Search

Dowry consists of all kinds of household items, clothing, and similar belongings prepared for the bride. Classical jurisprudence handbooks contain important information about dowry. However, we have not come across any studies on "dowry in Ottoman law", which is also included in Ottoman codes and court records. In the Ottoman Classical period codes, similar versions of the same articles generally appear regarding dowry. In the Tanzimat period Ottoman codes, articles related to dowry generally aim to set an upper limit on dowry to prevent extravagance and to prevent obstacles to marriages. In addition to these, the fact that there is an article on dowry in the "Family Law Decree" shows that the related topic was regulated in Ottoman codifications. It can be stated that the customary practice of dowry was widespread in regions where Islamic law is effective, and of course, in the Ottoman Empire. While this custom is important in terms of helping the household of the people who will marry, it can also become a custom that hinders marriage. In the Ottoman practice, if the dowry posed a risk to the prospective spouses or became an obstacle to marriage, limitations were imposed on the scope and amount of the dowry through legal codes. In this way, dowry, which was originally a beneficial custom for the people to be married, was prevented from harming them. There are numerous disputes and records related to dowry in the Ottoman court records, Istanbul, Konya and Diyarbakır judge' (kadı) registers (sijil) on dowry were examined and evaluated. The relevant court records contain information regarding which goods were given as dowry, whose property the dowry, belong to disputes between the father and daughter and mother over dowry, and the procedural rules for these disputes, as well as issues like exoneration and reconciliation in dowry. The judge' registers also contain important information regarding the legal status of customs such as title payment and weights, which are distinct from dowry. The fact that the practice of dowry, which is a Muslim practice, was sometimes brought to court among non-Muslims due to disputes shows that this custom is also used by people of different religions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 19th century, one of the reforms carried out by the Ottoman Empire was in the field of criminal law. In 1840, 1851 and 1858, penal codes were drafted one after the other. Simultaneously with these laws, councils and regular courts were established to hear and adjudicate criminal cases. The fact that the murder cases, which are the subject of this study, are related to both personal and public law has brought about the functioning of the sharia and regular courts at the same time in these cases. The dualist structure of Ottoman criminal law came into play at this stage. The fact that these courts would hear the same cases according to their own procedural laws could lead to different outcomes from the two courts. This study analyzes the cases of women guilty of murder in the sharia and regular courts and examines the consequences of this dualistic structure. One of the problems of the study is whether gender creates an advantage or disadvantage in the punishment of women. The conditions under which the sentences of women sentenced to retribution or capital punishment were pardoned or commuted and what this dualistic structure meant for death row inmates are also among the issues discussed in this study. The main sources of the study are the documents obtained from the Ottoman Archives. In this context, it has been tried to analyze the issue by evaluating the legal literature of the period and current academic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) is the property of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) 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.)

Copyright of ASBU Law Journal is the property of Social Sciences University of Ankara 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.)

Copyright of Kadim is the property of Kadim 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 Ottoman period represents an important period for fiqh and the history of fiqh studies due to both the new issues that emerged in this period and the different fiqh approaches and solutions that the Ottoman ulema brought to these issues. In the 16th century, one of the debates in which Ottoman legal thought manifested its liveliness, depth, and diversity was the debate over the validity (ṣiḥḥah) and bindingness (luzūm) of cash waqfs. In this context, many texts were written by prominent figures of the period such as Ibn Kemāl, Çivizāde, Fenārīzāde, Bālī of Sofia, Ebussuūd and Birgivī arguing in favor or against cash waqfs. Many contemporary scholars have studied, published, and evaluated the fatwas issued by them and the edicts (firmans) declaring the sultan's preferences. The purpose of this study is to provide a contribution to this rich literature by analyzing a Turkish treatise from an unknown author, which has not yet been cited as far as we are aware, and by publishing a transcription of the only copy that has been identified so far. Since the treatise opposing the validity and bindingness of the cash waqf does not disclose the author’s identity, the location and the date of composition, this study will initially present evaluations and possibilities regarding these issues. Reflecting on its basic features, scope, and primary addressees, answers will be sought to questions such as "who wrote the treatise and when during the debates", "can the text be attributed to Çivizāde, who banned cash waqfs during his tenure as kazasker (chief judge) or to a scholar close to him from ilmiyya (scholarly class)" and “can the text be considered a contribution to the cash waqf debates from outside Istanbul and Rumelia”. In his treatise, the author relies on ‘al-Hidāya’, one of the authoritative works of the Hanafi madhhab by following the annotated translation approach common in Ottoman scholarly circles, and includes the majority of his own evaluations in the last part of the treatise. This is the only text on the cash waqfs that makes mention of the concept of luzūm (bindingness) in its title, and this is the prominent lens through which the cash waqf is evaluated in the treatise. Also prominent in the treatise is the objection expressed to views that are attributed to Zufar. Rather than evaluating these views in terms of their attribution to Zufar, the author examines them within the context of Zufar’s general theoretical approach to the waqf, concluding that his views cannot be used to establish the cash waqf on a valid and sufficient basis. This article discusses the objections raised in the treatise by the unknown author in the context of cash waqf debates and evaluates whether they received responses in scholarly circles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are some values to which Islam attaches importance. Islam wants these values to be protected. This protection is a duty of the public authority. Because the public authority has the power to impose sanctions against offences targeting these values and, in some cases, to impose new sanctions, the public authority must function fairly and reliably. Bribery is one of the biggest offences undermining trust in authority and the sense of justice. During the Tanẓīmāt Period, legalisation was introduced in the fight against bribery. Various regulations were made regarding the offence of bribery. In this study, the regulations related to the crime of bribery in the laws of the Tanẓīmāt Period are examined chronologically and comparatively. Before that, the bribery offence was examined in terms of Hanafī jurisprudence, which was the official madhhab in the Ottoman Empire. In this way, the changes in the regulations on the offence of bribery from Hanafī fiqh to the last Ottoman penal code are traced. As a result, it was observed that the fiqh terms in the legal texts disappeared over time. Following Western legal systematics, more technical, short, and clear expressions were used. In addition, the fact that there were multiple and frequent regulations on the offence of bribery in a short time showed how widespread bribery had become and how difficult it was to combat this crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 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]

The Ottoman Empire, which has been applying Islamic law since the day it was founded, did not refrain from making the necessary regulations in the process. In the Ottoman Empire, the law produced by Islamic jurists in line with the principles of fiqh was called sharīʿah law, and the law that was formed by the decrees of the heads of state and came into force under the name of “gānūnnāme” was called customary law. Despite this law tradition established in the Ottoman Empire, there was no codification activity covering the entirety of a branch of law until the Tanzīmāt period. After the Tanzīmāt, on the one hand, national law consisting of sharīʿah and customary law was codified, and on the other hand, some western laws were quoted. Thus, a duality occurred in law and a new era began in the history of Turkish law. We will examine the Qānūn-e Asāsī (Basic Law) prepared in this period in terms of its source. With this study, we aim to reveal to what extent the Qānūn-e Asāsī, which is accepted by the majority as the first written constitution in Turkish law, originates from national/Islamic law. First of all, under the title of “Preparation of the Qānūn-e Asāsī”, we will express the intellectual and political processes in the preparation phase, the developments during its proclamation, its legal 154atüre and content. Then, under the title of “The Issue of the Origin of Qānūn-e Asāsī from National/Islamic Law”, we will reveal the discussions in the preparation stage, whether there was a contribution of the ʿulamāʼ in the drafts and the adopted text. As a result, we can say that although some new rules and institutions were added in this constitution, it is seen that the basic principles of the political and legal structure that existed from the beginning of the Ottoman State were preserved. In this form, we can say that the Qānūn-e Asāsī is not based solely on National/Islamic law but was prepared using a mixed method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"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]

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.)

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.)

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of 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.)

Copyright of Antalya Bilim University Law Review is the property of Antalya International 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.)

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]

The purpose of this study, which was conducted by inspecting the Yabanabad Regie Office organized under the Ankara Regie Administration of the Regie Company, which assumed the tobacco franchise in the Ottoman Empire, is to address the process of the embezzlement lawsuit of Officer Zekeriya Efendi. To this end, it is intended to determine the stages of the lawsuit process and how the lawsuit was concluded. Accordingly, the introduction of the study provides brief information about the administrative status of Yabanabad District and the process of transferring the control of tobacco to the Regie Company in the Ottoman Empire. Then, the establishment process, activities, and personnel of the Yabanabad Regie Office are discussed. The main text discusses the embezzlement case against one of these personnel, Zekeriya Sırrı Efendi, which took place between 1910 and 1912. In this evaluation process, archival documents, which were used as the main source, as well as research and review works in the literature were also utilized. To this end, it was endeavored to find out whether the complaints filed against Zekeriya Efendi at the Yabanabad Regie Office were genuine or not. In conclusion, it was concluded that the complaints made against Zekeriya Efendi were true and that he embezzled 10,673 kurush 82 coins from the company coffers. [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.)

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.)

In Ottoman law, discovery is an important legal procedure used to reveal evidence in a case, to distinguish between right and wrong and to prevent any future disputes or objections. In the Muhimme books, the court registers and the various document classifications in the Ottoman Archives, there are examples of discoveries on every imaginable issue. Significant work has been done in this area so far. The majority of these studies are focused on the discovery of events such as murder, injury, accidental death, suicide, and drowning. In this study, it has been tried to evaluate the discovery documents in terms of the fact that the discovery procedure is not limited only to the events mentioned, but also includes a wide range from the administrative issues and complaints reaching the state center, the repair and maintenance of castles, pulleys, bridges, waterways, mosques or churches, accounting for foundations, acts that disturb social peace, disputes between individuals of throughout the country. It is possible to consider the sources of the subject in two parts. Archive sources are primary sources. Various documents in the Ottoman Archives and the Istanbul shari'ah records published by ISAM, the records prepared as a graduate thesis and the mühimme books are our main sources. On the other hand, based on the registers, studies on the discovery of limited events such as forensic cases, murder and injury in some sanjaks were also utilized. Discovery, from the documents we followed, existed from the 16th century to the end of the 18th century, continued in the following centuries and has survived to the present day as an important method of our modern law. In other words, the foundations of today's discovery method exist in the depths of our history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Copyright of Asia Minor Studies is the property of Asia Minor 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.)

The science of usūl al-fiqh has a special position among the Islamic sciences because it examines the principles and methods of deducing religious rulings from the narrations. Many Islamic scholars from the past to the present have written works in this field. One of these scholars is Sacaḳlızadah Mehmet Efendi (d. 1145/1732). Sacaklızadah Mehmet Efendi was a versatile Ottoman scholar who wrote works in many fields, especially al-fiqh. One of his works is his treatise on the methodology of usūl al-fiqh titled "Insan al-ayn and Ayn al-insan". In this work, the famous books that were taught as textbooks in Ottoman madrasas were utilized to a great extent. However, this short treatise of Sacaḳlızadah, many of whose works have been analyzed and published, has not yet met today's readers. In our research, the work in question was analyzed in terms of language, style and method, and published. The works written by Ottoman scholars are important historical documents that shed light on the scholarly, cultural and actual life of the period. What makes this study important is that it unbury a work written by a famous Ottoman scholar, who wrote more than a hundred works, on the science of methodology of usūl al-fiqh from the dusty shelves and brings it together with today's readers. Thus, it is aimed to strengthen the scholarly bond between the past and the present. In the introduction of the study, Sacaklızadah's life is mentioned. Then, the importance and general characteristics of Insan al-ayn and Ayn al-insan are given. Then, the content of the work is analyzed in terms of language, style and method and its sources are identified. Finally, the Arabic text of the work is published. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

• The decisive oath can end a lawsuit in cases where the plaintiff has no evidence. • Data from the early nineteenth century Ottoman courts shows an empirical relationship between the stakes of the case, religious status of defendants, and the likelihoods of requesting and taking the oath. • As the stakes of a case increased, the plaintiff was less likely to request an oath from non-religious defendants, with an additional effect that was also negative and even greater than the baseline for religious defendants. • As the stakes of a case increased, non-religious defendants were more likely to take the oath, with an additional effect that was negative for religious defendants, which offset or reversed the baseline positive effect. The decisive oath is an interesting but little-known element in some legal proceedings, mostly in civil law traditions. It is different from ordinary (testimonial) oaths that are routinely administered to witnesses at trial with the aim of eliciting only truthful testimony, but which are of dubious value in achieving that end. By contrast, a decisive oath can end a lawsuit in cases where the plaintiff has no evidence. We use a simple economic model of litigation to examine the impact of the decisive oath in resolving lawsuits and the effects of religious status on the likelihoods of requesting and taking the oath. To test the implications of the model, we use data from the early nineteenth century Ottoman courts to examine the empirical relationship between the stakes of the case, religious status of defendants, and litigation outcomes. The results show that as the stakes of a case increased: (1) resolution by evidence-based trial or the oath option were both more likely than settlement; (2) the plaintiff was less likely to request an oath from non-religious defendants as the baseline, with an additional effect that was also negative and even greater for religious defendants; and (3) non-religious defendants were more likely to take the oath, with an additional effect that was negative for religious defendants, which offset or reversed the baseline positive effect. Our analysis contributes both to the theoretical literature on the economics of dispute resolution, and to the historical literature on the role of decisive oaths in resolving legal disputes, especially in Islamic societies and civil law traditions. [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 Journal of Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Theology is the property of Journal of Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Theology 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.

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.)

Copyright of Inonu University Law Review / İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Inonu University Law Review (IULR) 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 Ottoman/Hanafī family law, the right to divorce, which in principle belongs to the husband, can be used unilaterally, verbally and without witnesses. It is legally valid for a drunk to divorce his wife. It is valid for the husband to divorce his wife conditionally. These rules make it possible for the husband not to recognize the divorce he expressed when they were alone, to deny the divorce he expressed when he was drunk, and to refuse the conditional divorce when the condition was fulfilled. It is very difficult for the wife to prove the divorce in cases where the husband swore that he did not divorce her. The issues reflected in the fatwa collections indicate that women experienced heavy grievances in this context. This study focuses on adding poison to the husband’s food, which the Ottoman muftis suggested as the last resort to women who claimed to be divorced but unable to prove it, to escape from marital fornication. The purpose of the study is to describe the Ottoman women’s difficulties and despair in proving their divorce based on the examples of related fatwas. In Ottoman family law, divorce takes place in terms of religion when the husband unilaterally express certain words. However, a divorce which took place in terms of religion is not considered by the court unless proven by the husband’s confession or by witnesses. This dichotomy caused Ottoman women, whose legal grounds for divorce were extremely limited, to be stuck in the marriage union. The questions asked to the muftis indicate that women had difficulty in proving especially the divorces expressed by the husband while being intoxicated or expressed conditionally, and that they were imprisoned in the marriage union that had ended in terms of religion. Ottoman muftis accept sexual intimacy in such marriages as fornication, warn the women to stay away from having intercourse with their husbands, and if no other means of escape is possible they consider it licit for such women to add poison to their husband’s food. What they mean by ‘other means of escape’ in legal practice almost exclusively refers to mukhāla‘a. A woman claiming divorce but unable to prove it must try to obtain a divorce from her husband in exchange for waiving some of her financial rights. However, this way is not always reasonable and useful, as it financially victimizes the woman and ultimately depends on the consent of the husband. In this study, which is in the common area of the family law and criminal law, the legal background that compels muftis to recommend the aforementioned extraordinary resort is described. The study analyzes the fatwas issued in this context by the Ottoman muftis who served in Anatolia and Rumelia between the 16th and 18th centuries and interprets them in the light of Hanafī legal doctrine. In the Ottoman/Hanafī criminal law, killing a person by adding poison to his/her food does not require retaliation or blood money, but because the perpetrator deceives the victim, he/she is subject to punishment within the scope of discretionary punishment. This penal provision also applies to the woman who poisoned her husband in order to avoid the marital fornication. Undoubtedly, the woman would claim that she poisoned her husband in self-defense to get rid of the marital rape. However, unless she could duly prove this claim, she might be subject to the discretionary punishment. Because she poisoned the man who was legally considered her husband, merely based on her own claim. Ottoman muftis consider the defendant husband, who took an oath that he had not divorced his wife, to be legally married. The husband cannot be barred from the right of disposition solely with the unproven claim of his wife, and cannot be punished for disposing the benefit obtained through marriage. But a woman even if unwillingly obeys her husband’s request for the intercourse, she is considered as a sinner. Because she is the one who turns the intercourse into sexual assault and fornication as a result of her claim. Her claim is binding only for herself, unless it is supported by witnesses or the husband’s confession. The fact that muftis considered the poisoning the husband as legitimate based on such claim, which was binding only on the wife and had the potential to mislead the law, may be related to their politics of fatwa. Muftis voiced the option of poisoning as if it were to make the husband confess the divorce and suffer the consequences, rather than being a real advice or duty to be fulfilled. It is clear that the husband, who is between poisoned by his wife and suffering the consequences of divorce, would prefer the latter. [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.)

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]

There are three types of alimony in Islamic law: marriage, relationship and property. In this study, residential alimony, which is included in the scope of marriage alimony, will be discussed primarily within the framework of the views of four sects. Then, based on the Ottoman era fatwas and court decisions, the right of a woman to live in alimony will be dealt with in the Ottoman practice of Islamic family law. It is accepted that Islamic law was applied throughout the Ottoman era and in this context, the Hanafi sect was adopted as the official sect. As a result of the study, it will be possible to determine if Hanafi views were applied during the Ottoman era, especially in terms of housing alimony. Food, clothing, housing, treatment and maid expenses are included in the scope of marriage support, which is a right for women in Islamic family law. Housing means the place where a person or family permanently resides in a house or part of it. In order for this to be a legal residence, at least it must have parts such as toilet and a kitchen. The house is one of the legal conditions for the husband to live a family life with his wife. By the time a woman moves to the house of marital life and becomes a wife, she has the right of alimony. However, it is considered disobedience for a woman not to move there even though the house is ready, or to leave the house without getting permission from her husband after moving, and therefore, she loses her right to alimony. However, the woman is not deemed to have disobeyed for reasons such as the "dowry (al-mahr)" is not given to the woman, although the first sexual intercourse does not take the woman stays in her parents’ house with the consent of her husband, the house does not have the characteristics of the legal residence, the woman does not want to live in the same house as the second wife or mother-in-law, the husband expels his wife from the house without divorcing, living in another house with her husband’s permission and the woman’s alimony rights continue. What is meant by the phrase “legal residence (al-maskan al-shar‘ī)”, which is abundantly reflected in the Ottoman court records, is the same as the dwelling defined in Hanafi sources. The minimum criterion that Hanafis seek for a dwelling to be legally considered a dwelling is that to be a lockable room/space with parts such as a kitchen and toilet. In the relevant court records, it is seen that the experts appointed by the court, which is meant by “legal residence”, take into account the minimum criteria mentioned when examining whether that dwelling in question is “legal residence”. Courts consider that the woman’s residence with the same foreigner and the fact that the house is in an unsafe neighborhood cause the religiousness of the dwelling to deteriorate, and they decide to prepare a new dwelling for the woman in such a situation. There are decisions in the court records that the woman has the right not to obey her husband because she has not received her dowry in advance. Therefore, in these cases, women’s alimony rights continue. Likewise, women who do not obey their husbands and do not move to their house, even though they have received their dowry in advance, are decided that they do not have such a right. Therefore, alimony is not paid to women in this situation. In addition, in cases such as the woman leaves the house because it does not qualify as a legal residence, the woman does not live in the same house with the second wife or mother-in-law despite the fact that the house is a legal residence, not moving to her husband’s house for reasons that cannot be considered disobedient, and being expelled from the house, the courts make positive decisions regarding their alimony demands. In addition to these, the courts have ruled that women who commit disobedience do not have the right to alimony. Throughout this study, which is handled specifically on women’s right to residence, it is possible to determine that Hanafi sect views are valid in the application of Islamic law in the Ottoman era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of RUMELI: Journal of Islamic Studies is the property of Trakya University, Faculty of Theology 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.)

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]

Copyright of History Studies (13094688) is the property of History 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.)

Copyright of Journal of Ilahiyat Researches / Ilahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi is the property of Ataturk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dinbilimleri Journal is the property of Dinbilimleri Journal 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.)

This article deals with marital violence and its sanction, as reflected in the Ottoman fatwas. It aims to describe the forms of marital violence in Ottoman society and its possible sanctions in the prevailing legal system, based on the fatwas that were asked to the muftis personally. Thousands of fatwas belonging to muftis who served in Anatolia and Rumelia indicate that marital violence in Ottoman society was generally perpetrated from husband to wife. Insulting and swearing are the most common forms of violence against women in marriage. This form of violence, which muftis usually consider the tazir necessary, sometimes compels the husband to make li‘ān or renew his faith. Both situations allow women who want to get rid of the marriage bond but do not have a legal ground to be separated. Muftis deem the tazir necessary for a husband who beats his wife without just cause. Even if beating does not give the woman the right to be separated, it is a reason for divorce in case where the talāq is bound to not beating. Tazir is required in cases where the husband victimizes his wife through zihār or acts unjustly between his wives. Severe punishments up to death within the scope of adultery are deemed necessary for the husband who continues sexual relations with his wife, whom he has definitely divorced. It is subject to a heavy tazir punishment if a woman is married under compulsion or forced to have an anal intercourse within the marriage. The rights of the woman are protected in cases where the husband leaves his wife without alimony intentionally or negligently and forces her to give up tangible rights such as dowry and alimony, and divorces her to deprive of inheritance in fatal illness. The article describes and interprets all these forms of husband violence that Ottoman women were subjected to in marriage, reflected in the fatwas, and the sanctions deemed necessary by the muftis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the beginning of the 18th century, studies on Muslims and Islam, particularly the Ottoman society, have gained momentum in the West. It is seen that these first studies generally contain incomplete and incorrect information. The reason for this is the lack of resources and knowledge of the language of the Islamic world, as well as their prejudices and some political considerations. One of the most important works written in this period is the work of Mouradgea d’Ohsson, a Swedish politician of Ottoman-Armenian origin, entitled “The General Picture of the Ottoman Empire”. In this work, d’Ohsson treats the history of the Ottoman state, its understanding of politics and law, and various issues, especially the established customs and traditions. This work is considered to be the first unbiased and objective work in the western language. In our study, d’Ohsson and his work will be briefly mentioned, and then the presentation style of Islamic-Ottoman law will be aborded in the context of family law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]