Theses by Bayram Pehlivan
The Ottoman state, which gradually transformed into a universal empire from the mid-15th century ... more The Ottoman state, which gradually transformed into a universal empire from the mid-15th century onwards, shifted its focus from expanding its borders through conquest to establishing a strong centralized government within its existing territories after the 1530s. As with all the other empires during the classical period, the main source of revenue for the Ottoman state was land taxes. Therefore, the central government increasing its power and authority was dependent on the proper and fair taxation of agricultural land and the efficient collection of taxes. Although agricultural lands in Anatolia and Rumelia were categorically classified as “mīrī” (state-owned), there were significant problems stemming from the tendency of the reāyā to see these lands as their own private property, and from the inadequate legal knowledge of the rural qādīs (judges). It appears that these problems had reached a level where they threatened the mīrī status of the lands. During this period, while the central government took various administrative measures to deal with these problems, the Ottoman ulemā made significant efforts to establish the mīrī status of agricultural lands and to explain the legal nature of the relationship between the sultān, the tīmār holders and the reāyā regarding these lands. This study focuses on the ulemā’s interpretative efforts during the last century of the classical Ottoman period to explore the relationship between qānūn and sharī'a through the issue of ownership of agricultural lands.
Articles by Bayram Pehlivan
Ilahiyat Studies, 2023
This article examines the nature of legal change in Islamic law through the case of the cultivati... more This article examines the nature of legal change in Islamic law through the case of the cultivation of wasteland (iḥyāʾ al-mawāt) in the 16th17th century Ottoman Empire. Imber, one of the leading scholars in modern Ottoman historiography, argues that there was an incompatibility between qānūn and sharīʿah regarding the legal consequences of opening up wastelands (mawāts) for agriculture in the Empire. He asserts that the legal doctrine of the Ḥanafī school gives the right of full ownership (al-milk al-tāmm) to a person cultivating a wasteland with the permission of the ruler (imām), while the Ottoman sultans’ qānūns only grant this person the right of disposal (ḥaqq al-taṣarruf). Imber’s observation about the practice is accurate; however, his claim regarding the Ḥanafī school’s legal doctrine of iḥyāʾ al-mawāt needs revision. This article takes into consideration Ḥanafī nawāzil and fatāwá literature originating from Central Asia and Ottoman Anatolia to demonstrate that the doctrine in question underwent a slow and gradual but essential change over centuries, and then Ottoman Ḥanafī scholars interpreted the practice of the Empire based on this new doctrine, recognizing the sultan’s authority to grant only the right of disposal to those who wished to cultivate the wasteland, suggesting that there was not an actual contradiction between qānūn and sharīʿah on this issue.
İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Islamic Studies), 2020
This article is a critical edition of a treatise titled al-Nūr al-bādī fī aḥkām al-arādī, written... more This article is a critical edition of a treatise titled al-Nūr al-bādī fī aḥkām al-arādī, written by a Ḥanafī scholar, ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī, who lived in Ottoman Egypt in the eighteenth century. This treatise is one of the last examples of the classical monographs on land law.
We have no information on the author’s life in the sources except for, as expressed in the prologue, the school he belonged to and that he was alive at the time this treatise was issued. Based on our extensive research, the treatise has three different manuscripts in Dār al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyya, al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya and Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University. We compared all three manuscripts in this critical edition.
‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī organized his treatise on the Ottoman land regime as a prologue, three main chapters and a conclusion. In the prologue, he states that he composed the treatise in the late Jumada II of 1211 (December 1796) upon the request of a friend. He introduces his chapters in three parts, each based on tithe (‘ushr), tribute (kharāj) and state (mīrī) lands.
He examines the definition of the tithe lands and briefly the rules on these lands in the first chapter, and then discusses the tribute lands in the second chapter. The principal issues of the second chapter include the legal status of Egypt and Syria, the sultan’s authority to sell state lands and whether endowed lands are valid (ṣaḥīḥ) and binding (lāzim). He examines state lands (arāḍī-i mīriyya), also called “confiscated lands” (arāḍī-hawz) and “sultanic lands” (arāḍī-i mamlakat), in the third chapter. Among the many issues discussed in this chapter, the rights of the sultan, fief holders and cultivators on state lands seem to be the most critical. The third chapter is the most comprehensive one probably because, as Shaykh al-Islāms and the Egyptian and Syrian scholars state, the majority of the Ottoman lands were state lands and people frequently appealed to the scholars for their legal opinions in cases of conflicts on lands.
‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī’s treatise is important for two reasons: First, it is a text that includes primarily the opinions of the later Ḥanafī jurists, the legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms and the laws promulgated by the sultans; and second, it was written by a jurist from Ottoman-Arab territory. The work shows that a scholar from this background appealed to the opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms and the sultanic laws. In fact, it is very rare for scholars from the same geographical background to write a book of this sort. As a matter of fact, the treatise seems to be the only example of its kind. However, unlike the scholars from Ottoman Arab lands, it is known that some scholar-bureaucrats who lived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the core lands of the empire, such as Üskûbî Pir Mehmed Efendi, Ahmed Akhisârî al-Rûmî and Ayn Ali Efendi, wrote works on land and tax law.
The main sources of the treatise include the works of those prominent Ḥanafī scholars in Egypt and Syria from sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Ibn Nujaym’s (d. 970/1563) al-Tuḥfa al-marḍıyya, Haskafî’s (d. 1088/1677) al-Durr al-mukhtār and al-Durr al-muntaqā, Hayreddin al-Ramlī’s (d. 1081/1671) al-Fatāvā al-Khayriyya and ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nablusī’s al-Ḥadīqa al-nadiyya. The treatise occasionally quotes pages from these sources. In addition, the legal opinions of some Shaykh al-Islāms are recorded by citations of their names. These Shaykh al-Islāms include: Kemalpaşazāde (d. 940/1534), Ebussuūd Efendi (d. 982/1573), Mehmed Bahāī Efendi (d. 1064/1654), Zekeriyazāde Yahya Efendi (d. 1053/1644) and Minkārīzāde Yahya Efendi (d. 1088/1678). Considering the legal opinions and laws mentioned in the treatise, one can observe that Kānūn-i Cedīd that regulate the Ottoman land and tax regime and Üskübī Pir Mehmed Efendi’s Ẓahīr al-quḍāt are also among the sources of the treatise.
No citations of this treatise prior to the last quarter of twentieth century have been located. From that time on, some researchers citing the treatise began to use it as an indispensable source for issues related to land in Anatolia, Syria and Egypt. Among them, however, Sabrina Joseph seems to be incorrect by attributing most of the legal opinions, laws and ideas mentioned in the treatise to the author. To the contrary, our extensive research into the origins of each sentence and judgment in the treatise reveals that it is rather a collection of legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms, sultanic laws and Hanafi scholars’ ideas on land issues in the empire, scarcely including any original interpretation that can be attributed to the author. Therefore, future researchers should not assume that the author penned each interpretation and opinion in the treatise.
In addition to the points above, the work has various mistakes. We can classify these mistakes as “incorrect translations of legal opinions and laws into Arabic”, “attributions of legal opinions to wrong persons”, “contradictory judgments in the text” and “mentioning legal opinions that are contrary to the sultanic laws.” These mistakes show that a Hanafi jurist living in the Ottoman Arab lands in the eighteenth century had limited knowledge of the land codes promulgated by the sultans and the legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms. The reasons for these mistakes can be numerous, some of which are the following:
1) Language barrier: The author may be insufficiently in command of Ottoman Turkish. Translation mistakes in the treatise are the most important proof for this.
2) The manuscript copies collecting legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms. The manuscript copies consulted by the author may have attributed some legal opinions to the wrong persons.
3) Incorrect attribution of Kānūn-i Cedīd to Ebussuūd. The author by mistake assumed that this belonged to Ebussuūd and he may have considered some of the sultanic laws here as legal opinions belonging to Ebussuūd.
Although the mistakes and repetitions in the treatise lead us to surmise that the text was simply the first draft of the author who had no chance to revisit it, we have no concrete evidence to substantiate this argument. We point out these mistakes and correct them in the footnotes. In addition, we reproduced the transcriptions and, if necessary, Arabic translations of the legal opinions and sultanic laws that we suggest the author mistook.
Keywords: Ottoman, Anatolia, Egypt, Syria, land, tithe, tribute, state land, iqṭā‘, irṣād, endowment, sultanic law, fatwā.
Encyclopedia Entries by Bayram Pehlivan
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi , 2016
Temel İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2019
Temel İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2019
Temel İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2019
Temel İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2019
Temel İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2019
Translated Books by Bayram Pehlivan
Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı Yayınları, 2019
Book Reviews by Bayram Pehlivan
Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi (Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies), 2020
Joseph Schacht ve Wael B. Hallaq gibi İslam toplumlarında hukuk-siyaset ilişkisi üzerine çalışan ... more Joseph Schacht ve Wael B. Hallaq gibi İslam toplumlarında hukuk-siyaset ilişkisi üzerine çalışan kimi araştırmacılar, modern öncesi dönemde şeriatın "hukukçuların hukuku" (normları bağımsız hukuk uzmanlarınca oluşturulan bir hukuk sistemi) olduğunu ve siyasi otoritenin hukuki normların oluşumu sürecine hiçbir şekilde dahil olmadığını ileri sürmektedir. Samy A. Ayoub'un XVI. ila XIX. yüzyıllarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu sınırları içerisinde yaşayan müteahhir Hanefi hukuk geleneğine mensup ulemayı siyasi otoriteyle ilişkileri açısından inceleyen ve söz konusu iddiaya karşı çıkan Law, Empire and the Sultan: Ottoman Imperial Authority and Late Hanafi Jurisprudence başlıklı kitabı, erken modern Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda sultanın hukuk yapma sürecinin bir parçası haline geldiğini ve müteahhir Hanefi hukuk geleneğinin şerh, fetva ve risale edebiyatında bu yeni durumu açıkça benimsediğini iddia etmektedir. Dört bölümden oluşan kitabın "Ibn Nujaym: The Father of Late Hanafism?" başlıklı birinci bölümü, XVI. yüzyıl Osmanlı dönemi Mısır'ının önde gelen Hanefi hukukçusu İbn Nüceym'in (ö. 970/1563) müteahhir Hanefi hukuk geleneğine yaptığı katkıları inceler. Bu bölümde İbn Nüceym'i söz konusu geleneğin merkezî bir figürü olarak konumlandıran Ayoub, onun kendi dönemindeki örfü dikkate alarak ya da zamanın, mekanın veya şartların değişmesi argümanını kullanarak erken dönem Hanefi hukukçuların bazı görüşlerinden ayrıldığını ve bu akıl yürütme biçiminin müteahhir Hanefi hukuk geleneğini karakterize eden bir özellik olduğunu belirtir. Ayrıca Ayoub, İbn Nüceyim'in eserlerinin, XVII.-XIX. yüzyıllarda telif edilecek olan Hanefi hukuk metinleri için bir referans olduğunu, bilhassa el-Eşbâh ve'n-nezâir adlı eserinin XIX. yüzyılda Osmanlı hukuk sisteminin modernleşmesi sürecinde önemli bir rol oynadığını ve Hanefi hukuk doktrininin ilk İslam Medeni Kanunu olan Mecelle'de kanunlaştırılması için meşrulaştırıcı
Uploads
Theses by Bayram Pehlivan
Articles by Bayram Pehlivan
We have no information on the author’s life in the sources except for, as expressed in the prologue, the school he belonged to and that he was alive at the time this treatise was issued. Based on our extensive research, the treatise has three different manuscripts in Dār al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyya, al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya and Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University. We compared all three manuscripts in this critical edition.
‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī organized his treatise on the Ottoman land regime as a prologue, three main chapters and a conclusion. In the prologue, he states that he composed the treatise in the late Jumada II of 1211 (December 1796) upon the request of a friend. He introduces his chapters in three parts, each based on tithe (‘ushr), tribute (kharāj) and state (mīrī) lands.
He examines the definition of the tithe lands and briefly the rules on these lands in the first chapter, and then discusses the tribute lands in the second chapter. The principal issues of the second chapter include the legal status of Egypt and Syria, the sultan’s authority to sell state lands and whether endowed lands are valid (ṣaḥīḥ) and binding (lāzim). He examines state lands (arāḍī-i mīriyya), also called “confiscated lands” (arāḍī-hawz) and “sultanic lands” (arāḍī-i mamlakat), in the third chapter. Among the many issues discussed in this chapter, the rights of the sultan, fief holders and cultivators on state lands seem to be the most critical. The third chapter is the most comprehensive one probably because, as Shaykh al-Islāms and the Egyptian and Syrian scholars state, the majority of the Ottoman lands were state lands and people frequently appealed to the scholars for their legal opinions in cases of conflicts on lands.
‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī’s treatise is important for two reasons: First, it is a text that includes primarily the opinions of the later Ḥanafī jurists, the legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms and the laws promulgated by the sultans; and second, it was written by a jurist from Ottoman-Arab territory. The work shows that a scholar from this background appealed to the opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms and the sultanic laws. In fact, it is very rare for scholars from the same geographical background to write a book of this sort. As a matter of fact, the treatise seems to be the only example of its kind. However, unlike the scholars from Ottoman Arab lands, it is known that some scholar-bureaucrats who lived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the core lands of the empire, such as Üskûbî Pir Mehmed Efendi, Ahmed Akhisârî al-Rûmî and Ayn Ali Efendi, wrote works on land and tax law.
The main sources of the treatise include the works of those prominent Ḥanafī scholars in Egypt and Syria from sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Ibn Nujaym’s (d. 970/1563) al-Tuḥfa al-marḍıyya, Haskafî’s (d. 1088/1677) al-Durr al-mukhtār and al-Durr al-muntaqā, Hayreddin al-Ramlī’s (d. 1081/1671) al-Fatāvā al-Khayriyya and ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nablusī’s al-Ḥadīqa al-nadiyya. The treatise occasionally quotes pages from these sources. In addition, the legal opinions of some Shaykh al-Islāms are recorded by citations of their names. These Shaykh al-Islāms include: Kemalpaşazāde (d. 940/1534), Ebussuūd Efendi (d. 982/1573), Mehmed Bahāī Efendi (d. 1064/1654), Zekeriyazāde Yahya Efendi (d. 1053/1644) and Minkārīzāde Yahya Efendi (d. 1088/1678). Considering the legal opinions and laws mentioned in the treatise, one can observe that Kānūn-i Cedīd that regulate the Ottoman land and tax regime and Üskübī Pir Mehmed Efendi’s Ẓahīr al-quḍāt are also among the sources of the treatise.
No citations of this treatise prior to the last quarter of twentieth century have been located. From that time on, some researchers citing the treatise began to use it as an indispensable source for issues related to land in Anatolia, Syria and Egypt. Among them, however, Sabrina Joseph seems to be incorrect by attributing most of the legal opinions, laws and ideas mentioned in the treatise to the author. To the contrary, our extensive research into the origins of each sentence and judgment in the treatise reveals that it is rather a collection of legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms, sultanic laws and Hanafi scholars’ ideas on land issues in the empire, scarcely including any original interpretation that can be attributed to the author. Therefore, future researchers should not assume that the author penned each interpretation and opinion in the treatise.
In addition to the points above, the work has various mistakes. We can classify these mistakes as “incorrect translations of legal opinions and laws into Arabic”, “attributions of legal opinions to wrong persons”, “contradictory judgments in the text” and “mentioning legal opinions that are contrary to the sultanic laws.” These mistakes show that a Hanafi jurist living in the Ottoman Arab lands in the eighteenth century had limited knowledge of the land codes promulgated by the sultans and the legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms. The reasons for these mistakes can be numerous, some of which are the following:
1) Language barrier: The author may be insufficiently in command of Ottoman Turkish. Translation mistakes in the treatise are the most important proof for this.
2) The manuscript copies collecting legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms. The manuscript copies consulted by the author may have attributed some legal opinions to the wrong persons.
3) Incorrect attribution of Kānūn-i Cedīd to Ebussuūd. The author by mistake assumed that this belonged to Ebussuūd and he may have considered some of the sultanic laws here as legal opinions belonging to Ebussuūd.
Although the mistakes and repetitions in the treatise lead us to surmise that the text was simply the first draft of the author who had no chance to revisit it, we have no concrete evidence to substantiate this argument. We point out these mistakes and correct them in the footnotes. In addition, we reproduced the transcriptions and, if necessary, Arabic translations of the legal opinions and sultanic laws that we suggest the author mistook.
Keywords: Ottoman, Anatolia, Egypt, Syria, land, tithe, tribute, state land, iqṭā‘, irṣād, endowment, sultanic law, fatwā.
Encyclopedia Entries by Bayram Pehlivan
Translated Books by Bayram Pehlivan
Book Reviews by Bayram Pehlivan
We have no information on the author’s life in the sources except for, as expressed in the prologue, the school he belonged to and that he was alive at the time this treatise was issued. Based on our extensive research, the treatise has three different manuscripts in Dār al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyya, al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya and Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University. We compared all three manuscripts in this critical edition.
‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī organized his treatise on the Ottoman land regime as a prologue, three main chapters and a conclusion. In the prologue, he states that he composed the treatise in the late Jumada II of 1211 (December 1796) upon the request of a friend. He introduces his chapters in three parts, each based on tithe (‘ushr), tribute (kharāj) and state (mīrī) lands.
He examines the definition of the tithe lands and briefly the rules on these lands in the first chapter, and then discusses the tribute lands in the second chapter. The principal issues of the second chapter include the legal status of Egypt and Syria, the sultan’s authority to sell state lands and whether endowed lands are valid (ṣaḥīḥ) and binding (lāzim). He examines state lands (arāḍī-i mīriyya), also called “confiscated lands” (arāḍī-hawz) and “sultanic lands” (arāḍī-i mamlakat), in the third chapter. Among the many issues discussed in this chapter, the rights of the sultan, fief holders and cultivators on state lands seem to be the most critical. The third chapter is the most comprehensive one probably because, as Shaykh al-Islāms and the Egyptian and Syrian scholars state, the majority of the Ottoman lands were state lands and people frequently appealed to the scholars for their legal opinions in cases of conflicts on lands.
‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī’s treatise is important for two reasons: First, it is a text that includes primarily the opinions of the later Ḥanafī jurists, the legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms and the laws promulgated by the sultans; and second, it was written by a jurist from Ottoman-Arab territory. The work shows that a scholar from this background appealed to the opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms and the sultanic laws. In fact, it is very rare for scholars from the same geographical background to write a book of this sort. As a matter of fact, the treatise seems to be the only example of its kind. However, unlike the scholars from Ottoman Arab lands, it is known that some scholar-bureaucrats who lived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the core lands of the empire, such as Üskûbî Pir Mehmed Efendi, Ahmed Akhisârî al-Rûmî and Ayn Ali Efendi, wrote works on land and tax law.
The main sources of the treatise include the works of those prominent Ḥanafī scholars in Egypt and Syria from sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Ibn Nujaym’s (d. 970/1563) al-Tuḥfa al-marḍıyya, Haskafî’s (d. 1088/1677) al-Durr al-mukhtār and al-Durr al-muntaqā, Hayreddin al-Ramlī’s (d. 1081/1671) al-Fatāvā al-Khayriyya and ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nablusī’s al-Ḥadīqa al-nadiyya. The treatise occasionally quotes pages from these sources. In addition, the legal opinions of some Shaykh al-Islāms are recorded by citations of their names. These Shaykh al-Islāms include: Kemalpaşazāde (d. 940/1534), Ebussuūd Efendi (d. 982/1573), Mehmed Bahāī Efendi (d. 1064/1654), Zekeriyazāde Yahya Efendi (d. 1053/1644) and Minkārīzāde Yahya Efendi (d. 1088/1678). Considering the legal opinions and laws mentioned in the treatise, one can observe that Kānūn-i Cedīd that regulate the Ottoman land and tax regime and Üskübī Pir Mehmed Efendi’s Ẓahīr al-quḍāt are also among the sources of the treatise.
No citations of this treatise prior to the last quarter of twentieth century have been located. From that time on, some researchers citing the treatise began to use it as an indispensable source for issues related to land in Anatolia, Syria and Egypt. Among them, however, Sabrina Joseph seems to be incorrect by attributing most of the legal opinions, laws and ideas mentioned in the treatise to the author. To the contrary, our extensive research into the origins of each sentence and judgment in the treatise reveals that it is rather a collection of legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms, sultanic laws and Hanafi scholars’ ideas on land issues in the empire, scarcely including any original interpretation that can be attributed to the author. Therefore, future researchers should not assume that the author penned each interpretation and opinion in the treatise.
In addition to the points above, the work has various mistakes. We can classify these mistakes as “incorrect translations of legal opinions and laws into Arabic”, “attributions of legal opinions to wrong persons”, “contradictory judgments in the text” and “mentioning legal opinions that are contrary to the sultanic laws.” These mistakes show that a Hanafi jurist living in the Ottoman Arab lands in the eighteenth century had limited knowledge of the land codes promulgated by the sultans and the legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms. The reasons for these mistakes can be numerous, some of which are the following:
1) Language barrier: The author may be insufficiently in command of Ottoman Turkish. Translation mistakes in the treatise are the most important proof for this.
2) The manuscript copies collecting legal opinions of Shaykh al-Islāms. The manuscript copies consulted by the author may have attributed some legal opinions to the wrong persons.
3) Incorrect attribution of Kānūn-i Cedīd to Ebussuūd. The author by mistake assumed that this belonged to Ebussuūd and he may have considered some of the sultanic laws here as legal opinions belonging to Ebussuūd.
Although the mistakes and repetitions in the treatise lead us to surmise that the text was simply the first draft of the author who had no chance to revisit it, we have no concrete evidence to substantiate this argument. We point out these mistakes and correct them in the footnotes. In addition, we reproduced the transcriptions and, if necessary, Arabic translations of the legal opinions and sultanic laws that we suggest the author mistook.
Keywords: Ottoman, Anatolia, Egypt, Syria, land, tithe, tribute, state land, iqṭā‘, irṣād, endowment, sultanic law, fatwā.