Even during the darkest of ages, few fair, just, pious, and God-fearing judges emerged from time to time, and the words of justice they spoke were like earthquakes that frightened tyrants. Of course, the emergence of those pious judges indicates that the light of goodness exists even he evil, corruption, and injustices dominate within any era. Indeed, their emergence proves that Islamic/Quranic  piety is the solution to reform any given society. This type of fair judges emerged in many eras however deep-rooted the dominance of corruption, tyranny, and injustices of despots and men and women working under their authority. Hence, with type of those fair judges, some assumed this post of a judge to act like a small candle that would bring faint light to the dark ages of injustices and oppression. We give below examples of them from the events within the history of the Muhammadans. 

 

Fair and intelligent judges:

1- Some judges during the Umayyad Era were both intelligent and just, such as the judge Eyas Ibn Mu'aweiya (died in 122 A.H.) who was the judge of Basra during the reign of the just caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, and since this fair caliph applied justice and imposed that all judges adhere to justice as the norm everywhere, the justice of Eyas Ibn Mu'aweiya was not deemed to be worthy of praise, but his sharp intelligence is present in his biography to the extent that people regarded him as the epitome of intelligence and a role-model to follow. Ibn Saad, the historian, mentions in his book titled "Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra" within the biography of Eyas Ibn Mu'aweiya that the tyrannical and unjust Umayyad governor of Iraq Youssef Ibn Omar ordered the punishment of public beating of Eyas Ibn Mu'aweiya, in his old age, during the reign of the Umayyad caliph Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik. The governor imitated and followed the footsteps of his predecessor Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef, the late former tyrannical and brutal governor of Iraq. The brutal man Youssef Ibn Omar was appointed as the governor of Iraq as a reaction to the growing power of Yemenite tribes settling in Iraq led by its former governor of Yemenite origin, Khaled Al-Qasry, who incited sedition and revolt, driving the Umayyads to imprison, torture, and humiliate him and to confiscate all his possessions and money. Youssef Ibn Omar replaced him as the governor of Iraq, and he tortured Khaled Al-Qasry in his prison till he died. The short-lived period of justice of the caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz (who ruled for two years and five months from 99 to 101 A.H.) was naturally followed by the emergence of despotic and unjust caliphs, and it was expected that they would not bear the justice of Eyas Ibn Mu'aweiya and would order his being beaten in public to humiliate him in his old age mercilessly to make him lose his morale and stature and think twice before provoking the ire and wrath of the Umayyads and their cronies.      

2- The one veteran  judge that escaped a similar humiliating punishment was named Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth Ibn Qais, who lived during the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and the part of the Umayyad Era. Some historians assert he died in 78 A.H. and some in 87 A.H., but all of them assured readers of his longevity and that he was appointed as a judge in Kufa during the reign of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab until he died there during the Umayyad Era. He was also a very just and fair as well as intelligent judge. We give below some details about him mentioned by Ibn Al-Jawzy in his book titled "Al-Muntazim" 6/185, as he quoted thee details from other writers and historians. One anecdote of Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth was when he issued a verdict against a man who unwittingly admitted to the committed deed by the subtle interrogation of Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth as a judge, and the man was later on released from prison after his imprisonment term ended, and when he saw Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth, he reproached him for condemning him without evidence, but Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth told the man that the one who said the truth about the case was the son of the man's maternal aunt's sister; i.e., the man himself, and the judge meant to say indirectly that his indirect confession of doing the deed was the reason for his imprisonment. Another anecdote is when a weeping woman came to court to file a complaint against a man, and when she left, the friend of Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth who was in court felt that this weeping woman was a victim of the man her foe, but Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth reminded his friend that weeping is no evidence of anything in court, as even Joseph's brothers got rid of him and return home in the evening weeping to their father, Jacob (a reference to the Quranic verse 12:16, within the story of Joseph). The justice of Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth is manifested in a story about how he issued a verdict against his own son and for his foes, and when the son rebuked his father for letting him down and scandalizing him, as people ridiculed the son, Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth told him that though he loved him dearly because he was his only son, but God must be dearer to a pious man, and that he saw in that case presented at court that his son was in the wrong. This means that Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth was a pious God-fearing person who used to bear God's Judgment on the Last Day in his mind within his work as a judge.   

 

It is about God's law, O unjust man!

  We make a comparison here between the judge Shourih Ibn Al-Hareth who lived in the 1st century A.H. and another fair and just judge who lived during the Second Abbasid Era, when corruption and injustices dominated lives of people and when Turkish military leaders controlled the Abbasid caliphate and murdered and massacred many people. At the time, the heartless and fierce Turkish military leader Moussa Ibn Bagha controlled the Abbasid caliphate with all injustice and tyranny, but the fair judge who never feared Moussa Ibn Bagha (the leader who terrorized Abbasid princes and dynasty members!) was Ahmad Ibn Badeel (died in 258 A.H.). the story began as Moussa Ibn Bagha bought a large farm except for a piece of land inherited by an orphan, and he knew he could not buy this piece of land except with the prior permission of his guardian, the judge of the city: Ahmad Ibn Badeel. This judge refused to allow such purchase as the orphan did not need the money right away as he was taken care of and provided for handsomely, and he was a child who could not be asked to sell anything. Inherited money of orphans are protected within the Quranic sharia laws. Moussa Ibn Bagha tried to convince, coax, bribe, and pressurize Ahmad Ibn Badeel, but in vain. Eventually, Moussa Ibn Bagha shouted to the judge that he did not know who was he among the noble and powerful people, and Ahmad Ibn Badeel quickly retorted to Moussa Ibn Bagha by saying, "It is about God's law, O unjust man!". Moussa Ibn Bagha felt ashamed of himself and wept, asking God for forgiveness, and before he went away, he decided never to come near the piece of land owned by the orphan all his life. This means that the pious words of a pious judge awakened the dormant conscience of the redoubtable, callous, tyrannical leader who controlled fully the Abbasid throne at the time. 

 

To God is dignity and to His messenger and to the believers:

1- Fair and pious judges used to face tyrannical unjust powerful rulers and their cronies by reminding them with verses of the Quran, and if they had any little faith inside their hearts, they would allow justice be applied by judges, as the unjust tyrannical ones would be reminded that they cannot face the Lord. In such cases, the piety of a fair judge achieved victory over the despots, tyrants, fierce military leaders, corrupt clergymen, and any cronies and henchmen who support tyranny and all sorts of injustices. This true adherence to the Truth and deep faith in Almighty God gave those just and fair judges deeper trust, security, and dignity that made never fear tyrannical unjust rulers and despots and their processions, soldiers, clergymen, retinue members, viziers, cronies, henchmen, etc.     

2- The judge Ahmad Ibn Badeel was a role model and an example to follow in this respect. In another narrative, we read about Ahmad Ibn Badeel who was sent for to meet with the Abbasid caliph Al-Moataz, and he came much later to the Abbasid palace, not promptly as others in his place would do, and when eventually he entered the palace, the guard before the antechamber leading to the palace court asked Ahmad Ibn Badeel to take of his shoes as per protocol applied at the time before meeting the caliph, but Ahmad Ibn Badeel adamantly refused to do so, saying that he was not in the sacred valley (a reference to the Quranic verse 20:12, within the story of Moses). When he was admitted, the caliph never commented on the judge's wearing his shoes and welcomed him warmly and cordially  and asked him to speak to him about fiqh knowledge to increase his share of it as a caliph. When Ahmad Ibn Badeel reproached him lightly that those who seek fiqh knowledge must come to the scholars/sheikhs not to send for them in such alarming manner, the caliph apologized to him, and Ahmad Ibn Badeel told him that his polite manners as a caliph deserve the reward of his being pardoned for alarming a judge, and they sat and talked about fiqh for hours to satisfy the caliph's curiosity of knowledge (Al-Muntazim, 12/137 deaths of 258 A.H.). This story tells us how Ahmad Ibn Badeel took pride in and felt dignity of his knowledge in law and fiqh and this made caliphs honor and respect him. "...But dignity belongs to God, and His messenger, and the believers; but the hypocrites do not know." (63:8).  

 

Dignity of a fair judge defeated the power and authority of the unjust tyrannical ruler:

1- Another fair and just judge who took pride in and felt dignity of his knowledge in law and fiqh and elevated the stature of knowledge and erudite judges/scholars, within corrupt times of flattery and hypocrisy of the majority of people was Al-Munzer Ibn Saeed, the judge of Cordova, Andalusia, who courageously faced the Umayyad caliph Al-Nasser, the greatest Umayyad caliph of Andalusia (i.e., now Spain), who was patient with this reverent judge and accepted from him what he never accepted from others. History tells us that at one time, Al-Munzer Ibn Saeed entered the palace of the caliph Al-Nasser, in his pomp, splendor, and grandeur, who was sitting inside a hollow dome built of gold and silver and encrusted with precious stones and hypocrites visiting him congratulated him for having such a beautiful dome built specially for him. Annoyed by such a scene, when his turn to talk came, Al-Munzer Ibn Saeed criticized Al-Nasser severely before the others and quoted this verse: "Were it not that humanity would become a single community, We would have provided those who disbelieve in the Most Gracious with roofs of silver to their houses, and stairways by which they ascend." (43:33). Hypocrites who were present listened in surprise and fell silent, while the caliph accepted patiently and calmly such severe rebuke of a learned honorable judge and never harmed him because if his knowledge and elevated stature as a judge.    

2- In Egypt, during the reign of the Ayyubid sultan Al-Kamel, the judge Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla was very famous and popular in the city of Alexandria for his courage, sharp intelligence, and erudite deep knowledge. When the judge Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla was tackling a case in court, the sultan Al-Kamel had to bear witness in it, but the judge declared in public (but politely and indirectly) before the high council of judges, that the testimony of the sultan was annulled and never deemed acceptable, and Al-Kamel was furious as he felt insulted, and asked Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla about the reason for not accepting his testimony and bearing witness. Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla said boldly and courageously before everyone present that he cannot accept the testimony of a sultan who listens daily to the female singer named Ajeeba and watch her dance while drinking wine, and then she would leave the palace every morning while she was dizzy and drunk. The infuriated and insulted sultan insulted the judge Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla in rapid phrases of the Persian tongue that no one understood, but the insulted judge, Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla, left the council in fury after declaring that he was resigning from his post. The judges who were members of that council timidly advised the sultan to apologize for Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla so as not to allow the chance of public scandal, as people in Cairo would spread rumors about him and the dancer/singer Ajeeba  and their love affair and the news would reach Baghdad. Realizing that they were in the right, the sultan readily apologized for Ibn Ayn Al-Dawla and convinced him to accept to return to his post as a judge.        

 

Appointed as a judge to achieve justice within the dominant atmosphere of tyranny and injustice:

1- Some judges accepted to be appointed as judges to achieve justice within the dominant atmosphere of tyranny and injustice in their cities, and such elevated and refined fair judges must have been ascetic, pious, faithful, uncorrupt, trustworthy, noble, knowledgeable, and principled. Such judges knew indeed the real higher values of life: not to focus on transient material possessions but to perform good deeds for one's eternal life (in Paradise), preach virtue and preach against vice, and to apply justice and stop injustices, as per the missions expected from truly just and fair judges. 

2- Among such great judges was Nasr Ibn Ziyad (died in 236 A.H.) who was the judge of the Persian city of Nishapur (now in Iran) for more than ten years, and the rulers and the subjects praised him for his justice and high moralistic level, and he kept regular correspondences with the Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun. Before accepting the post of a judge, Nasr Ibn Ziyad stipulated that all statesmen, governors, and governmental officials of the caliph in Nishapur would adhere to preaching virtue and stopping vices. He would supervise the achievement of justice in all business deals, while defending the common people against any injustices that might be inflicted upon them by governors and powerful affluent persons. People loved him so much for his justice and uprightness. This learned honorable judge used to fast three days a week, and one close friend of his advised him at first to refuse to be appointed as a judge, but he accepted and told his friend that God will certainly help him to uphold justice and support the weak, wronged ones by defending them against the tyranny of the unjust powerful persons. Some other religious scholars of fiqh were so pious that they refused to be appointed as judges because the felt that by accepting such a post, they might be obliged to perform unacceptable acts of injustice or to appear as if they agree to all injustices and tyranny of caliphs and their cronies. But Nasr Ibn Ziyad decided to be more positive and participate in upholding justice within his society, instead of choosing to avoid people and be isolated from them within an ascetic lifestyle. History tells us that at one time, a man accused the father of a famous Abbasid military leader and prince, named Abdullah Ibn Taher, that he confiscated his garden unjustly, and this military leader brought Nasr Ibn Ziyad to his palace to judge this case, and when the man talked about his complaint, the judge Nasr Ibn Ziyad refused to talk, unless both the military leader and the man would stand on equal footing before him, not with one man standing (i.e., the man) and the other sitting (i.e., Abdullah Ibn Taher). After this was done, the judge allowed the man to speak about his complaint again from the very start. Abdullah Ibn Taher denied that he or his father confiscated a garden. The judge asked the man if he had tangible evidence proving his claim, and when the man answered in the negative, the judge demanded from him what he wanted then exactly. The man answered that Abdullah Ibn Taher must swear by the name of God in a solemn oath while placing his hand on a copy of the Quran that he and his father did not confiscate the garden. Feeling frightened, Abdullah Ibn Taher hurriedly wrote a letter to his scribe write a letter to the effect that the man must have back his garden (Al-Muntazim, 11/246).

3- Another fair, just, upright, and learned judge was Jameel Al-Maafery (Al-Muntazim, 8/23 deaths of 139 A.H.), an erudite pious scholar of fiqh and theology from North Africa, who was commanded by a prince named Abdul-Rahman Al-Fahry to be appointed as a judge, but he refused and feigned being sick by making his ski look yellowish by drinking lots of hay water (i.e., water used to soak hay stacks) so as to use this pretext to demur politely. Yet, the prince allayed his fears by telling him that he chose him for the post to help uphold justice in piety and in the fear of God and assured him that all people, including all princes and governors, etc., would be equal before the law. Jameel made the prince swear by God that he was saying the truth, and when the prince did, Jameel accepted to be appointed as a judge. Days later, a man came to the judge Jameel to file a complaint against the prince, and the prince welcomed both the complainer and the judge into his palace and stood in simple dress before the judge on equal footing like the complainer, and when the judge issued a verdict against the prince and for the complainer, the prince obeyed the verdict directly without uttering any word. When the judge was about to leave, he sat on his donkey that he used typically to ride to go everywhere in the city, and the man wanted to help him to ride it, but the judge Jameel demurred politely and helped himself to ride his donkey and went on his way. 

 

Troubles of fair judges with tyrannical caliphs:

1- It was naturally expected that fair and just judges would have troubles with unjust tyrannical caliphs within the Abbasid caliphs, governors, powerful people, viziers, cronies, etc. like the judge Shureik (died in 177 A.H.) whom we tackled in a separate chapter, and the judges: Abdul-Rahman Ibn Ziyad (died in 156 A.H.), Salama Ibn Saleh (died in 180 A.H.), Assad Ibn Amr (died in 190 A.H.), and Abdullah Ibn Zabyan (died in 190 A.H.)    

2- Abdul-Rahman Ibn Ziyad was born in North Africa, and during his youth, he was a friend of Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour before the latter became an Abbasid caliph and before the emergence of the Abbasid caliphate. Abdul-Rahman Ibn Ziyad was the judge of North Africa appointed by the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan Ibn Muhammad, and he later on went to Iraq (within delegations of North Africa) to swear fealty to Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour, and he complained to him that governors of North African cities were unjust. Historical accounts tell us that the Abbasids revived the hope for justice to make all people in the Arab Empire support them, but sadly, grave injustices increased once the Abbasid rule and sovereignty became stable and standing on firm grounds. When the judge Abdul-Rahman Ibn Ziyad came to Iraq, he decided to complain to his old friend, who became the caliph, about injustices of governors, and after waiting and living near the Abbasid palace for months, eventually he gained access to the palace, warning the caliph that he was the source of encouraging the spread and committing of injustices within his governors appointed by him. Feeling insulted and infuriated, the caliph Al-Mansour shouted and verbally insulted the judge and was very near to exact a penalty on him, but he eventually commanded him to return home and never to come to Iraq again. Another historical account repeats this story with slight variations: the caliph Al-Mansour was the one who sent for the judge Abdul-Rahman Ibn Ziyad to come to him in Iraq and asked him about what he saw regarding the conditions of the subjects in North Africa and in the countries by which he had passed (Egypt, the Levant, and Iraq), and when the judge complained about the dominant corruption and injustices, the caliph said he could not stop people from having dispositions that were naturally bad, and when the judge reminded him of the justice imposed by the Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and rebuked him because his tyranny encouraged people to tyrannize and commit injustices, the infuriated caliph commanded him to return home and never to come to Iraq again, under the pain of death (Al-Muntazim, 8/190 deaths of 156 A.H.)

 

Fair judges in corrupt times when values and morals were lost:

1- Some judges who were pious and fair witnessed how people lacked morality and lost the compass of higher values, and preferred in corrupt times to resign from their jobs as judges because they refused to be forced to avoid justice or to be unable to uphold it because of the dominant climate of tyranny and injustices within decadent times of degenerate people. 

2- Some of these judges realized earlier enough how the norms, habits, and social mores of people changed radically, and they resigned long before conditions would aggravate and worsen, such as the learned honorable judge Afiyya Ibn Qais who was a close friend and disciple of Abou Hanifa and followed his school of thought. The Abbasid caliph Al-Mahdi appointed Afiyya as the judge of the eastern district of Baghdad, months later, Afiyya asked permission of the caliph to allow him to resign, and when the caliph asked him about the reason, he said that when two affluent men came to him to judge between them to settle their dispute, and both had witnesses and proofs to defend their stances, the judge demanded some time to think and consider the matter, but one of the men days later was informed by people that the judge Afiyya loved a certain kind of fruit which was costly, and he sent a huge plate filled with it to the house of the judge by bribing the doorman to allow the plate inside. The infuriated judge felt that one of the two rich men was trying to bribe him, and he threw the plate and its contents in the street to show "the unknown briber" that he never accepted bribes. Judge Afiyya felt sad that people at his days had corrupt values and he felt sad the more because his stomach desired the plate of the fruit; such feelings made the judge resolved to resign so as not to lose his eternal life in such atmosphere of corruption, because he was a pious, God-fearing man; he complained to the caliph that people had changed to the worse in terms of morals and ways of life, to the extent that they bribed judges, and such atmosphere would bring so many ordeals and tests to pious judges. As he insisted on resigning, the caliph Al-Mahdi had to allow him to do as he wished.         

3- Another historical narrative makes the judge Afiyya assuming his post during the reign of the caliph Harun Al-Rasheed. People among the affluent classes and the retinue members of the Abbasid palace court attempted to urge and incite the caliph to dismiss Afiyya from his post as a judge, as they claimed that he took bribes and was a corrupt and unjust judge. But when the caliph Al-Rasheed sent for him to test him, and he discussed with him his written verdicts that he issued not so long ago, in the presence of retinue members, he saw that Afiyya was a just and fair judge, and when Al-Rasheed sneezed, all people present uttered the phrase (Bless you, O Emir of the Believers!), except Afiyya who never opened his mouth. When Al-Rasheed asked him why he did not say to him what others had uttered, Afiyya told Al-Rasheed that he did not thank the Lord after he sneezed (i.e., as required by Sunnite hadiths), and Al-Rasheed admired his response and declared him to be a just and fair judge who must go on in his post. Al-Rasheed then verbally insulted and shouted at the ones who requested from him to dismiss such an honorable judge (Al-Muntazim, 9/51 deaths of 180 A.H.).

4- Some judges had to resign from their posts due of reasons beyond their control, like Assad Ibn Amr, who was a disciple and a friend of Abou Hanifa, who notices that his eyesight became very poor and requested to be allowed to resign because of that (Al-Muntazim, 9/184 deaths of 190 A.H.).

 

Just judges and 'just' tyrants:

1- We have narrated above the good stance of Harun Al-Rasheed, within the situation when he supported a just judge, i.e., Afiyya, and refused to listen to the unjust corrupt affluent people who desired to see Afiyya dismissed from his job as they could not stand his justice that hindered them from getting their way. The question raised now is as follows: since some just judges existed, could 'just' tyrants have exited at some points in history?    

2- In order to answer this question, we narrate the following from the biography of the judge Salama Ibn Saleh, whom Al-Rasheed appointed as the judge of the Iraqi city of Wasit, and later on, Al-Rasheed dismissed him and gave him the sack, and this former judge lived the rest of his life in Baghdad. The cause of his dismissal was that morals of people had changed and low moralistic levels spread among most of the subjects in the Abbasid Empire, thus making corruption, wealth, authority, and power drive away justice and bring about instead the dominance of tyranny and the spread of injustices. Another cause was that Al-Rasheed followed his whims and interests and did not care much about justice if it would hinder him in any possible way, and this would be disastrous for fair judges who adhered to justice all the time. In his court, the judge Salama Ibn Saleh was infuriated by an affluent man who slapped the man who filed a complaint against him as both men stood before the judge to issue a verdict regarding their case, and the judge commanded that the affluent man would be flogged ten times (i.e., to be beaten ten strikes with a flog) immediately for slapping the other man before the judge in court. Because this affluent man was highly connected and belonged to a powerful tribe, members of this tribe urged Al-Rasheed, whom they met in in Mecca while all of them were performing pilgrimage at the same time like the caliph, to dismiss the judge Salama Ibn Saleh from his post for his insulting their man by ordering his flogging in public, and they assured Al-Rasheed that this judge was just and fair and never took bribes, but he must be dismissed so as the tribe would not lose its honor and high stature because of this shame and disgrace. Al-Rasheed dismissed the judge Salama Ibn Saleh to please them and appointed another religious scholar in his place (Al-Muntazim, 9/49 deaths of 180 A.H.). this means that Al-Rasheed, who was a moody caliph, supported a well-off tribe, whose member was unjust, arrogant, and deserved to be punished, by dismissing a just judge merely to please them! The judge Salama Ibn Saleh could have avoided their evil influence and authority by never punishing their man who slapped the other man and by overlooking his impudence, but as he adhered piously to justice and in the fear of God, he punished the insolent affluent man, and this was why the caliph dismissed him from his post; Al-Rasheed was keen on having good relations with the affluent and powerful families and tribes who help his empire financially, and this act of pleasing them was committed to preserve his own authority and rule which was based on injustice and tyranny. Hence, we assert here that the 'just' tyrant is a myth, and the so-called 'just' tyrants never existed at all in any eras. Because even moody caliphs would side with justice only as long as it would not hinder their plans and form obstacles before their ambitions; or else, they would side with injustice and dismiss just judges to please the unjust affluent corrupt people. hence, when justice would undermine authority, sovereignty, wealth, and power of any caliph, he would immediately throw justice into the dustbin. Hence, the moody caliph Al-Rasheed dismissed the judge Salama Ibn Saleh and did not that to Afiyya, because the latter did not pose any threat to him, while the former had to be dismissed as displeasing the powerful well-off influential tribe would undermine his interests and his power as a caliph. If this caliph were just, he should have supported the just judge and stood against the unjust persons, even if they were his relatives or his affluent subjects that influenced his rule and authority.  

 

The story of the judge Omar Ibn Habeeb Al-Adawi:

   As per his biography written by Ibn Al-Jawzy, Omar Ibn Habeeb Al-Adawi was a religious scholar who came to Baghdad and was appointed as the judge of its eastern district, and then as the judge of Basra, during the reign of Al-Rasheed. When a common man filed a complaint to the judge Omar Ibn Habeeb against Abdul-Samad, the paternal uncle of Al-Rasheed, and when the judge Omar Ibn Habeeb requested that Abdul-Samad would present himself at court immediately, the latter adamantly refused to show up. This insolence drove Abdul-Samad to resign and close the court, and when Al-Rasheed was informed about what happened when he asked Abdul-Samad about his reason for tendering his resignation, the caliph insisted and swore by God's name that Abdul-Samad, who was a very old man, must walk to the court of Omar Ibn Habeeb bare-footed as a punishment for his insolence. Abdul-Samad made his servants put pieces of cloth all the way from his palace to the court, so that he would walk barefooted to the court, and he kept saying that the Emir of the Believers would have him get tired to death. When Abdul-Samad reached the court, Omar Ibn Habeeb loudly commanded him to sit beside the complainer, on equal footing, as Abdul-Samad preferred initially to sit on a divan (i.e., oriental settee) brought to him by his servants. When Omar Ibn Habeeb issued a verdict against Abdul-Samad who was found guilty, he verbally insulted the judge, and this drove Omar Ibn Habeeb to punish this paternal uncle of Al-Rasheed by commanding an iron bracelet be put around his wrist for a certain period of time, and ordered that no smith would remove it (unless upon written orders by the judge Omar Ibn Habeeb) under the pain of imprisonment  (Al-Muntazim, 10/162 deaths of 207 A.H.)

 

During the Mameluke Era, corruption worsened and aggravated, but some fair and just judges emerged:

   Al-Makrizi, the historian, studies historical accounts of ancient times authored by many previous historians, especially regarding rulers and religious scholars, because he liked to note in his writings how scholars, judges, and imams preserved their dignity before rulers, governors, and caliphs; undoubtedly, Al-Makrizi inwardly and between the lines compared the accounts of fair and just scholars/judges to the deplorable conditions of the sheikhs of his era, while expressing his sorrow for their hypocrisy, greed, and ignorance and their lack of honor and principles. Some honorable, fair, and just scholars/judges lived until they witnessed the gradual change (to the worse) of morals and how degeneration and corruption began to dominate all aspects of life, and after lamenting the conditions, they would isolate themselves to spare themselves any possible humiliation and dangers and to preserve their piety to seek the eternal life in the Hereafter. This was the stance of a supreme judge named Borhan-Eddine, who lived during the Mameluke Era. When the Circassian Mamelukes began to control the weak sultans who were the descendants of the great sultan Qalawun, the judge Borhan-Eddine tendered his resignation, as Al-Makrizi mentions in his events of 779 A.H. in Egypt, as he abandoned all social and public spheres (to avoid dealing with and talking to the unjust Circassian Mameluke princes) and went to Jerusalem for a while, as he lamented the dominance of corruption and how people became degenerate and lacked principles and morals and neglected their religion, and he feared he could not uphold justice as properly as he would expect. Yet, Borhan-Eddine assumed his post again in Cairo when he sensed that he was invited and welcomed by the ruling circles to uphold justice, and in the Hijri month of Ramadan in 783 A.H., within group readings and recitals of the book of Al-Bokhary at the Citadel, in Cairo, in the presence of Mameluke princes and high-rank officials, a man named Ibn Nahar verbally insulted Borhan-Eddine and accused him of being an unjust judge, and instead of showing any signs of annoyance, he let Ibn Nahar recount his grievance before the Mameluke prince Barqoq (who was destined to become a Mameluke sultan later on) and to insult Borhan-Eddine, who wanted to observe the reaction of Barqoq. But Barqoq was absent-minded and made no reaction, and this drove Borhan-Eddine to tender his resignation a second time and on his way to get out of Cairo to travel back to Jerusalem, Barqoq intercepted him bringing along all scholars and judges to convince Borhan-Eddine to return to his post and to ask him about what drove him to leave. Once Barqoq knew what happened, he commanded the governor of Cairo to beat Ibn Nahar in public and to humiliate him in public for insulting a reverent judge. This made Borhan-Eddine realize that the judicial authority and its awe and respect would be protected, and he accepted to be re-appointed only when Barqoq promised him solemnly to protect him as a judge against his rivals and foes and to order the public beatings to anyone insulting the judges or hindering the way of justice. Luckily for Borhan-Eddine, who felt a stranger in his old age within a degenerate era of worst changes, he died before Barqoq became the sultan and spread on purpose all types of injustices, bribes, corruption, decadence, and promiscuity, while allowing the corrupt people and criminals to be his close friends to impose his tyrannical rule, and his successors to the throne followed his footsteps and imitated his policies. It is noteworthy that When Barqoq plotted the conspiracy against the sultan to abdicate him and be enthroned instead, he insulted Borhan-Eddine to lead him to resign, so that he would not hinder his plan to get to the throne by claiming that legitimacy had been violated. Borhan-Eddine died shortly after he resided for the last time, days before Barqoq was enthroned.

   Of course, Al-Makrizi who witnessed the degenerate state of corrupt, greedy, hypocritical religious scholars celebrated history of honorable dignified judges of ancient eras when he wrote about their stances, as if he was preaching and reproaching his contemporaries of the 9th century A.H. for wasting their knowledge and degrading themselves for money by serving the unjust ones. Al-Makrizi in his history that a Mameluke prince, who controlled the throne during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Lajin, wanted the judge Ibn Daqeeq to issue a fatwa regarding inheritance share of a brother of a dead merchant, but the judge refused to issue a fatwa by hearing the story as told of the prince, as he must verify the matter himself to make sure details of the story were true and that the man was really the dead merchant's brother, as testimonies of princes and people if authority did not count at the time as per certain schools of fiqh. On the day when the Mameluke princes used to meet on a monthly basis all judges and supreme judges, at the Citadel in Cairo, the Mameluke prince wanted to force the judge Ibn Daqeeq to issue the needed fatwa, but the infuriated judge Ibn Daqeeq declared before everyone present his tending his resignation as justice cannot be maintained in that era of unjust princes. He left the Citadel at once and kept to his house while never allowing anyone to visit him. After a while, when the Mameluke sultan Lajin knew about the whole matter, he reproached the Mameluke prince severely in public and sent for Ibn Daqeeq to apologize for him, but Ibn Daqeeq refused to go to the palace at first, until the sultan Lajin sent two intimate friends of Ibn Daqeeq who convinced him that the sultan was keen on gratifying him to restore justice within the judicial authority; Ibn Daqeeq went eventually to the palace and received warm and cordial welcome by the sultan Lajin and apologized for him in public and implored and beseeched him to return to his post until Ibn Daqeeq finally agreed to be re-appointed again as a judge.