Search

In 1860, Emine Hanım killed her husband Ferik İbrahim Pasha. In this article, I use her murder trial to examine the interrelation between slavery, the private lives of the Ottoman ruling class, and the complexities of the judicial system during the Tanzimat period (1839–1876). I identify the limitations of nineteenth-century legal reforms and the discrepancy between the reformist ideals and the real-world complexities experienced by individuals. By paying close attention to legal issues in the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat era, such as siyaseten katl (administrative death penalty) and the inconsistent application of kısas (retaliation in kind), I argue that Emine's story contributes to a better understanding of the Ottoman legal system during the reform era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Selcuk Law Review / Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Selcuk Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

"Land and Legal Texts in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire: Harmonization, Property Rights and Sovereignty" by Malissa Taylor is a book that examines the development of property rights in the Ottoman Empire from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. The author challenges the notion that the kanunnames of Süleyman I represented the peak of the classical Ottoman land regime. Instead, Taylor argues that property rights in the mid-sixteenth century were shaped by the Ottoman state's efforts to control land and secure it for peasants. The book explores how land rights gradually extended to urban investors and military elites, as well as the theoretical foundations and spread of this process. The text also delves into the Kanunname of Candia and its role in resisting the institutionalization of the miri regime, with a focus on figures like Vani Mehmed Efendi and the Kad¿zadeli movement. However, the author notes that this resistance was limited to Candia and the Aegean islands, while the process of harmonizing sultanic and sharia law continued in other regions. The text further examines the development of land rights and the expansion of the harmony tradition in the eighteenth century, culminating in the 1858 Land Code. While the book is praised for its use of diverse sources and conceptual tools, some inconsistencies and omissions are also pointed out. Overall, the book offers valuable insights into Ottoman property rights and legal history. [Extracted from the article]

İslam hukukunda kira belirli bir menfaatin bir bedel karşılığında satılması olarak tanımlanmıştır. Bu yönü ile günümüze göre daha geniş bir kapsama sahip olmuştur. Taşınır, taşınmaz malların kirasının yanı sıra iş akitleri, taşıma sözleşmeleri hatta hasta hekim arasındaki sözleşmeler kira başlığı altında ele alınmıştır. İslam hukukunda genel olarak sözleşmelerin geçerli olması için bir şekil şartı ortaya konulmamıştır. Ancak insanlar haklarını korumak için aralarındaki sözleşmeleri kayıt altına alma ihtiyacı hissetmişlerdir. Hanefi mezhebi görüşleri doğrultusunda yargı teşkilatını oluşturan ülkelerde bu görevi kadılar ifa etmişlerdir. Hukuk tarihimizde bu konuda kadılara yardımcı eserler kaleme alınmıştır. Bunlardan ikisindeki kira kayıtları bu çalışmada ele alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu örnekler arasında gayrimenkul kira sözleşmesi, iş sözleşmesi, taşıma sözleşmesi örnekleri bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca Şanizade’nin(öl.1242/1826) eserinde kira konusunda ortaya çıkan uyuşmazlıkların yargılanmasında tutulan mahkeme kayıtları bulunmaktadır. Bu kayıtlar incelendiğinde Osmanlı’da Müslümanlarla gayrimüslimlerin birbirleri ile ticari ve hukuki ilişkiler kurabildikleri ve mahkeme önünde eşit bir şekilde yargılamaya tabi tutulabildikleri, Osmanlıda kadınların kendi adlarına sözleşmeler yapabildikleri ve mahkemede taraf sıfatıyla yer alabildikleri görülmektedir.

In 1830, Sultan Mahmud II issued a sweeping order freeing enslaved people. Scholars have often been puzzled by this apparently unprecedented 1830 decree, and they have sometimes seen it as the beginning of Ottoman abolition. Yet the academic consensus is that Ottoman state efforts against slavery began only later, in 1847 at the earliest. This article attempts to resolve the discrepancy. By studying the original order and placing it in context, I argue that it emerged from a longer Ottoman tradition of freeing foreign captives after wars. Mahmud extended this tradition to Greece once that state won its independence in 1830. Thus Mahmud's order was not the unprecedented beginning of Ottoman abolition, but the last act in an older interimperial system of regulating enslavement. That system offered precedents for Ottoman antislavery action but was not itself opposed to slavery. Furthermore, I argue that the reason Mahmud's order has perplexed scholars is because of how it was transmitted to us. A single British observer is responsible for all subsequent work on the order, and his presentation of it was deeply colored by his position in contemporary British debates about abolition and the Eastern Question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article investigates the kanun or Albanian "customary law", with a particular focus on feuds in the town of Dibra. It explores a case of Ottoman legal pluralism in which the kanun and Ottoman law interacted, a major watershed in the development of Ottoman law. By shifting the perspective to the Albanian highlanders' understanding of "law", this paper sheds light on how a set of customary laws contributed to the making of the Tanzimat , which called for a standardised legal framework in the provinces. It examines the means the Ottoman government developed to eliminate feuds and demonstrates that the Tanzimat converged with the principles of Albanian customary law. Analysis of this interaction between the kanun and state law demonstrates how this process constituted one of the foundations of the modern Ottoman legal order in northern Albania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories are introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the transformation of three coeval monarchs—Sultan Abdülhamid II (r. 1876–1909), Queen Victoria (r. 1837–1901), and King Leopold II (r. 1865–1909)—into private landed property owners in the late nineteenth century. In its comparisons, the article centers Sultan Abdülhamid II's transformation into a private landed property owner with the separation of his privy purse from the state treasury in the early 1880s, to show that despite the distinctive specificities of Ottoman law, institutions, and imperial finances, all three monarchs used private ownership of landed property as private individuals. This article not only joins the extended scholarly literature criticizing characterizations of an unproblematic capitalist "West" or "Europe" whose market society is underpinned by development of "private property" against a stagnant and undifferentiated "East" but also complicates the liberal distinction of "state" and "society" by focusing on the private property ownership of the pinnacle of "state actors," the monarchs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of BEÜ Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Bulent Ecevit University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Since 1967, the slogan "restoring Jerusalem to its Jewish glory" has served as a rallying cry for the further colonization of the occupied eastern part of the city by the Israeli government and settler organizations alike. Jewish settlement in Jerusalem's Palestinian neighborhoods invokes moral claims to Jewish sovereignty based on biblical history and material claims to pre-1948 properties of Jews in these neighborhoods. This essay examines Jewish settler groups' utilization of Israel's political-legal infrastructure to advance their colonization projects at the very heart of Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem. More specifically, it examines an area of Silwan where Ateret Cohanim, through its representatives, has initiated eviction lawsuits against dozens of Palestinian families in the Israeli magistrate court, alleging trespass of Jewish-endowed waqf land established in the 1880s. As elsewhere in East Jerusalem, some of the targeted families in Silwan were originally displaced either from areas that became Israel after 1948 or from the Old City in 1967. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

İslam hukukunda evlilik, akrabalık ve mülkiyet nafakası şeklinde üç çeşit nafaka vardır. Bu çalışmada evlilik nafakası kapsamında yer alan mesken nafakası öncelikle dört mezhebin görüşleri çerçevesinde ele alınacaktır. Daha sonra Osmanlı Dönemi fetvaları ve mahkeme kararlarından hareketle kadının hakkı olan mesken nafakası, İslam aile hukukunun Osmanlı tatbikatı özelinde işlenecektir. Osmanlı Dönemi’nde İslam hukukunun tatbik edildiği ve bu bağlamda Hanefî mezhebinin resmi mezhep olarak benimsendiği kabul edilmektedir. Çalışmanın sonucunda mesken nafakası özelinde Osmanlı Dönemi’nde Hanefî görüşlerinin tatbik edilip edilmediğini tespit etmek mümkün olabilecektir. İslam aile hukukunda kadının hakkı olan evlilik nafakasının kapsamına yeme, giyinme, mesken, tedavi ve hizmetçi masrafları girmektedir. Mesken, bir evde veya onun bir bölümünde bir şahsın veya ailenin devamlı surette oturduğu yer anlamındadır. Bunun şer‘î mesken olabilmesi için en azından tuvalet ve mutfak gibi müştemilâtı bulunmalıdır. Mesken, kocanın nikâhlı eşiyle aile hayatı yaşayabilmesi için hukuken bulunması gereken şartlardandır. Kadın meskene taşınıp kocasıyla zifafa girdikten sonra nafaka haklarına sahip olmaktadır. Ancak mesken hazır olduğu halde kadının oraya taşınmaması veya taşındıktan sonra kocasından izin almaksızın evi terk etmesi nüşûz sayılmakta ve bundan ötürü kadın nafaka haklarını yitirmektedir. Bununla beraber kadına mehir verilmemesi, zifaf gerçekleşmediği halde kadının kocasının rızasıyla anne babasının evinde kalması, meskenin şer‘î vasıfları taşımaması, kadının ikinci eş veya kaynana kayınbabası ile aynı meskende ikamet etmek istememesi, kocanın eşini boşamaksızın meskeninden kovması, kocanın rızasıyla kadının başka bir evde ikamet etmesi gibi gerekçelerle kadın nüşûz yapmış sayılmaz ve kadının nafaka hakları devam eder. Osmanlı mahkeme kayıtlarına bolca yansıyan “mesken-i şer’i” tabiri ile ifade edilmek istenen şey Hanefî kaynaklarında tanımlanan meskenle aynıdır. Hanefîlerin bir meskenin hukuken mesken sayılabilmesi için aradıkları asgari ölçü, onun mutfak, tuvalet gibi müştemilâta sahip, kilitlenebilen bir oda/mekân olmasıdır. İlgili mahkeme kayıtlarında da “mesken-i şer‘i” ile kastedilen ve mahkemece görevlendirilen bilirkişilerin dava konusu meskenin “mesken-i şer‘i” olup olmadığını incelerken zikredilen asgari kıstasları dikkate aldıkları görülmektedir. Mahkemeler, kadının nâmahremle aynı ikamet etmesini ve evin güvensiz bir mahallede olmasını meskenin, şer‘îliğinin bozulmasına sebep saymakta ve böyle bir durumdaki kadına yeni bir meskenin hazırlanmasına karar vermektedir. Mahkeme kayıtlarında kadının mehr-i muaccelini almadığı için kocasına itaat etmemesine hakkının olduğuna dair kararlar bulunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu durumlarda kadınların nafaka hakları devam etmektedir. Aynı şekilde mehr-i muaccelini aldığı halde kocasına itaat etmeyen ve onun meskenine taşınmayan kadınlara da böyle bir haklarının olmadığı yönünde kararlar verilmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu durumdaki kadınlara nafaka ödenmemektedir. Ayrıca kadının oturduğu meskenin, şer‘î mesken vasfını yitirmesi-taşımamasından dolayı onun evi terk etmesi, evin şer‘î mesken olmasına rağmen kadının ikinci eşle veya kaynana ile aynı evde oturmaması, nüşûz sayılmayacak gerekçelerle kocasının evine taşınmaması ve evden kovulması gibi durumlarda onların nafaka taleplerine mahkemeler müspet yönde kararlar vermektedir. Bunların yanı sıra mahkemeler, nüşûz yapan kadınların nafaka haklarının olmadığına hükmetmektedir.Kadının mesken hakkı özelinde ele alınan bu çalışma ile İslam hukukunun Osmanlı Dönemi tatbikatında Hanefî mezhebi görüşlerinin yürürlükte olduğu tespitini yapmak mümkündür.

Osmanlı/Hanefî aile hukukunda prensip olarak kocaya ait olan boşama hakkı tek taraflı, sözlü ve şahitsiz olarak kullanılabilmektedir. Sarhoşun talâk vermesi hukuken geçerlidir. Kocanın karısını şarta bağlı olarak boşaması muteberdir. Bu kurallar kocanın karısına yalnızken verdiği talâkı daha sonra tanımamasına, sarhoşken yaptığı boşamayı ayıldığında inkâr etmesine ve belli bir şarta bağladığı boşamayı şart gerçekleştiğinde reddetmesine imkân verir. Kocanın boşamadığına yemin ettiği durumlarda karısının boşamayı ispat etmesi hayli zordur. Fetva mecmualarına yansıyan meseleler kadınların bu bağlamda ağır mağduriyetler yaşadığına işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışma Osmanlı müftülerinin boşandığını iddia eden fakat ispatlayamayan kadınlara evlilik-içi zinadan kurtulmaları için son çare olarak önerdiği kocanın yemeğine zehir katmaya odaklanmaktadır. Amaç Osmanlı kadınlarının talâkı ispat hususunda yaşadığı zorlukları ve çaresizliği ilgili fetvalar örneğinde göstermektir. Osmanlı aile hukukunda boşama kocanın tek taraflı olarak salt belli lafızları kullanmasıyla diyâneten gerçekleşir. Ancak diyâneten gerçekleşmiş olan bir boşama kocanın ikrarıyla ya da şahitlerle ispatlanmadıkça mahkeme tarafından dikkate alınmaz. Bu ikilem kanuni boşanma sebepleri son derece sınırlı olan Osmanlı kadınlarının evlilik birliğinde âdeta mahsur kalmasına neden olmuştur. Müftülere sorulan meseleler kadınların özellikle kocanın sarhoşken veya şarta bağlı olarak verdiği talâklarda ispat zorluğu yaşadığını ve diyâneten sona ermiş bulunan evlilik birliğine hapsolduğunu göstermektedir. Osmanlı müftüleri böyle evliliklerde cinsel yakınlaşmayı zina olarak kabul eder, kadını evlilik-içi zinadan uzak durması hususunda uyarır ve başka bir yolla ilişkiden kurtulamıyorsa kocanın yemeğine zehir katmasını meşrû görür. Onların başka bir yolla kastettikleri şeyin hukuk pratiğindeki yegane karşılığı muhâleadır. Boşandığını iddia eden fakat ispatlayamayan bir kadın bazı maddi haklarından feragat etme karşılığında kocasından boşanma elde etmeye çalışmalıdır. Ancak bu yol kadını maddi yönden mağdur ettiği ve nihai olarak kocanın rızasına dayandığı için her zaman makul ve kullanışlı değildir. Aile hukukuyla ceza hukukunun ortak alanında yer alan bu çalışmada müftüleri zikredilen sıra dışı çareyi önermeye mecbur bırakan hukuki arka plan tasvir edilmektedir. Çalışma 16-18. yüzyıllar arasında Anadolu ve Rumeli’de görev yapan Osmanlı müftüleri tarafından bu bağlamda verilmiş fetvaları analiz etmekte ve Hanefî hukuk öğretisi eşliğinde yorumlamaktadır. Osmanlı/Hanefî ceza hukukunda bir kişiyi yemeğine zehir katmak suretiyle öldürmek kısas veya diyet gerektirmez fakat fail kurbanı aldattığı için taʿzîr kapsamında cezaya tabi olur. Bu hüküm zinadan kurtulmak amacıyla kocasını zehirleyen kadın hakkında da geçerlidir. Şüphesiz kadın zina niteliğindeki cinsel saldırıdan kurtulmak için meşrû müdafaa kapsamında kocasını zehirlediğini iddia edecektir. Fakat bu iddiayı usûlüne uygun bir şekilde ispatlamadıkça taʿzîr cezasına maruz kalabilir. Çünkü hukuken kocası sayılan kişiyi salt kendi iddiasına dayanarak zehirlemiştir. Osmanlı müftüleri karısını boşamadığına yemin eden münkir kocayı kazâen evli kabul eder. Koca salt karısının ispatlanmamış iddiasıyla tasarruf hakkından menedilemez ve nikâhla elde ettiği menfaati tasarruf ettiği için cezalandırılamaz. Fakat ilişkiden kaçınmaya güç yetiremeyen kadın istemeden de olsa kocanın cinsellik talebine itaat ederse günahkar sayılır. Çünkü ikrarıyla ilişkiyi cinsel saldırı ve zinaya dönüştüren odur. İkrarı şahitlerle ya da kocanın itirafıyla desteklenmedikçe sadece kendisi hakkında bağlayıcıdır. Müftülerin sadece kadın hakkında bağlayıcı olan ve hukuku yanıltma ihtimali bulunan bu ikrara dayanarak kocanın zehirlenmesini meşrû görmeleri fetva siyasetleriyle ilgili olabilir. Müftüler zehirleme seçeneğini yerine getirilmesi gereken gerçek bir tavsiye ya da ödev olmaktan ziyade sanki kocanın boşamayı ikrar edip sonuçlarına katlanmasını sağlamak amacıyla dile getirmektedir. Karısı tarafından zehirlenmek ile boşamanın sonuçlarına katlanmak arasında kalan kocanın ikincisini tercih edeceği açıktır.

İslam hukukunda, insanın fıtratında taşıdığı yardımseverliğin bir tezahürü olan hibe konusu ile ilgili ayrıntılı hükümler bulunmaktadır. Bir malı başkasına karşılıksız olarak hemen temlik etmek şeklinde tanımlanan hibe akdinin kuruluş ve geçerlilik şartları ile hibeden rücuun mümkün olup olmayacağı, rücu mümkün ise kimlere yapılan hibeden hangi şartlarda dönülebileceği hususlarıyla alakalı mezhepler farklı ictihadlara sahiptir. Hanefîler hibe akdinin teberru yönünü öne çıkararak, bir karşılık almadığı sürece hibe yapanın o malda hala tasarruf yetkisinin olduğunu düşünmektedirler. Bundan dolayı onlara göre kişi ahlaken uygun olmasa da hukuken hibesinden dönebilir. Bununla beraber yedi durum Hanefîlerde de kabzı gerçekleşen hibeden dönüşü engellemektedir. Cumhur ise hibe akdini satım akdine benzeterek onun bağlayıcı bir akid olduğu kanaatini taşır. Bundan dolayı baba ve bazı durumlarda annenin çocuğuna yaptığı hibe dışındaki hibelerden hukuken dönülmesinin caiz olmadığı görüşündedirler. Hanefî mezhebi Osmanlı’da resmi mezhep olarak kabul edilerek mahkeme kararları buna göre alınmıştır. Bu çalışmada Osmanlı dönemi fetvaları ve mahkeme kararlarından hareketle hibeden dönme meselesinde Hanefî mezhebinin ictihadlarına ne kadar uyulup uyulmadığı tespit edilmeye çalışıldı. Netice olarak hibeden dönme konusu ile ilgili Osmanlı dönemi özelinde incelenen fetva ve mahkeme kararlarında Hanefî mezhebinin görüşlerinin uygulandığı tespit edildi. Çalışmamızın hibeden dönme konusu özelinde İslam ve Osmanlı hukuk tarihine mütevazi bir katkı sunması ümit edilmektedir.

This article surveys recent work on oracular prophecies and their role in Greek perceptions of Russia in the early modern period. Drawing on this survey, the article provides a critical assessment of the historiographical paradigm of the 'Russian Expectation' offered by Paschalis Kitromilides for the analysis of Greek-Russian relations. Finally, the article proposes that scholars should focus on the concept of protection as an aspect of political language, this providing an explanation for particular Greek and also Russian interpretations of the Treaty of Kuçuk-Kaynardja of 1774. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hukuk sistemleri, kişinin maddi varlığı kadar manevi varlığını da korumayı amaçlamaktadır. İslam’ın insanı konumlandırdığı yer sebebiyle fıkıh da insanın manevi varlığını koruyacak normlar ortaya koymuştur. Yargı alanında asırlar boyu bu normları esas alan Osmanlı, Batı’nın etkisiyle birlikte bu normları kanunlaştırmaya başlamıştır. Bu kapsamda insanın manevi varlığına yönelik tecavüzler de kanun metinlerine girmiş, mahkemelerin davaları bu kanunlar çerçevesinde ele almaları istenmiştir. Kanunlarda ise manevi varlığa yönelik hakaret suçlarının klasik Hanefî fıkhına uygun olarak düzenlendiği görülmektedir. Lakin kanun yapımında zamanla fıkhî birikimden daha az yararlanılmış, suçun taksiminde Batı sistematiği esas alınmıştır. Günümüz Türk pozitif hukukunda “şerefe yönelik suçlar” içerisinde düzenlenen hakaret suçunun da bu sistematiği takip ettiği ve Osmanlı pozitif hukukundan etkilendiği görülmektedir. Çalışmada hakaret suçu, Türk hukuk tarihinde birbirinin ardılı olan klasik Hanefî fıkhı, Tanzimat Dönemi kanunları, bazı konularda eski Türk Ceza Kanunu ve günümüz Türk Ceza Kanunu üzerinden mukayeseli olarak ele alınmaya çalışılacaktır.

Copyright of Osmanli Arastirmalari is the property of Turkiye Diyanet Foundation Centre for Islamic Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the world history, the nineteenth century witnessed globally major economic, politic, and social changes. More importantly, their implications constitute today’s challenges particularly for modern Muslim-majority states where the tension between state, religion and society has not been settled. There is no doubt that looking at the past where the separation between sharī‘a and state started clearly to appear serves for a better understanding of today’s struggle in locating the role of sharī‘a in legal systems of modern Muslim-majority states. Many of them, i.e. the Middle Eastern and some North African states are the successors of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans ruled over continents for centuries thanks to their well-established governmental policy and legal system. However, they were also obliged to introduce some remarkable changes in social, political and legal spheres in the nineteenth century. The era is generally called as the process of Ottoman modernization and secularisation referring to Tanzimat Edict and following legal reforms. This study seeks to analyse the way Ottoman law has been transformed in the nineteenth century, as well as its roots, challenges and implications. To this end, the paper offers an answer to the questions as to whether secularisation of Ottoman law was evolutionary or revolutionary, why it had to go through a process of secularisation, and to what extent classical Ottoman system could serve this secularisation process. To address these inquiries, the study is divided into two principle sections: the first part evaluates the classical Ottoman legal system and its religious and non-religious characters, arguing that the Turkish state tradition with its influence on government and law making were in fact the changeable features of the Ottoman law. The second part examines the process of secularisation of law from the pre-Tanzimat period to the end of the Ottoman Empire. This part reveals that secularisation of the Ottoman law was of evolutionary character, and that reforms were introduced thereafter for practical purposes, i.e. meeting contemporary needs and necessities, and not for the sake of philosophical and political considerations. However, these attempts led to a gradual secularisation of the Ottoman law, and further culminated in a revolutionary approach in the republican era.

This article investigates the relationship between the Ottoman state and the operations of the most powerful international news agencies of its time, Havas and Reuters, within the Ottoman Empire. The two agencies started to operate in Istanbul during the Crimean War and soon became the most influential sources of news both within and outside the Ottoman Empire. The article examines how the Ottoman state, perceiving them as a threat, attempted to resist their dominant role in news-production by collaborating with other different agencies and actors. When this failed, it tried to found a national news agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390), a well-known theorist/theologian of the post-classical era of Islamic thought, not only elucidated the statements of Sadr al-sharīah in his āshiyah (super-commentary), titled al-Talwī, which he wrote on al-Tawī, but also introduced several criticisms against his arguments. Al-Taftāzānī's work, al- Talwī, was received with great interest by Ottoman scholars, who then composed many āshiyahs on it in the fifteenth century. Although the number of āshiyahs significantly diminished, the practice of āshiyah writing on al-Talwī continued in the sixteenth century. Surūrī Chalabī (d. 969/1562) was one of the scholars who penned a āshiyah on al-Talwī during this period. The literary works of Surūrī Chalabī have recently been the subject of numerous academic studies, yet his legacy in Islamic sciences has not received the same interest. This article, aiming to fill this gap in the literature, scrutinizes synchronically and diachronically the place of Surūrī's āshiyah on al-Talwī within the tradition of Ottoman āshiyah writing on al-Talwī and eventually demonstrates that Surūrī primarily dealt with the arguments and comments of asan Chalabī, a previous āshiyah author who commented on al-Talwī and criticized them in his argument-based āshiyah thus endeavors to position himself within the tradition of āshiyah writing of the previous century through asan Chalabī's work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the world history, the nineteenth century witnessed globally major economic, politic, and social changes. More importantly, their implications constitute today's challenges particularly for modern Muslim-majority states where the tension between state, religion and society has not been settled. There is no doubt that looking at the past where the separation between sharī'a and state started clearly to appear serves for a better understanding of today's struggle in locating the role of sharī'a in legal systems of modern Muslim-majority states. Many of them, i.e. the Middle Eastern and some North African states are the successors of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans ruled over continents for centuries thanks to their well-established governmental policy and legal system. However, they were also obliged to introduce some remarkable changes in social, political and legal spheres in the nineteenth century. The era is generally called as the process of Ottoman modernization and secularisation referring to Tanzimat Edict and following legal reforms. This study seeks to analyse the way Ottoman law has been transformed in the nineteenth century, as well as its roots, challenges and implications. To this end, the paper offers an answer to the questions as to whether secularisation of Ottoman law was evolutionary or revolutionary, why it had to go through a process of secularisation, and to what extent classical Ottoman system could serve this secularisation process. To address these inquiries, the study is divided into two principle sections: the first part evaluates the classical Ottoman legal system and its religious and non-religious characters, arguing that the Turkish state tradition with its influence on government and law making were in fact the changeable features of the Ottoman law. The second part examines the process of secularisation of law from the pre-Tanzimat period to the end of the Ottoman Empire. This part reveals that secularisation of the Ottoman law was of evolutionary character, and that reforms were introduced thereafter for practical purposes, i.e. meeting contemporary needs and necessities, and not for the sake of philosophical and political considerations. However, these attempts led to a gradual secularisation of the Ottoman law, and further culminated in a revolutionary approach in the republican era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper gives a brief account of the epigraphic work carried out in Dongola in the 2018 winter season. It included studying wall inscriptions and ostraca from the monastery on Kom H and Church B.V on the citadel, unearthed during both the previous and the present seasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Collection of Tunay Demran, officially registered in the Manisa Archaeological Museum, contains seven seals, six of lead and one of silver, and one blank. Manisa, the Byzantine Magnesia Anelios on Mount Sipylos, with its fertile lowland and strategic location in Western Anatolia, has been home to different civilizations over the centuries, including the Lydian Kingdom, one of the most important ancient civilizations. In the 13th century, it became one of the more important cities of the Nicene Empire (established after the Latin invasion in 1204) and the seat of Ioannes III Doukas Vatatzes, who located an actively working mint there. Later on, the city and its environs came under the rule of the Beylik of Saruhan and the Ottoman Empire. There is a rich archaeological record of civil and religious architecture in Manisa and its surroundings, still awaiting full investigation. The article presents Demran's collection of seals and explores potential ties with the archaeological remains of historical Magnesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the predominantly Christian district of Galata, churches were vulnerable to the frequent conflagrations which spread through the wooden buildings that predominated the urban landscape. The Latin Catholic Church of St. George was a victim to three fires during the seventeenth century and one in the early eighteenth century. This study aims to explore this history of the church, the preservation of its properties and of its historical claim to the land in the light of Ottoman documents. The status of the church building and land according to Ottoman law in addition to the processes for the acquisition and preservation of its properties carried out within the Ottoman legal framework will be analysed. The different types of Ottoman documents used in the process for the repair or reconstruction of church properties damaged in the fires from the initial petition presented at the Sublime Porte to the post-construction survey will be touched upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ali Haydar Efendi, son devir Osmanlı âlimlerinden olup döneminin önde gelen hukukçularındandır.Yargı görevlerinde bulunmuş ve yükseköğretim kurumlarında uzun yıllar Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyyeve Arazi hukuku derslerini okutmuştur. Dürerü’l-Hukkâm adlı eseri Osmanlı medeni kanunu olaraknitelendirebileceğimiz Mecelle’nin önemli şerhlerinden biridir. Fetva emini olarak kanunlaştırmahareketi içinde yer almış ve komisyonlarda görev alarak başta Kitâbu’n-Nafakât olmak üzere çeşitlikanun taslakları hazırlamıştır. Ali Haydar Efendi, Osmanlı kanunlaştırma çalışmalarında esas alınmasıgereken kaynağın İslâm hukuku olduğunu savunmuş ve Batı hukukunun iktibas edilmesini tenkitetmiştir. Ona göre Osmanlıdaki problemlerin temelinde şer’î hukuktan kopma yer almaktadır; Şer’îkaynaklara dayanan kanunlar, müktebes kanunlara nazaran her zaman adalete daha uygundur.

In the classical period, the Ottoman Empire created a unique state official system. In this system, non-Muslim citizens were not given equality in state official systems. However, in the Tanzimat period the Empire tried to achieve this equality for various reasons. Equality provisions are included in the constitution, constitutional documents and various laws. The legal regulations of the Ottoman Empire aiming to provide equality in access to the state official employment are not examined. The contents of these legal regulations have not been adequately evaluated in terms of access to the state official employment. The principles and conditions of employment have not been compared with today's regulations. The studies are mostly concentrated in the field of application and the theoretical part of the subject is omitted. This study sets out the basic legal arrangements aimed at equalizing the employment requirements for the state officials. These regulations appear to be sufficient in terms of the principles and conditions of employment of state officials. It is understood that the Ottoman Empire established the system of employment into the modern state official position with these regulations.

This article traces the genealogies of the legal concept 'spreader of corruption'. Although some scholars working on Ottoman law consider this concept to be part of the Ottoman ḳānūn tradition, the history of its adaptation by Ottoman jurists actually dates back to the Qarakhanid period (eleventh century CE). It acquired its legal meaning as a result of jurisprudential debates among Ḥanafī jurists in the context of political turmoil and violent factionalism among madhhab s. Later, Seljuq and Golden Horde legal-textual traditions served as conduit for Ottoman jurists to adapt the concept in order to apply it to a variety of criminal acts. This article explores how the 'spreader of corruption' concept was reinterpreted over the centuries and how it contributed to the enforcement of law in the Ottoman context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces the concept of "milletic secularism" which invokes the Ottoman millet system to refer to divergent and competing transnational collective identities, loyalties, and frames of reference coexisting within the same nation-state. These identities are conceptualized as resembling the way religious communities functioned under the Ottoman millet system but in a reverse, upended way, as today Muslims are the minority in a pluralist society and secular state governed on the basis of non-Muslim procedures and values symbolically overarched by Orthodox Christianity. Foregrounding the case of Bulgaria, the article highlights the role of the Ottoman legacy vis-à-vis Orthodox Christian heritage for the accommodation of diversity. Milletic secularism draws on the implicit social knowledge that evokes differing antecedents and values underlying the shared identities of Christians and Muslims. Since the 1990s, after half a century dominated by the "secular religion" of Communism, the intersection of religion and politics in Bulgaria is reshaped by the reemergence of religion as a structural force. Milletic secularism has both integrative and emancipatory potential, fostered and challenged today by a variety of factors. Among them, this article foregrounds the increasingly transnational Sunnī Muslim identity and the ongoing re-Islamization in the form of Ḥanafism and Salafism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Ottoman province of Serbia (initially the Belgrade Pashalik), the Roma had the same legal status as elsewhere in the Empire: they paid a special, Gypsy poll tax (Gypsy cizye; in Serbian: ciganski harač) and were subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Gypsy poll tax collector (Gypsy cizyedar; ciganski haračlija). After a successful uprising in 1815, the Serbs acquired a degree of autonomy, gradually broadened and formalized through a series of sultanic decrees, to culminate in a Constitution granted to Serbia by the Sultan in 1838. The Serbs progressively expanded their jurisdiction at the expense of the Ottoman authorities in every respect, including the powers over the Roma. Starting in 1818, the Serbian Prince began to collect the Gypsy tax in the name and on behalf of the Ottoman authorities; in 1826, he leased it from them, and by 1830 it was included in the lump annual tribute paid by Serbia to the Porte. The Ottomans thereby lost all jurisdiction over the Roma, excepting a small number of those employed as servants in the Turkish garrisons. Although Serbian authorities otherwise consistently endeavoured to replace the inherited Ottoman laws and customs with legislation modelled on that of West European Christian states, in respect to the Roma no attempt was made to alter the Ottoman system of special jurisdiction and taxation. In fact, the first changes in this system were consistent with the contemporary reforms proclaimed by the Porte: those nomadic Roma who wished to settle were to be given free land and to pay ordinary taxes. The same policy was proclaimed in Serbia in 1839, when the already sedentary Roma were entered into general tax registers, but no success was achieved in settling the nomads (a majority were eventually settled in the decade between mid-1860s and mid-1870s). The Gypsy tax collector (haračlija) was transformed into an institution (haračluk), with its own budget and staff, retaining personal jurisdiction over the nomadic Roma. This jurisdiction was progressively narrowed, to be abolished in 1853, together with the haračluk. However, the nomads remained subject to the poll tax, now collected by regular authorities. In consequence, they were also disenfranchised, as (since 1869) only the adult males who paid property and/or income (but not poll) tax had a right to vote. (Disenfranchisement, on the same grounds, affected other, non-Roma, categories, such as servants.) In 1884 the poll tax was abolished and the Roma achieved the same legal status as other Serbian citizens.

Bilindiği gibi fetva şer'i ameli konularda sorulan sorulara müftü tarafından verilen cevaptır. Kaza ise fıkhi bir terim olarak taraflar arasında ortaya çıkan dava ve anlaşmazlıkların usulüne uygun olarak hakim tarafından görülüp hükme bağlanmasıdır. gerek müftü gerekse kadı Kur'an ve Sünnetin hükümlerine bağlı olarak hüküm vermekte ise de, fetva ve kaza arasında bazı farklılıklar vardır. Fetva şer'i hükmü açıklayıp bildirmekten ibarettir, istişaridir ve bağlayıcı değildir. Kaza ise şer'i hükmü haber vermekle birlikte bağlayıcıdır. Makalede iki terimin kavramsal ilişkisinden öte İslam hukukuna getirdiği dinamizm üzerinde durulmaktadır. bu dinamizm tarihi süreç içerisinde istikrarlı bir seyir takip etmiştir.

This article traces the genealogies of the legal concept 'spreader of corruption'. Although some scholars working on Ottoman law consider this concept to be part of the Ottoman ḳānūn tradition, the history of its adaptation by Ottoman jurists actually dates back to the Qarakhanid period (eleventh century CE). It acquired its legal meaning as a result of jurisprudential debates among Ḥanafī jurists in the context of political turmoil and violent factionalism among madhhab s. Later, Seljuq and Golden Horde legal-textual traditions served as conduit for Ottoman jurists to adapt the concept in order to apply it to a variety of criminal acts. This article explores how the 'spreader of corruption' concept was reinterpreted over the centuries and how it contributed to the enforcement of law in the Ottoman context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the way that law reform is - and has been -made in the Israeli legal system. Israel has a mixed legal system which reflects amixture of Civil Law and Common Law traditions. This mixture is also manifested in the state's approach to law reform, as there is no permanent commission responsible for law reform and, in fact, no definition of law reform. This article reviews the historical developments of the Israeli legal system, with the absorption of the Ottoman and British Mandatory Law into the Israeli legal system, followed by major efforts in the 1960-1970s, undertaken by the legislative department in the Ministry of Justice with the assistance of 'ad hoc' legislative commissions, to create a 'new' Israeli legislation - 'codification style' - especially in the field of civil law. It then examines the rise of the private legislative initiatives in the early 1990s, the role of the court in judicial law-making and the role of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. It is claimedthat lawreformin Israel is allbut 'systematic'.However, the authorsdo not call for establishing a permanent law reform commission, but rather to develop a model of law reform that would include objectives, strategies, resources, participants and their appointment and responsibilities. Additionally, the high number of private bills should be reduced and the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, which is the central obstacle for non-governmental law initiatives, must act on a transparent basis. In other word, they suggest that, in Israel, law reform needs a form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ottoman historians lost interest in timars a generation ago due to simultaneous intellectual and political crises, namely methodological skepticism and the end of the cold war. The archival methodology used in timar research was subjected to withering critique, and the underlying motivation for the research, land reform in East-Central Europe and Turkey, was dissipated. Renewed scholarly interest in the timar institution is driven by awareness of transnational themes, efforts to theorize complexity, and the value of transparency and self-consciousness in research agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to develop a new narrative of changes in the Ottoman timar system independent of the complaints of decline brought by advice writers like Mustafa 'Ali. Based on the icmal defterleri, it examines the identities of timar-holders and their changes over time, a topic generally ignored in descriptions of the Ottoman military. Using data from earlier studies, it connects changes in timar-holding with changing conditions in the sultans' reigns. It then takes a longer-term look at these changes over the half-centuries and finds the well-known complaints in the nasihatnameler to be based on a very short-term view of the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the First World War, a primary domestic political aim for all belligerent countries was to preserve the socio-economic status quo in order to provide appropriate conditions for the survival of the state. Therefore, war governments paid particular attention to the maintenance of internal order. While doing this, the central authority of governments became paramount and this situation had remarkable repercussions on state–society relations. This article examines the wartime public order policies of the Ottoman government specifically concerning the Ottoman Greeks (Rum) and Armenians living in Istanbul. During the Great War, these non-Muslim elements were officially regarded as ‘suspects’, in other words, as ‘potential political criminals’ threatening the internal order of the capital. To control the Ottoman Greeks and Armenians, the war government implemented a number of policing strategies that consisted of deportation of individuals and groups, strict control on travel, and close surveillance of ‘suspects’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article traces the emergence of the Hebrew periodicalMizrah Uma`arav(East and West), published in Jerusalem intermittently from 1919 until 1930. The Sephardi Jewish editor, Avraham Elmaleh (1876–1967), had a vision of a journal that would fulfil a variety of functions, some of which, I argue, would prove to be contradictory: communal–historical, educational, scholarly, and political. First, and perhaps most pressingly, Elmaleh sought to record Sephardi intellectual, religious, and cultural history in the aftermath of the break-up and looming transformation of the Sephardi Ottoman world. At the same time, he struggled to place Sephardi Jewish civilization on a par with the Ashkenazi Jewish experience that was being normalized and privileged on a scholarly level in Jewish Studies. The Ashkenazi dominance of the new political reality in Palestine also led Elmaleh to take on the Hebraization and nationalization project of Sephardi Jews with missionary zeal. Finally, Elmaleh also contributed to the efforts of the Zionist movement to lay claim to Holy Land antiquity studies and, thereby, to the Land of Israel itself. Throughout, Elmaleh’s project expressed an ambivalence towards Palestinian Arabs and towards the relationship of Sephardi Jews to their surrounding Middle Eastern society. Overall this article situatesMizrah Uma`aravas intellectual history, as communal identity producer, and as political contestant in a changing landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including the etiquette of the Ottoman Palestinians, the documentation of Jewish communities and the socio-political context in the Ottoman and Middle East.

The question was simple: should the Hebraist Zionist movement in Ottoman Palestine invest in publishing a newspaper in Arabic and, if yes, should it be communitarian Jewish or general in its topics? What began as yet another obscure intra-Zionist deliberation gradually crystallized into what I argue merits the label of the earliest, explicitly Ashkenazi–Mizrahi ethnic controversy. This is with the smallest risk of the superimposition in hindsight of the terms and signifiers usually associated with Israel’s post-1971/Black-Panthers era onto the Ottoman period. Lasting between 1909 and 1913, the spirited exchange regarding the Arabic newspaper involved two dozen writers, mainly of the Sephardi–MizrahiHaherutnewspaper, and about one third of ethnic Ashkenazim writing elsewhere. It was nonetheless October 1911 that encapsulated the peak of the controversy, mainly due to writing by Mizrahi intellectual and activist Dr Shimon Moyal (1866–1915) and Ashkenazi intellectual and activist Dr Avraham Ludvipol (1865–1921). My decision to let primary texts speak for themselves at greater length than is customary results from my conviction that – in this case – extensive recourse to source material can convey best to twenty-first-century readers why the exchange is effectively “the mother” of all ensuing Mizrahi–Ashkenazi ethnic controversies. While clear definition for what constitutes such a controversy is provided, I close by offering a sample of views about the Arabic newspaper by four prominent Ashkenazi Zionists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues for a significant revision in the understanding of Jews in late-Ottoman Palestine: from a model of a singular community (theyishuv) to a model of multiple communities, embedded within local, regional and global networks. The conceptualization of Palestine’s Jewry is reappraised, from the Jerusalem School to recent literature. Despite acknowledging their ethnic and linguistic diversity, the historiography has long portrayed Palestine’s Jews as a sui-generis community, a Jewish microcosm united in its unique attachment toEretz Israel. It was studied as part of Jewish history, in isolation from its Middle Eastern context. In contrast, recent Relational Studies stressed Jewish connections to the Arab and Ottoman environment in Palestine. The article examines the self-perception of Jewish communities as plural and heterogeneous, through a survey of early Hebrew press. It traces the genealogy of the termyishuv, from an ideological project of revival and colonization in the 1860s, to an imagined pan-Jewish national community after the 1908 Young Turk Revolution. This shift was boosted not only by Zionism and Jewish diaspora influence, but also by Ottomanism. Even then, Jewish communities in Palestine continued to operate separately in a highly fragmented manner well into the British Mandate period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law & Justice Review is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Contrary to his theoretical expectations, Veblen provided various reasons as to why a revolutionary overturn by the technicians was a remote possibility in America. In contrast to the American engineers, the engineers of Turkey have constructed an engineering outlook commensurate with Veblen's abstract line of reasoning and participated in a political struggle against business interests. In this paper, using Veblen's cumulative causation methodology, a theoretical answer for the origin, growth, persistence, and variation of the anti-business engineering outlook in Turkey is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on a little-known aspect of the first constitutional period in the Ottoman Empire: the introduction of idare-i örfiyye (an equivalent of the state of siege) into the Ottoman legal system. With a name rooted in the Ottoman legal tradition and a definition clearly inspired by the nineteenth-century French “état de siège,” the idare-i örfiyye was a case of legal hybridization that combined the Ottoman political and legal tradition with transnational (or transimperial) legal circulation. This paper seeks to understand how and why different legal references were combined in order to make it possible, under exceptional circumstances, to suspend the ordinary legal order. At the same time, it analyzes the first application of the idare-i örfiyye, which occurred during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, to show how local and diplomatic reactions to this exceptional state of affairs were crucial for the further definition of the notion. Through a critical approach to legal texts and archival documents, the article discusses how various legal sources, the political context of the early Hamidian reign, and local experiences all shaped the notion of idare-i örfiyye, soon transforming it into a tool of government for exceptional and (more frequently) non-exceptional times. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Journal of Judgments by the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes / Uyusmazlik Mahkemesi Dergisi is the property of Court of Jurisdictional Disputes of the Republic of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The case of the tiny Jewish colony of Har-Tuv, which was founded by Ottoman Jews who immigrated to Palestine in 1895 from Bulgaria, sheds light on Ottoman policies vis-à-vis settlement activity by Sephardic Jews in Palestine at a time when there were concerted efforts to limit the Jewish national activity there. The latter was mainly carried out by non-Ottoman Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated to Palestine from eastern Europe. As the only colony established during the FirstAliyahby Sephardic Jews, and also due to its geographical isolation, Har-Tuv was detached from the processes taking place within the other Jewish colonies and the New Yishuv. At the same time, Har-Tuv’s founders had a long tradition of living under Ottoman rule and were on good terms with the local Ottoman authorities in Palestine. This was often useful when the colony had problems with its Arab neighbors, and on several occasions Har-Tuv even served as an intermediary between the Arab rural population and the government. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]