiguous, modern scholars have found it both intriguing and instructive in their interpretations. The appointment record does not specify any restrictions on the jurisdiction of judges concerning cases they can adjudicate. However, their authority over inheritance matters was emphasized. Certain fundamental rulings where Shīʿa and Sunnī doctrines diverged were associated with the Fāṭimid conception of imāmate. For the same reason, the Fāṭimid Rulers adopted a stringent stance on these matters during the early stages of their rule in Egypt. Therefore, this information provides significant insights into the Fāṭimid judicial system, the application of Shīʿa law in a predominantly Sunnī Egyptian society, and the socio-political context of its enactment. Conversely, the limited availability of historical sources from this period enhances the value of this information and, while at the same time, complicates its interpretation. Allouche was the first researcher to explore this historical information extensively, attempting to determine the political motivations behind the appointments and the status and identities of the appointed judges within the constraints of limited sources. Subsequent literature frequently referenced Allouche’s work, but no alternative interpretations were proposed. In this paper, I first address a question overlooked by Allouche by identifying the primary source of this historical information. I try to demonstrate how this isolated piece of knowledge was integrated into the main text, which significantly contributed to difficuties in its interpretation. Subsequently, I examine Allouche’s method of using the sources, highlight significant gaps and errors in his source analysis, and suggest revisions for his evaluation of the main questions he tried to answer.
The appointment of four judges in Egypt under the Fāṭimid State in 525/1131, two of whom were from Shīʿa and two from Sunnī schools of law, has drawn the interest of researchers due to its significance for both Fāṭimid socio-political history and Islamic jurisprudence. Our anonymous local source, noting this information approximately 50 years after the event, described it as an unprecedented occurrence in the Islamic nation. Although there is no mention of any restriction on judges regarding cases brought before them, their equal authority in matters of inheritance is emphasized. This is particularly noteworthy because some fundamental rulings of inheritance law where Shīʿa and Sunnī doctrines diverge are closely linked to the Fāṭimid concept of imāmate. However, historical sources concerning the period during which this event occurred are limited. Consequently, this information, which provides significant insights into the Fāṭimid judicial system, the implementation of Shīʿa law in the predominantly Sunnī Egyptian society, and the socio-political situation, becomes even more interesting and intriguing. Allouche examined the subject comprehensively and attempted to analyze in detail the political motives behind the appointments, the status and identities of the appointed judges. Later authors referred to Allouche’s article, but no alternative assessments were proposed. According to Allouche, the primary political motive behind these appointments was as follows: This appointment was part of Ibn al- Afḍal’s (d. 526/1131) actions to declare the end of the Fāṭimid caliphate and the shift in the state’s ideology. Specifically, the Ismāʿilī monopoly in the judiciary was abolished. Ibn al-Afḍal took advantage of the political uncertainty that arose due to the death of Caliph Āmir (d. 524/1130) and the absence of a known male heir. He imprisoned ʿAbdulmajīd (later Caliph Ḥāfiẓ, 526-544/1132-1149), who had previously declared himself the heir apparent (waliyyu’l-ʿahd), removed his name from the Friday sermon (khutbah), and minted coins in the name of the expected imam, implying a shift in the state’s allegiance to the Twelver Shīʿa to which Ibn al-Afḍal belonged.
Allouche considers that each of the four judges, described merely as judges in the source, was actually a chief judge. He bases this on a comparison with the newly established system of the Mamlūk era, made by Ibn Muyassar (d. 677/1278), who transmitted this unique information in his book Akhbar. In Allouche’s view, this interpretation aligns with Ibn al-Afḍal’s political agenda, whose main objective was to equate Imāmī Law, his own madhhab, with the Ismāʿilī Law, thus representing the new ideology of the state with an Imāmī chief judge. However, according to him, this interpretation simultaneously creates some problems that require resolution. Because at the time of the appointment, the previously appointed chief judge, al-Qaysarānī, was still in office. This implies that with the newly appointed four qāḍīs there were five chief judges, two of whom representing Ismāʿilī madhhab, serving simultaneously: al-Qaysaranī, representing the Fāṭimid state’s Ismāʿilī madhhab, and the four judges appointed by Ibn al-Afḍal, representing the Ismāʿilī, Imāmī, Mālikī, and Shāfiʿī madhhabs. Allouche attempted to resolve this problem by suggesting a potential scribal error regarding the names of the judges. He posits that the Imāmī judge mentioned among the four newly appointed might actually be the same person as the existing chief judge, al-Qaysaranī. Thus, Ibn al Afḍal must have reappointed the incumbent al-Qaysaranī as the chief judge representing the Imāmiyya. He believed that the good relations between al-Qaysaranī and Ibn al-Afḍal, as suggested by the information available in the sources, would support this interpretation. However, there are strong arguments against this interpretation, and it seems that Allouche did not sufficiently address the issues arising from this. First, Allouche did not consider that the sources clearly indicated that al-Qaysarānī was actually a Shāfiʿī. For sure, one can argue that numerous instances exist of Sunnīs being appointed to the position of chief judge in the Fāṭimid state. Therefore, it is not impossible that al-Qaysaranī, despite being a Shāfiʿī, served as the Ismāʿilī chief judge for a period and was later appointed as the Imāmī chief judge because of his close ties with the ruling power amidst the political changes. However, a more careful examination of the identities of the other four judges on the list indicates that each of these individuals was more suitable for Ibn al-Afḍal’s political objectives and could not be replaced by al-Qaysaranī. Al-Qaysaranī did not possess the necessary qualifications for the office of qāḍī, as indicated by contemporary sources. His appointment to the position of chief judge before this event was primarily due to his prestigious status as a Cairo elite, rather than his legal expertise. In contrast to al-Qaysaranī’s background, each of the individuals named in the appointment of the four judges was esteemed within their respective religious groups for possessing the qualities of a judge. Viewed in this light, the appointment of these four judges underscores Ibn al-Afḍal’s need for support from the Cairo elites, military groups and broader segments of the population in the delicate situation in which he assumed power, as well as the constraints on his authority. Therefore, the information available in the sources can be interpreted as follows: Following the coup in 525/1131, al-Qaysaranī retained his high-level administrative powers and, in particular, his authority to oversee grievance cases (maẓālim) as the chief judge. The remaining four judges were appointed with the authority to adjudicate civil cases in accordance with their respective madhhabs. Hence, the claim of a scribal error in the information provided by the sources arises from an incomplete and improper reading of the sources. The use of the term qāḍī al-qudāt in the sources in this context is also misleading, as evidenced by examples in which qāḍīs described as chief qāḍī in annals or other historical sources were named in official records as nāib or wakīl of the vizier.
