Fâtımî 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.
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 th
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 Calip
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 belonge
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 politica
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. Allouch
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 alAfḍal must have reappointed the incumbent al-Qaysaranī as the chief judge representin
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 replace
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 broade
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.
