English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Abstract: This article deals with judicial pluralism under the rule of the Almoravids and the Almohads. Both dynasties deserve to be considered jointly in a study of the judiciary in the pre-modern Islamic West. Given their close association with Mālikism, the Almoravids created a scenario apt for the Mālikī fuqahā’ to improve the position of qāḍī‑s vis-a-vis governmental judges. Conversely, qāḍī‑s are believed to have been deprived of a significant part of their powers and independence as a consequence of Almohad legal policy, which jeopardized Mālikism’s predominance and control over the judiciary. This article is organized into three parts : (1) a diachronic overview of the specificities of the judiciary in al‑Andalus and the Far Maghrib ; (2) the Almoravids’ judicial policy and the jurists’ counter-reaction ; (3) dialectics between rulers and Mālikī qāḍī‑s in the Almohad period. The aim is to test whether textual evidence and previous research still support the idea that both periods mark a peak and a bottom respectively in the Mālikīs’ position with political power, and therefore, in the balance of forces between qāḍī‑s and governmental judges.

Judicial pluralism under the “Berber empires” (last quarter of the 11th century C.E. – first half of the 13th century C.E.)