In Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr, Muḥammad Ibn Iyās al-Ḥanafī (1448-1522), the famous Mamluk chronicler, narrates a compelling story of an unusual case of adultery involving the wife of a ḥanafī judge cheating on him with a shāfi‘ī colleague. Adjudicated by the chamberlain (ḥājib al-ḥujjāb) at the time, the case reaches Sultan Qānṣawh al-Ghawrī (1441- 1516) who overrules the chamberlain’s verdict and sentences the couple to death by stoning, countering the advice of the four chief judges of Cairo. Against the backdrop of this story, presented before and adjudicated by a maẓālim court, this research examines questions on the shar‘īness of maẓālim. Was maẓālim-justice distinct from that of sharī‘a? Were maẓālim a secular sphere of justice in the hands of the executive? Could we speak of maẓālim as a mere political tool at the disposal of the Sultan used to curtail the supposedly independent sphere of qāḍīs? Investigating the historiography on maẓālim courts in the Islamic tradition, this paper argues that maẓālim and those residing over them—be it a sultan, a deputy, or a qāḍī—thought of their roles to fall right within the boundaries of sharī‘a, though with distinct tracks of investigation, establishing evidence, and punishment. Arguing against scholarship that approaches maẓālim in contradistinction to shar‘īa (Schacht, 1983; Nielsen, 1985; Fuess, 2009), the present work shows how such accounts apply a modernist categorization anachronistically by extending the separate spheres of the shar‘ī and the secular to the Islamic past. Contrasting these accounts, it traces how the very institutionalization of maẓālim grew in close proximity to ideas of ‘adl (justice)—as understood through concepts like the circle of justice (Darling, 2006). Understanding this wholistic conception of justice as crucial for the perpetuation of the ruler’s reign, their image, legitimacy, and legacy— I argue that a symbiotic relationship between the executive and realms of justice, envisioned through sharī‘a, uncovers how such analyses continue to employ modern ideals of separation of power and checks and balances. Using chronicles and annalistic sources of the Mamluk period as well as fiqh works, this work investigates how the actors involved (the sultan, the chamberlain, and the qāḍīs) viewed their own roles. In so doing, it undertakes a close reading of these sources, taking seriously their own understandings and articulations of their roles in serving justice and how this justice relates (or not) to sharī‘a.