406

 
Public And Private Property Claims in the Ottoman Empire: The Beytülmal and its
Institutionalization in the Early Modern Period
This dissertation focuses on public and private claims related to heirless and
unclaimed property in the Ottoman context circa 1450-1675. It scrutinizes different
connotations and uses of the concept of beytülmal to shed light upon a secondary and
narrower meaning of the concept as a treasury office authorized to manage claims and
revenue related to escheats and abandoned, lost, or other unclaimed property. The dissertation
surveys the grounds of public property claims based on the works of legal scholars in the pre-
Ottoman and Ottoman periods. It examines the formation of distinctive Ottoman methods
that aim at assessing, settling, and managing claims regarding heirless and unclaimed
properties or goods in the name of "beytülmal." Beytülmal thus emerges as a revenue item
and an office that sets responsibilities and procedures in time. Theoretically, the
responsibility was to protect individual property rights and collect revenue to help needy
subjects and provide other public services. Jurisprudential works (fıkıh), legal opinions
(fetvas), and imperial regulations (kânûn) provide the basis of the beytülmal's complex
organization.
Beytülmalcis (as escheators of sorts) were authorized government officials who
pursued, safeguarded, and converted to revenue the unclaimed properties of absent and
missing individuals (gâib and mefkûd), and deserted (metrûk) and heirless properties. These
properties might range from a piece of fava bean to a well-adorned
mansion. Beytülmal practices enabled the Ottoman government to meet specific legal
vi
responsibilities regarding individual claims and acquire financial benefits to address
particular public expenditures.
vii
ÖZET
Osmanl İmparatorluğu'nda Kamu ve Özel Mülkiyet Hakları: Beytülmal ve Erken Modern
Dönemde Kurumsallaşması
Bu tez, Osmanlı devleti bağlamında takriben/yaklaşık 1450-1675 arasında mahlul
(sahipsiz ve vârissiz) mal ve eşyaya dair yapılan hak talepleri konusunu inceler. Beytülmal
kavramının farklı kullanım ve çağrışımları üzerinde yoğunlaşarak, kavramın daha dar bir
özelliğini, mahlul mal/eşya üzerinde hak sahibi olan hazine kalemi anlamını izah eder. İslam
hukukunda kamunun mülkiyet iddialarının temel argümanlarını Osmanlı öncesi ve Osmanlı
dönemi fıkıh eserleri üzerinden araştırdıktan sonra, Beytülmal’i merkeze alarak, mülkiyet
iddiaları konusunda Osmanlı’da yöntemsel bir özgünlüğün olduğuna işaret eder. Teorik
olarak, bu özgün anlamında beytülmal, belli mülkiyet iddialarında bireylerin haklarını
korumak ve ihtiyaç sahibi kimselere maddi destek sağlamak için/adına kurulmuştur. Zamanla
çok yönlü bir yapı kazanarak kurumsallaşan beytülmal kalemi, Osmanlı’da fıkıh kitapları,
kanunlar ve fetvalar aracılığıyla düzenlenmiştir.
Beytülmalciler devlet tarafından yetkilendirilmiş görevlilerdir. Sahipsiz mal
statüsünde olan kayıp ve kendisinden haber alınamayan kimselerin mallarını, terkedilmiş mal
ve eşyaları ve varisi bulunmayan terekeleri teftiş eder, toplar ve kurum gözetiminde tutar.
Beytülmalcinin peşine düştüğü bu mallar/eşyalar bir bakla tanesi de olabilir, çok iyi bakılmış
bir konak da. Beytülmal uygulamaları ve kurumu, Osmanlı imparatorluğunda hukuki ve mali
bazı fonksiyonların belirli bir noktaya kadar yerine getirilmesini mümkün kılmıştır.
Keywords: Beytülmalci, Unclaimed property, Inheritance, Heirless
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Certainly, there are many people who have made significant contributions to the
research and writing of this dissertation. Nevertheless, I am especially grateful to my
advisor Engin D. Akarlı for his invaluable guidance throughout my academic journey. From
the moment I met him, I have felt privileged as I could work alongside a knowledgeable and
experienced scholar in my field. He generously gave his time to provide me with insightful
feedback and share his extensive knowledge and sources, which greatly enriched my
research. His remarks encouraged me to delve deeper and comprehend the significance of
historical facts and texts and to contemplate upon the ideas and abstract concepts. In addition
to providing academic guidance, he consistently invigorated me with his confidence in my
research. Although he has faced numerous challenges in recent years, he exerted his utmost
efforts to maintain a constructive approach while guiding me through my dissertation and
scrutinizing its drafts. This study owes a lot to his passion for history and scholarship, I
derived the most help.
I can identify Abdurrahman Atçıl as my second advisor. He played a crucial role in
guiding me through the development of research questions and navigating normative texts,
saving me from drowning in fetvas. He was always encouraging me to think alternatively
for the possisbility of a new and more appropriate idea or concept, whenever he felt the
tension between the empirical sources and the available literature on the subject at hand. I
feel grateful for different forms of helps he provided for me during the span of my years in
Ph.D. I received a great benefit from our conversations during the courses he taught and the
discussions he held. Without his support, this study could not have come to fruition.
I would like to also thank Yunus Uğur. His sheer reading of this dissertation and
practical inquiries motivated me to further explore the relevant topics. Ömerül F. Bölükbaşı
ix
also inspired me particularly in examining and interpreting the archival records that pertained
to various aspects of this dissertation. I am also thankful to Murat Uluskan. His reading of
this dissertation and comments were valuable for my future research. At the same time, I am
thankful to Kasım Kopuz who read and commented on this dissertation despite at short
notice.
I am grateful for the opportunity to visit and utilize institutions such as the Presidency
of the Ottoman Archive (BOA), Süleymaniye and Millet Manuscript Libraries, and Center
for Islamic Studies (ISAM). Despite challenging circumstances due to pandemic shutdowns,
their staff offered a welcoming atmosphere and online resources that were very helpful. I am
also thankful to Aydın Kurt for his generous help in reading some difficult archival records
in Ottoman Turkish, to Lena Idrees and Fatin Serhan for their kind support while reviewing
Arabic texts alongside them.
During my initial years as a Ph.D. student, I had an incredible opportunity to be part
of Şehir University. I greatly benefited from the academic prowess and provided facilities of
the university. I gained extensive knowledge and expanded my academic research through
courses and discussions at Şehir. I need to express my gratitude to late Mehmet Genç, Günhan
Börekçi, Kahraman Şakul, Abdülhamit Kırmızı, Özgür Kavak, and Ayşe Tek Başaran for
guiding and motivating me as a scholar at Şehir University. The university offered significant
scholarly experience crucial in pursuing an academic career path including teaching.
I should also thank some of my peers. Azize Çakır, Hümeyra Bostan-Berber, Elif
Sezer-Aydınlı, Emine Öztaner, and İrem Gündüz-Polat created a very friendly and
academically qualified atmosphere that supported my journey in many ways. Safiye Altıntaş
was always there for me on our long walks despite my tendency to complain. And lastly,
Merve Uçar Nurcan has been an invaluable companion on this lengthy path. She was always
x
energizing me with her confidence in me. I benefited a lot from her encouragement and was
inspired by her academic discipline and hard work.
My dissertation was made possible by the tireless support of my family, who
provided me with emotional comfort throughout this challenging journey. My lovely sisters
Hümeyra, Esma, and Rabia; nieces Ebrar and Zişan; and nephews Emre and Baha. My
appreciation for your help in overcoming obstacles is beyond words. Their encouragement
was more than I deserved. My father Hacı always appreciated my dedication but also
empathized with me for missing out family gatherings on weekends. I will forever be grateful
for his generous support. And there is Sabiha - an artist sister whose inspiration knows no
bounds; she provided just enough (and sometimes more!) support in a way that's impossible
to put into words how much her influence has enriched my life since the days she was eating
my erasers.
I dedicate my work in loving memory of my mother, H. Zehra.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... V
ÖZET .......................................................................................................................................................... VII
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................................................ VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. XI
LIST OF THE TABLES .............................................................................................................................. XV
TRANSLITERATION AND USAGE ....................................................................................................... XVI
CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 The Scope and Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................... 13
1.3.1Theories on public and private property, and property claims of the government ................... 20
1.3.2 Social and legal history of the Ottoman Empire ...................................................................... 28
1.3.3 Economic history of Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman institutions ............................................ 31
1.4 Chapter Organization ......................................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 46
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BEYTÜLMAL IN ISLAMIC HISTORY .................................................................... 46
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 46
2.2 The Origin of the Beytülmal: Public Treasury in Islam ..................................................................... 48
2.2.1 A Comment on the Theory of Public Property in Islam .......................................................... 54
2.3 Increasing Wealth and the Need for Bureaucratization: The Rashidun Era ...................................... 61
2.4 The Proliferation of the Financial Bureaus: Umayyad and Abbasid Periods .................................... 65
xii
2.5 Later Developments and Division in Beytülmal: ’Āmma and Khāssa .............................................. 67
2.6 Beytülmal as co-heir: Heirship and Escheat in Islamic Legal Schools .............................................. 74
2.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 82
THE BEYTÜLMAL IN THE EARLY MODERN OTTOMAN NORMATIVE TEXTS ................................................. 82
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 82
3.2 The Beytülmal as the Treasury ........................................................................................................... 84
3.2.1 The use of the Beytülmal in the Early Modern Texts .............................................................. 85
3.2.2 The Beytülmal in Dede Cöngî’s (d.1567) Treatise: Risâlah Fi Amwâli Bayta’l-mal wa
Aqsâmihâ wa Ahkâmihâ wa Masârifiha .................................................................................. 90
3.3 The Beytülmal as a Revenue Type in Normative Texts ..................................................................... 94
3.3.1 The Law Code of Mehmed II ................................................................................................... 97
3.3.2 Regulations Under the Reign of Bayezid II ........................................................................... 102
3.3.2.1 Kanunnâme-i Beytülmal-i Hassa ............................................................................... 104
3.3.3 Der Beyân-ı Kânûn-i Beytülmal ve Sâir Ahvâl in Selim I’s Kanunnâme .............................. 109
3.3.4 Beytülmal and the Lawgiver ................................................................................................... 111
3.4 Regulations After the Classical Age: Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries .................. 113
3.4.1 Kanunnâme-i Cedid: A New Role to Beytülmalci? ................................................................ 117
3.5 The Beytülmal in the Provincial Kanunnâmes ................................................................................. 121
3.5.1 Defining Borders for Claiming: Kanunnâme of Silistra (1569) .............................................. 122
3.5.2 The Beytülmal between a Vakıf and Tımar: Kanun for Yağcılar ........................................... 126
3.5.3 The Properties of the ‘Rebels’: The Kanunnâme of Egypt ..................................................... 130
3.6 The Beytülmal in Fetvas .................................................................................................................. 133
3.6.1. Propreity Rights in the cases of Missing Persons .................................................................. 136
3.6.2 Beytülmal as the Claimant and the Debtor .............................................................................. 140
3.6.3 Pre-emptive Grants and Avoiding Escheat: Cases of Muslims and non-Muslims ................. 141
xiii
3.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 142
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 145
BETWEEN LEGAL AND FINANCIAL: BEYTÜLMAL AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION ......................................... 145
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 145
4.2 The Making of the Beytülmal as an Ottoman Institution ................................................................. 146
4.2.1 Situating Beytülmal in the Ottoman Bureaucratic Organization ............................................ 149
4.3 A Chronology of the Beytülmal ....................................................................................................... 161
4.4 Ways of Claiming: Beytülmal-i Amme and Beytülmal-i Hassa ..................................................... 169
4.5 Public Claimers and Their Agents ................................................................................................... 188
4.5.1 Kadı ......................................................................................................................................... 188
4.5.2 Emin ........................................................................................................................................ 193
4.5.3 Katip ........................................................................................................................................ 201
4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 205
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 207
CONTROLLING PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REALM: BEYTÜLMAL AND ITS FOUR MAIN
FUNCTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 207
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 207
5.2 Beytülmal as the Trustee for Safekeeping and Restitution .............................................................. 209
5.3 Beytülmal as the Collector: Property Claiming through Beytülmal Mukataas ................................ 217
5.3.1 Beytülmal Mukataas ................................................................................................................ 221
5.4 Beytülmal as the Spender of a Government Fund ............................................................................ 231
5.4.1 A Fund for Private and Public Expenses of the Beytülmal ..................................................... 232
5.4.2 A Fund for Regular and Irregular Public Expenses ................................................................ 242
5.5 Beytülmal as a Reserve Fund for Charitable Expenses .................................................................... 255
5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 264
xiv
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 267
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 267
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 279
PRIMARY SOURCES: ARCHIVAL REGISTERS ............................................................................................... 279
PRIMARY SOURCES: MANUSCRIPTS ........................................................................................................... 281
PUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES ................................................................................................................. 281
PUBLISHED ARCHIVAL REGISTERS ............................................................................................................ 283
SECONDARY SOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 284
xv
LIST OF THE TABLES
TABLE 1: REVENUES OF THE IMPERIAL TREASURY (IMPERIAL DOMAINS IN RUMELIA IN 933-934) ................................ 38
TABLE 2: REVENUES OF THE IMPERIAL TREASURY (IMPERIAL DOMAINS IN ANADOLU, ZULKADIRIYE,
KARAMAN, AND RUM IN 933-934) .................................................................................................................................. 38
TABLE 3- BEYTÜLMAL REVENUES AND RESTITUTION PAYMENTS IN RUMELIA AND ANATOLIA IN 914 ...................... 40
TABLE 4: GALATA BEYTÜLMÂL-I HASSA MUKATAASI (ZILHICCE 957- RAMAZAN 958) .................................................... 237
TABLE 5: GALATA BEYTÜLMAL-I HASSA MUKATAASI (27 ŞEVVAL 959- 27 ZILHICCE 959) .............................................. 239
TABLE 6: REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF THE IMPERIAL DOMAINS IN KONYA AND KARAMAN IN 934-935 .............. 245
xvi
TRANSLITERATION AND USAGE
This study makes use of a good deal of terms in Arabic and Ottoman Turkish in order
to shed light on the operation of a government institution. The transcription system adopted
here is mainly based on Ottoman Turkish. However, when the context is purely Arabic, the
Arabic transliteration system is followed based on the Encyclopaedia of Islam by Brill. For
instance, while the first chapter uses bayt al mal as public treasury founded in the early
Islamic period, the second and later chapters uses beytülmal as an Ottoman Turkish word
meaning the Ottoman Beytülmal institution.
In most of the archival documents, the dates in lunar calendar are converted into
Common era dates. If the document does not give information regarding to the months and
days, then the years are given in approximate two years in the common era. For instance,
1692/93 is given for the lunar year 1104.
All the translations and transcriptions in the study are belong to me, if not stated
otherwise.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In his travelogue, Evliyâ Çelebi narrates ‘the good deeds of the people of Egypt’
(hüsniyyât-ı ahâlî-i Mısır) and describes how Egyptian people are attentive to their fellow
citizens who are in death-bed: “Bir âdem Mısır'da hasta-hâl olsa cümle ahâlî-i mahalle
hastanın hâl hâtırın her bâr hedâyâlar ile su’âl edüp vasiyet etdirirler. Merhûm olduğu dem
beytü'l-mâl emînine haber edüp techîz [ü] tekfînin hâzır edüp…”1 Respecting the fellows’
bedside manners towards the ill, Evliyâ praises informing the beytülmal emini upon one’s
death as a good deed—even before the burial procedures. Who is that beytülmalci? Is he
needed to preach on mortality of humankind, or to bless the deceased? Or is he a must be
there person on behalf of the public treasury, as his title evokes.
Starting with a death story is bit sorrowful, but this dissertation aims to examine the
originality of that beytülmalci in the Ottoman context. More specifically, it endeavors to
problematize the beytülmalci’s dealing with the properties that ‘outlive’ its owner and fall
unclaimed in the Ottoman Empire. The time period of the study is roughly between the
second half of the fifteenth to the last quarter of the seventeenth century. Unclaimed property
might be translated as the property that has been abandoned or unclaimed by a rightful owner,
and holders’ attempts to locate the owner fail. Ownership by private individuals poses some
problems of ‘what to do with property that outlives its owner’2, either as inheritance or
1 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi vol.X. ed. Seyit Ali
Kahraman, Yücel Dağlı and Robert Dankoff, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi yay., 2007, p.277.
2 Bruce G. Carruthers and Laura Ariovich “Sociology of Property Rights”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 30, 2004, pp. 23-46.
2
unclaimed. There are a few very common scenarios for one’s falling apart from his/her
property. The owner might have died without heirs, or only one of them was alive, or might
have been absent (gâib) or missing (mefkûd) for a certain period and no one knows his or her
whereabouts.
Being on the way to reach somewhere outside the homeland was in and of itself a
difficult experience, setting aside the challenges of living during times with no modern means
of transportation and communication. Along with difficulties in providing for one’s basic
needs like food, water, and shelter, there were plenty of unsettling troubles one could face
while traveling in the early modern world: highwayman, back-breaking passages, deserts,
high hills, predatory animals, and severe climate conditions—hot summers or harsh
winters—constituting a physically hostile environment. Moreover, human beings were
always vulnerable to diseases and death. The long wars, or campaigns, was one of the most
encountered reasons for one’s drifting away. People might have in their last gasp in a faraway
region, unable to have time to let family members know their whereabouts. What would
happen then to the rest of the family, properties, and the possessions of the persons who were
absent, missing or who died in a far-away land?
In her impressive work, The Return of Martin Guerre, N. Zemon Davis realizes that
the more she savored the creation of the film, the more her appetite for the details of the story
was whetted, however paradoxically. This led her to raise new questions about the
motivations of people in the sixteenth century: "whether they cared as much about truth as
about the property?"3 Beyond any doubt, property was a greater part of the ‘historical reality'
in the case of missing individuals as reflected in empirical sources. Despite their sorrow,
there was a manifest contention among the potential claimers of these properties in almost
3 Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, Harvard University Press, 1983, p. viii.
3
every case. The fetva collections also include a section on missing persons titled kitâbu’lmefkûd.
Beytülmal, emin, kadı, property, heirship, debt, marriage, and divorce are the most
frequent terms one can find in these legal opinions. Selma Zečević also notes the frequency
of property-related questions and the deep interest of the relatives of missing individuals in
the status of their property in her study on the fetva collection of the Bosnian jurist (müfti)
Ahmed al-Mostâri (d. 1776).4
This dissertation attempts to grasp the wider and narrower definitions of concepts
like property and beytülmal in their own settings. It examines the episodes where a piece of
property was regarded as unclaimed and the related rules and regulations that guide the
procedures to decide public and private claims on these properties including the ways of
claiming, escheat, and restitution. It attempts to review each related concept within their
semantic world so as to make sense of the property claims in their appropriate Ottoman
context. This undertaking has to deal with the beytülmal which was an institution in charge
of controlling unclaimed properties in the Ottoman empire. It had its conceptual and
theoretical roots in the early Islamic period, going back to the years of Prophet Muhammed
and the rightly guided caliphs.
In its wider sense, beytülmal ( بی ت ال م ال ) means the house of wealth or public treasury
in Islamic political organizations. In theory beytülmal covers of public properties collected
and accumulated by legal means such as booties obtained in military campaigns, taxes like
kharaj and jizya, and unclaimed properties. This wealth was deemed as the common property
of Muslims living in an Islamic polity. However, according to the law, only the imam (leader,
4 Selma Zečević, “Missing Husbands, Waiting Wives, Bosnian Muftis: Fatwa Texts and the
Interpretation of Gendered Presences and Absences in Late Ottoman Bosnia,” in Amila
Buturović İrvin Cemil Schick (ed.), Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and
History, London, I.B. Tauris, 2007, p. 343.
4
or ruler, of the Islamic community) had the discretion to administer and direct these
properties for the sake of Muslims in theory, and all subjects in practice.
As an overarching postulate one can state that unclaimed property is one of the
revenues of the public treasury, the beytülmal. Governments hold the right of escheat based
on the Islamic law of inheritance and their legitimate right to raise revenue. From the early
years of Islam, the treasury was regarded as the legal destination for unclaimed properties.
However, the Shāfi’ī and Mālikī schools of law later elaborated on this right of heirship,
particularly on the account that if and only if the ruler is just and the public treasury is
properly administered by the guidance of moral principles. Considering mainly the
redistributive power of the state, and the benefit of the Muslims in general, the schools
favored and preferred the right of the beytülmal before the cognate relatives (zawu’l-arhâm).5
The Ottomans also used the concept of the beytülmal in the sense of public treasury
along with such terms like beylik, miri, and hazîne-i amire. However, a broad range of
primary sources indicate that from the early fifteenth century on, Ottomans used the concept
of the beytülmal in the sense of a specific revenue and in the sense of an organization put in
charge of property claims. On behalf of the public treasury, this organization controlled
unclaimed properties in the center and the provinces enforcing the laws in keeping with
certain administrative regulations and through the agency of the officials called beytülmalci,
or beytülmal emini.
Nikola, an Ottoman subject in Istanbul, and his fava beans would be a quick and
obvious example for the specific definition of the beytülmal in the sense of revenue from
unclaimed property. After sowing fava beans in his garden, Nikola goes missing (gaybet-i
5 N.J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008,
p.30.; Hamza Aktan, Mukayeseli İslam ve Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi yay.2008,
p. 224.; Abdüsselam Arı, İslam Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Pınar yay., 2018, pp.67-68.
5
munkati‘a6). His neighbor Veli b. Ali espies that the fava beans have grown enough to be
collected. He, the neighbor, meets the case; he collects the beans and sells them for 200 akçes.
However, somehow the beytülmal emini7is informed of what happened: Since it is not the
neighbor’s business to collect and sell the fava beans in any way, the neighbor is forced to
pay the earnings to the emin.8 In another case, Todora borrows 500 akçes from Zekeriya
Kadıoğlu Yusuf. After a while, Zekeriya goes missing with gaybet-i munkatı‘a. Informed of
this situation, the beytülmalci applies to the court to summon Todora and asks Todora to pay
the aforementioned debt in the presence of the kadı. In the court, Todora proves that he
already paid back 200 akçes to Zekeriya and only 300 akçes remained on his charge that he
also paid to the mâl-ı gâibci9 before.10
The Ottomans paid considerable attention to controlling unclaimed properties in their
realm as they saw a material government interest in this matter. The potential public
properties of different types were claimed under a considerably well-organized system that
prevailed in almost all corners of the empire and almost to its end. Being an integral part of
the central and provincial administrations, the beytülmal played key roles in providing justice
and defending the government’s material interests.
6 A prolonged absence with utter silence. “Gaybet”, New Redhouse Turkish-English Dictionary,
Istanbul: Redhouse yay.1986, p.387.; The state of being missing with no any piece of
information.
7 The officer in charge of control of unclaimed properties.
8 İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri, Üsküdar Mahkemesi, no.9, 837 (29 R 942/ 27 Oct.1535)
9 Instead of beytülmalci or beytülmal emini, the clerk preferred mâl-ı gâibci. In literal sense it
means the officer who is in charge of controling and claiming properties of the people who
are absent. In this case, Todora explains that he paid back part of his debt and also gave the
rest to that specific officer before.
10 İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri, Üsküdar Mahkemesi no.9, 853. (29 R 942/ 27 Oct.1535), pp.340-341
6
1.1 The Scope and Delimitations
In the Ottoman context, unclaimed property calls into question a wide range of issues
that are intrinsically, and very closely, related to legal, social, fiscal, and administrative
aspects of daily life. The relative importance of these issues becomes more apparent if one
takes into consideration the mundane realities of daily life whereby a piece of property brings
together different agents of the empire.
In the first place, unclaimed property was an issue of inheritance laws (’ilm al farâiz)
which the kadı ’s court oversaw. Taking properties into government custody, dividing the
shares among rightful claimants, and resolving the debt claims of third persons were all
conducted by the kadıs under the guidance of the law.
Secondly, the thing(s) that makes an unclaimed property was multidimensional. For
instance, the properties in question were dazzlingly broad ranged. They varied from being a
piece of cushion to a thorough horse, from a copper vessel to a well-maintained house. The
value of the property affected how it could be claimed. Moreover, these properties might fall
within the category of the unclaimed from an affluent and wealthy subject, or from all alone
destitute and penniless person. Consequently, normative texts formulated the categories of
the unclaimed property (beytülmal-i amme and beytülmal-i hassa) according to the social
standing of the person, i.e., the ex-owner and the value of the property. The texts made a clear
distinction between the properties of people of askeri status and the properties of regular
subjects’, the reayas. What could bring a reaya in the same category with an askeri was only
the high value of the property. In addition, the Ottoman law of beytülmal laid down the
boundaries for who would be a legal claimer and a holder of the property mainly based on
two factors: the status of the land (whether it was vakıf, tımar, serbest tımar land etc.), and
the status of the person, that is to say, whether the person belonged to a corporate group (like
the janissaries, bostancıs, servitors of matbah-ı amire etc.). These ostensibly convoluted
7
preliminary specifications aimed to supervise property relations by harnessing the
administrative and legal foundations of the empire.
Thirdly, unclaimed property was one of the revenues of the Ottoman Imperial
Treasury for which an intermediary office was in charge of its management. As a
governmental set-up, the beytülmal collected and accumulated this revenue through public
claims on unclaimed property in the realm. Acting according to the directives issued to it, the
office managed—directed and transferred—these revenues for a diverse range of purposes
and settings. From this point of view, unclaimed property was an issue concerning the
Ottoman fiscal system. It provided a revenue that was, to a certain extent, an unbudgeted
one.11
Taking these rich aspects of the issue into consideration, this study chooses to focus
on public and private claims on unclaimed properties in the Ottoman empire and the operation
of an office to manage such claims. It examines the available sources to visualize the
beytülmal as a legal and financial institution that consistently and coherently supervised
claims on heirless, lost and similarly fallen away property in the Ottoman empire, particularly
between the 1450s and 1670s. For practical reasons, the thesis emphasizes the regular public
claims, the revenues of which materially ended up in the miri category.
Though the beytülmal prevailed in almost all corners of the empire and in almost all
its lifespan, this period is of interest in three respects that should explain the scope of the
subjects in the thesis: i) This period saw the constitution of the grounds for public and private
11 It was ‘unbudgeted’ because the circumstances that generated this revenue were unpredictable.
The death or missing of a person without an heir, or simply a lost and found property. This
revenue could also be regarded as predictable to ‘a certain extent’, because the Ottomans
relied on the iltizam method to administer unclaimed property. Thus the government farmed
out the beytülmal revenue in advance in return for a fixed sum. The mültezim (the mukataa
undertaker) could make a profit, or shoulder the loss under his tahvil.
8
property in the Ottoman empire. During this era, legal and intellectual works shed light on
the theoretical rationale and historical connections of the beytülmal and its signification for
the Ottomans—both for the lay and elite alike, and both in the sense of public treasury and
revenue. The original precedents set the rudiments and helped to convey the definitions and
the types of unclaimed property for later times. ii) The norms and regulations prepared
roughly in this period set the rules and procedures for public and private property claims in
an extensive way, particularly during the sixteenth century. The wording of the earlier
regulations suggests that the fifteenth-century Ottoman provincial ruling cadres were not
aware of the existence of any procedures, or even what should be done if a property falls
unclaimed.12 The general and provincial kanunnâmes and fetvas issued in different parts of
the empire upon circumstances gave the beytülmal its character as an Ottoman legal
institution. iii) In the ‘long seventeenth century’, the Ottoman empire ran through a period of
crises and transformation that brought along new adjustments in military, administrative, and
fiscal policies.13 The wars with Venetians and the Habsburgs and its allies in the Western
frontier, and with the Safavids in the East, social upheavals and flight of peasants, and the
influx of silver, put the financial conditions into trouble. Particularly, the budgetary deficits
and expenses engendered an increasing need for cash for the government in the last quarter
12 Halil İnalcık and Robert Ahnegger, Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani II.
Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknâme ve Kanunnâmeler, (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2000) pp.53, 68, 76 and others.
13 Halil İnalcık, “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire”, Archivum
Ottomanicum, VI, 1980, pp. 311-313.; Yavuz Cezar, Osmanlı Malı̇yesı̇nde Bunalım ve
Değı̇şı̇m Dönemı̇, İstanbul: Alan yay., 1986, pp. 27-32.
9
of the seventeenth century.14 So as to tackle these fiscal difficulties and problems of tax
collection in villages, the malikâne system was introduced. Accordingly, mukataas (revenue
units) were contracted out to the highest bidders on a life-time basis—rather than for a fixed
three-year term. Indeed, the beytülmal mukataas are important given the focus of this study.
However, since this study would not be a product of the economic history of the Ottoman
empire, the changes in the system that led to beytülmal mukataas and further developments
in fiscal policies like new institutions and figures will be excluded.
Before giving a brief sketch of each chapter, I will explain some keywords used in
this study, like the adjective ‘unclaimed’, and the terms ‘beytülmal’ and ‘property’. So as to
be more inclusive, this study prefers to use the adjective ‘unclaimed’ as a general rubric to
identify the following properties: heirless or semi-heirless inheritances, deserted or
abandoned property (bilâ varis, metruk), the property of an absent (mâl-i gâib), the property
of a missing individual (mâl-i mefkûd), stray cattle (yava), absconding slaves (kaçgun, abd-i
abik, kenizek), found or treasure trove (lukata). There are also some occasions that led to the
falling of the properties unclaimed; like properties remaining in a sunken ship, or properties
found at the hands of bandits or thieves, and so on. What brings these properties together
under the same category is the overarching claim of the government. Though they might not
be literally unclaimed in practice, government agents considered them in that status as objects
of public claims.
14 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, “XVII ve XVIII Yüzyıl Osmanlı Bütçelerı̇”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat
Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.41 (1-4), 1985, pp. 399-404.; Erol Özvar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Bütçe
Harcamaları (1509-1788)” in Osmanlı Maliyesi: Kurumlar ve Bütçeler I, (Haz.) Mehmet
Genç, Erol Özvar., İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşı̇v ve Araştırma Merkezı̇, 2006, pp. 197-
238.
10
In a similar vein, so as to be comprehensive in addressing things and sums of money
at issue in the beytülmal, the word property is preferred instead of possessions, belongings,
estate, patrimony, or inheritance. However, when the context strictly needs to use one of these
words, I might opt for it for the sake of clarity.
Last but not least, different uses of the term beytülmal throughout the study could be
confusing. It could be a baffling word when it comes to the Ottoman office and the officers.
It will be used in the following senses: (a) Public treasury ‘the beytülmal’; (b) the title of a
specific institution ‘beytülmal emaneti’; (c) a specific property (or revenue) generally
described as unclaimed ‘beytülmal’, and (d) the title of an officer who claims these properties
on behalf of the state (or a contract holder) beytülmalci or beytülmal emini. In this respect
‘claiming the beytülmal’ means claiming a property (or properties) in the cluster of
unclaimed properties.
1.2 Sources
Presumably, the majority of Ottoman subjects might have heard either the term
beytülmal or beytülmalci at least once in their lifetime, even though they never visited the
courts. It was very likely that a piece of property fell unclaimed, or several people might have
made claims on it. In the same vein, people of different ages, positions, ethnic and religious
origins, and different income status might have been caught in a beytülmal issue. The range
of the empirical sources reflects the variety of the people and properties involved in a
beytülmal related issue. The archival documents on the subject are both very rich and
variegated. Court records, kanunnâme texts, and fetva compilations similarly provide
important information and insight. One might suggest three main groups of available sources
for a more conceivable categorization of the subjects and benefit from them:
i. Theoretical and legal aspects: Early works of fiqh (jurisprudence) like Kitāb al-
Kharaj, Kitāb al-amwāl, and al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniya are the main sources for understanding
11
the theory and the legal principles related to beytülmal in pre-Ottoman Islamic history. The
works of Ottoman ‘scholar-bureaucrats’ like Dede Cöngî, Âşık Çelebi, and Nâimâ are also
significant in understanding the Ottoman use of the beytülmal, and the ways of revenue
collecting and spending. Similarly, the accounts of Defterdâr Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Hezârfen
Hüseyin Efendi and Kâtip Çelebi, and other high-ranking officials touch upon the cases of
beytülmal or offer advice about the better implementation of the law of beytülmal.
Furthermore, normative texts, such as kanunnâmes, fetva compilations, and ahidnâmes are
significant sources for mapping out the rules and regulations that concern public and private
property claims in the early modern period. These normative texts are preserved in
manuscript libraries like Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Millet Kütüphanesi,
Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, or in various archival registers.
ii. The cases and problems of implementation: The court records (sicils) and registers
like Mühimme, Ahkam, Atik Şikâyet defterleri constituted the richest sources of Ottoman
legal history. I use these sources to understand how the Ottomans supervised unclaimed
properties in practice in different parts of the empire. These empirical sources cast light on
the ruling cadre’s reaction to abuses, policies adopted to different claims, and how the laws
related to beytülmal were upheld and remade. The inheritance (muhallefât and tereke)
registers of people who died heirless are also helpful in figuring out such persons, the
properties they left behind, the value of these properties, and their treatment as beytülmal.
These registers are also useful for tracing the procedure observed in keeping unclaimed
properties in custody and their selling, as well as the intermediary figures involved in the
beytülmal operations. Finally, the kassam15 registers are also important for examining the
15 Dividers, or law officials, who fixed inheritance shares.
12
terekes returned to the beytülmal. While Askerî Kassam16 registers include the tereke records
of people of the askerî status, Beledi Kassam17 registers include the records of the ordinary
people.
iii. Unclaimed property as a component of the Ottoman fiscal system: If the beytülmal
officers could establish their claims well, unclaimed property became a revenue of the state.
There is a dazzling spectrum of sources related to beytülmal as a fiscal revenue. The records
under the category of Maliyeden Müdevver (MAD.d) and Bâb-ı Defteri (D.) and the subcategories
of the former, including Başmuhasebe (D.BŞM.d18), Muhallefat Halifeliği
(D.BŞM.MHF.d19), and Baş Mukataa Kalemi (D. BMK.d20), Bursa Mukataası (D.BRM.d21)
are the main sources in this regard. They roughly cover the cases of beytülmal, the list of
terekes, the registers of the beytülmal mukataas, contracts, the conditions of the bidders,
individuals in charge of the office, the amount of revenue collected in a certain period,
beytülmal’s share in certain specific cases, typical payments made while managing these
revenues, the ways of collecting and spending the revenues and the amounts delivered to the
imperial treasury. In addition, some archival categories (fons) like AE. (Ali Emiri), İE.
16These registers were kept between 1000/1591-1592 and 1342/1924 by the court of Kısmet-i
Askeriye. There are 2142 sicils in this catalog. Said Öztürk, “XVII. Yüzyıl Askerı̇ Kassam
Defterlerı̇nı̇n Sosyo-Ekonomı̇k Tahlı̇lı̇”, Ph.D Diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993, pp.16-17.
17 These registers were kept between 1066/1655 1303/1886 by the court of Mülga Beledi
Kassamlığı. There are 155 sicils in this catalog. Öztürk, “XVII. Yüzyıl Askerı̇ Kassam
Defterlerı̇” pp.16-17.; Tahsin Özcan, “Muhallefât” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol.30, 2020,
pp. 405-406.
18 Başmuhasebe Kalemi Defterleri.
19 Başmuhasebe-Muhallefat Halifeliği Kalemi Defterleri.
20 Başmuhasebe Baş Mukataa Kalemi Defterleri.
21 Başmuhasebe Bursa Mukataası Kalemi Defterleri.
13
(İbnüemin), C. (Cevdet) and some of their subcategories, TS.MA.e (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi
Evrakı), TS.MA.d (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Defterleri), KK.d.(Kamil Kepeci), HAT(Hatt-ı
Hümayun), HR.(Hariciye Nezâreti), and YB (Yabancı Arşivler) also include beytülmalrelated
records that cover submissions (arz), written orders (buyruldus), appointments
(tevcîhât), official letters (tezkires), inheritance records (terekes), account registers
(muhasebe defters—müfredat and icmal), correspondence between the center and the
provinces on various issues.
Furthermore, archival records include beytülmal-entitled categories like that of
D.BŞM.İSB (Başmuhasebe Kalemi-İstanbul Beytülmali Mukataası22) and D.BŞM.BLB
(Başmuhasebe Kalemi-Belgrad Beytülmali23) under the general rubric of D. (Bâb-ı
Defteri24). While the former is more of a collection of fiscal records including tereke registers,
mukataa contracts, and detailed account registers (muhasabe defterleri), the latter covers
almost entirely the correspondence between the kadı (or nâib) of Belgrad and the beytülmal
emini there concerning the funerary expenses of the persons who died alone and pennilessly
(fakîr and garîb).
1.3 Literature Review
One can place the study of property claims and the beytülmal under the broader field
of Ottoman history, including the social, legal, and economic history of the Ottoman empire.
By its nature, the subject could branch out into these subfields when analyzed under related
research interests. Presumably because of this connection, many Ottomanists come across
22 Chief Accounting Office-Beytülmal mukataası of Istanbul.
23 Chief Accounting Office-Beytülmal of Belgrad.
24 Record Books
14
the issue of beytülmal and the term beytülmalci in their surveys. Many of them make remarks
about the beytülmal of briefly and from the perspective of their research interests.
Nevertheless, the subject has not been dealt with independently in any of the sub-fields of
Ottoman studies. As the late Mehmet Genç once said, it might be ‘a bit cloudy a subject’25 to
be examined in its entirety. However, its significance lies at the intersection of law, economy,
state, and culture, and of the various sub-fields of Ottoman history. It determined and was
determined by everyday human experiences. As Akarlı puts it “the matrix of property
relationships revolving around an object tended to become quite complex in an Ottoman
context.”26
There are some earlier works of Ottoman historians that should be noted first as they
pointed to the significance and the meaning of beytülmal in the context of their studies.
Barkan’s work on Ottoman kanunâmes published in 194327 and his work on tereke registers
of Edirne Askeri Kassamlığı published in 1966 worth attention in this sense. He explains the
rules in the division of inheritances and the share of the beytülmal in relevant cases. He uses
25 ‘Bu biraz flu bir konu’
26 After the word ‘object’ Akarlı puts ‘immovable’ in parenthesis as he mostly means immovable
objects. However, though beytülmal also includes immovable properties such as houses or
gardens, movable objects become objects of complex ownership claims in the Ottoman
context. Engin D. Akarlı, “Gedik: A Bundle of Rights and obligations for Istanbul Artisans
and Traders, 1750–1840” in Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social: Making
Persons and Things, Alain Pottage, Martha Mundy (ed.), Cambridge University press, 2009,
pp. 166-200.
27 Ömer L. Barkan, (haz. Hüseyin Özdeğer) XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda
Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esasları, c. I, Kanunlar, İstanbul: İ.Ü. yay., 2001. The
facsimile print of this book was published in 1943.
15
the askerî kassam28 registers, which include the cases related to beytülmâl-i hassa to examine
the claims between contending parties over the properties of the heirless deceased persons.29
Also, Uzunçarşılı’s work on Kapıkulu Ocakları published in 1944 elaborately examines the
beytülmal of janissaries, the revenues due to this specific corporate treasury. He sheds light
upon the officers in charge of collecting, the place where the beytülmal properties were kept
and protected, and their use for expenses of the janissaries.30
Lewis and Cohen underlined the significance of the beytülmal in their work on the
towns of Palestine in the sixteenth century. Their work was published in 1978.31They discuss
the types of revenue under this title, and their share among total revenues Their translation
of the cluster of beytülmal revenues is a bit misleading. In the Ottoman kanunnâmes the
beytülmal was generally used as an umbrella concept that covered unclaimed property of an
heirless deceased person, property of absent and missing persons, and runaway slaves and
stray cattle (mâl-i gâib, mâl-i mefkûd, abd-i abîk, yava and kaçgun). They translated as if
beytülmal was independent of the cluster.32 In a similar vein, they translated mîrî as the
28 The registers kept by dividers, or law officials, who fixed the inheritance shares of military
and administrative officials in the Ottoman Empire.
29 Ömer L. Barkan, “Edirne Askerî Kassam’ına Ait Tereke Defterleri 1545-1659” Belgeler, III/5,
Ankara, 1966, pp. 21-23, 51, 62, 65, 156, 212 and others.
30 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtından Kapukulu Ocakları-I, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Yayınları, 1984, pp. 56, 214-215, 311-320 and others.
31 Amnon Cohen and Bernard Lewis, Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the
Sixteenth Century, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 73-74, 99.
32“Treasury revenues (bayt al-mal) and property of absent and missing persons and runaway
slaves and stray cattle in the city of Nabulus and its districts (nahiye)” Cohen and Lewis,
Population and Revenue, 1978 see especially pp. 113, 153, 142.
16
beytülmâl-i amme,33 which, as far as we know, was not used in the meaning of public treasury
in the Ottoman Empire—though it might be true for the pre-Ottoman period.
Bernard Lewis also authored the article “bayt al mal” in the Encyclopedia of Islam
for the Ottoman period. He underlined the use of the beytülmal in the meaning of treasury in
the early modern Ottoman context and examined beytülmal as a revenue unit, the general
rules and regulations, and the procedures in property claiming. This article is a very
informative piece written in English so far on the Ottoman beytülmal— despite its shortness.
He mainly used kanunnâme texts as well as some secondary sources like Uzunçarşılı and
Barkan’s works. In addition, Coulson, Cahen, and Tourneau authored the other parts of the
article “bayt al mal”. While Coulson elaborated on the theory of bayt al mal (legal doctrine,
jurisdiction, revenue sources of public treasury, expenditures, and the mechanism of
redistribution), Cahen focused on the history of beytülmal in pre-Ottoman Islamic period in
a wider context. Lastly, Tourneau touched upon the local bayt al mal(s) in the Muslim west
during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods and later Islamic political organizations. 34
Stanford J. Shaw’s doctoral dissertation on Ottoman Egypt in 1958 is also worthy of
attention. Shaw examines the financial and administrative organization of Egypt between
1517 and 1798.35 He scrutinizes the revenues and expenditures of the Imperial Treasury of
Egypt in detail and surveys each revenue item with due attention to its broader significance.
33 Cohen and Lewis, Population and Revenue, 1978, p. 163.
34N. J. Coulson, Cl. Cahen, B. Lewis, B. and R. le Tourneau. “Bayt al-Māl”, in The
Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.I, ed. H. A. R. Gibb et al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986,
pp.1141-1149.
35Stanford J. Shaw, The Financial and Administrative Organization and Development of
Ottoman Egypt 1517-1798, Princeton University Press, 1962, pp. 172-173.
17
Under the title of “non-fixed miscellaneous36 revenues of the imperial treasury of Egypt”, he
records the beytülmal, the methods of its collection, and the proceeds in 1517-1798. Shaw’s
observation that the beytülmal revenues were collected through four mukataas in Egypt is
particularly salient.37 This practice differed from that in the core lands of the empire where
beytülmal revenues were considered under the categories of amme and hassa— as it is
explained in detail later in this work.
The four mukata‘a groups in Egypt were as follows:
- Mukâta‘a-i beytülmâl-i Hâssa38 was in charge of the property of Ottoman officials,
or Ağas, who died while in debt to the Imperial Treasury. It was sometimes
subdivided to include only the deceased Ağas (who were in debt) in Egypt, and called
“Mukâta‘a-i Beytülmâl-i Ağayân”.
- Mukâta‘a-i beytülmâl-i Askerî was in charge of the beytülmal of people of askerî
status who were not in debt to the Imperial Treasury.
- Mukâta‘a-i beytülmâl-i Amme was in charge of the beytülmal of people of non-askerî
who were not in debt to the Imperial Treasury.
36 ‘Miscellaneous revenues’ is translated as emvâl-i müteferrika.
37 Beytülmal operated in almost all the corners of the empire, including Arab lands and the
Balkans. For instance, Kheirani identified a list of Turkish words in the beytülmal registers
kept in Algeria prior to the nineteenth century. Leila Kheirani, "Turkish Words in the
Ottoman Documents: Inheritances of Women as Example". Vakanüvis 1, 2016, pp.280-292.;
see also Aktaş for beytülmal cases in Kırım sicils. Sema Aktaş Sarı, “3a-3b Numaralı, 1648-
1679 Tarı̇hlı̇ Kırım Kadıasker Defterlerı̇ne Göre Kırım’da Sosyal ve Ekonomı̇k Hayat”, MA
thesis, Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2016, pp. 142, 160 and 270.
38 Shaw explains that as “Imperial Beytülmâl”. In the case of beytülmal mukataas, this term need
elaboration as it had different connotations in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Stanford J.
Shaw, Ottoman Egypt, p. 172.
18
- Mukâta‘a-i beytülmâl-i Râh-ı Hajj-ı Şerif was in charge of the beytülmal of those
(whether askeri or non-askerî), who died on the way to pilgrimage.
The fourth, Râh-ı Hajj-ı Şerif, could be a relevant categorization considering the
geographical centrality of Egypt on pilgrimage roads39, and the Ottomans rulers’ repeated
efforts to regulate the beytülmal issues on the way to pilgrimage.40 The first category of the
indebted ağas (and officials) is a bit different than the general beytülmal organization in the
rest of the empire. However, it calls to mind a special kanunnâme that was prepared roughly
in the first half of the sixteenth century and was almost entirely devoted to the procedures to
be followed in case of debt claims of third persons (whether askerî or reaya) over the
unclaimed properties kept by beytülmalcis.41
A few additional studies need to be noted for providing initial clarity on the issue in
a general sense. These studies differ from others in that their main focus is on beytülmal and
beytülmalcis. Chronologically, the first study could be Aynur Dayıoğlu’s bachelor thesis. She
examines the beytülmal register of Galata kept in the year 955 (1548-49) and provides a
transcription of the text.42 The register lists the possessions and properties of twenty-three
persons that were claimed by the emin of Galata as beytülmal. Except for four of them, these
people were not rich as understood from their belongings in the lists. Dayıoğlu tries to shed
39 Münir Atalar, “Emîr-i Hacc” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi. Vol.11, 1995, pp. 131-133.; Orhan
Kılıç, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hac Emirliği Müessesesi: Mısır Örneği”, IRCICA, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Egypt During the Ottoman Era, 26-30 November 2007
Cairo, published in İstanbul 2010, pp. 137-180.
40 Some of these cases will be examined in the fourth and fifith chapters.
41 This “Beytülmâl-i Hassa Kanunnâmesi “will be dealt with in detail in chapter 3.
42Aynur Dayıoğlu, “Galata Beytülmal Muhallefat Müfredat Defterinin Tedkiki (Sene H.
955/1548)”, Bachelor Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1955.
19
light on religious and social life, and the material culture of the period through an analysis of
the items mentioned in these lists.
“Bir Malî Gelir Kaynağı Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin Terekeleri ve Beytülmâl
Mukataaları” is another monographic study. It is the most frequently referred piece on the
subject and has been one of the most important secondary sources of this dissertation as
well.43 In this article, Bilgin and Bozkurt focus on the operation of the beytülmal mukataas
in a general sense from the perspective of the Ottoman fiscal administration. It is also the
only study that uses empirical sources relatively extensively, and it delves into the following
issues: the legal regulations related to the beytülmal, the officers in charge of the office, the
range and the rate of the costs to be covered during the beytülmal operations, and the
exceptional cases where the beytülmal officers are prohibited to claim any property.44
M. Akif Erdoğru’s paper—presented in CIEPO in 2000— is another significant study
on the subject. Erdoğru examines the cases of property claims in Cyprus in the late fifteenth
and early sixteenth centuries. Utilizing mainly the court records, he focuses on the beytülmali
amme and hassa officer(s) and cases of claims and restitution in a local setting.45 He tries to
illustrate beytülmalci’s legal authority, for which beytülmalci appeared to have generally
pushed the limits in claiming on behalf of the government, and his position in the face of
43 Fatih Bozkurt, Arif Bilgin, “Bir Malî Gelir Kaynağı Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin Terekeleri ve
Beytülmâl Mukataaları” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20, 2010:2,
pp. 1-31.
44 In the beytülmal cases, if a person establishes her/his claim on a property with strong evidence,
s/he could get restituted that property—either in cash or in kind. This study will refer these
types of situations restitution, or compensation.
45 M. Akif Erdoğru, “Osmanlı Kıbrısı'nda Önemli Bir Görevli: Beytülmâl-i Hassa ve Âmme
Emini”, (presented in CIEPO 2000) Tuncer Baykara (Der.), CIEPO XIV. Sempozyumu
Bildirileri, Ankara: TTK, 2004 pp. 149-161.
20
private claims. This piece of study is very helpful in figuring out the network of the local
officers around the beytülmal and the mechanism that make the local agents of the empire
accountable to each other. The last piece of study that deserves attention in this regard is
Uğur Altuğ’s “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Beytülmal.” Altuğ gives a brief and descriptive account
of the beytülmal emâneti in general in the Ottoman empire.46
Lacking a monographic work, I will suggest a field-specific discussion of the
secondary sources which do not problematize unclaimed property, but deals with it to a
certain extent: Works on theories of public and private property and the redistributive power
of the state in a broader sense; works on social and legal history which mainly rely on court
records (sicils) and tereke registers etc.; and works on the economic history of the Ottoman
Empire and Ottoman institutions that refer to the beytülmal mukataas, its administration and
beytülmal’s contribution to total revenues in a specific period.
(i) Theories on public and private property, and property claims of the
government
The literature on public property in general, public claims in particular, and claim on
inheritance more particular have some explanations for the government’s right to escheat.
However, the majority of these works concentrate on immovable properties, especially
lands.47 The beytülmal claimed estates of various kinds, like movable or immovable
46 Uğur Altuğ, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Beytülmal” in 60. Yılında İlim ve Fikir Adamı Prof. Dr.
Kazım Yaşar Kopraman'a Armağan, Ankara: Berikan, 2003, pp. 85-89.
47 For instance, see John Brewer and Susan Staves (ed.), Early Modern Conceptions of Property
(Routledge, New York, 1995).; Baber Johansen, The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent,
21
properties, houses, gardens, animals, slaves, and a dazzling number of things as possessions,
but lands were largely out of the discussion. Here, I will try to illustrate in brief some of the
theoretical discussions related to the properties, and public claims on the estates of private
individuals.
One of the most common reasons for public claims is semi-heirless properties. When
one of the conjoints dies, and if wife or husband is the only heir, the government claims a
part of it. If the surviving partner is the wife, she takes 1/3 (sülüs) of the properties, if the
husband is the survivor, he takes 2/4 of it. The rest goes to the treasury (beytülmal). This is
based on the Islamic law of inheritance (farâiz).48 According to the regulations, beytülmalci
comes to the deceased’s house before the burial procedures begin. He seals and starts to list
everything that belonged to the deceased and that will be assigned an estimated price later.
This scene arouses interest about the grounds of public claims on estates. Why would
one accept to sell her/his beloved’s cushion (minder), velvet pillow (kadife yastık), or baklava
tray (baklava tepsisi) to get only a partial return? The perspective of modern legal systems,
and contemporary realities might cloud one’s vision, to the extent that, one might regard
public claims as irrelevant, particularly in cases of semi-heirless properties. This is mainly
because the secular and modern legal paradigm of property ownership has expanded its realm
London: Croom Helm, 1988. Farhat J. Ziadeh “Property Rights in The Middle East: From
Traditional Law to Modern Codes”, Arab Law Quarterly, Vol.8, No.1, 1993, pp. 3-12.; Nada
Moumtaz, God’s Property: Islam, Charity, and the Modern State, Oakland: University of
California Press, 2021.; Huri İslamoğlu (ed.), Constituting Modernity Private Property in the
East and West, London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2004.
48 See Hamza Aktan, Mukayeseli İslam ve Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi yay.2008, p.
224.; Ali Himmet Berki, İslam Hukukunda Ferâiz ve İntikâl, Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Dairesi
Başkanlığı, 1986, p. 46.; N.J Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, New York:
Cambridge University Press., 2008, pp.49-50.
22
to cover ever more complex instances of ownership and has conferred on owners an absolute
right of exclusion.49
In his book on Succession in Muslim Family, Coulson discusses that the public
treasury (beytülmal) could not claim a share from the estates of private individuals based on
the law of inheritance. Qur’an does not mention public treasury (beytülmal) as an heir, or
beneficiary; it could claim unattended, unclaimed, or intestate properties of private persons
only by the right of escheat.50 That is to say, as Bilmen also states, beytülmal regards them
as ‘unattended’ (sahipsiz), or ‘lost’ (zayi) property, not the inheritance.51 However, as Halil
Cin records, when prisoners of war (esir, kul) died without any relatives (asabe-i nesebiye),
the public treasury, hence the ruler, would be the legitimate heir based on socio-kinship. The
manumission of kuls created a legally binding relationship (asabe-i sebebiyye, welâ-i atâka)
between a master and a kul.52 In the former case, the treasury claimed these properties in the
49 Engin D. Akarlı, “Gedik: A Bundle of Rights and obligations for Istanbul Artisans and Traders,
1750–1840” in Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and
Things, Alain Pottage, Martha Mundy (ed.), Cambridge University press, 2009, pp. 166-200.;
Nada Moumtaz, God’s Property Islam, Charity, and the Modern State, Oakland: University
of California Press, 2021, p.5.
50 This book was first published in 1971. N.J Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p.50.
51 “Beytülmalin bu gibi terikelere vaz’ıyed etmesi …veraset cihetiyle değildir. Belki bunların
sahipsiz, zayi mal hükmünde bulunmasına müstenittir.” Ömer N. Bilmen, Hukukı İslâmiyye
ve Istlâh-ı Fıkhiyye Kâmusu v.5, İstanbul: Bilmen yay.,1985, pp.326. This is particularly
based on Hanafî school of law; Shafi’i and Mâlikî schools accept beytülmal’s heirship.
52 Halil Cin, Ahmet Akgündüz, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, c.I Konya, 1989, pp.133-137. Şükrü Özen
studied the case of Müzellef Ahmed Efendi whose estate caused a dispute between his
father’s ex-master and beytülmal. Şükrü Özen, “Bir Mirasın Gölgesinde Velâ Tartışması:
Müzellef Ahmed Efendi’nin Tereke si ve Ganîzâde Mehmed Nâdirî’nin Şeyhülislâma
Mektubu”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XLI, 2013, pp.71-124.
23
category of fay, and thus, could escheat also the estates of non-Muslims. Coulson examines
in detail the judicial inferences and standpoints of Muslims on the law of inheritance and
elaborates on the doctrines of four schools of Islamic law, as well as the branches of the Shi’a.
The most salient discussion, for my concern here, is favoring and disfavoring the heirship of
the treasury, i.e. beytülmal. He describes the Maliki school as the most fervent champion of
beytülmal’s heirship, without conditioning this heirship —as Shafi'i revised later— to “as
long as the beytülmal is properly administered”.53
Contrary to Coulson, David S. Powers, interestingly, did not problematize or mention
the heirship of the treasury in his seminal work on inheritance.54 He focuses mainly on the
development of the law of inheritance and examines the accounts related to that in pre-Islamic
and early Islamic periods— utilizing categorically Qur’anic verses and prophetic hadiths.
However, his remarks on socio-historical development(s) of Islamic inheritance law are
significant—he also articulated them in a later article published in 1993.55
Powers sheds light on how science on shares (ilm al farâiz) developed in the face of
different socio-economic and socio-political circumstances and provided for the
accommodation of property claims in Muslim society. In a similar vein, Coulson argues that
along with the fixed Qur’anic shares, different modes of devolution of property, or its
transmission from one generation to the next, like gifts, donations, family endowments
53 See also Martha Mundy, “The Family, Inheritance, and Islam: A Re-examination of the
Sociology of Farâ’id Law” in Islamic Law: Social and Historical Contexts, Aziz el-Azmeh
(ed.), London: Routledge, 1988, pp.1-123.
54 David S. Powers, Studies in Qur’an and Hadith: The Formation of the Islamic Law of
Inheritance, University of California Press, 1986.
55David S. Powers, “The Islamic Inheritance System: A Socio-Historical Approach” Arab Law
Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1993, pp. 13-29.
24
(vakıfs), and bequests made the law of inheritance more flexible. Comparable to Powers’
study, Mundy also scrutinizes the sociological evolution of the legal doctrines in a
comparative approach, both in time and space. Her study shows that the above-mentioned
circumstances did not only influence the inheritance law for the family but also the state’s
institutional development in property claims.56
For instance, Schacht argues that limiting the bequests to one-third was prompted by
the fiscal interest of the state,57 thereby increasing the likelihood of escheat. According to
Mundy, this was counterbalanced by the great freedom in the transfer of property inter vivos.
However, she also argues that the domain of inheritance was fertile for the state, particularly
“once the great thrust of conquest and booty production slowed”. For the exaction of
property, the state rested upon involvement in the movements of inheritance in the second
and third centuries (AH). Taking into consideration these modes of property transmission,
and the evolution of the legal doctrine, she convincingly states that, the sociology of
inheritance “turns upon a contest not between male agnates and female heir, but between
freedom of alienation to religious and social affiliates and the fixed rights of the state and
kin.” This contest pointed the state treasury (beytülmal) as a threat for which a mere bequest
was not enough to avoid, but religious endowments (vakıfs)—"beyond the easy reach of the
state.” 58
Vakıfs might be put into the center of this discussion; not because they became one
of the chief methods of circumventing inheritance law, as Timur Kuran puts it, the wealthsheltering
function of vakıfs, but because it was assumed that vakıfs served the benefit of the
56 Martha Mundy, “The Family, Inheritance, and Islam”, pp.1-123.
57 Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979,
pp.201-202.
58 Martha Mundy, “The Family, Inheritance, and Islam”, pp.45-47.
25
public in general. Kuran argues that [in the least] the motives behind the foundation of
endowments helped the Islamic world to develop a specific solution to a wide range of public
goods issues.59 This was more than fit with the main theoretical ground of the government’s
claim on estates of private individuals; providing for the well-being of the Islamic
community. Thus, the line between public and private property could be clear (or blurred)
when a public benefit was the main concern. Additionally, it also points out how ambiguous
the category of property rights is. They might vary in economic character, social effects, and
moral justification.60
In his endeavor for understanding the terms that governed maslaha (well-being),
Akarlı lays emphasis on the term’s practical meanings for the Ottomans, relying on Ottoman
legal documents. The legal documents on movable and immovable, and revenue-bearing
properties are key in understanding the ownership rights and the rationale of governmental
claims on property. For that, Akarlı argues how modern capitalist reading of ownership rights
is misleading, except for movable properties and personal dwellings.61
For instance, the Ottoman legal tradition accepted the exclusive rights of
proprietorship to the extent that no one has singular or absolute rights over an immovable
object. The ruler was regarded as the custodian of his community’s resources and the
59 Timur Kuran, “The Provision of Public Goods under Islamic Law: Origins, Impact, and
Limitations of the Waqf System”, Law & Society Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2001, pp. 841-898.
60 Jeremy Waldron, “What is Private Property?” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3,
1985, p. 318.
61 Engin D. Akarlı, “Maslaha: From ‘Common Good’ to ‘Raison d’état’ in the Experience of
Istanbul Artisans, 1730-1840.” In Hoca, ‘Allame, Puits De Science: Essays in Honor of
Kemal H. Karpat, (ed.) K. Durukan, R.W. Zens and A.Z. Durukan, Istanbul: The Isis Press.,
2010, p.70.; Baber Johansen, Contingency in a Sacred Law: Legal and Ethical Norms in the
Muslim Fiqh, Leiden: E.J. Brill., 1999, pp.190-191.
26
beytülmal (public treasury). This is also pointed out by Abu Yusuf (d.798) in his advice to
the caliph: “Do not cause damage and destruction of those you are shepherding.”62 The ruler
was in charge of properly administering this wealth; regulating inheritable use rights, fees,
rents, and taxation on the lands, etc.63 Thus, the ‘owner’ was a person “who might have
certain entitlements, but also obligations and responsibilities which were subject to change
in time through negotiations with similar persons as new ‘owners’.”64 One can also take the
confiscation practices in this respect —these practices included private property comprised
of movables and immovables. Recent studies show that the confiscation of the properties of
wealthy subjects and government functionaries was a quite common practice in the Ottoman
Empire, particularly in the early nineteenth century.65
In the case of the beytülmal emâneti, the government claims and holds private
properties—particularly of absent and missing individuals— at first as a trust (emâneten) in
its literal sense. As Zečević also argues, the legal theory explains the government’s
62 Abu Yusuf Ya’kûb b. Ibrahim, Kitāb al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302, p.5
63 Engin D. Akarlı, “The Ruler and Law Making” in Law and Empire Ideas, Practices, Actors
(ed. Jeroen Duindam et al.) London-Boston: Brill, 2013, p.100.; Ariel Salzman, “An Ancien
Régime Revisited: ‘Privatization’ and Political Economy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman
Empire.” Politics & Society, 21/4, 1993, p. 396.
64 Engin D. Akarlı, “Gedik: A Bundle of Rights and obligations for Istanbul Artisans and Traders,
1750–1840” in Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and
Things, edited by Alain Pottage and Martha Mundy, Cambridge: Cambridge University press,
2009, p.168.
65 Yasin Arslantaş, “Confiscation by the Ruler: A Study of the Ottoman Practice of Müsadere,
1700s- 1839,” Ph.D Diss,, The London School of Economics and Political Science, 2017.;
Azize Çakır, “Confiscation Practices, Politics of Accumulation and the Case of Mehmed Said
Halet Efendi” (1761-1822), Ph. D Diss., Istanbul: Şehir University, 2020.; Mahmud Esad
Kalıpçı, “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Müsadere Kurumu,” MA Thesis, İstanbul
University, 2013.
27
involvement in this stage on the basis of the legal status of that gâib and mefkûd; ‘young boy’
(sağir) or ‘madman’ (mecnûn). Accordingly, the government should be involved to supervise
this property in order to protect the right of an interdicted (mahcur) person.66 However, the
kadı could also charge one of the agnates of a missing individual as kayyim to safeguard the
property in his/her absence.67 In the second stage, if the properties really fell to the beytülmal,
the government’s trusteeship function gets also an abstract sense. The property became a trust
that should be properly utilized for the well-being of the realm.
To a great extent, the literature argues that the governmental claims on private
property were based on the redistributive power of the ruler and the state mechanism; but for
the benefit of the Muslim community, and to provide for its interests. Although the properties
in the cluster of beytülmal were private, the government’s overarching claim manifested their
public nature.
To summarize in sociological terms, private ownership could be absolute in the case
of movable properties and personal dwellings, but theory regards the relationship between
66 Zečević misleadingly translates the noun phrase “amīn bayt al-māl” as “the head of the
treasury”. Selma Zečević, “Missing Husbands, Waiting Wives, Bosnian Muftis: Fatwa Texts
and the Interpretation of Gendered Presences and Absences in Late Ottoman Bosnia,” in
Amila Buturović İrvin Cemil Schick (ed.), Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture
and History, London, I.B. Tauris, 2007, pp. 342-343.
67Aykan examines a very complex case related to the property of a missing individual. There are
several claimers on the private property of al-Hajj Âdem (the missing), that includes also the
kayyim who is appointed by the kadı to safeguard the property of the missing. Through this
convoluted case, Aykan tries to understand the role of the Islamic jurisprudence, particularly
of fetvas, in the legal praxis in late eighteenth century Amid. Yavuz Aykan, “Property
Between Life and Death: A Legal Debate over the property of a Missing Person (Gâib) in
Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Amid”, Turcica, 50, 2019, pp. 209-226.
28
humans and wealth to be triadic [or corporate] rather than dyadic.68 Property is relational and
a result of a complex social milieu, both in its productive potential69 and in making the norms
related to its ownership. Thus, inherently interdependent individuals owe obligations to each
other to survive and thrive.
(ii) Social and legal history of the Ottoman Empire (Based on court records,
sicils, and tereke registers)
The works in this category do not deal with the beytülmal independently, but they
shed light upon the social, economic, and cultural life of the Ottoman subjects—of ordinary
or people askerî status), in specific eras and locations. Many of these studies use court records
(sicils) 70 or inheritance registers71 (tereke, muhallefât) to understand society under the light
68 Bruce G. Carruthers and Laura Ariovich, “The Sociology of Property Rights” Annual Review
of Sociology, Vol. 30, 2004, pp. 23-46.
69 John Brewer and Susan Staves (ed.), Early Modern Conceptions of Property, p.3.
70 For instance, Kenan Yıldız scrutinized the court records of Üsküdar kept between the years
1547 and 1573. Based on the legal categorization of the subjects (inheritance, debts, trade so
on) of the judgments (hüccets), he identified almost twenty cases related to beytülmal among
the 15.000 hüccets. Kenan Yıldız “Üsküdar’ın Sosyal ve İktı̇sadı̇ Hayatı Iile İlgı̇lı̇ Üsküdar
Kadı Sı̇cı̇llerı̇ndekı̇ Kayıtların Tesbı̇t ve Analı̇zı̇ (954-980 / 1547-1573)”, MA thesis,
Marmara Üniversitesi, 2005.
71 Some of them are Hüseyin Özdeğer, 1463-1640 yılları Bursa Şehri Tereke Defterleri, İstanbul:
İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1988.; M. Akif Terzi, “İstanbul 1131/1719
Tarihli Askerî Kassam Defteri” MA thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1995.; Gülser Oğuz, “Bı̇r
Osmanlı Kentı̇nde Taşınır ve Taşınmaz Mal Varlığına Dayalı Servet Analı̇zı̇: Edı̇rne Örneğı̇”,
Ph. D Diss. Ankara Üniversitesi, 2013.; Meral Kurt, “Kısmet-i Askerı̂ye Mahkemesı̇ 01
Numaralı Defterı̇ (Transkrı̇psı̇yon ve Değerlendı̇rme)”, MA thesis, Sakarya Üniversitesi,
2019.; Yakup Aydın “İstanbul Mülga Beledı̇ Kassamlığı Sı̇cı̇llerı̇ 1 Numaralı Defterı̇n (1066-
1072) Transkrı̇psı̇yon ve Değerlendı̇rmesi”, MA thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2021.
29
of the implementation of the law. Some of the issues in these studies are marriage, divorce,
gender relations and commerce, and analysis of wealth and material culture, and the like. A
few of them will be discussed here for they provide a sense of the agency of beytülmal and
beytülmalci in the Ottoman legal system.
In his study on the Ottoman state, society, and law, Gerber states that beytülmal cases
were frequently encountered in the seventeenth-century Bursa court records. He thinks that
the government had a direct material interest in the beytülmal, hence, one might expect to see
the influence of the government on the judicial process; but neither the discourse in the court
nor its decisions could justify that comment. However, the frequency of the beytülmal cases
leads one to think that the beytülmalci was ‘overzealous’ in taking the properties into custody
despite the existence of heirs. The litigants were not hesitant to sue the beytülmalci, or harcı
hassa emini72, as they won their cases with strong evidence.73
Gerbers’ findings for Bursa, on the issue of beytülmal’s involvement in inheritance
cases, might be read together with Said Öztürk and Fatih Bozkurt’s studies on tereke registers
kept in İstanbul in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Said Öztürk
examines the first six Askerî Kassam registers kept between 1591 and 1669, and Bozkurt
examines nineteen registers kept between the years 1785 and 1875.74 Öztürk has a separate
section for the beytülmal that is placed under title of institutions, but he deals with it in a very
72 The agent for the privy purse office in Bursa.
73 Haim Gerber, State, Society and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective,
Albany: SUNY press, 1994, pp. 45, 138-139.
74 Fatih Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterlerı̇ ve Osmanlı Maddı̂ Kültüründe Değı̇şı̇m (1785-1875 İstanbul
Örneğı̇)”, Ph. D Diss., Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2011.
30
general sense.75 His study shows that the number of slaves and cariyes were considerable
among the items in the lists of inheritance records, making 241 (24.1%) of the cases out of
1000 tereke registers. The issue of slaves and cariyes was also one of the issues of contention
between beytülmalci and slaves and third persons as owners—considering together with the
law related to them.
One of the striking points in Bozkurt’s and Öztürk’s studies is the frequency of the
cases related to potential “legatees” (beneficiaries) that had the capacity to circumvent the
application of the law of inheritance.76 These studies are helpful to understand the intricate
net of these ‘legatees’ around the beytülmal, like bequests (vasiyet), gifts, grants or donations
(emânet, hibe, nefy-i mülk), as well as debts due third persons. These settlements were based
on contracts, or verbal statements of the will of people on their deathbeds and had the
potential to reduce the share of the government or cut it totally.
Bozkurt’s main focus is similar to Öztürk’s. he also explores the material culture of
Istanbul based on the tereke registers kept between 1785 and 1875. In regard to the beytülmal,
Bozkurt’s study includes cases of absent and missing individuals, the zealousness of the
emins in taking charge of the properties left behind, the taxes imposed on restitution
payments, and inheritance issues. He uses the tereke registers of the period in a meticulous
way to arrive at some remarks on the number and rate of the beytülmal cases. In fact,
beytülmal was only one of the reasons why a kassam kept a register. The ratio of the cases of
75 Öztürk notes that Beytülmal-i hassa was not sold as mukataa. However, this was only a
regulation dates back to the late late fifteenth, or early sixteenth century. As the empirical
sources of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries show, hassa beytülmal was also undertaken
as mukataa. Said Öztürk, “XVII. Yüzyıl Askerı̇ Kassam Defterlerı̇nı̇n Sosyo-Ekonomı̇k
Tahlı̇lı̇”, Ph.D Diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993, p.58.
76 For a futher disccusion on this subject see David Powers, “The Islamic Inheritance System: A
Socio-Historical Approach”, Arab Law Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1993, pp. 13-29.
31
orphans (eytam) is the highest in almost all the registers he examined. The ratio of the
beytülmal related cases is 22.4% in one book of Askerî Kassam register (sicil) and 19% in
another.77 Bozkurt’s findings seem compatible with Demircioğlu’s study on a specific Askerî
Kassam register of Istanbul. Demircioğlu records 76 out of 300 registers, 25,33% in that
register involved terekes returned to the beytülmal—because they belonged to people who
died heirless or semi-heirless.78
Öztürk and Bozkurt’s studies also prove that tereke registers are one of the most
productive primary sources to the extent that they help us understand the points of contention
between public and private claimers on disputed property. Usually, if the tereke included
valuable properties, claimants (whether public or private) would try to influence the final
decision. Murat Tuğluca’s study based on registers of complaints (şikayet defterleri) from
the years 1683 to 1699 points to and shows the importance of comparative examination of
the available sources to find some of these influences.79 Similar to Öztürk and Bozkurt,
Tuğluca also shows how grants or donations (hibe) caused contention between different
claimers as shown in şikayet registers.80
(iii) Economic history of Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman institutions
77 Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterleri”, pp. 181-182.
78 Sezgin Demircioğlu, “615 Numaralı İstanbul Askerı̇ Kassam Defterı̇nı̇n Değerlendı̇rmesı̇ (H.
1205-1206 /M. 1790-1791)” MA thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1993, pp.XVI-XVII and
others.
79 Murat Tuğluca, “Osmanlı’da Devlet-Toplum İlişkilerinin Açık Alanı: Şikayet Mekanizması
ve İşleyiş Biçimi (1683-1699)”, Ph. D Diss., Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010.
80 Tuğluca, “Osmanlı’da Şikayet Mekanizması”, pp.135-136
32
The works under this category majorly focus on mukataa organizations, the account
registers for specific time periods and locations, the campaign budgets (sefer ruznamçesi), or
Ottoman institutions within which the beytülmal is also examined. These sources will be
discussed based on the extent of their coverage of beytülmal related issues rather than in
chronological order.
Mukataa became the engine of the beytülmal operations81 from the fifteenth century
onwards. Mehmet Genç’s works on the economic history of the Ottoman Empire provide the
key elements of tax-farming through iltizam and mâlikânes. He does not refer to beytülmal
in particular. However, his inferences are helpful in considering the beytülmal’s handicap.
He noted that the Ottoman central and provincial authorities maintained a good deal of
economic functions in the classical age. These functions were supervised under particular
principles and objectives established and restored peculiar to its respective circumstances.
The tension between the government functionaries or tax-exempt ruling class (askerî) and
the tax-paying subjects (reaya) was defused generally through a set of ideals that emanated
from a certain socio-economic mentality. One might see Islam as the sine qua non of
comprehending this mentality, but not a sufficient condition. So as to solve this ‘puzzle’,
Genç proposed three principles that would help us understand Ottoman policies and
81 Some of the examples that tackle with the mukataas in general, and mentions the beytülmal
mukataas in particular are as follows: Figen Taşkın, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Mültezim
Kesimi ve İstanbul Mukataaları (1550-1605)”, MA thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1992.;
Fatma Şensoy, “Mukataalarda Muhasebe Kayıtları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başında Bursa Mukataası
Örneği, Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi (7), 2014, pp. 200-247.; Doğan
Yörük, “XVI. Yüzyılın Ortalarında İltı̇zam Sı̇stemı̇nı̇n Yaygınlığı: Lârende Kazası Örneğı̇”,
SUTAD, 47, Aralık 2019, pp. 217-238.
33
concerns:82 Provisionism entailed government interventionism in agricultural and
commercial production for the sake of local consumers. Traditionalism cemented this
intervention through a set of legal regulations prepared in advance or regulations flowed from
a pattern generated by long-standing fiscal practices.83 Having an essential interaction with
these two principles, fiscalism aimed at holding the revenues of an upmost level to maximize
them or to sustain them at the same level at the least. As such fiscalism, traditionalism, and
provisionism interacted in different directions. Balancing them depending on the exigencies
of the financial operations was the challenge the Ottomans faced.
While fiscalism drove government agents to increase the revenues for the imperial
treasury, the other two principles necessitated protection and enhancement of the tax paying
subjects, and the realm. Genç arrived at this theory after engaging a great number of empirical
sources and related literature. The beytülmal also seems to fit in his model. Public claimers
(beytülmal emins) made their highest efforts to increase their mukataa revenues over a
sorrowful event, although the primary role of the beytülmal office was to uphold the rights
of private claimers and to protect their shares. The balance between revenue raising and
distributing justice in keeping with the law was, in the first instance, mainly at the hands of
the beytülmalcis. This dual role helps to understand the beytülmal both as a revenue unit and
a legal issue, thereby harnessing the legal, financial and administrative means of the empire.
82 Mehmet Genç, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Devlet ve Ekonomi, İstanbul: Ötüken Neşr., 2009,
pp. 55-69.
83 For the ‘long standing practices’ Genç reminds that the governors almost always used the same
statement in their rulings made between 16th and 18th centuries concerning to the economic
matters: “kadimden olagelene aykırı iş yapılmaması”. And the question “what is kadim?”
was answered “kadim odur ki onun öncesini kimse hatırlamaz.”
34
This arises a few further questions: what was the nature of the beytülmal office? What was
the place of this institution in the greater Ottoman bureaucratic organization?
The answers need a broader survey of the government bureaus, and their vertical and
hierarchical organization—both in the center and the provinces. Some works on the
economic history of the Ottoman empire tackle this issue broadly. Ahmet Tabakoğlu’s
“Osmanlı Mâli Tarihi,84 the two-volume Kurumlar Bütçeler edited by Özvar and Genç, and
Çelik’s specific study on Ottoman fiscal bureaus in the latter book85 illustrate the place of
these government bureaus including the beytülmal in the imperial organization.
For the mukataas and their organization in the provinces, a few studies need to be
mentioned. Linda Darling’s Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy,86 Arif Bilgin’s Bursa Hassa
Harç Eminliği, Baki Çakır’s “Ottoman Mukataa System87, and Pal Fodor’s “Tax Farming in
Hungary”88 are useful works for figuring out the instruments in revenue collecting through
mukataas. Darling translates the term beytülmâl-i hâssa as “the repository of estates of
deceased members of the ruling class.”89 Considering it as repository may be misleading for
84 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah yay., 2020
85 Çelik, Gülfettin. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi Hazine’nin Maliye Büroları” in Osmanlı
Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler vol.I, haz. Mehmet Genç and Erol Özvar, İstanbul: Osmanlı
Bankası Arşı̇v ve Araştırma Merkezı̇, 2006, pp. 115-148.
86 Linda T. Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: The Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, E.J. Brill, 1996.
87 Baki Çakır, “XVI-XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Mukataa Sı̇stemı̇'nı̇n Yapısı ve İşleyı̇şı̇”, Ph.D
Diss., Marmara University, 2003.
88 Pal Fodor, “Some Notes on Ottoman Tax Farming System in Hungary”, Acta Orientalia
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 54/4, 2001, pp. 427-435.
89 This will be examined in chapter four. Linda T. Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy:
The Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, E.J. Brill,
1996, p.196.
35
it undermines its significance in generating a social, legal, and financial order. Though a bit
long, it could be translated as “the trustee of the estates of heirless deceased government
officers, and ordinary people whose estates were valued above 10,000 akçes.”
Fodor points out that the fundamental method of tax-farming was iltizam in Hungary
in the second half of the sixteenth century. However, there was also recourse to the
emânet90system for some occasions. Fodor suggests four reasons to explain this recourse.
While the first three problems, namely the death of a tax-farmer, when there is no bidder or
when a bidder performs poorly, might be regarded as technical, the fourth is not: In the case
of the beytülmal mukataas, the government opted for the emânet system. Some empirical
sources also indicate the government’s desire to recourse to the emânet system in the case of
beytülmal mukataas. Indeed, this wish might be related to the religious connotation of the
beytülmal rather than a secular (wordly) one “…Sen ki beğlerbeğisin min ba‘d beytülmal
emânetin iltizâma virmeyub gayet mütedeyyin müslüman kimesneye emanet tarîki ile virub
müslümanlara te’addi itdirmeyesin”. Yet, the available information indicates that the iltizam
system prevailed in the management of the beytülmal too, particularly in the core lands of
the empire.
Arif Bilgin’s meticulous work on Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği91 (The Bursa Privy
Purse Office) focuses on the significance of this institution and its administration in the early
seventeenth century. Bilgin records that hassa harç eminliği was in charge of the
administration of the beytülmal (both amme and hassa) that it sold the mukataas, claimed the
revenues and directed the proceeds for the expenses of the imperial palace in Istanbul—
90 The collection of certain revenues directly by designated officail, a trusted one.
91 Arif Bilgin, Osmanlı Taşrasında Bir Maliye Kurumu: Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, İstanbul:
Kitabevi, 2006.
36
particularly for the needs of the imperial kitchen (matbah-ı âmire). This study is very helpful
for observing the weight of the beytülmal revenues among others in an Ottoman city. Bilgin
also draws attention to the restitution payments that were hardly made by the emins. Though
some litigants (legal heirs in this case) proved their heirship, they were not always fully
compensated. Some of these litigants appealed their cases in Istanbul. Particularly, if the
value of the beytülmal of a person was temptingly high, the emins were reluctantly agreed to
restitution. Bilgin comments that this was not always because of the greed of the
beytülmalcis. Correspondence between Istanbul and Bursa indicates that the fiscal exigencies
of the empire led the emins to conduct their task in this way.92
In his doctoral dissertation, Saim Ç. Kocakaplan indicates that beytülmal-i amme and
hassa mukataas of İstanbul and its dependencies (tevâbiî) were attached (mülhak) to İstanbul
Gümrüğü Mukataası (The Tax Farm of the Customs of İstanbul and its dependencies).
Working as a nezâret (ministry), Gümrük Mukataası was in charge of administering,
collecting, and directing the beytülmal mukataas and revenues until 1776. Kocakaplan
examines the accounts of the Gümrük mukataası, which also include information on the
amounts and the rate of the beytülmal revenues.93
The other works that need to be discussed here mostly focus on Ottoman fiscal
budgets. In the context of this study, they show the amounts of the beytülmal revenues and
their relative weight in the total. In other words, they indicate the contribution of the
beytülmal revenues to the imperial treasury in specific periods, locations, or occasions.
However, this contribution does not represent the full picture, because not all beytülmal
92 Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 95.
93Saim Ç. Kocakaplan, “İstanbul Gümrüğü (1750-1800): Teşkilat ve Ticaret”, Ph.D
Diss.,Marmara University, 2014, pp. 39, 113, 231, 235.
37
revenues were sent to the imperial treasury. Some of these revenues were spent locally
(mahallinde sarf)—where they were collected. Apart from the beytülmal’s own expenses, or
other rightful claimers based on the land regime (like vakıfs or serbest tımars), the revenues
also covered some provincial expenses of the government.
Beytülmals’ fiscal contribution to the imperial treasury
Examining the imperial budgets to decide the beytülmal’s precise share in revenues
is out of the scope of this study. Nevertheless, in this regard, in providing an idea about the
weight and value of beytülmal compared to other revenues some secondary sources are
informative.94 For example, Barkan’s study of the Ottoman budgets for the years 1527-28
and 1567-68 indicates that the beytülmal was one of the main items in the imperial revenues
(vâridât).
For instance, below are the revenues of the imperial treasury through imperial
domains (Padişah Hasları) between 933 and 934.95(Marc 1527- March 1528)
94 Some examples of these studies could be found in; Halil Sahillioğlu, 1524-1525 Osmanlı
Bütçesi, İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, (41, 1–4), 1985, pp. 415–449.; Yavuz Cezar, Osmanlı
Maliyesinde Bunalım ve Değişim Dönemi: XVIII.yy’dan Tanzimat’a Mali Tarih. İstanbul:
Alan Yayınları, 1986.; Kadir Arslanboğa, “1589-90 ile 1602-3 Malî Yıllarına Ait Osmanlı
Devleti Bütçelerinin Oluşturulması ve İncelenmesi”, Ph. D Diss., İstanbul Üniversitesi,
2012.; Baki Çakır, “Osmanlı İmpratorluğu’nun Bilinen En Eski Bütçesi (1495-1496) ve
1494-1495 Yılı İcmali”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XLVII,
2016, pp.113-145.
95 This table was prepared based on Barkan’s study. The budget does not include the beytülmal
revenues in non-hass lands. Besides, unclaimed property is not mentioned among the revenue
figures sent from Damascus, Aleppo, Egypt and Diyarbekir. Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 933- 934
(M. 1527 -1528) Mali Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği” İ.Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.15,
no.1-4, 1953, p. 269, see also p.281 for total revenues.
38
Table 1: Revenues of the Imperial Treasury (Imperial Domains in Rumelia in 933-934)
Rumelia % among the total
revenues of Rumelia
% among the revenues
of imperial domains
(Padişah hasları) in
Rumelia
Beytülmal 2,939,869 1.48 3.11
Mukataat 45,920,383 23.16 48.44
Cizye 42,291,364 21.34 44.62
Tax on
Tezkeres and
Berats
1,797, 625 0.90 1.89
Mevkûfat and
Mabeyn
1,116,925 - -
Müteferrik
(others or
miscellaneous
revenues)
718,072 - -
Total 94.784.238
Table 2: Revenues of the Imperial Treasury (Imperial Domains in Anadolu,
Zulkadiriye, Karaman, and Rum in 933-934)
Anadolu,
Zülkadiriye,
Karaman and
Rum
% of the revenue
among the total
revenues of those
provinces
% of the revenue among the
revenues of imperial lands
(Padişah hasları) in those
provinces
Beytülmal
44,.035 0.34 1.35
Mukataa
25,603,662 19.75 75.26
Cizye
3,764,941 2.90 11.06
Taz on
tezkeres and
berats
100,000 0.08 0.29
Mevkûfat and
Mabeyn
811,383 - -
Müteferrik
(others or
miscellaneous
revenues)
3,291,308 - -
39
Total 34,018,288
As shown in the table 1 and table 2, while the rate of the beytülmal among the
revenues of the imperial lands (padişah hasları) in Rumelia is 3.10%, it is only 1.31% in the
other four provinces, namely Anadolu, Karaman, Zülkadiriye, and Rum. There are many
possible explanations for this difference, such as high population rates, the rate of heirless
deaths, the rate of absent and missing people and so on. In addition, war periods, plague and
commercial and transit spaces, like markets and ports would increase the potential revenues
of the beytülmal.
For instance, Shaw points out that the amount of beytülmal revenues in 1601 and
1648 was strikingly different—it was 5.434.213 (paras) in 1601 and 211.530 (paras) in 1648.
He comments that the beytülmal proved ‘more profitable’ in years when famine, plague and
military conflicts affected the military corps and Mamluk factions.96
Fiscal budgets also include sections that show the amounts of these compensations
under the heading of expenses (ihrâcât). It is possible to follow the amount of beytülmal
revenues (mahsûlat, vâridât) and expenditures (ihracât) in some of the sixteenth-century
budgets published by Genç and Özvar.97 For instance, a budget register dated from 914
(1509-1510) during the reign of Bayezid II shows that the beytülmal revenues collected from
the provinces of Rumelia and Anatolia in total made up 6.26% of the total revenues. As
96 Stanford J. Shaw, Ottoman Egypt, p. 173.
97 Mehmet Genç ve Erol Özvar. Osmanlı Maliyesi Kurumlar ve Bütçeler II, İstanbul: Osmanlı
Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, 2006.
40
shown in the table below, while beytülmal revenue was 457,207 akçes in total, the expenses
(restitution payments in this case) were almost 79% of it.98
Table 3- Beytülmal Revenues and Restitution Payments in Rumelia and
Anatolia in 914
From the
Province of
Rumelia
From the Province
of Anatolia
Total
The amount of
the beytülmal
revenues
(Beytülmâl-i
âmme ile mâl-i
usubet99)
370,814 87,207
457,207
Total Revenue of
the Treasury
59,496,968 13,440,977
72,937,945
% of the
beytülmal
revenues in the
Treasury
6.23% 6.48% 6.26%
98 This table is based on the figures provided in the budget register published by Genç and Özvar,
Kurumlar Bütçeler II, pp.22-24.
99 ‘Asabe ع) ب ص’ھ ) means “the body of a deceased person's collateral relations to whom no definite
portion of the inheritance is assigned by law and who become residuary legatees after the
assigned portions have been paid over.” ‘Asaba’, New Redhouse Turkish-English Dictionary,
Istanbul: Redhouse yay. 1986, p.78. Although usûbe ع و ص) بھ ), the noun form, was not very
common in the registers concerning to the issues in mukataas, it was used as if it denotes the
method of tax-ollection. This term will be examined in chapter four in detail.
41
Restitution
Payments in
Total
362,727100
(79.33% of total
revenues)
Apart from the imperial or provincial budgets, Süleyman Polat analyzes sefer
ruznamçe defters (the account registers for imperial campaigns), which include the beytülmal
of military officials involved in a specific campaign. Their properties were recorded under
the revenues of beytülmâl-i cebeciyân (armorers), beytülmâl-i ordû-yu hümâyûn (imperial
camp), beytülmâl-i sipâhiyân-ı Dergâh-ı Âli (cavalry of Sultan’s court), or under the rubric
of emvâli müteferrika (miscellaneous properties).101
The present study benefits from all the works mentioned above and takes into
consideration the useful information in the relevant revenue accounts, tereke registers, and
property theories. However, it differs from them in the basic questions it raises, the original
sources it relies on, and the arguments it makes. It does not aim to show the weight of a
beytülmal mukataası in fiscal budgets or examine tereke registers one after another for
beytülmal related cases. It might be eclectic in its methodology and approach, but it will bring
theoretical, legal, intellectual, and empirical sources together so as to understand the legal
100 This amount also included in-court established legal claims on the beytülmal that were taken
in to the treasury in previous years as well as temporary possessions of the treasury. The
budget register states this as follows “Be cihet-i edâ-i akçe-i mütenevvi'a ki piş-ezin an
metrukât-ı ba'zı kessan be-ma'rifet-i beytü'l-malciyân zabt-kerde ve ba'zı akçe-i mevkufât ve
gayruha ki be Hızâne-i Âmire vasıl-şude büd haliya vârisân-ı işân be-Dergâh-ı Âli âmedend
ve vârisân-ı verâset-eş der piş-i kadıyân-ı asker isbât-kerde ve fermüde-şude ki bâz an
Hızâne-i Âmire bedehend.”
101 Süleyman Polat, “Osmanlı Askerî-Malî Tarih Kaynaklarından Sefer Ruznamçe Defterleri ve
Bütçelerinin Kaynak Değeri Üzerine İncelemeler (XVI. Yüzyıl Sonu ve XVII. Yüzyıl İlk
Yarısı)”, Akademik Bakış, Cilt 8, Sayı 15, 2014, pp. 241-267.
42
context of the property claims. It examines the institutional structure that was developed to
manage these claims and their main functions.
1.4 Chapter Organization
This study is organized in six separate chapters including the introduction and the
conclusion. The second chapter scrutinizes the history of the concept of beytülmal (lt. the
house of wealth or treasure house), and its connotations from the early Islamic ages on. The
chapter aims to understand the idea of the public treasury and the grounds of the claims of
property made for its sake as based on Islamic legal tradition. In other words, it introduces
the wider and narrower senses of the beytülmal. Thus, it delves into the mechanisms of
revenue collection and the use of proceeds for the benefit of the Muslims. The chapter also
refers to the development of the notions of public and private property and the institutional
developments related to these notions. Due attention is paid to changes accompanied the
proliferation of the government bureaus and the growing sophistication of the bureaucratic
organization along with the expansion of Islamic lands and the revenues in Islamic polities.
Chapter two discusses these developments as related to beytülmal. Thus, it indicates
how dīwāns served first as the branches of the beytülmal and shouldered relatively
specialized tasks. For instance, during the Umayyad period, there were separate dīwāns for
different revenue items like that of the derelicts (bayt al-māl al-verese and dīwānu’lmawāris)
and, confiscated properties (dīwānu’l-mazālim). The chapter will force its limits to
understand the potential connections between the Ottoman beytülmal office and beytülmal in
pre-Ottoman Islamic polities. This endeavor does not mean to see the continuities and
ruptures in such an extended period. Rather, it first postulates that the Ottomans employed
the beytülmal as an original method of property claiming and examine any conceptual or
methodological links of it to pre-Ottoman Islamic polities. Last but not least, it also analyzes
the evolution of legal norms with a specific reference to governments’ heirship and escheat.
43
The third chapter presents two main surveys. The first survey aims to analyze the use
of the concept of the beytülmal both in the sense of public treasury and in the sense of a
specific revenue in the Ottoman empire in the early modern period. It tries to demonstrate
the connotations of the concept of beytülmal for the Ottomans focusing mainly on the legalintellectual
works of the period. In this regard, Dede Cöngî’s treatise (risale) titled Risâlah
Fi Amwâli Bayta’l-mal wa Aqsâmihâ wa Ahkâmihâ wa Masârifiha is given special attention
as it states the theory of the beytülmal, its divisions, revenues, and expenses in Islamic legal
tradition. Along with Cöngî’s treatise, different sources of the period will be cited in order to
show how the sixteenth century witnessed the increasing use of the concept of the beytülmal
(instead of hazine) compared to fifteenth-century records. Based on the registers of the period
(like orders and decrees), the section touches upon how the imperial center tried to inspire
provincial administrators to increase the beytülmal revenues and not to lose even a shadow
of property to an invalid private claim.
The second part of chapter three deals with one of the main concerns of this
dissertation as it discusses the laws that made beytülmal emaneti (trustee) a legal institution.
The section surveys the normative texts that were prepared in the period roughly from the
second half of the fifteenth century to the last quarter of the seventeenth century. These texts
include general and provincial law codes (kanunnâmes), imperial decrees (ferman), legal
opinions (fetvâs), and other legal provisions registered in court records. While the general
kânunnâmes help to figure out the main principles of property claims, like rules, regulations,
and procedures to be followed by either public or private claimants, the provincial
kânunnâmes and fetvâs provide for a more analytical framework regarding the
implementation of the regulations and directives. The provincial kânunnâmes are
indispensable for making sense of the decisions regarding the recognition of the right to make
claims on beytülmal in different localities. The complex military-administrative organization
of the Ottoman land regime (covering tımar, serbest tımar, hass, mîrî, vakıf, and the like)
44
brought about multiple claimants on different revenue items on a given piece of land. Taking
this into account, the kânunnâmes help to illustrate how the beytülmal accommodated the
interests of different parties. Lastly, chapter three also deals with the fetvâs based on some
thematic issues like property of missing individuals, debt claims due third persons, and preemptive
actions to avoid public claims.
The fourth chapter attempts to portray the beytülmal as an Ottoman legal and fiscal
institution. In order to ground this argument grounded, the chapter questions the elements
that make an institution and elaborates on the modus operandi of the beytülmal. The chapter
then tries to locate this institution in the greater bureaucratic organization of the Ottoman
state. Additionally, the chapter introduces the legal and fiscal institutions that closely
collaborated with the beytülmal to enable it to function properly in the realm. A very brief
chronology is also provided followed by an outline of the relevant institutional
reorganizations in the nineteenth century.
The later part of chapter four describes the legal and practical grounds for different
public claims, or the claims regarding the amme and hassa beytülmals were based and
pursued. In this respect, I suggest that there were beytülmals, not a single beytülmal, and
point to the autonomous and corporate beytülmals—like those of the yeniçeris, bostancıs,
servitors in the imperial kitchen (matbah-ı âmire), and vakıf. Lastly, identify the officials
like kadı, emin and katip, and try to show their relational significance in the actual beytülmal
operations.
The fifth and last chapter of this study is devoted to a close examination of the
functions of the beytülmal. In other words, this chapter asks what were the main contributions
of the beytülmal in generating a legal, social, and economic order in the Ottoman realm?
Here, based on the empirical data of the previous chapters, I point to four main functions of
this institution, namely Beytülmal as a trustee for safekeeping and restitution, beytülmal as a
collector of fiscal revenue, beytülmal as spender and director of a revenue, and beytülmal as
45
a reserve fund for charitable expenses. I analyze the cases related to each beytülmal category
of functions and explain the settings in which Ottoman subjects could have benefited from
the beytülmal in different respects. However, both the government and the subjects had to
deal with the handicap that was caused by the iltizam system or the fiscalist tendency of the
government officials caused. Despite this handicap, the beytülmal office facilitated the
above-mentioned functions in a consistent way as shown in the documents. To conclude, the
chapter will attempt to demonstrate how a piece of property could harness the legal and
financial means of the government in providing for the benefit of the public and private
figures, as well as the benefit of the realm.
46
CHAPTER 2
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BEYTÜLMAL IN ISLAMIC HISTORY
2.1 Introduction
In his advice to caliph Harun al-Rashid, Abu Yusuf (d.798) says: “Do not cause
damage and destruction of those you are shepherding”.102 He holds the ruler responsible for
protecting the well-being of his subjects and what they possess as property or money. In a
similar vein, being a piece of social wealth, any property in an Islamic polity is regarded as
a trust from God, thus, subject to some set of ways of disposal. Either public or private, it
entails responsibilities towards the Muslim community in theory.103 On that account, chasing
up the unclaimed properties of different types is as essential as supervising the regular flow
of fiscal revenues in Islamic polities. The properties collected in public treasuries or at the
hands of private persons become a question of the legal and financial system in Islamic
history.
Being one of the central institutions of Islamic political organizations, the beytülmal
has a very long history for considering its reflections on these systems. While the
chronological beginning of the term goes back to the seventh century, the institution was
102 Abu Yusuf Ya’kûb b. Ibrahim, Kitāb al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302, p.5
103 Cengiz Kallek, Sosyal Servet: İslam’ da Yönetim Piyasa İlişkisi, İstanbul: Klasik, 2015, p.
161.
47
employed in the later empires and the Ottomans.104 Along with the change in its significance,
the term itself also had been used with suffixes and pre-modifiers like beytülmal-ci,
beytülmal-i amme, beytülmal-i hassa, or emin-i beytülmal in the Ottoman Empire. Though
the term has different connotations in particular circumstances, it means the properties
(movable or immovable) and monies administered by state functionaries for the interest of
the Muslim community like public treasury, and also a fund that is raised and charged for
charitable concerns.
The history of the beytülmal in Islamic history in the scope of the present chapter is
significant in some respects. Firstly, from the fifteenth century onwards, the Ottomans used
the term beytülmal mainly in two meanings: The treasury and the revenue type. This part
aims to shed a bit of light on the use of term, the idea of public treasury and its specific
revenues in pre-Ottoman Islamic polities based on the theoretical foundation of the public
treasury in the classical period of Islam (ca. 600-1250). Through this, the potential legal,
social, and economic connections between the Ottoman beytülmal office, whose primary
function is to check and control whether the properties of different kinds are unclaimed, and
pre-Ottoman property claims and the treasury will be focused. Secondly, as a relatively welldocumented
phenomenon, the Ottoman legal scholars followed, adapted, adopted,
commented and remade the Islamic law in their works for the operation of the state and
society. The material that they pursued as legal doctrine was not only derived from the fiqh
works originated prior to them, it was also the age-old customs and conventions of the
104 The term is still in use in some countries like Pakistan and Malaysia. In both countries, the
role of the institution is constrained to charitable funds. In the case of Pakistan, the mission
of the autonomous body of Bait-ul-Mal under the government of Pakistan is stated as ‘to
provide social protection to the poor marginalized segments of the society”.
http://www.pbm.gov.pk/Act.pdf For Malaysia see
https://www.maiwp.gov.my/i/index.php/en/53-perkhidmatan/baitulmal
48
communities in force the Ottomans acclimatized themselves as expanding their realm.
Thereby, in making of their legal corpus for generating a social order among the society,
trans-temporal agencies were also at work. This chapter aims to examine these legal and
practical connections through the beytülmal. Particular attention will be paid on the fourth
revenue of the beytülmal: heirless estates of the deceased persons and other unclaimed
properties.
2.2 The Origin of the Beytülmal: Public Treasury in Islam
The term beytülmal has been used in the Islamicate world since the mid-seventh
century, if not earlier. With its literal translation ‘house of wealth’ (bayt- al-māl) it connotes
a physical being, a depositary, where the wealth of ‘the people’ is simply stored or retained
for a later-potential allocation.105 However, its capacity for raising, preserving, and disbursing
wealth for the state and society signifies beyond a physical being in Islamic history.106 It
operated as the state treasury; developed and enhanced in due course harnessing the
juxtaposition of legal, political, financial, social, and religious realms. As its function implies,
the ‘bayt- al-māl’ introduced the early-period Islamic differentiation of public and private
property. It laid down the boundaries between them and the extent of each.
In his decision on the more comprehensive sharing of the booty, the second
caliph ’Umar b. al-Khattāb (d.644) is said to have laid the foundation of the beytülmal.
105“Bayt al-mal”, Al-Mavsu’ati’l-Fiqhiyye, Vizaratu'l-Awqaf ve's-Suuni'l-İslamiyyah, v.8, 1986,
pp.242-264.
106 Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mawardi (d. 450 AH/1058), Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah,
(The Laws of Islamic Governance, tr. Asadullah Yate), London: Ta-ha Publishers, 1996,
p.301.; Abu Ya’la Muhammad Ibn al-Husayn al-Farra, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, (nşr.
Muhammad al-Faqiyyi,) Egypt, 1938, pp.238-239.; Celal Yeniçeri, İslamda Devlet Bütçesi,
İstanbul: Şamil yay., 1984, p.43.
49
Aiming to save the rights of the later ’umma and serve for their benefit, he prescribed a new
way of sharing the booty. When Bilāl b. Rabāh (d.641) and his companions asked ’Umar to
divide the fay’107 procured in Iraq and Syria (Sawad) among the men who conquered the
lands, as they did before in the spoils of the army after conquering Khaybar, ’Umar refused
to do so and said: “Allah has given a share in these lands to those who shall come after you.
If I divide the lands among you, nothing will remain to successors, and if I do not divide it
[among you], [at the end of the day] even a non-combatant shepherd108 in Sanaa shall get its
share from that fay’.109
This was a maneuver, a project, for Islamic community thanks to which they would
reap the benefit of being a subject of this community. Different from private property,
107 There was a long debate on the inclusion of different revenues under the heading of fay’, but
the common view is that fay’ both means the properties obtained without fighting including
the lands and also tax and other revenues procured from non-Muslims based on the verse in
the Qur’an: Hashr, 59:6-10. Fay’, in its general sense, constituted a major source of revenue
for the beytülmal. Mustafa Fayda, ‘Fey’ TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol.22, 1995, pp. 511-
513.; F. Løkkegaard, “Fayʾ” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. II, ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs, Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1991, pp.869-870.
108 “Who he has blood on his face (wa damuhu fi wajhihi).” Abu Yusuf Ya’kûb b. Ibrahim, Kitāb
al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302, p.24.; Kadı Ebu Yusuf, Kitabu’l-Haraj, (terc. Ali Özek) İstanbul:
Özek yayınları, p. 57.; The phrase was also translated ‘without leading his face flushed’, see
Celal Yeniçeri, İslamda Devlet Bütçesi, İstanbul: Şamil Yayınevi, 1984, p.97.
109 Abu Yusuf Ya’kûb b. Ibrahim, Kitāb al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302, p.24; Quoting from Ibn
Sallam’s al-Amvāl, ‘Abd al-Aziz Duri states that ‘Umar also feared dispute among the
Muslims over the land and said. ‘If I divide it [sawad] you will come into conflict with one
another over its waters. Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions: Administration and
Taxation from the Caliphate to the Umayyads and Abbasids, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2011,
p.90.
50
properties and monies fetched by the Muslims through wars, taxation and other means like
alms etc. are devised to serve for the interest of the community as a whole.
However, though its scope was markedly extended, and its institutional framework
was established during ’Umar’s caliphate, with his practical measures the Prophet
Muhammed introduced first the preliminary legal grounds and implementation. The
embryonic notion of the wealth of the community existed in his time and was contributed by
various benefactions. Under the guidance of the Qur’an and through the Battle of Badr he set
the precedents for a theory of public property and state expenditure. According to that the
fifth (khums) of the booty, ghanīma, was reserved for Allah, the Prophet, his near relatives,
the beneficiaries like orphans (yatāmā), the needy (masākīn) and wayfarer (ibn al-sabīl).110
Ghanīma means booty, particularly movable, but also immovable. It played a
significant role in financing the Islamic community at Medina. It is what is obtained at the
possession of enemies during their encounter with them, like goods, weapons, and also
mounts of an adversary killed in the battle.111 However, the scope of this fifth is not limited
to booty acquired in the conquests. The fifth of the precious stones and amber–like minerals
obtained through deep-sea mining, and mines like gold, silver, iron and copper are reserved
for the same purpose. The fifth in question shall be stored along with the alms. Despite the
110 Sura al-Anfal, 41: “Know that one-fifth of your battle gains belongs to God and the
Messenger, to close relatives and orphans, to the needy and travellers, if you believe in God
and the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the day of the decision, the day when the
two forces met in battle. God has power over all things.” The Qur’an (Oxford World’s
Classics) translated by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University Press, 2005, p.113.
111 Mehmet Erkal, “Ganimet”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.13, 1996, pp.351-352.; F.
Løkkegaard, “G̲ h̲anīma” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. II, ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs, Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1991, pp.1005-1006.
51
procedure for allotment, each revenue is different, and the objective for disbursing the fifth
of the booty, fay’, and alms (zakāt) are pretty well the same.112
In addition to this, Abu Yusuf applies the procedure for the fifth to unclaimed
properties found by individuals: “if someone113 finds a treasure (kenzen ’âdiyen) full of gold
or silver, or jewels or valuable clothes in a place where is no one’s freehold (fî ghayri mulki
ahad), s/he should deliver the fifth of it to the government, and the rest become the possession
of who finds it. Properties of that kind are like booty: “…if a Muslim finds a mine (rikāz) in
the abode of war (dār al-harb), and if he entered those lands without assurance (emân), what
s/he found is the personal possession, no need to deliver the fifth, as he is not there for
combating and the place he finds the treasury is not one’s freehold…”114
According to Abu ’Ubayd b. Sallam (d.838), for the treasure troves the caliph ’Umar
applied different rulings based on different rationales: (i) Deposited the treasure along with
112 The fifth of the booty in question shall be stored along with the alms and disbursed for the
same purpose. The fifth of the precious stones and amber–like minerals obtained through
deep-see mining, and mines like gold, silver, iron and copper are reserved for the same
purpose. If the outcome is not enough to cover the expenses of the extraction, no need to
reserve the fifth. However, this does not mean that the expenses of the extraction shall be
covered. In any case, either the mines are less or much, the expenses are not covered. If the
outcome is not enough to cover the expenses of the extraction, no need to reserve the fifth;
but whether the mines are less or much, division of fifth is valid. Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj,
pp.21-22.; al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkām as-Sultāniyyah, (tr. Asadullah Yate), London: Ta-ha
Publishers, 1996, pp.186-188.
113 Someone in this context is either Muslim or Dhimmi and a place applies to lands of Islam.
Anyone waging against Muslims, or a non-dhimmi non-Muslim whose entrance to Muslim’s
lands is permitted, is required to return the whole of what he found in terms of property. Abu
Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p.22.
114 If he finds the treasury in someone’s freehold (in abode of war), the whole property shall be
returned to the owner. Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p.22.
52
the wealth of Allah (meaning bayt al-māl), and did not give any piece to the person who
found it. (ii) Applied the procedure of the fifth and gave the rest to the person who found it
(iii) Gave the whole treasure to the person who found it without taking anything for the bayt
al-māl. In each of these decisions, the imam’s discretion, in compliance with the specific
circumstances of each case, is striking. Particularly in the last, since he held that the finders
of the treasure trove are more deserving than others, he gave the wealth entirely to the
finders.115
Except for some limited aspects of public finance are man's obligation towards Allah,
the law concerning the bayt al-māl is essentially within the interest of the administrative
regulations of the political authority.116 In this respect, as the head of the bayt al-māl, the
imam is the person who is to delegate the sāhib-i bayt al-māl, and officials responsible for
the institution, thus, he holds the discretionary right to allocate the revenues within the limits
of the law.117
Moreover, people of the army, who in one way or another actively involved in the
battle are entitled to the four in the five of the booty according to their service, rank,
115 Abū ’Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, The Book of Revenue (Kitāb al-amwāl), (tr. Imran Ahsan
Kan Nyazee), Garnet Publishing, 2003., pp. 328-331.
116 N.J. Coulson, A History of Islamic Law, Edinburgh University Press, 1964, p. 124.
117 N. J. Coulson, Cl. Cahen, B. Lewis, B. and R. le tourneau, “Bayt al-Māl”, in The
Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.I, ed. H. A. R. Gibb et al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986,
pp.1141-1149.
53
precedence,118 mounts they harness for wars, etc.119 Since the military achievements of the
Muslim fighters were key for the expansion of Islam, it is of the essence to reserve a
substantial amount of wealth for the soldiers to get everything set for future fighting, as well
as keep their enthusiasm up.
Apart from the movable booty, the conquered lands, their resources, mines, and
agricultural yields were subject to fiscal reorganization depending on the way of subduing
and the potential outcome of the lands. People of these lands were also subject to tax payment
(jizya) based on the new circumstances, as well as the deep-rooted traditions.120 In addition
to making water, pasture, and fire (i.e. tinder) public property121, based on the Islamic legal
formulation, his community knew that they had their share in the properties and monies
coming through conquests, taxation, etc.
Thus, the principal sources of the treasury were the proceeds named as a whole fay’,
the taxes of kharaj and jizya that were mainly obtained from non-Muslims. The revenues like
zakāt, ushr, the fifth of the rikāz and the unclaimed properties were obtained from Muslims.
118 Fred M. Donner, Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 226, 231-
232.; ‘Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp.162-166.
119 Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p.18. Raising animals, particularly for the purpose of fighting is
exhorted in the Qur’an. Sural al-Anfal, 60: “Prepare whatever forces you [believers] can
muster, including warhorses, to frighten off God’s enemies and yours, and warn others
unknown to you but known to God. Whatever you give in God’s cause will be repaid to you
in full, and you will not be wronged.” The Qur’an (Oxford World’s Classics), Translated by
M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University Press, 2005, p.114.
120 John Haldon, “The Resources of Late Antiquity” in Chase F. Robinson (ed.) The New
Cambridge History of Islam Volume I, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp.37-38; Abd al-
Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions: Administration and Taxation from the Caliphate to the
Umayyads and Abbasids, I.B. Tauris, 2011, pp.83-87.
121 Abd Al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, p.87
54
The subsidiary sources of income of the treasury are;
a. The property without a known owner, or the property found in the possession of
captured brigands. The revenues of the sale of those properties belong to the beytülmal.
b. The property of apostates. Although there is a long debate among the Hanafī jurists
about two claims, whether the treasury could claim the assets after apostasy, and could not
claim any of them, the majority of jurists hold the claim that all the property of apostates
belongs to the beytülmal.
c. Estates of deceased persons. Here the treasury favored Mālikī law; in the absence
of heirs (defined in the Qur'an and male agnate relatives), the Treasury has assured at least
two-thirds of the estate (bequests may not exceed one-third of the net estate). According to
other schools of law, however, the presence of any heirs established in the Qur’an or bloodrelatives
will omit the Treasury, and in Hanafī law, failing of producing such heirs,
testamentary disposition could claim the whole of the estate.122
2.2.1 A Comment on the Theory of Public Property in Islam
The juxtaposition of public and private property posed a serious threat for the urban
societies of the Arabian Peninsula of the sixth century. As a major source of revenue, the
sharing out of the proceeds was one of the central questions of Muslims at Medina for which
the prophet made some adaptations. Straightforwardly, the implementation and the measures
122 According to Mawardi the expenditure of public monies divided into two categories: 1. The
Treasury's liability is absolute; services rendered to the state like the stipends of the armed
forces, the salary of state officials and so on. 2. The Treasury's liability depends upon the
funds existed plus the satisfaction in the previous category. In this category the expenditures
are for purposes of public welfare and interest like construction of roads, water supplies, the
repair of damage in kharaj lands. “Bayt al-Māl”, EI2.
55
he took seem like disbursing the wealth justly among the people of the Islamic community;
protecting the rights of the weak, people of the book, and others, rather than pursuing the
establishment of a clearly defined public treasury as an institution.
However, the significance of his measures lies in the centralization of the proceeds
for a theory of public property and state expenditure that could be explained in three respects;
i. Governing and administration: In pre-Islamic Bedouin tribal society plunder was a
salient feature as a well-rooted customary rule. Having a strong tradition of ghazw,
the Arabs were proud of being famous invincible raiders.123 In the collective action
of getting booty, the commander is vested in one four of the total spoils, as well as
items that lured him and indivisible riches.124 This tribal factor of raids on
commercial caravans, rival tribes or settled (relatively defenseless) communities for
collecting booty played an unmistakable role in the initial stage of Islamic history.125
Extending and redirecting this practice of ghazw based on the Qur’an, the prophet
suppressed the tradition by reducing the share to one-fifth and replacing the share
of the commander with the share of Allah. The centralization of the proceeds
restrained individual and disproportionate capturing and provided a share also for
123 T.M. Johnstone, “G̲ h̲azw” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II ed. P. Bearman,
Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991),
pp.1055-1056.
124 Muhammad Hamidullah, The Battlefields of the Prophet Muhammad (4th ed.) New Delhi:
Kitab Bhavan, 1992, pp.137-138.
125 Jonathan Berkey, The Formation of Islam, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 72-73.
56
non-combatant beneficiaries, as well as serving the community.126 Thus, fiscal
bureaucracy and professional fighters superseded the tribal confederacies in arms.127
ii. Maintaining a strong-standing army: One of the two cares of the leadership in
Medina is to organize Arabs and to lead them on the campaigns so as to spread a
more serious Islam.128 The prophet and his community secured vehemence and
immediate provisions at Nakhlah and subsequently at Badr.129 In order to be in
pursuit of political consolidation in Medina against Quraysh, the whole pagan Arab
culture and the Meccan system, for controlling the main agricultural lands and the
market centers in Hijaz, and further expansion to the north, these successes should
be persevered. According to the account given in al-Waqidi’s al-Maghazi the
prophet undertook seventy-five expeditions in his life span,130 and seven of them
were in the first eighteen months after the hijrah (emigration in 622).131
The army dīwān and the establishment of the garrison towns (amsār) in Kufa, Basra,
and Fustat, generated mainly during Umar’s caliphate, also showed that the conquest was the
126 Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: The Classical Age of Islam v.1, University of
Chicago Press, 1974, pp.173-174.
127 Ira M. Lapidus, “State and Religion in Islamic Societies”, Past & Present, no:51, 1996, pp.3-
27.
128 For a detailed discussion of the Arab conquests and the military success in the early Islamic
period see. Fred M. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, 1981,
pp.3-11.
129 Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers at the Origins of Islam, London: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 2010, pp.45-46.
130 He reports that the prophet himself strived in twenty-seven of them. Ebu Abdullah
Muhammad b. Omar al-Wakidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, Beirut: Dar al- ’Alemiyye, 1989, v.1, p.6.
131 W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, p.3
57
essential element of the Muslim state.132 Keeping the conquering class with their fighting
skills and effectiveness in terms of space and provision was conclusive in the bayt al-māl
organization.
iii. Stabilizing the religio-political balance: In order to soften the hearts of a hostile
group, to assure the heart of a new convert in Islam, and to reconcile the members
of the community in Mecca and Medina, a share from the booty was provided for
Muallafatu’l-Qulūb.133 In compliance with the verse134 and the discretion of the
prophet, this practice of financial compassion enabled for the early phase of
expansion of Islam a more reliable political environment.135 The prophet used
promises of material gain and granting gifts explicitly in order to bolster the
allegiance of important individuals. In some cases, the leading of a raid was
promised to a convert whose dedication was in need of reinforcement.136
132 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam,1, pp. 199,207-209.
133 Cengiz Kallek, “Müellefe-i Kulûb” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 31, 2006, pp.475-476.
134 Sura Al Tawbah (9), 60: Alms are meant only for the poor, the needy, those who administer
them, those whose hearts need winning over, to free slaves and help those in debt, for God’s
cause, and for travellers in need. This is ordained by God; God is all knowing and wise. The
Qur’an (Oxford World’s Classics), Translated by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University
Press, 2005, p.121.
135 Ed., “al-Muʾallafa Ḳulūbuhum” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. VII, ed. C.E.
Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH. Pellat. Leiden-New York: E.J. Brill, 1993,
p. 254.
136 “Military successes by Muhammad’s forces, especially major victories such as that at Hunayn,
from which there was a great deal of booty, meant an increased ability to attract and hold
individuals who took occasion to think about their position in this world, as well as in the
next.” For example, after he embraced Islam the prophet sent Amr b. al-As, a potent figure
of Mecca, to lead the raid on Dhat al-Salasil, which heralded a lucrative gain. Fred M.
Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, 1981, 65, 77-78.
58
Particularly after the Battle of Hunayn, he conferred ample shares of booty upon
former opponents of Islam to the detriment of old supporters.137 So as to secure a
stable center among the contentious Bedouin tribes, and to attract more influential
figures to the movement, like Abu Sufyan and his two sons, he saw that essential
and won over the ablest politicians of the day.138
Considering the very first mention of property allocation in the Qur’an, the very first
rationale for reserving monies and properties was to serve for the community; strengthen
security, extend the realm of Islam, redistribution of the means for the people in need, and
others. Some works in the secondary literature also approach this ‘serving for the community’
as a policy of donation for the people of disadvantaged that carry similar ends with zakāt.139
Besides, the formula for the fifth (khums), and fifth of the fifth, (khums al khums)
were overwhelmingly for the purpose of financing people in need140, which is seemingly a
charitable giving. However, it is essential to bear in mind the context in which the proceeds
were concentrated by the prophet under a new moral procedure for a growing and over-
137 Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers at the Origins of Islam, London: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 2010, pp.49-50.
138al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, p.188.; Abu Ya’la al-Farra, Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, p.18.;
Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of Caliphates, 2nd ed. Harlow; UK:
Pearson/Longman, 2004, pp.43-44.; W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1956, pp.348-353,; For modern times Muhammad Hamidullah call this
practice ‘secret service” Muhammad Hamidullah “Budgeting and Taxation in the Time of
the Holy Prophet”, The Journal of Pakistan Historical Society, 3, 1955, pp.1-11.
139 Menazir Ahsen, (Çev. Mehmet Erkal), “Beytü’l-mâl ve İslam Ekonomisindeki Rolü”, Atatürk
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Erzurum, 1986, s.6, p.219.; Hodgson, The Venture of
Islam I, p.181.
140 For further discussion on sharing of the fifth of fifth see. Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, pp. 19-
20; Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp.82-83.
59
expanding structure. The Meccan period revenue collecting and disbursing was at the level
of private undertaking as Muslims were, mainly, cognizant of their duties of two: praying
and paying (salat and zakat).141 Through different concepts, the verses in Mecca instructed
Muslims to consider and support the living of the needy.142 This might also be the norm in
Medina for practical reasons, as the conditions were particularly poor for emigrants at the
beginning.143
However, in Medina, a preliminary taxation policy and concern for the common were
instituted through the Constitution of Medina. According to Wellhausens’ publishing, the 3rd,
11th, and also 12th articles of the constitution states that different groups of people are assigned
to handle some of their financial problems by pooling collectively. The individuals, Muslims
or non-Muslims, were held responsible for paying their contribution to save their fellow
residents who were overwhelmed by heavy financial burdens, to pay the blood money, and
to release the prisoners of war.144 Settling in Medina was the main clause to apply to
individuals that ultimately make their contribution to public property.
Although the abstract notion of law was accepted as an overarching justice that
regulate the affairs of all, the post-Hijra Islamic state formation (622-632) in Medina was
141 First mention of zakat before the emigration; Sura Anbiya 73: “We made all of them leaders,
guiding others by Our command, and We inspired them to do good works, to keep up the
prayer, and to give alms: they were Our true worshippers.” The Qur’an (Oxford World’s
Classics), Translated by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University Press, 2005.
142 For further discussion on the verses and the concepts see. Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukukunun
Ortaya Çıkışı, Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, No.3, 1984, pp.24-
30.
143 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, v.1, p.175.
144 Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukuku, pp.42-43.
60
just fundamental. It was not rich and sweeping as it was in the period between 634 and 656.145
However, the Muslims of the period and their order strictly observed the law and were
obedient to the religio-political authority of Muhammad.146 Thus, his discretion led way to
the centralization and the notion of “public property” in Islam.
According to the sources of the formative period, the bayt al-māl (as a specific place
where the common property was stored) was a room close to (or in) the masjid, or a room in
(or next to) the prophet Muhammad’s house.147 The prophet and the caliphs were particularly
attentive of delivering the properties in the quickest way to the eligible ones.148 Additionally,
the first caliph Abu Bakr is said to hold a separate room in his house for storing the properties
to allocate. This room might also be the place where all revenues of zakāt and sadaka were
kept, as the second caliph ’Umar monitored and estimated the amount of wealth there after
145 Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of Caliphates, 2nd ed. Harlow, UK:
Pearson/Longman, 2004, pp. 53, 56-66, 69-71.; Chase F. Robinson, “The Rise of Islam 600,
705” in The New Cambridge History of Islam ed.by Chase F. Robinson, Cambridge
University Press, pp.195-200.; Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, 1, pp. 198-206
146 For further discussion on the formative period see Fred M. Donner, “The Formation of the
Islamic State”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 2, 1986, pp. 283-296.
147 Muhammad Hamidullah, İslam Peygamberi, 683, 882.; Abdülkerim Öner, “Hz. Peygamber
Döneminde Beytülmal”, e-Şarkiyat İlmi Araştırmalar Dergisi, Nisan 2019, cilt 11, sayı 1,
(23), pp. 74-95.; Menazir Ahsen, (Çev. Mehmet Erkal), “Beytü’l-mâl ve İslam
Ekonomisindeki Rolü”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Erzurum, 1986, s.6,
p.219.; According to Abu Yusuf ‘s account, once, the second caliph ’Umar ordered to place
the booty procured in Persia to the Masjid, and charged two men to watch the properties till
it is delivered to the eligible people. This was before putting the institution of dīwān into
practice. Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p.47.; Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukukunun Ortaya
Çıkışı, Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, No.3, 1984, pp.33-34.
148 Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p.47; Mehmet Erkal, “Beytülmal”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi,
Vol.6, 1992, pp. 90-94., Abdulkerim Öner, “Dört Halife Döneminde Beytülmal”, Dicle
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ph. D thesis., 2018, pp.15, 38, 41.,
61
Abu Bakr’s death. Besides, Bilāl149 and ’Umar b. al-Khattāb were two of the bayt al-māl
officers the prophet appointed during his lifetime.150 Apart from Medina, the prophet and the
caliphs sent agents to administer the revenues and their disposal in newly conquered lands
across the peninsula. The spatial disbursing of wealth was also the norm in the formative
period of Islam. The prophet appointed ’amils to collect and distribute the wealth for
necessary outlays and eligible beneficiaries in the place where it is collected. In case there
remained extra, the ’amils should return those amonunts to the center.151
2.3 Increasing Wealth and the Need for Bureaucratization: The Rashidun Era
During the first caliph Abu Bakr (d.634) the operation of the bayt al-māl did not
change substantially. The room mentioned before in his house in the location of Sunh, after
he emigrated to Medina, was used to store the revenues and was called the bayt al-māl.152
While the sources do indicate the existence of the bayt al-māl in Medina after he moved into
his home, i.e., the center of the caliphate, for the conquered nearby regions do not. After his
death, the second caliph ’Umar used the Masjid to store the property as the prophet did. In
the course of his early years, like Abū Bakr, ’Umar was also attentive to disbursing the
properties directly without waiting.
However, towards the end of 630s the revenues in gold and silver were also added to
the booty and zakat, and the amounts flowing into the center increased to a degree that was
149 Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukuku, p.103
150 Muhammed Hamidullah, İslam Peygamberi, p.761, Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukuku, p.103.
151 Ibn Sa'd, Kitâbü't-Tabakâti'l-Kebîr, v. 5, p. 277 quoted by Abdulkerim Öner, “Dört Halife
Döneminde Beytülmal”, 2018.; Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukuku, pp.105-109.
152 Ibnu’l-Esir, El-Kamil Fi’-t-Tarih II, (çev. Beşir Eryarsoy), İstanbul: Bahar Yayınları, 1991,
p.386
62
not seen before.153 The expansion of Islam necessitated a more sophisticated and welloperated
system to preside over the revenues and outlays. As a consequence of the new needs
of the community and Muslims’s encounter with the pre-existing fiscal institutions, both the
space and theory of distribution of the wealth proceeded to another stage: the registrations of
dīwāns were instituted, and the new buildings were constructed for diverse properties to keep
them for the interest of Muslims during ’Umar’s caliphate. Apart from the practical measures
pursued in the formation of the state, the main reason for that was each sort of revenue had a
peculiar law of disbursement.154
Compared to the high caliphal155 period, circa between 692 and 945, the
institutionalization of the Islamic state during ’Umar, ’Usman, and Ali could be identified as
nascent.156 Nevertheless, the rapid expansion of Islam engendered confronting with the
ancient and established traditions of state and bureaucratic administrations of Fertile
Crescent, Egypt, and Iran. This, to an extent, colored the bureaucratic formation of the
Islamic state. To illustrate, the establishment of the dīwān by ’Umar was related to a long-
153 According to Abu Yusuf’s account it seems that, once, the caliph did not fully comprehend
the magnitude of the proceeds yielded in one go as it too much, and asked three times to be
sure how much exactly the amount was. Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p. 45.
154 Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, pp.80-81, Abu al-Ya’la Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Farra
(d.458), al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Faqî, Beirut: Daru’l-Kutubu’l-
‘Ilmiyye, 2000 (1421 H), pp.244, 249.; Abu al-Hasan 'Ali b. Muhammed al-Maverdi (d.450),
al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed. Ahmed Cad, Cairo: Daru’l-Hadis, 2006 (1427 H), pp. 307-308.
155 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam I, p.96.
156 For further discussion see Fred M. Donner, “The Formation of the Islamic State.” Journal of
the American Oriental Society, Vol.106:2 1986, pp. 283-296.
63
lasting systematization of Persians.157 Accordingly, when abundant wealth came to the
caliph, he considered systematizing their distribution. For ‘Umar, the pressing concern was
the organization of the system of stipends (‘atā’). The fiscal regime and the collection of
taxes in the conquered lands remained predominantly in the hands of the native populations.
Keeping in mind orienting Muslims towards the struggle for the interest of Islam, he aimed
to provide salaries (rawātib) and stipends (‘atā’) for fighters, and others, from the bayt almāl.
Thus, it was necessary to keep the registers for the names of the soldiers, and their
families in garrison towns (amsār).158 Dīwāns consisted of registers of the revenues, its
accounts, ratios, and the names for assigning the proceeds in comply with the legal regulation
and discretion of ’Umar, along with the rules set up before him.159 Although the earlier
sources put emphasis on ’Umar’s disapproval of hoarding money, his endeavor for
centralization and financial systematization of the proceeds meant a transition to a more
elaborate and well defined executive authority for the disposal of the caliph.
Before dīwāns, the fundamental law of bayt al-māl was operating for the community
from the time of the prophet Muhammad. For instance, both the prophet Muhammad and the
first caliph Abū Bakr were said to have registers of the names for different ends like
157 And the Byzantines. A.A. Duri et al. “Dīwān” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,
vol.II ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.323-337. H.L. Gottschalk, G.S Colin, A.K.S Lambton, and A.S
Bazmee Ansari, “
158 Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp.162-164
159 Particularly, in the assigning of the ‘ata (stipend) the first caliph Abu Bakr and the second
caliph ‘Umar think differently. While ‘Umar took into consider the precedence, seniority and
excellence, Abu Bakr’s understanding of equitable assigning was different. Abd al-Aziz Duri,
Early Islamic Institutions, p. 164-165, 167,
64
delivering the share of the needy and the fighters.160 What the second caliph ’Umar’s
instituting of dīwān brought forth to the bayt al-māl was systematization and
bureaucratization. During his caliphate, the provincial treasuries were established for diverse
revenues. Thus, the Rashidun era is remarkable as the governance of the financial affairs was
separated from the civil administration throughout this period. For kharaj, jizya and ’ushr
affairs of the bayt al-māl of different cities, the caliphs appointed different names. For
instance, while Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī (d.662-63) was named as the governor of
Basra, ’Abdullah b. Mas’ud (d.652-53) was appointed for zakāt and kharaj administration of
the same province by the second caliph. Moreover, sometimes, based on the circumstances
and the aptitude of a figure, the same person was named for a joint position.161
During the periods of the later caliphs, ’Usman (644-656) and Ali (656-661), the bayt
al-māl organization in the center of the caliphate and the provincial treasuries were preserved.
However, the aforementioned financial organizations underwent considerable modifications
during the Umayyad and Abbasid eras. One remarkable change could be said in the
elaboration of the system of dīwān, which ultimately altered the operation of the beytülmal
as each dīwān constituted a part of the bayt al-māl. Through dīwāns, along with the fighters,
each member of the community was regarded as eligible to get the allowance to the extent of
the aggregate public property.162
160 Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi, pp.90-93.
161 For instance, ’Abdullah b. Mas’ud was entitled by the caliph to be in charge of the judiciary
and beytülmal revenues in Kufa. Muhammad Hamidullah, Vesaik, p.356, no.327 quoted by
Celal Yeniçeri, İslamda Devlet Bütçesi, pp.67-69.
162 Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, p. 42.
65
2.4 The Proliferation of the Financial Bureaus: Umayyad and Abbasid Periods
In the course of the Umayyad period the number of dīwāns increased as the needs of
the state were growing in Damascus, the new capital. Dīwān al-kharaj of Damascus was
regarded as the central dīwān and called al-dīwān (the dīwān), which was in charge of the
assessment and levying land taxes. Since dīwāns did not only regulate the affairs of the public
treasury; the organization branched out extensively and was in charge of diverse bodies of
governance.163 To exemplify, under Mu’āwiya, and in due course of Umayyads, different
governmental bureaus functioned in the center and the provinces; dīwān al-kharaj (office in
charge of all land taxes), dīwān al-djund (office in charge of registering the forcers, their
ranks, pay or iqta’), dīwān al-rasail (correspondence), dīwānu’l-khatam (office of seal),
dīwān al-barīd (the postal bureau), dīwān al-nafaqāt (monitoring all the expenditures), dīwān
al-sadaqa (the bureau in charge of zakāt and sadaqa and their distribution),164 dīwān almustaghallāt
(office in charge of administering the use of state lands, buildings, and bazaars).
These diverse reserves also led to a parallel development of the system of dīwān. For instance,
while dīwānu’l-‘atā’ was in charge of distributing stipends to the community, including
women and children, dīwānu’l-jund was in charge of providing only for the fighters, as they
had a particular revenue from the booty. Government officers were considered eligible to get
stipends from different dīwāns simultaneously as they functioned in several tasks.165 The
properties in kind like animals, provisions (dāru’r-rizq), derelicts (bayt al-māl al-verese and
163 Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukukun Ortaya Çıkışı, pp. 34, 104.; Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic
Institutions, pp. 163-170.
164 Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, p. 169.
165 Kindi, al-Vulât ve’l-Kudât, p.317 quoted in Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi, pp.94-
95.
66
dīwānu’l-mawāris), and confiscated properties (dīwānu’l-mazālim) were kept and issued in
diverse bureaus.166 Additionally, for different provinces of the Muslim lands and the tribes
settled there, the governors kept distinct registers, which continued, until the end of the
Umayyad period.167 Similar dīwāns were established also in the provincial capitals like Kufa,
Basra, and Fustat. The provincial registers were kept in local languages; Persian in Iraq and
Persia, Greek in Syria, and Coptic and Greek in Egypt as these registers were majorly
inherited from age-old practice. However, the caliph ’Abd al-Mālik (r.685-705) inaugurated
the policy of Arabization that, to a great extent, was completed towards 750.
The Abbasids also instituted a number of dīwāns different from the Umayyads and
operated them in the direction of the central bureaucracy through the office of wazir. These
numerous dīwāns were, largely, derivative branches of the treasury, like dīwān al-jahbadhah
(in charge of supervising and organizing money changes), dīwān al-birr wa al-sadaqāt
(administration of the endowments-awqāf).168 In some cases, the dīwāns were set up so as to
function according to the needs of the time, thus temporary. For instance, for the domains
and the properties left by the Umayyads, the Abbasids founded dīwān al-musādarīn (dīwān
al-mazālim), which in time turned into dīwān al-diyā (office in charge of caliphal domains).
For escheating the properties of the heirless deceased persons, under caliph al-Mu'tamid
(d.892) a special department, dīwān al-mawāris was established. Mez says “it was a splendid
166 During the Abbasid era, different treasuries were also established. Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da
Devlet Bütçesi, pp. 85-89.
167 Abd al-Aziz Duri, et al., “Dīwān” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1991, pp.323-337.
168 Fuad Köprülü, W. Barthold, İslam Medeniyet Tarihi, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1973, pp. 117-118;
Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp.173, 175.
67
pond for greedy officials to fish in.”169 According to Ibn al-Athīr (d.1233), this dīwān was
canceled as the caliph Mu’tamid ordered the provincial governors to deliver those types of
properties to distant relatives.170
2.5 Later Developments and Division in Beytülmal: ’Āmma and Khāssa
Throughout the Rashidun, the Umayyad, and the Abbasid eras, the quantities to be
provided, conditions regarded to be eligible, and the norms for disbursement from the bayt
al-māl underwent some modifications.171 While the quantity was generally determined by
the extent of the aggregate in public treasury, being eligible for the allowance rested with the
discretion of the caliph based on a religio-legal reasoning. For instance, the caliphs Abū Bakr
and ‘Umar had different understandings of equality; while the first considered to subsidy
each Muslim equally, the second preferred to apply the condition of precedence in submitting
to and serving Islam.172 Moreover, during the period of Umayyads and Abbasids, the caliphs
made some changes to the amount of ‘atā’ paid to the mawāli, (the non-Arab Muslims), and
some regulations for working the system more efficiently. However, till the end of the
Abbasid era, the dīwān al-‘atā’ and its operation has persevered to a great extent. Including
169 Basing his argument on Ibn al-Athir, Mez says the Buwayhids did not accept these estates to
the treasury. Adam Mez, The Renaissance of Islam in the Tenth Century, (tr. Salahaddin
Khuda Baksh and D. S. Margoliouth), Jubilee: Patna, 1937, pp.112-113.; Dīwān, EI2.; Fuad
Köprülü, W. Barthold, İslam Medeniyet Tarihi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1973, pp. 117-
118.
170 Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi, pp. 117-118.
171 Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp.171-175, Salih Tuğ, İslam Vergi Hukuku,
p.101.; Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi, pp.100-108.
172Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions; p.165.; Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi,
pp.100-101.
68
suckling babies, members of the community were registered and esteemed in a certain
category for the entitlement of salary.173
Accordingly, the bureaucratization of the institutions also led way to the
sophistication of government expenditure. Financing the wars and the standing army, which
was in full force at the beginning of the eighth century, paying stipends for the needy and
other categories, building monumental structures (like the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,
the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, milestones on the main roads, way-stations (mahatat),
postal service, ways for smooth passages) and minting coins, etc. indicate an elaborated
system of centralized state expenditures.174 Correspondingly, the central state organized and
systematized also the revenues.
Apart from the non-fiscal dīwāns, like dīwān al-khatem and dīwān al-rasāil, the
fiscal dīwāns were all the branches of the bayt al-māl that made it operate and run to a great
extent. However, representing the state finance, the use of the term bayt al-māl was
constrained in favor of the dīwāns as the latter functioned directly in fiscal matters and the
officers were appointed by the vizier. Similar to the bureaus branched out in time, the bayt
al-māl also turn into dīwān bayt al-māl. Having a special seal, it was in charge of the
assessing incomes and expenses of the treasury and making up weekly, monthly, and annual
financial statements under the control of sahib al bayt al-mal.175 Rather than a fund to be
allocated for the interest of the common, this dīwān seems like a supreme controller of the
overall income and expenses of the state.
173 Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi, pp. 102-103, 105-108.
174 Fredd. M. Donner, “The Formation of the Islamic State”, Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic
Institutions, pp. 175-180.
175 Fuad Köprülü, W. Barthold, İslam Medeniyet Tarihi, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1973, p.118.; Abd
al-Aziz, Early Islamic Institutions, p. 176.
69
Interestingly, after this point the sources do not suggest why and when exactly the
distinct treasuries were instituted in the Islamic polities, like that of bayt al-māl-i khāssa and
bayt al-māl-i ’āmma. Duri explains the emergence of the bayt al-māl-i khassa (the private
treasury) as a distinct treasury from the bayt al-māl with the rise of Turkic control on the
government and their financial misconduct towards the end of the ninth century. However,
Yeniçeri states that we do not have enough evidence to claim a precise time or reason for its
emergence. He rather connects these properties of the distinct treasury of the caliph to those
of the right of Allah and the prophet derived through fifth (khums) in fay’ and ghanīma.
While the prophet and the Rashidun were said that they did not appropriate any
revenues for their own sake and always transferred the amount to the bayt al-māl after having
supplied for the needy and the basic needs of their families, the Umayyads were said that
they did appropriate. This phenomenon also led the vizier to be the supervisor of the state
treasury, and the caliph to control of their own private treasury.176 Some questions may help
to understand the rationale for the division: How did this private treasury function? Of which
matters it was in charge? And, what were the incomes of this treasury?
According to Fuad Köprülü, this was a completely independent treasury at the end
of the third century AH, that is early tenth century. The caliph Mansur (d. 775) had a private
treasury whose income was the judicial fines via bayt al-māl mazālim and confiscated
properties through bayt al-māl al-musādarīn. Bayt al-māl-i khāssa was a continuation of this
treasury of the caliph Mansur and gained prominence under the rule of the caliph al-Mu’tadid
(d.902). Along with the bequests and income through punishment and confiscation, the caliph
was entitled to obtain the revenues of the properties and the lands that pertained to him. This
176 Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, p. 175.; Celal Yeniçeri, İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi,
pp.139-140.
70
private treasury was only exceptionally disbursed for the interest of the common. Besides,
the bestowals ordered by the caliph for favor and benevolence were promptly paid from the
khāssa.177 Duri also holds that “the caliphs controlled this treasury and spent from it on
whatever matters associated with them.”178 However, according to Yeniçeri, thinking these
two treasuries as if they are exclusive and distinct from each other is misleading. There was
property or cash flow between khāssa and ’āmma. It was possible for the vizier to be in charge
of the private treasury of the caliph, and the caliph had a broad dispositional authority over
the general treasury, though he could not spend arbitrarily in theory.179 Moreover, referring
to the subsidies by the bayt al-māl-i khāssa, Adam Mez reminds how it was necessary to fund
the bayt al-māl-i ’āmma from the khāssa in case of a thread of bankruptcy of the state
finance.180
For the origin of the bayt al-māl-i khāssa, sources indicate the period of the
Umayyads, but as a substantial example of the practice the Abbasid period is striking.181 For
instance, during the Abbasids (and the Fatimids) the landed estates of the caliphs and their
families were called diya‘al-khāssa. Besides, under the reign of Al-Mutawakkil dīwān al-
177 W. Barthold, M. Fuad Köprülü (İzah ve Düzeltmeler), İslam Medeniyeti Tarihi, Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 1973, p. 118-119.
178 Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, p.175
179 Fred Lokkegaard, Islamic Taxation in the Classical Period, Lahor: Sind Sagar Academy,
1979, pp. 157-188.
180 Adam Mez, el-Hadara al-Islamiyye fi'l-qarn al-rabi al-hijri (terc. M: Abd al-Hadi Ebu
Raydah), V. I-II, Cairo, 1957, pp.209-210 quoted in Celal Yeniçeri İslam’da Devlet Bütçesi,
p.140.
181 Willem Floor, “Kassa” Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. XVI, Fasc.1 pp.106-112. (consulted
online) https://iranicaonline.org/articles/kassa.; Adam Mez, The Renaissance of Islam in the
Tenth Century, (tr. Salahaddin Khuda Baksh and D. S. Margoliouth), Jubilee: Patna, 1937,
pp.120-121.
71
nafaqāt al- khāssa was founded to administer the royal household expenses.182 The proceeds
of the crown lands were collected by the bayt al-māl al- khāssa, while other revenues
collected from the state properties were taken for the general bayt al- māl —a separate system
came forward under the Abbasids.183
Although in the later periods, the difference between them was abided by, the line
between them became obscure because of the need for money, if not also for the avarice of
the rulers. The notion of the mulk for the crown was later clarified and authenticated also by
politicians, like Nizam al-Mulk (d.1092):
“The domains and the peasants belong to the ruling power. The ruler should
have a khazīne-i kharaj (a treasury of tax revenues) for common day-to-day
expenses and payments, and khazine-i asl for capital deposits. The latter treasury
only be tapped for unexpected circumstances, and money utilized for that should be
regarded as loan to be put back.”184
The more elaborated one could be said Nāsir-al-Din Tūsi’s (d.1274). In his survey of
the financial practice of the last days of Baghdad, he further distinguished between the ruler’s
revenues: those of the private assets of the crown (khāssa), and those ordained for the
prosperity of the ruler (māl-i masāleh-i pādisāhi).185 However, in their accounts of the 10th
century Abbasids, and for later Ghaznavids, Mez, and Bosworth respectively, holds that the
182 M.A.J. Beg, “al-K̲ h̲āṣṣa wa ’l-ʿĀmma”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. IV,
ed. E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis And Ch. Pellat and C. E. Bosworth, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997, pp.
1098-1100.
183 Willem Floor, “Kassa” Encyclopædia Iranica.
184 Nizam al-Mulk, Siyasatnâma, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, trans. Hubert
Darke, Yale University Press, 1960, pp.33, 246.
185 M. Minovi and V. Minorsky, “Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī on Finance”, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1940, pp. 755-789
72
distinction between these treasuries was very little with regard to the ultimate disposal of the
monies a ruler had.186
Under Samanids and Ghaznavids the division between khāssa and ’āmma
persevered.187 Although the term bayt al-māl was seemingly used less in everyday
bureaucratic language; depending on the context, different properties, movable and
immovable, were classified under the terms like khāssa, amlāk-e khāss, ’āmma, mulk,
sultāniya, dīwāniya, inju. The Ghaznavids also administered state departments with dīwāns:
Dīwān-ı wazīr (the premier financial department), wakīl-i khass (in charge of the personal
estates of the Ghaznavid family), dīwān-i ghazni (in charge of the crown lands at Ghazna and
local administrative office). The Ghaznavid public treasury had the following major
revenues: (i) the crown lands and the private possession of the sultans (ii) escheat to the
crown and confiscations (iii) Tribute and presents from dependent rulers and governors,
(iv)war plunder, (v) kharaj and extraordinary levies. 188
It is noteworthy that among the revenues of the private properties of the Ghaznavid
ruler are paternal inheritance, personal savings, and confiscation in the royal family. The
rationale backing this practice might be the sultan was the ultimus haeres to those whose
186 Adam Mez, The Renaissance of Islam in the Tenth Century, (tr. Salahaddin Khuda Baksh and
D. S. Margoliouth), Jubilee: Patna, 1937, p.120; C. E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids Their
Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern India 994-1040, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal
Publishers, 1992, p.68.
187 W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press,
p.221.
188 Clifford E. Bosworth, The Gaznavids, New Delhi: Munshiram Manaharlal Publishers, 1992,
pp.67-69.
73
heirs could not be found, to those who were his personal slaves and eunuchs.189 These casual
items of revenue are called ‘tayyarāt’ by Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī (d.1274).190 The properties gained
through this way were often distributed by the ruler to the royal family, estates, and military
slaves were given to the commanders. For instance, as Beyhaqi told, his master Abu Nasir
Mishkan died in 1039, while he was in charge of dīwān-i risālat. His properties (personal
slaves and herds of beasts) were reverted to the sultan, not to his children.191
Commenting on the late Samanids, Barthold argues that this was a practice extended
in time. Towards the end of the Samanid rule, a law of inheritance was decreed. According
to that, upon the death of the officials of the dīwān, a part of their property would pass to the
crown. Later, in the district of Beyhaq, upon the death of each individual, a part of their
property will pass to the crown if the sons do not survive them. In the final decree, it was
extended even to the property of those who left sons, or direct heirs.192 The grounds for this
perplexing occasion might be related to the properties granted to the government officials as
allowances till the end of their service in the office, not as an absolute interest.193 Even so, it
189 Quoting from Beyhaqi’s Tarikh-i Mas’ud, and Gardizi’s Zayn al-Akhbar, Bosworth states that
Mas’ud (d.1040) was very heedful in getting the treasure of his deposed brother Muhammad
into his hands; and Muhammad’s writing to his brother Mas’ud on this transferring makes
the confiscation obviously legal. Clifford E. Bosworth, The Gaznavids, New Delhi:
Munshiram Manaharlal Publishers, 1992, p.70
190 M. Minovi and V. Minorsky, “Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī on Finance”, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1940, pp. 755-789
191 Abu’l-Fażl Beyhaqi, The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Mas’ud of Ghazna 1030-
1041) v. II (tr. Clifford E. Bosworth, rev. Mohsen Ashtiany), Boston-Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2011, pp.290-291, for another episode see p.188.
192W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, London: Oxford University Press,
1928, p. 259.
193 Clifford E. Bosworth, The Gaznavids, p.70.
74
is noteworthy to know how heedful were the officials in taking the properties; they compared
two documents so as to verify the properties of the ruler. The first is the document the
deceased master wrote before his death as inventory for the royal treasury of whatever he had
possessed. The second is the actual properties found and listed after his death by the
officials.194
2.6 Beytülmal as co-heir: Heirship and Escheat in Islamic Legal Schools
The works of fiqh, and particularly the works of Islamic law of inheritance, ’ilm alfarāiz,
extensively examine the conditions and the proportions of the inheritance to be
allocated among the available heirs. Based on the Sharī’a, the bayt al-māl also claims the
inheritance (or part of it) of a decedent in specific circumstances. For that reason, there are
two topics of consequence and related to the bayt al-māl: The conditions that the inheritance
devolve to the treasury, and the legal-theoretical grounds of bayt al-māl claiming.
According to four major legal schools, there are several heirs within the law for an
intestate property, that is the owner of the property died without leaving a statement of will.
The inheritance only be claimed legally, i.e., as a solvent estate, after the funerary expenses
and debts are deducted. The clusters of heirs are organized based on their relation to the
deceased person which are established through marriage (nikāh), blood relationship (nasab),
194 Beyhaqi sadly thinks that how his master would be agitated if the ’amir had asked him any of
these properties in his life, but now, he simply left all of it. Abu’l-Fażl Beyhaqi, The History
of Beyhaqi v.II, p.291.
75
and wala’ (clientship195).196 The schools agree upon the distribution of the fixed shares
(farāiz197) to the Qur’anic heirs (ashāb al-farāiz198), and the distribution of the residual to
male agnate relatives (‘asaba). In case of the absence of those heirs, zawu’l-arhām199(cognate
relatives) become heirs. If none of these heirs survive, the property reverses to the bayt almāl.
200 However, the early adherents of the Mālikī school accepted the bayt al-māl as the
residuary heir and denied the heirship of zawu’l-arhām in that condition.201 Parallel to this
195 Between the patron and the manumitted slave, J. Schacht and, A. Layish “Mīrāt̲h̲” in The
Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.VII, ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P.
Heinrichs and CH. Pellat., Leiden- New York: E.J. Brill, 1993, pp.105-113.; R. Brunschvig
“ʿAbd” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.I, ed. H. A. R. Gibb et al. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1986, pp. 24-40.
196 Ali Himmet Berkî, İslam Hukukunda Ferâiz ve İntikal (3.baskı), Ankara: Diyanet İşleri
Başkanlığı Yay., 1986, p.29.
197 The entitled shares in estates of the deceased person based on the Qur’an. Th.W. Juynboll,
“Farāʾiḍ” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis,
C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, p.783.
198 “Those entitled to prescribed portions.” N.J Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 30.
199 In literal sense it means ‘the possessors of a uterine relationship’. If the first two cluster exist,
zawul’l-arhām could not claim any property. N.J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p.30.Hamza Aktan, Mukayeseli İslam ve
Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi yay.2008, p. 224.; Abdüsselam Arı, İslam Miras
Hukuku, İstanbul: Pınar yay., 2018, pp.67-68.
200 If the deceased husband does not have any children or any children of their son, the wife takes
¼ of her husband’s inheritance. If any of their children (son or daughter), or the children of
their son are living, the wife takes 1/8 of the inheritance. In case the wife deceased, the
husband takes ¼ of his wife’s inheritance in the first, and ½ in the second. In case of no
surviving heirs the rest is claimed by the Treasury. Ali Himmet Berki, İslam Hukukunda
Ferâiz ve İntikâl, Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Dairesi Başkanlığı, 1986, p. 46.
201 Hamza Aktan, Mukayeseli İslam ve Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi yay.2008, p. 224.
76
view, the Mālikī school also denied the following three cases of successions, which are
clearly in favor of the bayt al-māl: (i) the proportionate share of the inheritance to the
Qur’anic heirs in the absence of any agnate relatives202 (ii) the share of zawu’l-arhām
(cognate relatives) in the absence of the Qur’anic heirs or ‘asaba relatives (iii) disposing of
the whole estate by will in case of no surviving relatives, on which the majority accepts that
there should be no restriction like one-third of the estate.203
To elaborate the first, in the law of inheritance the doctrine of radd (the law of
reversion) allows a proportioned share of the whole inheritance to the ashāb al-farāiz in the
absence of any ‘asaba relatives. In this case, the inheritance is exhausted, and no residual is
left. The early Shāfi’ī and Mālikī schools accept that after the Qur’anic heirs got their fixed
shares in the first round of portioning, the rest should be taken by the Public Treasury.204
Secondly, the Shāfi’īs and the Mālikī s modified their position on the heirship of cognate
relatives depending on the moral circumstances of the public treasury. From the third century
(AH) onwards, the later adherents of the school preferred the heirship of the zawu’l-arhām
instead of bayt al-māl as the latter’s condition was deemed in disorder.205
202 Hamza Aktan, Mukayeseli İslam ve Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi yay.2008, p. 224.;
N.J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, New York: Cambridge University Press,
2008, pp.49-50.
203 “They were excluded by the ever-present Public Treasury”, N.J. Coulson, A History of Islamic
Law, Edinburgh University Press, 1964, p. 98.
204 Coulson says the Mālikī s remained faithful to this view, i.e. no radd. They did not accept
exhausting the inheritance for the Qur’anic heirs. N.J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim
Family, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p.49.
205 Muhammad Abû Zahra, Aḥkâm al-Tarikât wa’l-Mawârîs, Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-‘Arabî, 1963,
pp.191-192.; Hamza Aktan, Mukayeseli İslam ve Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi yay.
77
Strikingly, Joseph Schact reminds that in each case where the state treasury is
regarded as an heir, the first thing to consider is whether the treasury is “administered
according to law of the benefit of Muslims”. If it is not, the radd and the share of the cognate
relatives is applied respectively. In the absence of those, female line relatives are called upon
to inherit. In the absence of those, any Muslim that fits to take possession of the inheritance
for the general good of Muslims is considered an heir.206
The legal conditions discussed above might be regarded as reciprocal: while the
inheritance’s side meets the conditions to deliver the inheritance to the treasury to the extent
that it pushes the limits in the Qur’an to come to that conclusion, the bayt al-māl side is
expected to conduct properly and justifiably. The organization of the bayt al-māl should be
based on the “constitutional precepts of the Sharī’a”, and it should function justly in
collecting the revenues and making expenditures.207 In this regard, the proper administration
of the bayt al-māl re-determines the property relations among the Muslim community, as
well as its being of the heir. To be more specific, the legal schools put their endeavor to
deduce the right of the bayt al-māl in the inheritance; especially the Mālikīs counted in the
2008, p. 224.; N.J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2008, pp.49-50.; Abdüsselam Arı, İslam Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Pınar
yay., 2018, pp.182-183.; For further discussion on the issue of preference in inheritance, see
Hamza Arslan “İslam Miras Hukukunda Terike Taksiminde Gözetilen Maslahatlar”, MA
Thesis, Fırat Üniversitesi, 2009 and Mehmet Seven, “İlkeler ve Hisseler Açısından İslam
Miras Hukukunun Dayanakları”, MA Thesis, Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2006, pp. 24, 27, 112 and
others.
206 J. Schacht and, A. Layish, “Mīrāt̲h̲”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.VII,
ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH. Pellat., Leiden- New York: E.J.
Brill, 1993, pp.105-113.
207 Abû Zahra, Aḥkâm al-Tarikât wa’l-Mawârîs, p.192; N.J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim
Family, p.50
78
bayt al-māl excluding the cognate relatives. The later modifications in the legal conclusions
prove that rather than who is to claim the property, the scholars focused more on why is to
claim and how to properly avail of the Muslim community with this peculiar revenue.
While the early scholars held the position that even if the cognate relatives are
suffering from poverty, they might get only a share of the inheritance (in the absence of
Qur’anic heirs and ’asaba) so as to reserve the rest for the bayt al-māl, the later scholars
preceded the share of cognate relatives, and non-relatives to the bayt al-māl. Benefitting the
Muslims, or the community in general, was held as the fundamental principle in theory, when
it comes to the bayt al-māl’s claim on the inheritance.
The Hanafī, Hanbalī, and the later Shāfi’ī schools based their take on the precedence
of the zawu’l-arhām upon the Qur’anic verse: “In God’s Scripture, blood-relatives have a
stronger claim than other believers and emigrants…”208 Accordingly, the blood relatives
have a superior right of inheritance to that of other Muslims or the community represented
by the bayt al-māl.
In respect to the theoretical grounds of the bayt al-māl’s claiming the schools also
have different opinions. First and foremost, though the Qur’an extensively mentions the
substantial heirs of inheritance in their names, the treasury is not mentioned. Based on this,
the Hanafīs recognize the bayt al-māl’s claiming only by escheat. To be more specific, the
estates and the properties in the inheritance were considered unclaimed, thus the ultimate
legal entity, the treasury, act as the claimer. According to that the (unclaimed) inheritances
of the non-Muslims, too, are included in this category.209
208 Sura al-Ahzab, 6, The Qur’an (Oxford World’s Classics) translated by M. A. S. Abdel
Haleem, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 266.
209 Abdüsselam Arı, İslam Miras Hukuku, Pınar: İstanbul, 2018, p. 71.; Hamza Aktan, “Miras”
TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 30, 2020, pp. 143-145.
79
However, the Mālikīs and early Shāfi’īs regard the bayt al-māl as a residuary heir
whose degree precedes and excludes the zawu’l-arhām. Moreover, though this heirship is not
based on a defined share, the Mālikīs confine the testamentary liberty of one who dies without
any surviving relatives to one-third, as the treasury is the residuary heir. Unlike the Sunnî
majority’s view of escheat, this heirship right also denies the doctrine of radd discussed
above.210
This ground of heirship right is modified when it comes to the inheritance of an
apostate (murtadd). In that case, the Shāfi’ī school accept the bayt al-māl’s claim by escheat,
as Muslims could not inherit the property of non-Muslims. Reflecting the experiential and
down-to-earth jurisprudence in Islamic law, the inheritance of an apostate decedent is divided
into two; before and after apostasy acquired properties. Based on that, his/her family may
inherit the properties acquired before apostasy; the rest is claimed by the bayt al-māl as that
inheritance of a murtadd is considered as fay’.211
Finding a reliable and befitting heir that take possession of the inheritance for the
general good of Muslims is an endeavor compatible with the verses in the Qur’an.212
However, this did not end the debate about the bayt al-māl’s claims on the inheritances,
particularly when it comes to the share of the zawu’l-arhām, the proportionate shares, and
bequests.
210 N. J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family, p. 188.; Şakir Berki, “Türk Miras Hukukunun
Esasları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 1954, pp.174-221.
211 Hamza Aktan, İslam ve Miras Hukuku, p.54.; N. J. Coulson, Succession in the Muslim Family,
p. 188.
212 Hamza Aktan, “Miras” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 30, 2020, pp. 143-145.
80
2.7 Conclusion
It is out of the scope of this study to cover the entire history of the bayt al-māl,
especially when the differences between the disintegrated individual Muslim polities became
further accentuated. For that reason, this part contents with a general survey of the institution,
the use of the term bayt al-māl, and the other terms that have been used to denote the similar
ends in the origin.
Following the traces of a single term or an institution calls a number of different
concepts and institutions into question. Representing different bureaus in the functioning of
the state, dīwān would be a focal example of this ramification in the classical period. Dīwāns
manifested the formation of a bureaucratic and centralized Muslim state and the elaboration
of the organization of public treasury, financial administration, and revenue collecting.
Though the use of the term was limited in post-Umayyad polities in favor of dīwān, the bayt
al-māl has been in the center of this elaboration.
However, a decisive and to a great extent, unchanged law of the beytülmal was
persevered. Different proceeds of the treasury were saved in different reserves. The revenues
and their expenditures may have changed, but the division between the private treasury
(Hazine-i Hassa) and public property (Hazine, or Hazine-i Amire) was maintained in the
Ottoman Empire to an extent. Moreover, the Ottomans divided the office for the collection
of the unclaimed properties into two bodies: beytülmal-i amme and beytülmal-i hassa. Rather
than who is to dispose the property, this was mainly based on the amount of the inheritance
and the decedents’ serving for the state.
Based on the law of inheritance, the Ottomans also claimed heirless and semi-heirless
inheritances in the early modern period. The normative texts show that so as to organize the
administration of the heirless properties, and deliver the estates in case of living heirs, the
conditions, procedure and rules to be followed were stated both in the general and provincial
81
kanunnâmes from the fifteenth century onwards.213 Unlike the pre-Ottoman legal debate, the
records show that the officers and judges did not question the right of the distant relatives or
zawu’l-arhām. The written and verbal statements, as contracts between private persons, and
the statement of wills were accepted in the courts if they sufficiently proved. However,
misconduct of the officers and the special circumstances that play between inheritance
claiming and confiscation were also seen in this period.
Since the empirical sources of this part areblimited, it is difficult to make further
connections between the Ottomans and pre-Ottoman Islamic polities regarding property
claiming. Yet, based on the available sources, it might be concluded that the inheritances of
the government functionaries, merchants, and wealthy subjects always attracted the
treasury’s (if not rulers’) attention, for which a detective-like property search and torture were
employed.214 Having a particular organization in charge of claims,215 the Ottomans also kept
an eye open for the potential unclaimed properties irrespective of the amount.
213 The beytüilmal in normative texts will be examined in Chapter 3.
214 See Adam Mez, The Renaissance of Islam, pp. 114-118
215 The beytülmal mukataas and the operation of the system will be examined in Chapter 5.
82
CHAPTER 3
THE BEYTÜLMAL IN THE EARLY MODERN OTTOMAN NORMATIVE TEXTS
Beytü’l-mâl-i müslimîn-ki vedîat-i hâliqu’l ’âlemindür nâ-sezâlara virilmek özge ma’siyet ve nâ-mahallere
revâ görülmek turfa musibet idügi de kemâ yenbaği bürûz u zuhur bulur.
Bu bâbda asla tecâhül 'özr olmaz Ve vükelâ hâlinden tağaful Yevmü’s-suâlde cevâb-i bâ-savâb olması
sübût bulmaz.
(Nüshatü’s-Selatin, Mustafa Âli)
İmdi; Beytü’l-mâl-i müslimîne sa’y ü ikdâm itmek sa’âdet-i dâreyn idüği mukarrerdür.216
3.1 Introduction
The term beytülmal as the public treasury was rendered in the normative texts,
documents, and scholarly writings that originated in the Ottoman Empire. Considering it as
a fiscal and moral entity, these sources generally reminded its meaning with a religious and
political responsibility of the ‘people’ towards God and political authority—and hence
towards fellow Muslims. Its existence rested on the proper organization and administration
of the means of the empire: the tax-paying subjects, government and its functionaries, and
any political and fiscal relation established between them.
The previous chapter dealt with the beytülmal in pre-Ottoman Islamic history
focusing on its institutional development, and revenue raising through unclaimed property.
It tried to illustrate the potential of conceptual and theoretical connections between the
beytülmal (the treasury) in the pre-Ottoman period and the beytülmal institution in the
Ottoman empire. Having this background, this chapter will focus on the theory of the
beytülmal, the history of the concept, and legal regulations in its institutional development.
216 A.DVNS.MHM.d. 7/ 2587.
83
The ground for the legal system in the Ottoman Empire was shari’a from which the
knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) was developed.217 The field of knowledge, fiqh,
and the relevant works circulated, venerated, produced, and reproduced218 in the Ottoman
realm from the fourteenth century on219 were the essential sources of developing şer’i rules
applied in the courts of the empire. However, to provide all necessities of life for generating
a sense of order, kanun, promulgated by the legislative authority of the ruler coexisted with
the şer’i rules. The Ottomans maintained their order based on this coexistence of kanun and
sharia.
The beytülmal, either in the sense of public treasury or revenue type (unclaimed
properties220), was one of the subjects that lie at the center of this coexistence in the Ottoman
legal system: The ruler’s right to claim the unclaimed properties was recognized by Islamic
217 Engin D. Akarlı, “The Ruler and Law Making” in Law and Empire Ideas, Practices, Actors
(ed. Jeroen Duindam et al.) London-Boston: Brill, 2013, pp. 87-111
218 Recep Cici, “Osmanlı Hukuk Düşüncesini Etkileyen Kaynaklar”, Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat
Fakültesi, pp.215-146; Guy Burak, The Second Formation of Islamic Law: The Hanafi School
in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015,
pp.130-135.
219 Abdurrahman Atçıl, Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp.28-45.
220 For the second meaning of the beytülmal, there are a couple of suggestions like the estates
without heirs, the inheritances without heirs, the legacies of deceased persons, unclaimed
inheritance, etc. Since it covers other properties, like a found and picked up property, a stray
animal, or any abandoned property, in this study the version ‘unclaimed properties’ is used.
However, depending on the context others are also applied.
84
inheritance law.221 Besides, the public treasury was governed by complex legal regulations
issued by the legislative authority of the rulers.
Aiming to understand the making of law and the developments in normative texts
relevant to beytülmal, this chapter will consider it as an Ottoman legal institution. The
evolution of the legal doctrine for the beytülmal will be scrutinized based on the sources
utilized roughly between 1450 and 1700. On that account, the general and provincial
kanunnâmes, written by the initiative of the Ottoman imperial authority at the hands of
scholar-bureaucrats,222 and the fetvas of some Ottoman Şeyhülislams and provincial muftis
will be examined. Through this scrutiny, the chapter aims to bring forward a rather broad
view of doctrinal evolution considering beytülmal, and similarities and differences between
the norms in different sources of law.
3.2 The Beytülmal as the Treasury
The term beytülmal was commonly used to denote the state treasury in Islamicate
world since the 7th century. It indicated a structure where the properties and monies (booty,
alms, kharaj, jizya, and tithe) were stored for maintaining the Muslim community.
Particularly after ’Umar’s (d.644) caliphate, it came to mean a more developed institution of
221 Except for man and wife, the legal heirs of a deceased could claim all the inheritance. While
a wife could claim the only ¼ of her husband’s inheritance, a man could claim ½ of his wife’s
inheritance. In case there are not any existing heirs except man or wife, the rest is claimed by
the state. Şakir Berki, “Türk Miras Hukukunun Esasları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk
Fakültesi Dergisi, 11/3, 1954, pp.174-221. A. Himmet Berki, İslâm Hukukunda Ferâiz ve
İntikâl, Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Yay. 1985, p. 113. Also, see chapter 2.
222 “As legal experts, they fulfilled judicial, scribal, financial, and military tasks for the Ottoman
government.” Abdurrahman Atçıl, Scholars and Sultans, pp. 5-6.
85
the state, organized and functioned to protect and reserve public properties pursuant to the
rules in Islamic law. The Ottoman use of the term was similar to that theoretical sense.
3.2.1 The use of the Beytülmal in the Early Modern Texts
Beytülmal or beytülmal-i müslimin took place in a dazzling spectrum of the primary
sources of the Ottoman Empire. Though the emphasis may differ from one source to another,
the ultimate significance of the beytülmal was mostly associated with the monies and
properties that the government had a claim over, i.e. the public properties. Both the ordinary
subjects and the government functionaries have a religious and legal responsibility towards
the beytülmal, including but not limited to tax-paying and tax-collecting.
For example, in Kanunnâme-i Cedid, which is different from a typical nişancıauthored
kanunnâme in the sense that it includes fetvas given by the muftis on certain
topics,223 Ebussuud states: “The lands of the well-protected domains, known as mîrî, were
memleke/mulk; reaya hold the usufruct rights of these lands by means of lending from
beytülmal-i müslimîn.”224 The fetva exhibits the difference between a freehold property
(mülk) and public property (beytülmal-i müslimin) with respect to the lands and properties on
223 Halil İnalcık, “Kanunnâme” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.24, 2001, pp. 333-337.; Fatma Gül
Karagöz, “The Evolutıon of Kânûnnâme Writing in the 16th and 17th Century-Ottoman
Empire: A Comparison of Kânûn-i Osmânı̂ of Bayezid II and Kânûnnâme-i Cedı̂d”, Master’s
Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, 2010.
224 “...Sâir memâlik-i mahrûsede arz-ı mîrî dimekle ma’rûf olan arazi memleket/mülk kabilinden
olub rakabe-i arz beyti’l-mal-i müslimîn içün âriyet tarîkiyle reayanın tasarruflarında olub…”
Kanunnâme-i Cedid. This fetva was issued by Ebussuud, upon the conquest of Hungary by
Süleyman I in 1541. Ebussuud might have reformulated it so as to be included in the
kanunnâme as a state regulation. Halil İnalcık, “Islamization of Ottoman Laws on Land and
Land Tax”, in Essays in Ottoman History, İstanbul: Eren Yay., 1998, pp.155-173.
86
it, like vineyards, orchards, trees, and fields. There are some other terms employed similar
to the beytülmal for stating what could not be possessed (absolutely) by the subjects;
mamlaka, mîrî, and rakaba (Dominium Eminens, the essence). Each of these terms designates
that the properties in this category are all under the general rubric of the beytülmal, and their
bare ownership (raqaba) is at the hands of the ruler by law for the benefit of Muslims.
That might be the reason for replacing the term miri with the mamlaka, meaning “the
lands under the absolute authority of the imam” in some of Ebussuud’s fetvas.225 For
instance, in the kanunnâme issued for Skopje and Salonika it is stated that some parts of this
region are called as arz-ı memkeket (the state lands), which is neither ushr nor haraciye. To
prevent difficulties and suffering in the process of sharing the inheritance, and setting down
the taxes upon the new circumstances, the property right of those lands was retained for
beytülmal-i müslimin.226 This part is also written based on an Ebussuud issued fetva and lays
emphasis on the property rights in these lands. Accordingly, the bare ownership and the
225 Mes’ele: Arâzî-i memleketi sultan temlike kadir midir? El-cevab: Kadirdir. (824); Su’al: Arzı
mîrî, arz-ı öşrî midir, yoksa harâcî midir? Ve tasarruf eden re'âyânın bey' eylemeleri ve rehin
komaları ve miras değmesi ve şüf'a câri olması şer'an caiz midir? Cevab: Aslâ caiz olmaz.
Ne öşrîdir ve ne haracıdır, ikisi dahi ashabının memlûküdür. Buna mutasarıf olanlar malik
değillerdir. Memlekettir. Alınan eğerçi arzın haracıdır. Amma arzın rakabesi beytülmal için
alıkonmuştur. Reayaya temlik olunmamıştır. (826). Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Şeyhülislam Ebu’su’ud
Efendi Fetvaları Işığında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı, İstanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1972, p.167.
226 “... Sahiblerine temlik olunduğu takdirce fevt olup verese-i kesîre mâbeynlerinde taksim
olunup her birine bir cüz’i kıt’a degüb her birinin hissesine göre haraçları tevzî’ ve ta’yin
olunmakda kemâl-i su’ûbet ve işkâl olup belki ‘âdeten muhal olmağın rakabe-i arazi
beytülmal-i müslimin için alıkonulub reayaya ariyyet tarikiyle virilüb ziraat ve hiraset idüb
bağ ve bahçe ve bostan idüb hasıl olandan harac-ı mukasemesin ve harac-ı muvazzafın
virmek emr olunmuşdur”. Barkan, Kanunlar I, pp. 298-299. See also p. 300 “... kendülere
temlik olunmayub beytülmal-i müslimine ihraz olunduktan sonra...”
87
authority of these public properties are only in the hands of the imam, the ruler, for the interest
of the common i.e. the müslimin.227
Taking over the property from the possession of individuals, in case the property is
believed to be owned illegally, or reverting the property to the government in case no heir
was found is called ‘returning to the beytülmal’ (beytülmale raci and ’ayid). While the
sixteenth-century registers utilized these types of phrases for the right of escheat of the
government, in the kanunnâme of Mehmet II and Bayezid II, the term ‘beglik’ (belonged to
the state) was employed instead. Designating the type of the property, it is both used as an
adjective (beglik arazi) and noun (beglik ede).228 However, some of those might be said the
fiscal penalties imposed particularly for illegal commercial transactions and generally
resulted in partial confiscation (müsadere) of the property at issue.
Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa (d.1692), a late 17th century Ottoman scholar-bureaucrat
and historian specifies the responsibility of the defterdar (the chief financial officer,
227 As a well documented phenomenon by the historians of the field, the Ottoman empire was
composed of multi-ethnic and multi-religious socieites; and governed, in principle from the
same imperial center. The public properties designated as ‘beytülmali müslimin’ were spent
for the interest of all, non-muslims too. Thus, the phrases like ‘the interest of the common’
or ‘beytülmali müslimin’ is inclusive of all of their rights and shares in treasury in practice,
if not also in theory.
228 …ve her kim amilden ugurlayın anbar kurub susam satacak olursa, mezkûr kulum bula,
elinden alub beglik ede ve kendünün gereği gibi hakkındnan gele…”, “… arabalarun
öküzlerin beglik edüb kendülerün hakkından geleler…”. Halil İnalcık, Robert Ahnegger,
Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait
Yasakname ve Kanunnâmeler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000, pp.53, 68, 76 and others.;
See also Marinos Sariyannis, “Ruler and State, State and Society in Ottoman Political
Thought”, Turkish Historical Review, 4, 2013, pp. 120-122.
88
Treasurer) in his kanunnâme as follows: 229 “…In particular, to preserve the central treasury
from taking the right of the orphans, and to hold beytülmal-i müslimin off having ill-gotten
gains is equal to respect the glory of faith and dynasty.” (“…Husûsâ emvâl-i yetâmâdan
hazîne-i âmireyi sıyânet ve beytülmâl-i müslimîni mâl-i harâmdan himâye etmek heman ‘ırzı
dîn u devlete ri’ayet itmekdür).230 The author uses the term beytülmal with a religious
connotation to remind of the officers the significance of its preservation. In this way,
perfecting the realm of the beytülmal is regarded as a responsibility towards God. However,
in the rest of the lines related to the finance officers, he does not use the term beytülmal and
emphasized only the practical details.
The right of the beytülmal-i müslimin is referenced as an inescapable and paramount
fisco-moral authority that both the state functionaries and the subjects should abide by.
Omitting to distinguish the public properties from the private ones, and neglecting to secure
the former’s collecting is disregarding “the interest of the müslimin”, thus the order of faith
and dynasty. 231
The provincial administrators of different ranks were almost always warned to be
attentive to the beytülmal in many ways: Acting in accordance with the benefit of beytülmal
(beytülmâl'e enfa’ olanıla amel olunup), not causing any harm and putting the ultimate effort
229 Tevkî’’i Abdurrahman Paşa, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Teşrifat ve Törenler, haz. Sadık Müfit
Bilge, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2011, p. xıı.
230 Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa Kanunnâmesi, Milli Tetebbu’lar Mecmuası, c.1, sy.3 (Temmuz-
Ağustos 1331), pp. 516-517.
231 In the kanunnâme of Malatya livası, (1559), “…it is the right of the beytülmali müslimin to
collect at least three akçes per hundred vineyards post from those areas who previously paid
only two akçes for the same.” Ömer L. Barkan, (haz. Hüseyin Özdeğer) XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esasları, c. I, Kanunlar,
İstanbul, 1943, p. 117. (see also 115 in the same kanunnâme, Malatya Livası Kanunu, 1559)
89
for increasing the revenues of the beytülmal (beytülmâl'e dahi zarar olmayup tevfîr ü teksîri
bâbında mücidd olasız). The administrators in charge were not only liable for the potential
future raising of the public properties, but they should also audit the retroactive financial
operations: “Beytülmâl'e gadrolunmış mıdur ve hılâf-ı şer’-i kavîm te’addî olmakdan ihtiyât
idüp muhtâc-ı arz olanı yazup bildüresiz”. For instance, the possible outcomes of performing
to the benefit of the beytülmal are expressed as follows:
“Beytülmâl-i Müslimîni hıfz ve himâyet ve mahlulat-ı kesire izhâr olunması
hususatına sarf-ı nakdiye-i liyakat ve bezl ve sa’y ve gayret olunarak Beytülmâl-i
Müslimîne enfa’ olacak hâlâtın istihsâline dâmen-i dermeyân-ı gayret olunub itlâf
ve izâ ̓ından vikâye olundukça beher sene mevâcibleriniz serî ̓u’l-husûl emvalden
derdest ve ahziyle mesrûr olacağınızı bir hoşçca mulâhaza eyleyerek beher hal
cümlenizi bi’l- ittifâk bu bâbda kemâl-i gayreti meyan-ı sadakate bend eyleyüb
…”232
According to that if the administrators show their highest effort for achieving the
above-mentioned goals, it is more likely that they are pleased to get their wages swiftly each
year.
The Ottoman scholar-bureaucrats and state functionaries of different ranks employed
the term beytülmal if they saw fit for the coherence of the text they are handling. In general,
beytülmal was used as a moral reminding to those in charge of collecting and supervising
public properties.233 According to that, regardless of their rank, government functionaries
should uphold the realm of the beytülmal in different ways and should not waste one single
232 2 Numaralı Mühimme-i Mektûme Defteri (H. 1208-1211/ M. 1793-1797) Transkripsiyon ve
Değerlendirmesi (s. 1-30), Pub. Master’s Thesis, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ, 2016, p. 66.
233 For instance, in the Hanya Kanunu, prepared in accordance with the harac sections of the fiqh
books, the term used two times in the sense of the public property. Ömer L. Barkan, Kanunlar
I, pp. 353-354.
90
gurush of the Muslims.234 Furthermore, the laypersons were also held liable for being aware
of the beytülmal revenues. Apart from being a proper taxpayers, they should be mindful of
the properties that might, in one way or another, fall to the beytülmal.
3.2.2 The Beytülmal in Dede Cöngî’s (d.1567) Treatise: Risâlah Fi Amwâli
Bayta’l-mal wa Aqsâmihâ wa Ahkâmihâ wa Masârifiha
Dede Cöngî’s (d.1567) nineteen folios treatise is written in Arabic and titled Book on
the Sources of Revenues and Expenses and the Rules and Divisions of the Public Treasury.
In the preamble of the book, the author begins with the praise of Allah that he has given his
blessings for the use of booties (ahalle’l-maghanim li–hazihi’l-ummah): “Those who hold
their claims on wealth are assigned their shares thanks to the Sultans and the caliphs as they
are entitled to allocate the shares in justice.” He then salutes the prophet Muhammad as the
“first sharer of the alms, taxes, and the booties.” After praising the family and the companions
of the prophet and the caliphs, he presents the treatise as a gift to the caliph of the time, Prince
Mustafa (d.1553), Süleyman I’s son.
Dede Cöngî gives grounds for the idea of public property and the Sultans’ authority
to preside over it:
“In this clear religion of Islam and its law (şer-i şerif) the only authority who has
disposal and custody right of the monies and properties in the beytülmal is the caliphs and
the sultans; and this is established with the guidance of the prophets, the messengers, the
great companions, the scholars, and the followers. This is not because the property belongs
to them, it is perhaps because they are bestowed the sultanate and the imamate to preclude
234 Abu Yusuf also said: “Do not cause damage and destruction of those you are shepherding”.
Abu Yusuf Ya’kûb b. Ibrahim, Kitāb al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302, p.5.
91
corruption and disorder in this world as they are the agents and the caliphs of Allah, the
eternal owner of sovereignty (malik al-mulk). Despite having a claim on the beytülmal, before
the division of the caliph or the imam, no one can get (or claim) a share just because they
capture it (la yamlikune bi’l-istilā). The Prophet was sending deputies to obtain the beytülmal
revenues. After sharing it out to sections, they delivered the revenues to the beneficiaries.”235
He then quoted a hadith narrated by Muadh ibn Jabal; “the prophet said for a person
what is lawful (jāiz) and permissible (halāl) [to have/hold] is only with the approval of the
head of the state. He then clarifies this justification with the fiqh books that were highly
reputed also in the Ottoman Empire.236
The sultans and the caliphs hold the right of disposition and the guardianship of the
beytülmal, which consists of four types of revenues. In theory, these revenues of the
beytülmal were gathered in different sections and the expenses of these sections are also
distinct from each other and disconnected.
Dede Cöngî summarized the four categories (arba‘a asnaf) of the beytülmal as
follows:
1. The alms, which is like zakat as-sawâim for which the caliph is in
charge. All types of taxes on animals, kaffarah (atonement), and ‘ushûr
(a custom duty on Muslim merchants)
2. Kharaj and Jizya. It is set either by amicable agreement (bi’s-sulh)
between two sides or is set as a poll tax levied based on the number of
non-Muslims. The alms that the Christian tribe of Banu Taghlib is
235 Dede Cöngi, Risâle fî Emvâli Beyti’l-mâl ve Aksâmihâ ve Ahkâmihâ ve Masârifihâ,
Süleymaniye Ktp. Esad Efendi, no. 3560, 5a.
236 Like Mukhtasar of Al-Tahawi, Nâsiruddin Tûsî, Semerkandî, Tatarhaniye and Bezzaziye.
92
paying, the gifts that the Najran Family is giving as fay and ghanima
(booty), and the gifts sent to the sultans and the caliphs by harbîs (the
inhabitants of dār’al-harb), and the tariffs taken from dhimmi and
musta’min237 (protégé) merchants.
3. The properties obtained through the fifth (khums) of booties
(ghanimah), mineral sources (al-maadin), treasure (al-kanz), and
treasure trove (rikāz). These are also known as penç-yek (fifth in
Persian) or pençik in the Ottomans.
4. The properties obtained through the inheritance (mukhallefāt) of the
heirless deceased persons that the state has the ultimate claimer; the
properties obtained when one of the two, in a married couple, died
without inheriting another person (the state has the claim on the rest of
the inheritance after the surviving spouse got his/her share), and the
troves (al-luqata).
This brief description of the beytülmal theory and the premises for the formation
of a public treasury in an Islamic polity were based on the ‘reliable fiqh books’ venerated
among the Ottoman scholars. Thus, in a nutshell, the beytülmal that Dede Cöngî explains
in detail is the public treasury, hazine.
The sixteenth-century scholar and poet Aşık Çelebi adds (zeyl) his views and
comments on the beytülmal in his translation of İbn Teymiyye’s (d.1328) es-Siyâsetü’şŞer‘
iyye. He explains the significance of the proper administration of the beytülmal based
237 Legally alien non-Muslims in Dâr al-Islam who enjoys protection by virtue of the contract of
amân (quarter) given to them by Muslims. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad, “The Notions of
Dār al-Ḥarb and Dār al-Islām in Islamic Jurisprudence with Special Reference to the Ḥanafī
School” Islamic Studies, Vol.47, No.1, 2008, pp.5-37.
93
on providing for the government officers238 Similar to Dede Cöngî, he explains the four
categories of beytülmal revenues and the places of the expenses for each of them.
Apart from Dede Cöngî, Na’îmâ (d. 1716) also discusses the above-mentioned
revenue categories of the beytülmal in his work Tarîh-i Na’îmâ. His mention shows up
under the title of “Vefât-ı Kadıasker İmâm-zâde Mehmed Efendi.” Here, Na’îmâ
criticizes the deceased Mehmed Efendi, and his improper measures in administering the
treasury, hazine.239 According to that criticism, Mehmed Efendi cut the payments to
sâdât,240 meşâyîh (sheikhs), and ulemâ (scholars). Elaborating on the beytülmal
revenues, Na’îmâ lays a particular emphasis on the rights of the ulemâ and sulehâ in the
beytülmal.241
Apart from those scholarly works, in the worldly financial affairs of the
government, the Ottomans used the term hazîne (Hazine-i Amire or Hizane-i Amire)
more commonly in the meaning of public treasury from the fifteenth century on. Though
238 “…emînler ve vâlîler nasb olunup ve her maslahata münâsib mübâşirler nasb olunmak lâzım
olup onlara dahi kifâf-ı ma‘îşe lazım olup…” Ahmet Çelik, “Aşık Çelebı̇’nı̇n ‘Mı̇racu’l-İyale
ve Mı̇nhacu’l-Adale’ Adlı Eserı̇ndekı̇ Sı̇yaset Düşüncesı̇”, MA thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi,
2014.
239 “Devlet-i Aliyye’den vücûh-ı mütenevvi‘a ile hisse-mend olan ağniya ve meselenin aslını
mülahaza etmeyen ba‘zı kimesneler fukarâ-i ibadu’llâhın sedd-i ramakları yerine cihet ve
mâişetleri olan birkaç mankırı çok görüp ‘dilenci makülesi bir alay herif bu kadar vazife
almanın münâsebeti nedir” deyü…” Mustafa Na’îmâ Efendi, Tarîh-i Na’îmâ:Ravzatü’l
Hüseyin fî Hulâsât-i Ahbâri’l-Hâfikayn., (Haz.) Mehmet İpşirli, Ankara: TTK 2014, pp.1763.
240 Officially recognized descendants of Prophet Muhammad. See Hülya Canbakal, “The
Ottoman State and Descendants of the Prophet in Anatolia and the Balkans (c. 1500-1700)”,
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2009, pp. 542-578
241 “Nazar-i insafla nazan olunsa bu dört nev‘ beytülmal içinde ulemânın ve sulehânın ve fukara
ve ebnâ-i sebilin hisse-i şer’iyyeleri vardır…” Tarîh-i Na’îmâ, pp.1760-1763.
94
the documents do not clarify the exact date for the formation of two hazines; external or
central treasury (Birûn) and internal treasury (Enderûn); the Kanunnâme of Mehmed II
and the documents in the period of Bayezid II, and Süleyman I indicate that this core
body of the government was effectively organized early in the fifteenth century.242 In the
later periods, supplementary hazînes, like reserve treasury under the supervision of
Darphane,243 and later on İrad-ı Cedid hazinesi was created.244
3.3 The Beytülmal as a Revenue Type in Normative Texts
The second meaning of the beytülmal in the Ottoman Empire is rather narrower but
more specific. The beytülmal here corresponds to the fourth category of the revenues of the
public treasury in classical fiqh books, as well as in Dede Cöngî’s treatise discussed above.245
However, the normative texts, documents, and cases related to the beytülmal institution
manifest that for the Ottomans it was more than this fourth category of the revenues. The
242 For different uses of the term see Cengiz Orhonlu, "Hazine" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol.17,
1998, pp.130-133.; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve
Osmanlı Devleti İç Hazinesi”, Belleten, cilt XLII, sayı 165, 1978, pp. 67-93.
243 Ömerül Faruk Bölükbaşı, 18.yy’ın İkinci Yarısında Darphane-i Amire, İstanbul: Bilgi
Üniversitesi yay., 2013, pp.138-141.
244 Mehmet Genç, “Esham” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.11, 1995, pp.376-380.
245 Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharac, pp.80-81, Abu al-Ya’la Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Farra
(d.458), al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Faqî, Beirut: Daru’l-Kutubu’l-
‘Ilmiyye, 2000 (1421 H), pp.244, 249.; Abu al-Hasan 'Ali b. Muhammed al-Maverdi (d.450),
al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed. Ahmed Cad, Cairo: Daru’l-Hadis, 2006 (1427 H), pp. 307-308.
95
term was used as the name of the properties in question,246 an adjective,247 and the name of
the institution.248
The term stands for several revenues included by law to beytülmal-i müslimin. These
are particularized in the documents as follows: The property of missing and absent persons
(mâl-i mefkûd and mâl-i gâib), heirless, semi-heirless249 or unclaimed inheritances
(muhallefat, tereke, metrûkât), absconding slaves and stray cattle (ʿabd-i abîk, kenizek,
kaçkun, yava), and troves (lukata). However, depending upon the circumstances, the
beytülmal officers are also responsible to keep an eye on and collect some other properties
too. A deserted land or building,250 the properties in a caravan in case the carrier was killed,251
246 “…ve sürgünün beytülmalin zabt idenler nice emvâli bel-ü-ketm eyledükleri”
(A.DVNSMHM.d.34/369); “…vaki’ olan hukuk ve rüsumu ve beytülmali”,
A.DVNSMHM.d. 41/ 287.
247 “…beytülmal varidatı” C. ML, 44/17904.; “beytülmal akçesi” A. DVNSMHM.d, 115/1513.
248 “...beytülmal tarafından müdahale olunmamak” C.BH 237/11009.; “...terekesi beytülmale
aid” DVN.ŞKT. 93/231.; “…beytülmal mukataasının sipahilerden Zülfikar ve Ahmed’e
teslimi” TS.MA.e 191/ 9); “…akçesin bi’t-tamam beytülmal eminine teslim” TS.MA. e.
892/21. Further examples will be discussed in the later chapters.
249 With this I mean the properties that the beytülmal institution become a legal-ly heir where
another legal heir is also eligible to take his/her share according to Islamic law of inheritance.
250 MAD, 2775: 536/2405, 708/3165.; MAD, 19322: 9/22; The deserted houses of Mamluk
administrators who fled Egypt during the Ottoman conquest were also defined as “beytülmale
raci’”. The governor in charge of fiscal matters and the kadı are ordered to survey and register
these houses to enable fetching through rent or sale. “Ahvâl-i Hânehâ-i Çerâkı̇se der Mısır”
in the Kanunnâme of Egypt. Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri
v.6, Istanbul: Fey Vakfı Yay., 1993, pp. 138-139.
251 The beytülmal emini is ordered to take control of the properties whose caravaneer was killed
at night during their stay in a caravanserai in Yenipazar, Bosnia. MAD, 7534: 800/2434
96
the properties captured at the hands of robbers (haramis),252 flocks of sheep in case the
shepherd has died,253 and the properties in a sunken or attacked ship,254 or the blood money
of an heirless deceased (killed) person255 etc.
The Ottomans applied the beytülmal as a revenue type early fifteenth century.256
Compared to its former meaning, the revenue type was multilayered. Being an officer of
either beytülmal-i hassa or amme, the titles emin-i beytülmal, beytülmalcı, and beytülmal
ağası are used. They were strictly ordered to operate with the participation of kadıs.
Based on this revenue type, the Ottomans generated a legal institution for providing
social assistance for the subjects in need, and for protection of their rights in case they are
252 In Zihne district, the beytümalci was ordered to send a detailed information to the imperial
center concerning the amount and the type of wealth they captured at the hands of robbers,
as well as the type of the haramis (…ne asıl kimesneler ellerinde altun zabtolunmuşdur...)
KK, 62: 857/1529.
253 MAD.d. 7534: 60/157, 107/339 catched by Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, p.
6.
254 A.DVNSMHM.d., 31/670.; A.DVNSMHM.d., 88/231.; see also Eyal Ginio, “Piracy and
Redemption in the Agean Sea During the First Half of the Eighteenth Century” Turcica 33,
2001, pp. 135-147.; MAD.d. 3241, p.168 in Haim Gerber, Economy and Society in an
Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600-1700, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1988, p.107.
255 M. Akif Erdoğru, “Osmanlı Kıbrısı'nda Önemli Bir Görevli: Beytülmâl-i Hassa ve Âmme
Emini”, (presented in CIEPO 2000) Tuncer Baykara (Der.), CIEPO XIV. Sempozyumu
Bildirileri, Ankara: TTK, 2004 pp. 149-161.
256 The uses of the terms like beytülmalci (TS.MA.e 638/6), zabit-i beytülmal (MŞH.ŞSC,
2458/vr.17a), and a decree that directly touches upon the norms of property claiming for the
beytülmal revenues (MŞH.ŞSC.d, 2458/vr.76b) manifest that the history of the institution in
the Ottoman Empire goes back to before 1460s.; see also Halil İnalcık, “Bursa Şer‘iye
Sicillerinde Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in Fermanları”, Belleten, 1947, pp. 693-708, fermans 3, 8
and 11.; Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri I, İstanbul: Fey
Vakfı Yay., 1990, pp.575-576.
97
not capable of that for any reason; like being missing, or not being the age of maturity yet.
However, the officers also focused much on the potential beytülmal returns for the imperial
treasury. Besides, in some cases, the officers look out for their own benefit in collecting
beytülmal revenues. Saying the least, if arrangements were not undersood well by the
officers, there might be a clash of claims that causes grievances among the claiming parties.
Below, the beytülmal regulations in general and the provincial kanunnâmes issued
between 1450 and 1674 will be examined. That is between the earliest general rules found,
so far, in Mehmed II’s decrees, and the date of the decree found at the end of many copies of
the Kanunnâme-i Cedid.257 The latter text is an important source to follow the changes and
the alterations made to the earlier regulations as well as new ones in the late sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. This ‘compilation’ is preferred as it was widely used in the seventeenth
century Ottoman courts.258 The fetvas, fermans, and kanuns included in this ‘compilation’
were issued by different legal scholars to solve the problems of the era.
3.3.1 The Law Code of Mehmed II
257 Halil İnalcık, “Ḳānūnnāme” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. IV, ed. E. Van
Donzel, B. Lewis And Ch. Pellat and C. E. Bosworth, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997, pp. 562-567.
258 Since this text included an extensive range of rules, and was used by the kadıs as a law code,
it is to be regarded a kanunnâme. However, İnalcık rightly name it as a compilation too, as
its organization, array and form of the rules were different, and might be said disarranged
compared to earlier general kanunnâmes. İnalcık, “Ḳānūnnāme” in The Encyclopaedia of
Islam.
98
The earliest kanunnâme text that dealt with the beytülmal regulations in a general
sense dates back to Mehmed II’s period as far as we know.259 Along with the registers in
Bursa şer’iyye sicils that concern the specific cases regarding the beytülmal revenues, this
text would have been a basis for the later substantive beytülmal regulations.
In this text, the Anatolian kadıs are addressed for being aware of the inheritance
(tereke) that is without an heir (veledeti gâib). In case a şer’i beytülmal is found; it should
be delivered to the beytülmal officers (amils). They are the claimers in case the value of the
inheritance worth less than 10,000 akçes (on binden aşağısın amillerüme teslîm eyleyesiz).
If its values is more than that, then, the amils should take it for the imperial treasury (beglik
içün zabt idesiz). If the inheritance is a non-şer’i beytülmal,260 the kadıs should prepare two
registers that record and describe the inheritance in detail (şerh and tafsil). Both the kadı and
amil will hold a copy so that in case the heir appears they claim based on this record (ol
tafsillerin mucebince tesâhub edeler). The amils and the kadıs are warned that they should
not drive the individuals to make their claims to the imperial center (kapumda talep
olunmaya). Morever, the kadıs are also warned for causing the beytülmal to be taken by their
own men (beytülmâli siz kendü âdemlerinüze bel’ ettürmeyesiz...).
Considering the cases in Bursa şer’iyye sicils, it would not be wrong to claim that the
beytülmal institution is operating in the core lands of the empire early in the fifteenth century.
259 “Sûretü’l-hükmi’s-sultânî li-ecl-i beyti’l-mâl” (BOA. MŞH.ŞSC.d., 2458/vr.76b); Ahmed
Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri v.1, (İstanbul: FEY vakfı yay.,
1990), p.575.; Halil İnalcık, “Bursa Şer’iyye Sicillerinde Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in
Fermanları”, Belleten c. XI, s.44, Ankara: TTK, 1947, pp. 693-708.
260 With “şer’i beytülmal”, the kanunnâme might refer to the theory of public reveneus in fiqh
books in which the heirless properties are in the fourth category of revenues, i.e. regarded as
a şer’i revenue. Thus, if the conditions do not meet to claim the properties, that would be
non-şer’i beytülmal, thus subject to the follow the procedures.
99
Apart from the amil, the sicils included the term beytülmal in the meaning of revenue,261 and
the beytülmalci or zabit-i beytülmal262in the meaning of the officer in charge.
The Kanunnâme-i Âli Osman, compiled in the period of Mehmed II, does not include
beytülmal regulations. The debate related to the sources of this kanunnâme uses the statement
‘bu kanunnâme atam ve dedem kanunudur, benim dahi kanunumdur”, as the base
argument.263 With that, the rulers made a reference to their father and grandfather as the
earlier lawgivers as well as the appliers of that law code. Thus, Mehmed II compiled the
disorganized rules known in the Ottoman realm before him. However, this kanunnâme: (i)
was not inclusive of all the rules applied before Mehmed II, and (ii) was not exclusive of the
rules he, not the fathers, legislate.264 In this respect, altough this code left the beytülmal
regulations unaddressed, the institution was in function according to registers in Bursa
Şer’iyye sicils.
The second kanunnâme attributed to Mehmed II was copied during the reign of
Bayezid II, June 1488. The rules in this kanunnâme suggest that it was compiled by the
261 “…Beğ sancağı livâsını Şehâbeddin Paşa tasarrufunda olandan gayrı ve Sultanöyüğü ve
Bilecik ve İznikmüd ve İnönü yavasın ve beytülmalın dutan Birincioğlu Mehmed…” (BOA,
MŞH.ŞSC. d, 2458/vr.59a), 16 Mart 1479
262 “…Metrûkâtından bir evini beytülmalciden dört bin altı yüz akçaya satun almış idüm.” (BOA,
MŞH.ŞSC. d, 2458/vr.237b) 6 Şubat 1480; “…ve padişah tarafından zâbit-i beytülmal olan
Mevlânâ Muhyiddîn…” (BOA, MŞH.ŞSC. d., 2458/vr.17a), 1478.
263 Abdülkadir Özcan, Kânunnâme-i Âl-i Osman, ed. Erol Özvar (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2003)
pp.XIX-XXI.
264 For instance, in the field of criminal code the rules applied before the kanunnâme can be
found, but in the Teşkilat Kanunnâmesi, there are many new rules decreed by the Sultan’s
own kanunnâme. Halil İnalcık; “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş Örfi-Sultani Hukuk ve Fatih’in
Kanunları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, XIII, 1958, pp.116-117
100
initiative of Mehmed II after the conquest of Costantinople.265 Based on İnalcık’s
classification of the kanunnâmes, this copy266 might be said as a yasaknâme-kânunnâme. 267
The text, Kanunnâme-i Mihaliç Hükm-i Sureti was particularly prepared to authorize
an amil for a proper property claim, and to lay down the procedure for the beytülmal revenues.
The land in question is designated as Hass-ı Hümayun, the private land of the Sultan in Bursa.
Hamza, the holder of this private land requested a hukm for the right of disposition on the
beytiülmal revenues in the region:
“Şimdiki halde Mihaliç hasların dutan Hamza kapuma gelüb şöyle bildürdi ki,
ol haslarda beytü’l-mal ve yuva ve kaçkun vaki’ olur, amma elümde hükmüm
olmaduğı sebebden ne üzre tasarruf edeceğimi bilmezem deyü, eyle olsa eline işbu
hükm-i hümayunı verdim.”268
Though this kanunnâme is prepared for the beytülmal in the private lands of the
Sultan, the procedure to be followed is practically consistent with the later kanunnâmes.
Through this specific kanunnname, I will examine the scope of the properties in question, the
rules, and the course of action for public and private property claims in the 15th century.
The property (beytülmal, yava and kaçgun) without heirs.
• Amil (officer in charge) should keep it by means of kadı (şol meyyitun ki benum vilayetumde
ve gayri vilayetlerde varisi olmaya anın gibi metrukatı kadıma'rifetiyle amil alub zabt ede).
• If the heir is missing (gâib): Prepare two records in accord; one for the kadı and one for the
amil (officer in charge).
265 Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş: Örf-i Sultani Hukuk ve Fatih’in Kanunları” in
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Toplum ve Ekonomi, (İstanbul, Eren Yayınevi, 1996), pp.116-118.
266 See f.n 25 in Halil İnalcık and Robert Ahnegger, Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i
Osmani: II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasakname ve Kanunnâmeler, Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000, p.XV
267 Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş: Örf-i Sultani Hukuk ve Fatih’in Kanunları” Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu Toplum ve Ekonomi, (İstanbul, Eren Yayınevi, 1996), pp.124.
268 İnalcık and Ahnegger, Kanunnâme-i Sultani, pp.70-71, Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.1,
pp.615-616.
101
- Wait the property in custody for six months:
• In this six-month period, if anyone comes and prove its claim of being the heir, kadı gives the
property in full to that (kadı varise bî-küsûr teslim ede)
• In this six-month period; if no one comes for claiming, amil sells the property by means of
kadı (kadıma’rifetiyle, bey’ men yezid)
- The amil takes the pay and use it (bahasın amil alub tasarruf ede)
- If the heir comes and able to prove it şer'an [after six-months], pursuant to the kadı's
record, amil gives the pay in full to this heir.
• If the property worth more then 10.000 akçes
- The kadıs should keep it in safe for the ruler (emânet-birle benüm için).
- For that beytülmal, if an heir comes up after three years and prove its claim, the amil
in charge should pay it in full (amilden bî-küsur ala, gelüb kapumdan taleb etmeye).
• In case of a kaçgun, when amil found those slaves,
- They should report that to the kadı.
- The kadı assigns mainteanance (nafaka) and keep it in a safe place for three-month
period.
• If the owner comes and claim its ownership şer’an; s/he should pay the slave’s nafaka and
muştuluk269 to amil as per custom (adet üzere);
- 30 akçes, for a day long way
- 60 akçes, for two days long way
- 90 akçes, for three days long way
- 100 akçes, if more or a month-long way
• If no one comes,
- Kadı and amil sell the kaçkun in auction, the amil takes the pay and uses it.
• If the owner comes after three-month and is able to prove it şer’an;
- Kadı takes the payment from the amil and delivers it to the owner.
• If an amil’s commission ends and the next amil comes into office, the former is still in charge
of:
- The inheritance that fell to the beytülmal but not heard during his period:
- The former amil should be informed about the inheritance (not heard in his time)
- This amil should also inform the kadı; they prepare a record for that and wait for only
one-month270 in custody.
- If the heir comes and prove, the amil delivers it in full
- If no one comes, the amil and the kadı sell that in an auction, and amil takes the pay
and uses it.
269 A present (or money) given to a bringer of good news.
270 Compared to six-months, this is a short time for waiting a private claim on property. This is
propbaly because the amil and the kadı take into consider the longevity of the period before
they heard about the inheritance.
102
§ If an heir comes and proves it şer’an, according to kadı’s record, the amil
gives the pay to this heir in full.
• The inheritances whose period in custody is not completed.
- The same procedure is applied.
This kanunnâme ends with warning the local officers (sancakbeyi, kadı, subaşı), and
agents (mahalle kethüdası and imam) for keeping an eye on and not hiding the beytülmal
revenues in their region (“…bana müte‘allık olan beytü’l-mali gizlemeyeler). This text sheds
light upon the earlier form, wording and scope of the legal doctrine for the beytülmal. The
kanunnâmes, do not use the term beytülmal except these specific regulations concerning to
the beytülmal institution. So as to mean ‘beytülmal’ (either public treasury or revenue) and
‘mîrî’, it majorly uses the term ‘beğlik’ (beğlik idesiz, beğlige zabt idesiz, beğlik ta’yin
olunan, beğlik tohum, beğlik anbar etc.).271
In respect to a government organization, this might not be a surprise as Mehmed II’s
period had witnessed a sophisticated and extensive program in bureaucratic organization, that
is from beglik to empire, and the use of the concepts was only keeping pace with that.
However, wiht respect to the beytülmal institution, this might mean that it was quite
extensively functioning in the Ottoman lands, perhaps even before Mehmed II as the use of
the term was devoted only to the institution.
3.3.2 Regulations Under the Reign of Bayezid II
271 “…Şimdi zabt olunmamak ile telef olunub ne sağire ve ne beğliğe raci' olandan nesne zahir
olmaz olmuş…” Süret-i Kanunnâme-i İkizce Tabi’i Bursa Der Zamanı Muhyiddin Bin Hacı
Hıdır Fermûde, Akgündüz, ı, p.609; “…ve her kimde kalb akça bulursa kadi ve subaşi katina
ilede, anlar dahi teftiş edeler, kalibzanlugi şer‘ile sabit olursa hükm edeler, kulum boğazından
asup rızkını beglik ede.” Nevabiri Ma’deni Gümüş Yasağı Hükmü Sureti, İnalcık, Ahnegger,
p. 9.
103
The general kanunnâme attributed to Bayezid II, titled Kitâb-ı Kavânîn-i Kânûn-i
Osmâni, was copied in 1501.272 Although this kanunnâme is mainly based on the
Kanunnâme-i Osmani of Mehmed II, more than its half was arranged first in his period. For
instance, the issues in the first two babs (chapter) of the Bayezid II’s kanunnâme were only
touched as subjects in Mehmed II’s. Thus, Bayezid II’s was the first in terms of the scope,
arrangement, and codification (tedvîn) of the rules it includes and become a source for the
typical Ottoman laws.273
Kavanin-i ‘Örfiyye-i Osmani includes three babs, and seventeen fasıls (sections). In
the preamble of this kanunnâme, the content is summarized as follows; the first chapter is
devoted to the cinâyât, i.e., the criminal law; the second chapter is devoted to taxes collected
by sipahi, and the beytülmal (revenues), and the third chapter is devoted to the matters related
to the reâyâ (reâyâya muhtâss).
The beytülmal regulations were introduced in the third fasıl (“Bâcı ve Beytü’l-malı
beyân eyler”) of the second bâb (“sipahi ve beytü’l-mal, ve sipahiye reâyadan aid olan rüsûm
beyânında”). Only two of the twenty-four clauses are beytülmal regulations. The rest is
devoted to the regulations about bâc. Additionally, the methodology of codification of this
kanunnâme is mind-bending. For instance, under the title of third fasıl, three local-specific
kânûns were placed, these are Kânûn-ı Kapan-ı Semendire, Kânûn-ı Âb-ı Morava, and
Kânûn-ı Vilâyet-i Rudnik respectively. The clauses concerning the beytülmal come under
272 Konya Koyunoğlu Library. For the attribution of this kanunnâme see Akgündüz,
Kanunnameler v.2, p.34.; Fatma Gül Karagöz, “The Evolution of Kânûnnâme Writing in the
16th and 17th century-Ottoman Empire: A Comparison of Kânûn-i Osmânî of Bayezid II and
Kânûnnâme-i Cedîd”, MA Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, 2010, pp.18-21.
273 Halil İnalcık, “Suleiman the Law-giver and the Ottoman Law” in The Ottoman Empire,
Conquest, Organization and Economy, London: Vairorum Reprints, 1978, pp.126-127.
104
Kânûn-ı Vilâyet-i Rudnik. The locality was not emphasized in the clauses, they were overtly
general. The place and the shortness of the beytülmal issue in this kanunnâme connotate that
the copyist subjoined the clauses there as the taxes were not dealt with based on a general
method or rule for taxation. Particularly, the local cases dealt with before the beytülmal imply
that the casuistic method was applied that takes into consideration infinite numbers of causes
and effects and different social groups.274
Neither in wording nor in scope, the kanunnâme of Mihaliç was not repeated. The
clauses are concise and different; a new actor came in the scene, vâsi,275 the waiting period
was extended for mefkûd to a year, and a warning-like emphasis on the definitions of gâib
and mefkûd was made.276 The copiest titled the second bâb naming the beytülmal,277 but the
regulations in the cluster are predominantly related to bâc.
3.3.2.1 Kanunnâme-i Beytülmal-i Hassa
This kanunnâme is the first that touches upon specifically the beytülmal-i hassa, i.e.,
the division of the beytülmal revenues and their particular regulations. Although there are
274 Baber Johansen, “Casuistry: Between Legal Concept and Social Praxis”, Islamic Law and
Society, 1995, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1995), pp. 135-156.
275 “…bir yerde beytü'l-mal vâki' olsa, vâki’ olduğu gibi kadıdefterine yazlub beytü’lmalciya
teslim oluna. Eğer vârisi ma’lum olursa, def’i beytülmalciya verilmeye. Belki vâsî elinde altı
ay mikdârı dura. Eğer vâris gelmez ise beyt'ül-malcıya teslim oluna. Sonra vâris gelürse
beyt'ül-malcıdan ala. Ve eğer vâris hâric-i memleketde olub mekânı ma'lûm olmaz ise, o
kişiye mefkûd derler. Bir yıl mikdârı vâsî elinde dura. Sonra beyt'ül-malcıya teslim ola.”
276 “Mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûd deyü beyt'ül-mal ile bile mukata`ya verilen tereke-i meyyit
olandır. Her evinden çıkub sefer eden kişinin değildir yahud malını emânet koyub giden
kişinin malı değildir.” This emphasis was repeated commonly in later kanunames.
277 “Sipahi ve beytü’l-mal ve sipahiye reâyadan `aid olan rüsûm beyânında”
105
five copies of this kanunnâme, none of them are dated.278 Based on its wording and references
to the regulations of Mehmed II, Akgündüz attributes this code to the reign of Bayezid II.
However, the references in this kanunnâme do not remind the beytülmal regulations of
Mehmed II.
This kanunnâme was designed particularly for three matters related to the beytülmali
hassa (i) the beytülmal revenues from the heirless properties of the deceased government
functionaries (mansıbı ve ciheti olanlar) (ii) any heirless properties which amount to ten and
more than ten thousand akçes; (iii) the beytülmal cases that involve claims of debts in three
levels (da’vayı deyn, pl. duyûn).
Though vasî (guardian), who is a third person between the owner and the public
claimant, was not touched upon in the regulations of Mehmed II, this kanunnâme includes it.
A vasî is either appointed (vasî-i meyyit) by the ex-owner or by the kadı (kıbel-i şer’den nasb)
to keep the property in the custody of a person. His witnessing is necessary particularly for
the cases of debts (vasî muvâcehesinde vilâyet kadıları teştîş edüb). The regulations of this
kanununnâme are as follows,
1. Regardless of the amount of property, the beytülmal revenues from the
government functionaries, and their relatives are not sold to the amils, i.e., to a
mukata’a holder (or worker)
2. The beytülmal of non-government functionaries worth more than ten thousand
akçes are not sold to the amils.
3. If there are claimants (guremâ) to the beytülmal, the local kadıs should properly
solve the cases (only the claims between fifty akçes and three thousand akçes),
278 Akgündüz, Kanunnâmeler v.2, p. 118
106
pay the debts from the inheritance, and inform the imperial center in detail. The
rest of the property is sent to İstanbul.
4. If the claim of debt is between three thousand and ten thousand akçes, first the
local governors and the kadıs (vulât-ı vilâyet and kudât-ı memleket) properly hear
the case279 before the hükm, the kadıaskers in the imperial center listen and check
the cases to resolve (kable’l-hükm nakl-i şehâdet). If the claim of debt is ten or
more than then thousand akçes, the local kadıs sent those cases to İstanbul with
the witnesses of claimants to be resolved. However, this kanun was changed to
cover all the claimants (regardless of the amount) and all witnesses. This resulted
in the suffering and hurting of the Muslims. Then, the last changes were nulled
(bu bâbda sonradan ihdâs olunan kaziyyeleri ref’ eyledim).
5. Thus, as in the time of Mehmed II, the cases of perakende and hurde debts
(duyûns between hundred and three thousand akçes) should be resolved, in their
localities.
6. Claims between three thousand and ten thousand akçes are first heard in the
locality, then, through nakl-i şehadet, the kadıasker in the imperial center
resolves the case.280
279 “Ber mûceb-i şer’i kavim şâhidlerin anda istimâ’ tamam ta’dil ve tezkiye ettikten sonra”
280 This rule also issued later in a fetva in the Kanunnâme-i Cedid: “Emr-i Sultânî vefât idüb malı
beytü’l-mâle raci`olanın duyunu 3000’e vardıkda, cümlesinin istimâ`ı olunmayub âsitâneye
havâle olunmağladır, nâs bundan gâfiller olmağın nâkıs olanı istimâ`iderler, gaflet
olunmaya.” Pir Mehmed.
107
7. Claims of more than ten thousand should be sent to the imperial center with the
claimant’s witnesses.281
8. Whether the claimants are paid by the beytülmal emins, or by the public treasury,
Hazine-i Âmire, the amount should be handed over through defterdârs before the
paşas and kadıaskers in Dîvân-ı Âli.
This is a very interesting and important kanunnâme that sheds light on an unknown
regulation of Mehmed II related to the beytülmal-i hassa. Almost the entire kanunnâme is
devoted to how to deal with the debt claims of three different levels of the beytülmal of
government functionaries. Besides, it also reveals the problems faced by the kadıs and the
imperial center in handling the cases of third-party claimants in the early modern period.
There are three significant points in this text:
i. The kanunnâme implies that the regulations, concerning the three levels of claimants
on the beytülmal, were made during the reign of Mehmed II
ii. After applying this regulation for a while, the imperial center attempted to control
and hear all these cases of debt claimants in person in Porte (“…sonra bu kanun
ri’ayet olunmayub bunların gibilerin terekesinden da’vay-ı deyn edenler, kalîlen
kâne kesîran, cem’i şâhidleriyle Dergâh-ı Mu’allâya irsâl oluna, kudât-ı vilâyet
istimâ’ etmeye deyü emr olunub…”)
iii. This alternation was cancelled, and the regulations of Mehmed II was referenced
again as the basis of the application of the law “…Müslümanlar bundan ziyâde
281 A summary-like rule covering three levels of debt claims is given towards the end of the
kanunnâme as “Kudât-ı memleket bu üslûb üzre âmil olub hurde deyn ve vesâyâ ki, üç binden
ekall ola, anda ba'de’s-sübût tenfiz eyleyüb arz edeler ve on binden ekall olanı ba'des-sübût
kabl'et-tenfiz ve’s-sarf arz edüb, on bin ve on binden ziyadesin istima' etmeyüb şahidleriyle
müdde'ileri Dergâh-ı mu'allâma göndereler.” Akgündüz, Kanunnameler, v.2 p.121.
108
mutazarrır olub her husûsda şâhidleriyle kapuma gelmekde fevk ‘al-hadd ‘usr ve
zaruret çeküb rencide oldukları… bu bâbda sonradan ihdâs olunan kaziyyeleri ref’
eyledüm.”
Since the sultan is bestowed authority to put these revenues to the benefit of his
subjects, he is the ultimate legatee, or claimer, of all heirless properties of his subjects, and a
direct heir to his servants’. This is because of Sultan’s role as ‘trustee of the community’s
resources’,282 and these resources are perpetual trust administered by the public treasury (bayt
al-mal).283 Thus, in cases of the beytülmal,284 of government functionaries, the first right to
claim the property goes to the Sultan. Captives, yeniçeris,285 servants in the private lands of
the sultan, particularly the ortakçı kuls with their belongings and children are subject to the
sultans’ right to claim. Thus, he could assign these kuls, cariyes, their children, seeds, çifts,
and belongings to a vakıf or temlik.286 Expectedly, as a repercussion of this position, the
282Ariel Salzmann, “An Ancien Régime Revisited: ‘Privatization’ and Political Economy in the
Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire”, Politics & Society, 21(4), 1993, p. 396.
283 Engin D. Akarlı, “The Ruler and Law Making” in Law and Empire Ideas, Practices, Actors
(ed. Jeroen Duindam et al.) London-Boston: Brill, 2013, p. 100
284 The term ‘beytülmal’ is used as a noun in the meaning of heirless properties like ‘bir yerde
beytü’l-mâl vâki’ olsa’; ‘ol beytü’l-mâli âmil zabt eder’.
285 The beytülmal of the janissaries is later organized different than other groups. Rather than
assigning or selling these revenues to other persons as a revenue of the public treasury, their
beytülmal was kept in the military units. The regulations related to the janessary beytülmal
stated in Kavânîn-i Yeniçeriyân and further scrunity will be handled in the fourt chapter.
286 “Padişahımız hullidet hilâfetühu...‘âtifet-i husrevâniden mezkûr köyi hudud ve sınuru ile ve
içinde mütemekkin olan kulları ve cevârîsi ve evlâdı ve ebniyesi ve çiftleri ve tohumları ve
esbâbları ve besâtîni ve küûm ve kâğıttane ütmek içün bina olunan ebniye ile ve önünde olan
çayırdan on dönüm çayır ile ve mezkûr köyün yavası, kaçkunu ve beytülmâl ve mâl-ı gâib ve
109
addressee of the lawsuits concerning debt claims in the beytülmal was Dergâh-ı Mu’allâ, and
the local courts.287
3.3.3 Der Beyân-ı Kânûn-i Beytülmal ve Sâir Ahvâl (The Declaration of the
Law of Beytülmal and Other Circumstances) in Selim I’s Kanunnâme
An earlier copy of the general kanunnâme of Selim I was found by Yaşar Yücel after
they printed the first part of their book. Copied in Istanbul288 in 1520, it sheds light on the
precision of the earlier copies, as well as the ‘law of beytülmal’. This copy was divided into
unnumbered fasıls, subheaded with the statement of topics (Der Beyâns).
Compared to the regulations dealt with above, this might be said the most general
regulation in terms of its addressee. Though Mehmed II’ kanunnâme of Mihaliç concerned
with the private lands of the Sultan, the procedure for claiming the beytülmal revenues was
not significantly different. However, this kanunnâme was neither devoted to a specific region,
mâl-ıi mefkûdu ve cürm ve cinayeti ve sâyir müteveccihâtı ile bervechi serbest merhum
Çenderci-zâde defterdâr Mehmed cÇelebiye temlik idüb envâ‘ı vücûh-ı mülkiyet üzere
mülkü mahzi ve hakkı sırfı olsun deyü Cemâziyelevvel sene erba' tis‘în ve semâne mie ile
müverrah mülknâme vermiş görüldü.” (April 1489) quoted by Ömer L Barkan in “XV. ve
XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Toprak İşçiliğinin Organizasyonu Şekilleri,
Kulluklar ve Ortakçı Kullar”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.1. s.1, 1939,
pp. 29-74.
287 For a discussion on the weight of nakl-i şehâdet in the beytülmal cases see Abdurrahman
Atçıl, “Procedure in the Ottoman Court and the Duties of Kadıs”, MA thesis, Bilkent
University, pp.69-73.
288 This part is written only by Yaşar Yücel. Tough he published the transcription and the
facsmile of this kanunnâme, he does not give further detail about the place or the library he
found it. Yücel&Pulaha, 1. Selim Kanunnâmeleri (1512-1520) TTK, 1995 pp. 140-146.
110
nor a part of the revenues, like Bayezid II’s. Since the procedure in this code is similar to
Mehmed II’s code, only two different clauses will be examined.289
- The amils should not allow claiming in the Sultan’s door (gelup kapumdan talep
etmeye).
- The amils should appoint a deputy for themselves in each judicial-administrative
unit, if the heir appears, no need to see the amil in person; proving heirship to the
deputy’s face is enough.
Taking into consideration the waiting period of the inheritance, the heirs might have
some difficulties in waiting for the amil. The reason for that might be the safety of the
properties in question, like the fear of spoilage (foods for consumption or sale), or the
destitute heirs who are really in need of that inheritance, etc. However, ending the customary
period (müddet-i örfiyye) also poses some problems for heirs. After six-month period, the
property is sold in the market. If the heir comes, s/he could only claim the money, not the
property.290 Though this money is full (bî-küsûr) in theory, it is not in practice. If applied, the
fees deducted from the inheritance are as follows: The fees for craft and coffin (techîz and
tekfîn), the fees for division of the inheritance (resm-i kısmet), for carriage (hammâliye),
selling (dellâliye), market police (dîdebâniye), and fees for bringer of good news
289 In this kanunnâme text, abd-i âbık, kenizek (a young women slave), yava, kaçkun are dealt
under the fasıl of “Der Beyân-ı Tımarha-i Serbest” instead of beytülmal section. Ömer Lütfi
Barkan, Kanunlar I, p. 19; Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.3, pp. 157-158.
290 Mes’ele: Kaçkun kulun müddet-i ‘örfiyyesi bittikten sonra hâkim izniyle olan bey’ şer’an
sahih olur mu?
El-Cevâb: Sâhibi zâhir olucak, yavacısından akçesin alur, kulı almağa kâdir olmaz. Ma’ruzat,
Ebussuud. Akgündüz, Kanunnâmeler, v.4, p. 45.
111
(müjdegâne), etc.291 So as to avoid those deductions, heirs need to prove their heirship (isbâtı
verâset) in six-month.292 There were frequent complaints on the operation of beytülmal that
some rules were ignored and the properties were taken too quickly without proper verification
and due process. Referencing Selim I, in his Âsafnâme, Lütfi Paşa (d.1563) describes the
situation and criticizes the inadequacy of the time given to the heirs to establish their claims;
Vezîr-i a‘zam Pâdiş’ahı meyl-i mâldan ve mâl takribi ile vebâlden hıfz eyleye.
Ve beytü’l-mâl namına olan akçeyi Bab-ı Hümâyûn’da varisi gelince saklayalar.
Merhum Sultan Selim Han zaman-ı şerîflerinde yedi yıla değin tavakkuf ederlerdi.
Zira öyle emir etmiş idi. Ol zamane değin varis gelmez ise hazîneye zabt olunurdu.
Zira emvâl-i halk bi-vechi dâhil-i mâl-ı padişah-ı olmak fenay-i devlete dâldir. Ve
belki bütün hazine-i beytü’l-mâlin itlâf ve perîşân ve bî-bereket ve belki nizâm-ı
devlete dahî muhtell ve ‘ibâdu’llah devlete sokulmağa bâ'isdir. Zîrâ ekseri hakk-ı
eytâm terettüb ider maldan hazer itmek vâcibdir.293
Based on this, what Lütfi Paşa refers to in Selim I’s beytülmal enforcement would be
the price after it is sold to third persons. The waiting for the price before inclusion into
Hazine-i Amire was at most three years. However, the author’s reference to waiting for seven
years might be an exception, if not also a common practice.
3.3.4 Beytülmal and the Lawgiver
291 Arif Bilgin and Fatih Bozkurt “Bir Mâli Gelir Kaynağı Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin Terekeleri
ve Beytülmâl Mukataaları.” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20, 2010/
2. pp. 1-31.
292 Even in this six-months period, some of the expenses need to be covered by the inheritance.
293 Mübühat S. Kütükoğlu, Lütfi Paşa Âsafnâmesi: Yeni Bir Metin Tesisi Denemesi, İstanbul:
İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1991, pp.10-11.
112
The general kanunnâmes attributed to Süleyman I is quite a lot.294 The kanunnâme
texts are more or less similar with respect to their content, but the organization and the form
of the texts are different. Based on these features, two general kanunnâmes copied under the
auspices of Süleyman I will be examined.295 The first one is found in Millet Kütüphanesi,
Ali Emîrî Efendi, Kavânîn, 74. This text was copied early in the 1520s,296 probably, by
nişancı Seydi Bey, one of Celâlzâde Mustafa Çelebi’s master.297 Although this copy mainly
followed Selim I’s kanunnâmes, it does not include a section devoted to beytülmal, or a
regulation. The second kanunnâme is found in Topkapı Sarayı, Revan, 1935, ff.11-40. This
was copied by Nişancı Celâlzâde Mustafa Çelebi as stated in a very similar copy in
Süleymaniye Library, Reîsulküttab (Âşir Ef.), 1004. The date of the copy was probably
between 1539-1541.298 The greater part of this text follows the kanunnâme of Bayezid II
copied in 1501. The beytülmal is addressed only in two clauses that were examined above in
Bayezid II’s kanunnâme.
294 Uriel Heyd, Studies in Ottoman Criminal Law, ed.V. L. Menage, Oxford: Clarenden Press,
1973, pp.36-37.
295 Akgündüz, Kanunnamaler v.4, pp. 294, 361.; Mehmet Şakir Yılmaz, “Koca Nişanci of
Kanuni: Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi, Bureaucracy and Kanun in The Reign of Süleyman The
Magnificent (1520-1566)”, Ph. D Diss., Ankara: Bilkent University, 2006, pp. 200-202.;
Fatma Gül Karagöz, “Kânûnnâme-i Cedîd”, MA thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, 2010,
pp.50-55.
296 Enver Çakar, “Kanunı̇ Sultan Süleyman Kanun-Nâmesı̇ne Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu’nun İdarı̂ Taksı̇matı” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, c.12, s.1,
2002, pp. 261-282.
297 Mehmet Şakir Yılmaz, “Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi”, Ph. D Diss., Ankara: Bilkent University,
2006, pp. 30, 45.; Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.4, pp. 293-294.
298 Uriel Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, p. 27
113
Although the general rules and the procedure remained more or less same, the
provincial kanunnâmes issued under Süleyman I left its mark on the administration of
property claims in many senses. Letting aside the specific and intra-institutional
arrangements, the beytülmals based on the status of land per se arouses interest during this
period and will be examined in the provincial kanunnâmes section.
3.4 Regulations After the Classical Age: Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth
Centuries
The general kanunnâmes promulgated in the second half of the 16th and the early 17th
century, namely under the rules of Selim II, Murad III, Mehmed III, and Ahmed I, majorly
followed the rules set during the reign of Süleyman I. However, based on the developments
that took place at the turn of the century, like the Celâli revolts, and the weakening of the
tımar regime, brought forth the early phase of the transformation of the system. The
regulations, particularly the sancak kanunnâmes, dealt with the problems based on
maintaining proper functioning of the subjects in the mîrî lands, without leaving the lands
uncultivated, hence, a proper military service in the wars. Depending on these developments,
the beytülmal regulations were also paid attention to and regulated in this period.
As part of his second appointment as nişancı, Celâlzâde Mustafa Çelebi served more
than a year for Selim II.299 Among almost a hundred copies of kanunnâmes attributed to
Celâlzâde, Akgündüz identified three different versions issued during Selim II. The first is
authored by Celâlzâde, and the other two copies were compiled later by following nişancıs
299 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Onaltıncı Asır Ortalarında Yaşamış Olan İki Büyük Şahsiyet: Tosyalı
Celâl- zâde Mustafa ve Salih Çelebiler”. Belleten, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu c. XXII
s.87,1958, pp. 391-441.
114
as it includes their regulations too.300 Some beytülmal regulations in this kanunnâmes are
different from earlier. These regulations are found in the first301 and the third302 kanunnâmes
attributed to Celâlzâde. The issues of beytülmal are as follows; (i) free tımars (ii) materials
found in an aground ship (iii) kefere beytülmali (a non-Muslim from daru’l-harb).
1. In free tımars, beytülmal, mâlı-ı gâib, mâl-ı mefkûd, kul and cariye is all registered
(hâsıl kayd olunub) for the owner of tımar and zeamet, but this does not mean that yava are
also for them (“kul ve cariye muştuluğı serbestlikden olmağla yava anun olmaz”)303
This general rule of beytülmal for the free tımars is very common in the kanunnâmes.
However, according to kanunnâme attributed to Murad III, based on the contract, the zeamet
or tımar holder might be allowed to claim yava: “ve şol zeamet ki ibare-i yava kayd
olunmamıştır, sancak beği alur, ve kayd olunduysa sahib-i tımarındır.”304 A more elaborate
version of this rule is issued in Ahmed I’s general kanunnâme305 under the title of ‘Der Beyanı
Tımar’. Here, in one peace of tımar land based on their contracts, the potential claimers are
300 Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, p. 221.
301 Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Reisulküttab Mustafa Efendi, no:1004 vr. 1b-29b
302 Süleymaniye Kütüphanes, Yazma Bağışlar, 1202.
303 Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, p. 243.
304 Dealt under the title of “Der Beyan-ı Tımar-ı Serbest” in the general kanunnname of Murad
III: “Suret-i Kanunnâme-i Sultani Der Zaman-ı Sultan Murad Han-ı Gazi”; Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi, Es'ad Efendi, No: 2362 published by Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.8, pp.107-
125.
305 Kavânîn-i Yeniçeriyân, was also copied during Ahmed I’s reign and includes extensive
regulations concerning to beytülmal revenues of the yeniçeris.
115
as follows; müsellem306, piyade307, yörügan, mübaşir-i vakıf, sancak beyi. The contract of one
claimer denies the other’s claim in partial or full.
Rather than the procedure, the clauses here directly focus on who is first to claim any
piece of the potential property in any piece of land like: “If captured, the peltries of a wildcat
and tiger is for the provincial ruler”.308
2. In the seas, if a ship runs aground or sinks, there are three claimants for the esbab309
in the ship: the heir, kapudan (admiral), and beytülmalci. According to that;310
- If the heir comes and establish its claim; half of it for kapudan, and the rest is
for the heir
- If no one claims, all goes to the kapudan
During his vizierate, İbrahim Paşa modified this rule: If the heir comes and
establishses their claim, he could get the entire esbab, but if no one comes there are two
obtions:
- If the kapudan was assigned these revenues already in his berât (letter of
appointment), he can get the entire esbab
- If he was not, beytülmalcı collects.
306 A group of mounted (yaya origin) soldiers, exemted form tax-paying in return for their work
in military or rear services. Feridun Emecen, “Yaya ve Müsellem” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi,
Vol.43, 2013, pp. 354-356.
307 Foot soldier (yaya).
308 “Ve dahi bir yerde vaşak ve kaplan dutulsa, postu sancak beğinindir. Meğer ki yaya ve
müsellem dutmış ola, anlarun kendülerinindir.” Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.9, p.517.
309 The means for travel, and other materials.
310 Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, p. 245.
116
3.The last one is rather more specific and seemingly based on real situations related
to the non-Muslims (kefere) of abode of war deceased in the domains.311 In case a non-
Muslim dies in the Memâlik-i Mahruse, his inheritance should be kept and registered by the
kadıs. For any claim of the inheritance either by heirs or guardians (veraset or vesayet), the
witnessing of the non-Muslims is permissible (şer’an). If no one claims, the beytülmalcı and
others are strictly denied these inheritances. The kadıs should keep them and wait for the
inheritance until a claimer’s coming from the deceased’s home country. If any claimer comes;
with the letter and kadı’s register of the inheritance, the claim is presented to the Porte. After
the order of inspection (kapudan emr edüb teftiş olunub) the following issues need to be
proven;312
- The claimer should come from the deceased’s hometown (ol vefat eden kimesnenin
velayetinde olub)
- The claimer should hold an affirmed paper from his hometowns’ officers (anların
beğlerinin kağıdı olup)
- The paper should confirm the claimers’ coming for this certain matter (ol maslahat
içun geldiği zahir olacak)
The first two might be related to the Ottoman way of revenue assigning. Reserving
the right of the actual heirs at first, the rules then guide the legal-ly claimers’ shares. So as to
provide a balanced share of revenue collection, the properties are disintegrated, or portioned,
but the claimer actors are knitted together through this revenue. The clauses reflect the nature
of the early modern Ottoman empire where the subjects, government functionaries, and the
imperial center were tied up to each other within a legally regulated financial web.
311 It is dealt under the title of “Ahvâl-i reâyâ-i kefere”.
312 Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, p. 356
117
However, the last one might be more related to the Ottoman politics of the non-
Muslims in the abode of war. The clauses elaborately explain a particular set of conditions
for a rightful claim, if not also a display of might and power and a just rule. This case might
have been related to the amount of the properties in question or to a specific arrangement
stated in ahidnames.
3.4.1 Kanunnâme-i Cedid: A New Role to Beytülmalci?
The rules in the copies of Kanunnâme-i Cedid313 texts are majorly given in fetva
form (mesele and el-cevap), issued by different Şeyhülislams.314 Both the form and the
wording of this kanunnâme text give the impression that the norms were checked and, if need,
reformulated, for their compatibility to the şer-i şerîf (“…Ebussuûd Efendi hazretlerinin
asrında olan kanunnâme-i sultandır ki şer’-i şerife muvafakati mukarrer olub halen muteber
olan kavanîn ve mesâildir”).315
The greater part of the code316 deals with the beytülmal in different contexts. The
fetvas and the rules are majorly devoted to the vacant lands (mahlûl çiftliks or other mîrî
313 Osmanlı Kânûnnâmeleri, Milli Tetebbular Mecmuası, 1331, c. 1/s.1, pp. 49-112.; M. Macit
Kenanoğlu also mentions this kanunnâme as prepared in the reign of Süleyman I based on
the introduction and the footnote given in MTM’s printed copy. “Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri
Neşriyâtı Üzerine Bir Tahlil”, TALİD 3:5, 2005, pp. 152-153.
314 Fatma Gül Karagöz examined the contributors to the Kanunnâme-i Cedid in her masters
thesis. Fatma Gül Karagöz, “Kânûnnâme-i Cedîd”, MA thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University,
2010, pp.166-177.
315 Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri”, Milli Tetebbular Mecmuası, 1331, c. I, sy. 1, p. 49.
316 For the Kanunnâme-i Cedid text Fatma Gül Karagöz’s critical edition is taken into account.
See her Appendix D in “Kânûnnâme-i Cedîd”, Master’s Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University,
2010, pp.216-434.
118
revenue yielding units like dalyans) and the transfer of the disposition rights to the heirs.
Although this study focuses more on the properties rather than the usufruct rights of the lands,
the circumstances of the tenants and the procedure applied in relevant cases are connected to
the beytülmal institution.
The regulations examined in the Kanunnâme-i Cedid imply that rather than the rights
of the private persons based on Islamic inheritance law, the lawmaker is concerned more with
the right of escheat of the government and keeping the revenues in the stream. However, the
rules in the cases of gâib and mefkûd shed light on the interest of the lawmaker in legal heirs
and their proper claiming of the inheritance. For instance, in cases of absent and missing
individuals who were tenants on the land317, if sahib-i arz does not have any piece of
information regarding their or heir’s alive, the estate should wait three years. In a decree
issued in Ahmed I’s reign in 1603, three years was found too long to wait the lands free of
cultivation (boz ve hâli), thus it was reduced to one year (nâ bedîd olub bir sene sıhhati haberi
gelmeyen kimesnelerin yerleri tapuya verilmek…).
Two later regulations (1604 and 1613) of this code confirm that the one-year period
was nullified, and three years were applied again.318 Based on Akgündüz’s copy, the general
kanunnâme issued under Ahmed I made this rule more explicit. Written under the section of
missing persons (Fasl Fî Beyân-ı Arzı’l-Mefkûd), the regulation allows sipahi to make a third
person cultivate the land (tasarruf etture) till the return of the missing in three years. If he
317 “Der beyan-ı kanun-ı ahval-i gâib ve mefkûd yani mutasarrıf olan nâ bedîd olsa ahkâm ve
kânûnu nicedir (ve esir nicedir)”. According to Karagöz’s publishing of “Kanunnâme-i
Cedid” Article, 201, p.308.
318 It is also issued under “Gâibin Hukuku” in another kanunnâme attributed to Ahmed I and
puplished by Yılmaz Kurt, “I. Ahmed (1603-17) Dönemine Ait bir Osmanlı Kânunnâmesi”
Belgeler, Türk Tarih Kurumu, c.XXXI, s. 35, 2010, p.25.
119
returns, he could get the usufruct rights again, as he is the first to claim the tapu. In case he
does not return, the tımar holder could give his right (tapuya vermek) to another person.
However, as a room for mercy, the tımar holder is still advised to give the tapu to the missing
person; it is better and rightful (evlâ ve lâyıktır), even if he returns after three years.319
This compilation is interesting regarding the responsibilities of the beytülmal emini.
In general, transferring and giving the right of disposition of a mîrî land to a third person
(ahara vermek) is the role of sahib-i arz, i.e. the sipahi. However, some clauses and fetvas of
this kanunnâme imply that in case land is rated “beytülmale raci’, beytülmal emini is also at
work and authorized to meet the case. Intrinsically, the logic of the institution does not deny
this. However, neither the earlier legal regulations nor the registers in the archival sources,
point to issuing a land tittle-deed (tapulamak) for beytülmalci: “…Hatta hiç vâris kalmayub
beytü’l-mâle kalsa beytü’l-mâl tarafından tapulanmaya fermân-ı âli sadır olmuşdur.”
Moreover, in cases of vacant land, the authority of sipahi clashes with the beytülmalci’s.320
There are further fetvas that substatiate this role of the officer under the section Kânûn der
beyân-ı emîn-i beytü’l-mal ve mevkufcu ve mabeyn mahsulüne müte’allik ahkâm ve kavânîn
nicedir:321
319 Ahmed Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri v.9, (İstanbul: OSAV,
1996), pp.533-534.
320 Nev-i ahar: Zeyd fevt olub terekesi beytül’l-male aid oldukda beytü’l-mal tarafından çiftliği
tapulanmağa taleb ve rağbet olunurken sâhib-i arz dilediğine virmeğe kâdir olur mu? Elcevab:
Bir kimesne fevt olub çiftliği beytü’l-male kalsa emlak bahasına noksan ve zarar
gelmemek içün beytü’l-mal tarafından tapulanmağa emr-i ‘ali vârid olmuşdur. Amma il
virdiği virilmekle (tapuya) virilmekle virilüb sipâhiye özr olunmaz. Ketebehu el fakir (Pir
Mehmed), Karagöz “The Evolution of Kanunnâme Writing” p.272.
321 Karagöz “The Evolution of Kanunnâme Writing” pp.385, 388.
120
“Zeyd Sipâhi fevt olub tımarın emîn-i beytü’l-mâl ve emîn-i mevkûfat zabt
iderken mahlûl olan yerleri tapuya virmeğe kādir olur mu?”. El-cevab: Me’mûr ise
olur. Ketebehu Ebussuud.”
“Zeyd sipâhi tımarı toprağında mahlûl olan tarlaları tapu ile virmedin Zeyd fevt
olub (hala Zeyd’in yerine) Amr ve sipâhi olub tarlaları tapu ile virmek murâd itdikde
(emîn-i beytü’l-mâl) (ben tarlaları tapu ile viririn dimeğe kadir) /mâni olur mu? Elcevab:
Bunun gibide tefvîzi me’mur ise olur. Ketebehu Mehmed Bahai.”
“Zeyd-i zâ`im ze`âmeti karyerlerinden hâsıl olan `öşr mahsûlün re`âyâdan alub
cem ve kabz itmedin fevt olmuş olsa `öşr-i mezbûru Zeyd’in veresesiyle emîn-i
beytü’l-mâl hangisi zabt ve kabz eder? El-cevab: Emîn-i beytü’lmâl kabz eder.
Ketebehu Yahya.”
Based on these fetvas, in some cases, if not always, the beytülmal officer is authorized
to tefvîz, i.e to transfer the right of using a property322 such as a building, a vacant (mahlûl)
land, or a dead land (mevât) to the third persons. As İnalcık states, “the tımar holder was
called sahib-i arz, the lord of the land, and sahib-i raiyyet, the lord of the peasants in his
tımar. This is because he had exclusive jurisdiction over the land and peasantry with full
authority to implement the stipulations of the regulations concerning mîrî lands and reaya.”323
The powers between the subjects and the imperial center over the miri lands were turned over
to tımar holders in return for professional military service. Though this kanunnâme
acknowledges the tımar holders’ right over the land, its inclusion of beytülmalci’s authority
calls to mind the decline of the tımar system in the late sixteenth century.
To conclude, the general kanunnâmes might be divided into two types. The first type
is promulgated by the lawgiver and his predecessors. In these kanunnâmes, the cluster of
beytülmal revenues is mentioned in all and the content of the texts is more concerned with
the heirship procedure for private claims. The same clauses might also imply, per se, the
procedure for public claims, i.e. escheat.
322Abdussamet Bakkaloğlu, "Tefvîz" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.40, 2011, pp. 310-311.
323 Halil İnalcık, “Tīmār”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. X, ed. P.J. Bearman
et al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000, pp. 502-507.
121
As for the second type, the general kanunnâmes prepared between the lawgiver and
Kanunnâme-i Cedid, the beytülmal regulations mainly focus on the rights of revenue
collection. Referencing oftentimes to kanun-ı kadim, or kanun-i Osmani for the procedure,
these clauses prescribe the shares on each potential beytülmal revenue among different
claimants. The content of these texts classifies, commercializes, and assigns unclaimed
properties for the landholders, or other military groups, as well as the mukataa holders.324
While the wording in the first group has an idealist approach that focuses on
establishing rightful claimers and holders, the second has a more practical and revenueoriented
approach. On the procedure of private claims, the latter either repeats the earlier
texts or does not mention it at all.
3.5 The Beytülmal in the Provincial Kanunnâmes
Halil İnalcık offers to scurtiny the Ottoman kanunnâmes under four main headings
based on their form.325 Among them, the regional vilayet or sancak (liva) kanunnâmes are
the local codes prepared for regulating the administration, taxation, and land tenure regime
in each significant province.326 These local codes are placed at the beginning of detailed
(mufassal) cadastral registers surveyed by the officers for each sancak. These are the
provinces and sub-provinces where the tımar system is applied. Being official laws of the
324 “Beyt’ül-mal ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûddan mukata'aya alan kimesneler şöyle i'lâm etmek
gerekdir ki…” The beytülmal mukataa was not referred in the general kanunnâmes before
Celâlzâde’s law code during Selim II. Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, p.342.
325 İnalcık, “Ḳānūnnāme” in The Encyclopedia of Islam.
326 Engin D. Akarlı, “Islamic Law in the Ottoman Empire”, Oxford International Encyclopedia
of Legal History v.4, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 263-270
122
empire, beylerbeyi’s council and kadı courts had to conduct in accordance with these
kanunnâmes.327
Many of the sancaks in question were newly conquered on which long-established
rules and traditions prevailed. So as to ensure conformity and harmony between certain
imperial rules and the Hanefî legal concepts, and established practice and relevant customs,
the sancak kanunnâmes were prepared based on the legislative authority of the ruler within
the Hanafi doctrine.328 They majorly determine tax rates, the ways of tax collecting by tımar
holders, rules for possessing, transference, and inheritance of the land under tımar system,
exemptions, immunities, and the status of the military in the sancaks.329
Based on the legal status of the land, the beytülmal revenues also fell under different
realms of authority in the sancaks. Its collection was determined by clauses related to the free
tımars, non-free tımars, vakıf lands, the military groups, and others depending upon their
contracts. Below, some of these clauses will be examined thematically.
3.5.1 Defining Borders for Claiming Beytülmal: Kanunnâme of Silistra
(1569)330
327 Halil İnalcık, “Suleyman The Lawgiver and Ottoman Law” in The Ottoman Empire:
Conquest, Organization and Economy, London: Variorum Reprints, 1978, pp. 105-138.
328 Engin D. Akarlı, “The Ruler and Law Making” in Law and Empire Ideas, Practices, Actors
(ed. Jeroen Duindam et al.) London-Boston: Brill, 2013, pp. 87-111.
329 İnalcık, “Suleyman the Lawgiver” p.112.
330 Barkan noted this kanunnâme as prepared during the reign of Süleyman I. However,
Akgündüz says this long version of the kanunnâme is copied under the reign of Selim II. This
long version includes sections regulated under the reign of Selim I and Süleyman I. Barkan,
Kanunlar I, p.270.; Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.3, p.465 and v.7, p. 712.
123
The legal regulations set for the Rumelian Sancaks have bold characteristics of
Byzantine and Slavic customary rules and institutions together with the features Kânûn-i
Osmanî.331 The administrative fields and the ethno-military divisions in Rumelia like eşkünci,
yamak, tatar and yörük were subject to a distinct set of regulations based on their service and
the land. Several articles of this kanunnâmes (Kavanîn Huceste Âyin) reflect the complex
operational system for collecting beytülmal revenues in Rumelia. For example, the subaşıs,
commanders of police, of the above-mentioned divisions were assigned to hold the
absconding slaves and stray cattle (kul, cariye, yava and kaçkun) as part of their free
tımarship.332 However, they (the subaşıs) were denied holding these ‘properties’ if they were
found among the hergele of the village, which includes one or two yörüks.333 These
‘properties’ are to be kept for the state (mîrî içün), yörüks should not give them to their
subaşıs. However, if these properties were found among the hergele of their yörük,334 then
the subaşı could claim the property according to the rules stated in the kanunnâmes.335
One may ask two questions here: what does it mean to include one or two yörüks for
a village? And what does hergelesinde mean in the case of yava, kaçkun, kul and cariye? The
history of yörüks settled in Rumelia and their organization for serving in the military date
back to the late fifteenth century. According to the registers covering the records of the yörüks
in the region, they were organized as ocaks for military purposes, and each ocak includes 20,
331 İnalcık, “Ḳānūnnāme” in The Encyclopedia of Islam.
332 Mücteba İlgürel, “Subaşı”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 37, 2009, pp. 447-448.
333 “Bir köyün içinde bir yörük veyahut iki yörük olsa ol köyün hergelesinde bulunan yava
mirinindir.”
334 “Meğer yörüğün kendü hergelesinde bulına o vakit subaşılarınındır.”
335 Barkan, Kanunlar I, p.287.
124
25, or 30 soldiers (nefer) in Rumelia in the sixteenth century.336 Thus, for a village including
one or two yörüks might mean two ocaks. People living in these ocaks were engaged in
animal breeding, which requires grazing and milking these animals in the skirts of their
villages. Therefore, if the stray animals (yava and kaçkun) are found among the hergele (the
livestock) of a village, which had one or two yörüks, the subaşıs are denied holding this
property, they are for the state. However, if it is found in the hergele of a yörük that is among
the livestock of yörüks’ own, then the animal is the right of subaşı’s based on the regulations
in the kanunnâmes. Since this article, 55, in Barkan’s copy, ends with a reminder of the
longevity of the period for holding both the animals and the slaves as properties in trust,337
the same regulations, at least the borders, and conditions, might be applicable for slaves, kul
and cariye.
The 60th article of the same kanunnâme also manifests the nature of revenue claiming
between the ethno-military divisions in the region and the local officers. For example,
ispençe, a tax on non-Muslim subjects338 in the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries was
collected by the Matrak Tatars. This is a small group in military service in the greater group
of Cebelü Tatars in Rumelia. The article states that ispençes of non-military villagers
(haymâne), like the day laborer (irgad), shepherd (çoban), and herdsman (sığırtmaç), were
336 It is noteworthy to remind that not all the yörüks settled and lived in Rumelia were organized
for military purposes. A considerable number of yörüks were not of military aspects.
However, in cases of need these non-military yörüks, named haymâne, were called for
serving in the military. For further see Harun Yeni, “Osmanlı Rumelisi’nde Yörük Teşkilatı,
Kökeni ve Nitelikleri”, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM),
42, 2017, pp. 187-205.; Harun Yeni, “The Yörüks of Ottoman Western Thrace in the
Sixteenth Century”, Ph. D diss., Ankara: Bilkent University, 2013.
337 “...Kulın ve cariyenin müddeti üç ay ve devâbbın bir aydır.” Barkan, Kanunlar I, p. 287.
338 Halil İnalcık, “İspençe” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 23, 2001, p.177
125
collected by the Matrak Tatarı emins. These ispençes, together with cürm, cinayet, arusane
and the beytülmal, mâl-i gâib, mâl-i mefkûd, yava, and kaçgun were included into the fiscal
units (mukataa) given to the Matrak Tatarı emins. As the kanunnâme states, holding an
exemption from the tax avarız-ı divaniye, the Matrak Tatars would pay some of their taxes
and fees and give unclaimed properties to their emins as the emins are in charge of collecting
these revenues for the state (miri içün).339
In respect to the borders, the ports (iskele) are also interesting for property claiming
in the early modern period. A rule in this kanunnâme also establish a relation between a
natural event and revenue collection for mîrî: “Ve Tuna'ya tabi’ adalarda ve Tuna taşub ne
yere değin varursa ol yerde, yava ve kaçkun ve beytülmal vaki’ olursa iskele eminleri zabt
eyleye haricden kimesne dahl eylemeye”. Accordingly, the officer in charge of port (iskele
emini) of Silistra should claim yava, kaçkun, and beytülmal in the lands of the islands based
on the limit where Danube’s flooding reaches.340
The clauses concerning the unclaimed properties prove the intricate relations
between Ottoman population figures, their occupations, the use of land, taxes, and the rulers
in the tımar system.341 The regulations draw abstract and concrete borders for property
claiming that aim to balance and compensate the interests of different social groups, as well
as of the imperial treasury.342
339 Barkan, Kanunlar I, pp.280, 287-288.; Akgündüz, Kanunnameler, v.7, pp. 712.
340 Barkans’ publishing does not include this clause. Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, pp.712,742-
743.
341 Linda T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp. 25-29
342 Engin D. Akarlı, “The Ruler and Law Making”, p. 89.
126
3.5.2 The Beytülmal between a Vakıf and Tımar: Kanun for Yağcılar
This kanunnâme was written for regulating the issues of a tax-paying social group in
Edirne in 1581 (989). The city is the second capital of the empire and a key staging point for
Ottoman expansion. Edirne was a significant location for both the government elites343 and
religious figures. The Ottoman rulers carried out public works and housing projects for the
improvement and inflorescence of the city. Murad II’s mosque and its surrounding imaret
were built between 1436 and 1447 and was one of these public works that had served for a
long time for the needy and the medrese.344 In order to provide for the imaret, the tax
payments of three groups of subjects in Edirne were reserved for Murad II’s vakıf. One among
these three subjects is Yağcılar (revgan-ı sâde), the oil producers. Forming up 240
households, they were approximately two thousand people (nefer) and were subject to pay
some of their taxes to the vakıf. 345
Based on Barkan’s copy, the fifth article of the kanunnâme of Yağcılar states that
the beytülmal revenues, gâib, mefkûd, yava, kaçkun, and the fines on crimes and
transgressions (cürm-ü cinayet), and the payments of bad’ı hava were assigned for the
vakıf.346 The administrative taxes, niyâbet rüsûmu, includes the payments like fees, fines,
343 Yunus Uğur, “A Historical Interaction of the City with its Mahalles: Ottoman Edirne in the
Late Seventeeth and Early Eighteenth Centuries”, Ph. D Diss., Istanbul, Boğaziçi University,
2014, pp.64-68.
344 M.Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Edirne” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 10, 1994, pp. 431-442.
345 Bayram Ürekli, Doğan Yörük, “H. 1002/ M. 1594 Tarihli bir Vakıf Defterine Göre
Edirne’deki Sultan II. Murâd Câmii ve İmâreti Evkâfı” Selçuk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi
Dergisi, 18: 2004, pp.17-39.
346 Barkan, Kanunlar I, p. 245.
127
registration charges of the marriage act, and so on; and were collected by the judicial and
security officers in exchange for their service as agents.
However, not only the beytülmal revenues of the oil producer subjects (yağcı reaya)
were reserved for the vakıf, niyâbet rüsûmu and the beytülmal revenues of the other two
groups of reaya were also held for the interest of the vakıf as it had been. As stated in a vakıf
register dated 1594 (1002), an order sent from the imperial center to müderris Şuca’a, a
professor of Daru’l-Hadis Medrese in Edirne declares that no survey was undertaken for the
lands where the revenues belong to Murad II’s vakıf in Edirne. Compared to the Kanunnâme
of Yağcılar prepared in 1581, the register includes orders on the reorganization of the
conditions, particularly the dispersed reaya and their beytülmal revenues because of the
malpractice of the officers. The officers were forewarned that though the revenues were
directed to the vakıf, officers like that of umena, ‘ummal, mübâşîrîn-i emvâl and other ehl-i
‘örf, intervene and damage the vakıf revenues.347
Taxing the subjects in bureaucratic agrarian empires is a multifaceted engagement,
especially when modern means are not available for watching over the subjects’ occupations
and renewing the old registers according to new circumstances. The Ottomans systematized
and classified the taxation based on; the cultivated lands, households, animals possessed,
occupation, and service for the state, along with many other conditions. The kanunnâmes,
decreed for different sections of the empire accommodated the heterogeneous nature of the
taxation.
The difference between a sipahi’s realm of taxation and a vakıf region might
elaborate on the revenue collecting. In the previous Yağcılar kanunu (1581) and vakıf register
(1594), the orders strictly lay down the rules for the beytülmal revenues: any intervention in
347 Ürekli and Yörük, “Edirne’deki Sultan II. Murâd Câmı̇i ve İmâreti Evkâfı.”
128
these revenues of vakıf is prohibited.348 Including beytülmal-i hassa, no one is entitled to
claim on behalf of the imperial treasury, i.e., the miri. However, the Kanunnâme of Silistra
also denies the beytülmal revenues to sipahis along with some other taxes. Although the
sipahis are entitled to their estates as dirlik (livelihood, means),349 they are not allowed to
claim the niyabet rüsûmu and casual items, like that of beytülmal revenues.350 Along with a
practical difference between a vakıf and sipahi’s tax realms, the point here might be
theoretical. In favor and the highest benefit of the vakıf, the fiscal and hereditary relations
between the tax-paying subjects and the imperial center is suspended or ended in ideal vakıf
theory. However, in the case of tımarlı sipahi, the center does not cut its heirship and
ministrant relations with the subjects in favor of both, if not only the state. Contrary to the
horizontal relations between a vakıf administration and the imperial center in terms of fiscal
matters, the relations between a sipahi and the center are vertical.
348 “…evkâf-ı mezbûrenin beytü’l-mâl-ı hâssa ve ‘âmme ve yava ve kaçgûn ve mâl-ı gâyib ve
mefkûd ve cürm-i cinâyet ve bâd-ı hevâları kadîmü’l-eyyâmdan cânib-i vakfa zabt olunu
gelmişken ümenâ ve ‘ummâl ve mübâşirîn-i emvâl ve sâyir ehl-i ‘örf tâyifesi dahl ve ta‘arruz
idüb ve defterlü ra‘iyyetden dahî rüsûm taleb idüb rencîde eyledüklerinden gayri mâl-ı vakfın
telef ve zâyi‘ olmasına…” from the tax order on determining the revenues designated for the
vakıf. Bayram Yürekli, Doğan Yörük, “1594 Tarihli Vakıf Defteri”.
349 “Non-hereditary prebends to sustain a cavalry army and a military-administrative hierarchy
in the core provinces of the Ottoman Empire.” İnalcık, “Tımar” in The Encyclopaedia of
Islam.
350 “Ve bir Sipahiye hasıl bağlanan kışlanın ve değirmenin ve sâyenin ve bostanın içinde duran
haymana kâfirin ispencesi kendunindir. Amma çakırcı ve şahinci ve atmacacı vesair
doğancının resmi mücerredleri sipahiye hasıl bağlanmamışdır. Zira bunların resmi
mücerredlerini ve resmi ‘arusane ve cinayet ve cürüm ve resmi ganemlerini ve yava ve
kaçkun ve beytülmal ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûdlarını ve sipahi toprağından hariç müstakil
kovanlığı olanların öşri kovanlarını ve mürde-bahalarını emr-i şerifle deri devletten gelen
kullar mîri için cem’ iderler, bunlar defterde müstakil yazılmışlardır. Sipahiye heman öşür ve
sâlâriye ve resmi çift virürler”. Barkan, Kanunlar I, (p.280).
129
However, substantiating the accommodational nature of the Ottoman legal norms in
the early modern period, the kanunnâmes of Pojega include a distinct clause. Since the
beytülmal revenues in the region is considerably low (ve liva-i mezburede beytülmal-ı avam
ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûdı avâm ve kaçkun mahsulı şey'i kalil olmağın), by means of an
order issued in 987 (1579), they were entirely assigned to tımar holders (mahsul-ı mezbûr
erbab-ı timara kayd olunub).351
Some sancak kanunnâmes puzzlingly draw close to beytülmal regulations but only
pass by without addressing it directly. It is intriguing to ask what an addressee should infer
from a kanunnâmes which is ‘non-inclusive’ of certain norms. For example, the kanunnâmes
titled “Rumeli’nun Mevkufatı ve Yavası ve Kaçkunu”, prepared in 1461, does not exclude
mâl-i gâib and mâl-i mefkûd by statement but does not include either.352 The kanunnâmes
explains the grounds for claiming yava and kaçkun, and the procedure to be followed in each,
without even using the word beytülmal.353 Since the beytülmal revenues are generally given
351 In “Kanûn-ı Hukûk ve Rüsûm-ı Reaya-ı Livâ-i Pojega” under the section “Kanûn-ı İskeleÖsek”
BOA TT.d. 672, p.18, The same clause is also written in the copy BOA TT.d.650
excluding the word kalil.
352 Halil İnalcık and Robert Ahnegger, Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani: II.
Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasakname ve Kanunnâmeler, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2000, pp. 26-28.; Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.I, pp.392-393.
353 “…Rumeli mevkufâtını ve yavasını ve kaçkunını ve Filibe hâslarının yavasını darende-i
misâl-i şerif Edreneli Kassab Fide-oğlu, Hızra ve Filibeli Hacı Ahmed oğlu Mehemmed'e
sene sekiz yüz altmış altısında Muharrem ayının on beşinci gününden üç yıla altı yüz seksen
bin akçeye ve sekizbin yüz altmış akçe resm-i berâta mukata'aya verdüm ve buyurdum ki…
Ve her yerdeki kaçkun esir dutulursa ol yerün kadıları ma'rifetile görüb bunlara teslim edeler,
bunlar dahi çağırdalar, eğer ıssı bulunub gelüb isbat ederse âdet üzre bir günlük yolda otuz
ve iki günlük yolda altnuş ve üç günlük yolda doksan akçe ve bundan ziyade bir aylık yolda
130
to mukataa as a bunch, i.e. all in one fiscal unit, the reader would be tended to include the
‘omitted’ ones in mind. Moreover, if a revenue type is specifically denied to a claimer, it is
generally stated. However, as the kanunnâmes show in some cases the revenues are
disintegrated for different claimers, and “the courts co-ordinated, specified, and regulated the
respective rights of various parties in an object along with their rights and responsibilities
toward each other over that object.”354
3.5.3 The Properties of the ‘Rebels’: The Kanunnâme of Egypt
Defining types for unclaimed properties depend on the nature of a property and the
condition in which the property is regarded as “unclaimed”. This adjective does not always
suggest that the property is actually unclaimed. Rather, the property is claimed but the claim
is void. The case in point might be said for the houses of the Mamluks after the conquest of
Egypt in 1517: The deserted houses were damaged by some people: “sipahdan ve gayrıdan
ba’zı kimesne girüb taş ve ağacın yıkub yakub tahrib itmek üzere”. The kanunnâme orders
dahi dutulursa heman yüz akçe muştuluğun alub esiri kadı ma'rifetiyle ıssına teslim edeler.
Ve eğer ıssı bulunmazsa tamam üç ay saklayalar, üç aya değin gelecek olursa hoş ve illa kadı
ma'rifetiyle bey’i men yezid edüb satub bahasın alalar ve kadı dahi sicillatında kaydede ki
her ne vakt ıssı gelüb isbat ederse mezkur amillerden bahasın alalar. Ve koyun-erile Tatarum
yuvası subaşılaru[nu]ndur, kaçkuna bunlar mutasarnf olalar ve akınlarda ve benim ordumda
ne kadar kaçkun esir ve yuva davar bulunursa kadi ma‘rifetile getürüb bunlara teslim edeler,
bunlar dahi çağırdalar, eger ıss1 bulunursa âdet üzere muştulugin alub issina vereler, ve eger
ıssı bulunmazsa müddet tamam olunca saklayalar, tamam oldukdan sonra satub bahasın
alalar, fi‘l-cümle kaçkun esirleri üç ay ve yuva davar bir ay saklayalar, andan sonra satalar.”
354 Engin D. Akarlı, “Gedik: A Bundle of Rights and obligations for Istanbul Artisans and
Traders, 1750–1840” in Law, Anthropology, and the Consiıtution of the Social: Making
Persons and Things, Alain Pottage, Martha Mundy (ed.), Cambridge University press, 2009,
pp. 166-200.
131
nazır-ı emval, the officer of finance in Egypt to find some man capable with a pen (yarar ehli
kalem) for registering the deserted355 houses of the Mamluk administrators (ümera) and
missing people (gayıpların) as these houses belong the treasury (beytülmale raci’dir). If
people settled in these houses and did not harm it, they might stay, but the kadı of the city
(kadı-i şehir) should survey these houses so as to get monthly (mah-be-mah) rent payments
based on their value (ecr-i misline göre). If the houses need repairing, the expenses are to be
covered by the rent payments. The empty houses should also be surveyed and rented if asked
for so. Besides, it is necessary to appoint a hafız for each of these houses so as to protect them
(mahfuz olalar) from getting harmed. However, the kanunnâme also warns the local officers
that in case someone claims on these houses, s/he should be brought before the kadı. The
Mamluks were ‘rebels’, so, they were removed, or went missing during the conquest of
Egypt. The houses were dispossessed by the imperial treasury (hazine-i amireye
zabtolunmuşdur), thus the officers would ignore their claims of ownership (itibar olmayub)
on these properties.
The kanunnâme strictly suggests that for fiscal matters, the imperial center is the only
claimer, no intermediaries or privileges are recognized; the unclaimed or deserted properties
are all beytülmale raci’. However, when it comes to local administration, and legal
355 These houses were deserted either by Mamluks who fled their home during conquest, or by
missing of their owners (gaybet). Barkan, Kanunlar I, p.385. For further discussion on
transition to Ottoman legal rule in Egypt see A. Atçıl, “Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a Geçişte
Mısır’da Adlî Teşkilât ve Hukuk (922-931/1517-1525)” İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38,
2017, pp. 89-121.
132
organization, a degree of autonomy and privileges are provided.356 For example, while the
wife of a missing individual (mefkûd) was not allowed to marry again till her husband’s death
is affirmed based on the Hanefî school of law in the core Ottoman lands,357such wives in
Egypt might get legal permission under certain conditions from the Şafi’i and Hanbelî judges
or deputies.358
To sum up, based on its objective and by its very nature, the law of beytülmal in
provincial kanunnâmes manifests some realities: Beytülmal collections were generally
estimated depending upon the provincial characteristics, like population figures, the land
regime, geography, and the status of the social groups. Contrary to the norms in general
kanunnâmes, they overwhelmingly focused on the government-appointed claiming parties in
different lands and their shares in these revenues. Interestingly, the cluster of revenues might
be separated or portioned to provide a balanced share of the revenue collection for the
claiming parties. Moreover, the norms in general kanunnâmes are projected in provincial
regulations, either only by name, or by attaching the entire text.359
356 In order to sustain the pre-existing administrative and legal tradition, the kanunnâme included
certain pre-Ottoman regulations of Egypt referencing the name of the Sultan Qaytbay.
Additionally, a degree of continuity was provided for different Islamic legal schools prevailed
there. Jane Hathaway, The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007, pp.9-11.
357 “Gâib Olanların Zevceleri Hususu İçin Ahkâm”, Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.7, pp.368-369.
358 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “Memlüklerden Osmanlı’ya Geçişte Mısır’da Adlî Teşkîlat ve Hukuk
(922-931/1517-1525)”, İslâm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38 (2017): pp.89-121
359 In some of the sancak kanunnâmes, the beytülmal regulations of the general kanunnâmes were
entirely copied. For instance, in the kanunnâmes prepared for Niğbolu (1522) and Bosnia
(1565) the chapter “kanun-ı beytülmal” in Selim I’s general kanunnâme was almost entirely
133
3.6 The Beytülmal in Fetvas
Zeyd beytü'l-mala ait mal içün, "Mal-ı
Padişahî'dir" dese şer'an ne lazım olur?
El-cevap: İstiğfar lazım olur. (Ibn Kemal)
In the Islamic legal system, the judges were encouraged to consult with a mufti (a
jurist) and take their fetva (legal opinion) before they issued a decision (hukm) on specific
legal issues.360 The parties in the lawsuit also request fetva in order to submit it the court for
supporting their justifiability.361 The muftis prepared a fetva based upon the petitioner’s
expressions of the case and the ‘cumulative knowledge’ that the Islamic legal school in
question developed up to his time.362
The number of preserved fetva collections also manifests the institution of fetva in
the Ottoman legal system was significant. The ‘high level’363 Islamic scholars served as
şeyhülislams; one of their primary roles was giving fetvas on questions related to state affairs
copied. (BOA MAD. 11/12, p.349); and Akgündüz, Kanunnameler, v.6, pp.435, 490.; In the
kanunnâme of Kefe, however, the general regulations were given as reference: “ve beytülmal
ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûd ve yava ve kaçkun vâki olsa kânun üzere zabt olunur.”
Kanunnâme-i İskele-i Taman ve Gayrihi” Akgündüz, Kanunnameler, v.6, p. 586.; see also
regulations for Remle, in v.8, p.241.
360 Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of Ottoman Fetva”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 32:1, 1969, pp.35-56.
361 J. R. Walsh, “Fatwā” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II, ed. P. Bearman,
Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991,
pp.866-867.; Hülya Canbakal, "Birkaç Fetva Bir Soru, Bir Hukuk Haritasına Doğru" in Şinasi
Tekin'in Anısına: Uygurlardan Osmanlıya, Günay Kut, Fatma Büyükkarcı Yılmaz (ed.)
İstanbul: Simurg, 2005, pp.258-270.
362 Pehlül Düzenli, “Osmanlı Fetvasında ‘Muteber Kaynak’ ve ‘Müfta Bih Mesele’ Problemi”,
TALİD, 12:22, 2013, pp. 9-78.
363 Atçıl, Scholars and the Sultans, p.41.
134
and the legal issues in the daily life of people.364 During the reign of Murad II (1421-51), the
right to issue fetvas was bestowed on exclusively the şeyhülislam as he was ‘the chief source
of the juristic authority’.365 Both the şeyhülislams and the provincial muftis (kenar
müftileri)366 compiled their fetvas based on some arrangements. These collections were used
in medrese education,367 and in the courts as guidance for the kadıs in their judgments.368
The post of Ebussuud as şeyhülislam (1545-1575) brought significant changes: he
introduced a division of labor and employed ‘legally qualified clerks to classify the questions
presented to the mufti, and to cast them for the mufti for adding the reply.’369 The permanent
staff in the office was carrying the burden of issuing fetvas.370 This provided the office for
perpetuating high legal standards and prestige, and increased the number of the fetva
volumes.371
364 Richard Repp, The Mufti of Istanbul: The Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned
Hierarchy, London,1986, p. 211.
365 Colin Imber, Ebu’su’ud, p.7
366 Hezarfen Hüseyin Efendi, Telhisü’l-Beyan Fi Kavanin-i Al-i Osman haz. Sevim İlgürel), TTK,
1998, pp.197, 200
367Gülnihal Bozkurt, Coşkun Üçok, Ahmet Mumcu, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Ankara: Turhan, 2012,
pp.70-74. Pehlül Düzenli, “Osmanlı Fetvasında ‘Muteber Kaynak’ ve ‘Müfta Bih Mesele’
Problemi”, TALİD, 12:22, 2013, pp. 9-78.
368 Ali Yaycıoğlu, “Ottoman Fatwâ: an Essay on Legal Consultation (iftâ‘) in the Ottoman
Empire”, MA Thesis, Ankara:Bilkent University, 1997, see pp.103-132.;
369 Colin Imber, Ebu’s-Su’ud, in Islamic Legal Thought, (ed. By Oussama Arabi et.all), BRILL,
2013, pp. 403-404.
370 Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of Ottoman Fetva”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 32:1, 1969, pp.35-56.
371 Colin İmber, Ebu’s-su’ud Islamic Legal Tradition, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997,
p. 3-14.
135
In the sixteenth century, the muftis began to participate in political decision-making
and legislative processes. Two muftis of Süleyman’s reign, Kemalpaşazade (1526-1534) and
Ebussuud (1545-1574) are said exhibited a great devotion to arranging and ‘Islamizing’ the
land regime.372 As discussed in this chapter, the tımar-related beytülmal regulations in the
Kanunnâme-i Cedid were formalized in the fetva form. A şer’i right on inheritance was
formulated in fetva form and based on a kanun. However, the legal norms before their
endeavor were not in conflict with the şer’i rules. Rather, before their tenure, Ottoman kanun,
might be said, was not formulated in a literal Islamic attire. Moreover, both the fetva-norms
in the kanunnâmes and the nature of Ma‘ruzats show that the relation between a kanun and
fetva is bilateral. Reconciled in the fetva form, it often referred to one another’s validity, if
not supremacy.
The raw form of fetva is not a mélange of fetva and kanun and may not help to solve
some peculiar legal problems. Highlighting its compatibility with the kanun and honorable
sharia (şer-i şerif), the fetva-norms of the sixteenth century aimed to solve intricate problems
too. So as to make these fetva-norms applicable, they were incorporated in the kanunnâmes,
and Ma‘ruzat of Ebussuud was sanctioned by the sultan as legal norms prevailed in the
realm.373
Fetva compilations were arranged based on the chapters (kitâb) for each subject. For
unclaimed properties the chapter Kitabu’l-Mefkûd (chapter on missing persons) is dealt with
372 Colin Imber, Ebu’s-su’ud Islamic Legal Tradition, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997,
p.25, 120; Halil İnalcık, “Islamization of Ottoman Laws on Land and Land Tax”, in Essays
in Ottoman History, İstanbul: Eren Yay., 1998, pp.155-173.
373This attribution of Ma‘ruzat was extended for some later fetvas too. Pehlül Düzenli, “Osmanlı
Hukukçusu Şeyhülı̇slâm Ebussuûd Efendı̇ ve Fetvâları”, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2007,
pp.49-52.
136
in this section.374 The relevant fetvas will be scrutinized by the muftis and şeyhülislam who
served roughly between 1500 and 1700.
3.6.1. Propreity Rights in the cases of Missing Persons
The majority of fetva collections devote a chapter to missing persons that mainly
focus on; the description of the missing (na-biryer, hayatı ve mematı na-ma‘lum, gaybet-i
munkatı’a), the lawsuits for heirship rights, public claiming, debts, and restitution of the
property in case the real owner returns. As an integral part of the beytülmal institution, the
kadı was always at the center of these fetvas along with the vasi (trustee), kayyım (tutelage),
and the beytülmalcı.
In his fetva collection Ali Akkirmani (ö. 1620-21), an Ottoman provincial mufti,
discussed in detail a case of mefkûd with ‘supplementary’
375
questions:
When Zeyd is missing, beytülmalci sells his house to Amr. After a long time (nice
zaman), Zeyd’s sister, Zeyneb, comes. Can she claim the house? The answer: No. Since
Zeyd’s situation is unknown (gâibin hali malum olmayınca), his property would not be an
inheritance. This is a very well-known issue in the chapter on missing persons.
In this case, if Zeyneb brings some men to testify about her brother’s death, how
could they do that: whether saying ‘we heard Zeyd is dead’ is enough, or they should say ‘we
374Tough less in number, the chapters on Kitabu’l-Abîk (chapter on absconding slaves), Kaza (the
duties of the kadı), Da‘va (claims) and Ferâyız (inheritance) are inclusive of beytülmal
relalted fetvas.
375 Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of Ottoman Fetva”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, 32:1, 1969, pp.35-56.
137
saw Zeyd is dead’? The answer: To testify based on a hearing is lawful in cases of death.
However, saying ‘I testify that so-and-so is dead’ is not sufficient. Without expounding the
hearing, it is void.
In that case, if Zeyd’s death and Zeyneb’s heirship are affirmed, and the price of the
house is included in the treasury (dahil-i hazine), from whom Zeyneb takes the price? The
beytülmalci or the treasury? The answer: The payment is returned from the beytülmalci in
question.
376
This fetva aims to shed light on conditons for the inheritance and the conditions for
testifying in a death case, as well as the beytülmal. Based on the kanunnâmes the period to
wait for the property is one year for the missing. After it is sold, the officer in charge waits
for the price three years before the inclusion of the treasury. Here the period is only defined
376 “Zeyd gâib iken bir darını beytü’l-mâl emîni Amr’a bey’ edip nice zaman geçip ba’dehu
Zeynep gelip ben Zeyd-i gâibin li-üm hemşiresiyim meşru hakkını da’va-yı varisle kabza
kadir olur mu? El- Cevab: Olmaz, gâibin hali malum olmayınca malı mevrus olmaz. Mesele
Kitab-ı Mefkûdun meşhurâtındandır.”
“Bu surette Zeynep Zeyd’in mevtini isbât için getirdiği şahitler mevtini işittik deyu şehâdetleri
kifâyet edermi yoksa mevtini gördük deyu ta’yin lazım mıdır? El-Cevab: Mevtte sema’ ile
şehadet caizdir. Amma huzuru kadıda sema’ ile şehadetini tefsir etmeyip fulan bin fulan
müteveffa oldur şehâdet ederim demek kerekdir tefsir etseler makbule olmaz. (‘ala’s-sahih,
min Şehadeti’l-Durer ve min Esveleti’l- Feteva en-Nesefi)
“Sureti mezburede Zeyd’in mevti sabit, Zeyneb’in verâseti sabit olacak, emîn dahi bey’ ettiği
darın akçesini dâhil-i hazine ettiği mukarrer olacak mezbure ol akçeyi emînden mi alır yoksa
hazineden mi? El-Cevab: Dahil olduğu beytü’l-mâldan varise kaza olunur. (min fasli fi
Tasarrufi’l-Vasi, ve’l-Eb ve’l-Kadi fi’ş-Şirketi min Vesaya, Mecmu’ul-Fetava) “Kitabu’l-Ibk
ve’l-Mefkûd” Fetevay-i Akkirmani, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Hafid Efendi, 98.
138
by nice zaman, and the heir is not even asking to get the house back, either she knows that
she can’t be based on the kanun, or she cares for only the price. In either case, the beytülmalci
is working as a ‘local treasury’ in charge of restitution.377
Another selling case is commonly repeated in different copies of the Ebussud’s fetva
collections, including Ma‘rûzât. Here, the missing person returns alive (hayyen zuhur), and
he claims his own property: 378
The case consulted as follows; Zeyd is missing, and no one knows his whereabouts.
After his house was fairly sold to Amr, Zeyd returns alive. Can he take his house back from
Amr? Or, the price from the beytülmal emini? “If there is not a fear of spoilage for the
property, the kadıs are (were) not allowed to sell them, it is void if they do so. However, the
emins and the kadıs are authorized to sell in our times. Thus, if the transaction is fair (proper),
it is better to do without interfering with it as the kadıs are unentitled to alternate. But, if
there is excessive deceit (gabn fahiş) in the transaction, they nullify it.”
Interestingly, Ebussuud’s answer is both interpretive and convoluted. In a literal
sense, he does not ssem to have focused on what is really asked in the question: what would
377 Beytülmal institution functioned as a local treasury for certain expenses, particularly in the
provinces. The ways of spending the beytülmal revenues will be dealt in the fifth chapter.
378“Zeyd gâib olup hayatı ve mematı malum olmayup emin-i beytü’l-mal gâib Zeyd’in mülk
darını marifet-i kadı ile misl-i kıymetine bey‘eylese ba‘dehu Zeyd hayyen zuhûr ettikde
darını Amr’dan alabilir mi? Yoksa eminden semenini mi alır? El-cevab: mefkûdun malından
fesâda kâbil olmayınca kudat bey’a kadir değillerdir, öyle olucak vâki olan akid nafiz ve
lazım olmaz. Amma fî zamânina mutlaka bey’a kudat ve umenâ me’murlardır. Tamam değeri
ile bey’ olundu ise taarruz olunmasa olur. Zira kudat tağyire memur değillerdir. Fi’l-cümle
gabn-i fahiş olacak fesh eylerler.” ‘Kitâbu’l-Mefkûd’ Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, İzmir 254
(the pages numbers are disarranged. Based on chapter numbers, 15).; Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi, İsmihan Sultan 241. (vr.120a-122a), Ma‘rûzât, Pehlül Düzenli (Haz.), İstanbul:
Klasik, 2013.
139
Zeyd take? The house or the price? However, by stating kadı’s legal authorities, he implies
taking the price is preferable in case the transaction is fair.
A more fiqh-specific fetva is issued by Ibn Tabbah Derviş b. İbrahim (d.1597-98).
As a provincial mufti, Ibn Tabbah bases his fetva on the reliable fiqh books of Hanefî legal
scholars and their consensus.379
The question is ‘whether the kadıs are entitled to sell the properties of the missing
(and absent) persons in the following cases; there is fear of spoilage in the property, and there
is not’. The answer is “the kadı sells in the first, but not in the second.”
Following this short answer, supplementary conditions are also given to solve a
future potential issue based on different factual circumstances; “in case one of his relatives
needs to sell a property of the missing, which is ’akar,380 for the maintenance of the missing
(haceti’n-nafakatihi)381, there is not a consensus (icma’) of the scholars on that. However, if
the type of the property is movable (menkûlen), only the father of the missing could sell, not
any others.”382
Hayreddin Ramlî’s (d.1671) fetva is rather different with respect to the otherwordly
solution to a returning missing person. According to the fetva, there is a woman, who dies
when her son is missing. The beytülmal emini takes all her properties and sells them before
379 The provincial muftis attach references to their fetvas based on order in the late sixteenth
century. Urile Heyd, “Some Aspects of Ottoman Fetva”, p.45.
380 Immovable properties, like lands, buildings, shops. The things on the surface of the lands like
buildings, vegetation and water are also regarded as ‘akar. Ömer N. Bilmen, Hukukı
İslâmiyye ve Istlâh-ı Fıkhiyye Kâmusu v.6, İstanbul: Bilmen,1985, p.10
381 Here the money is needed for the expenses of the missing, like the payment of rent, or his
children in need of maintanance.
382Ayn'ul-Mufti li Gayni'l-Müstefti, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, H. Hüsnü Paşa, 521 (vr.128b-
129a).
140
the missing’s death is ruled (kable’l-kaza bi-mevtihi). The beytülmal emini also dies. Then,
the missing son returns. What is the rule (hukm)? The answer confers all his rights; he can
reject the transaction, he can get the house back, or the price. However, Ramlî ends the fetva
advising him to shelve his claims until the judgment day383 as Allah knows the best.384
3.6.2 Beytülmal as the Claimant and the Debtor
Any property or amount of money that is possibly labeled ‘unclaimed’ returns to the
beytülmal. The public officers were prompt in claiming the returns under the guidance of
different forms of rules.
A fetva from Ebussuud would exemplify this: Zeyd owes money to Amr. Before
Zeyd paid his debt to him, Amr had deceased. If there is a possibility of an existing heir in a
different city, based on şer’ to whom Amr should pay the debt [to the heir or the beytülmal]?
The answer is ‘to beytülmal’.385
The answer seems like impeding the right of a possible heir in getting his/her rightful
receiving of the payment. However, based on the theory, the beytülmal takes the debt for
safekeeping. That is to say, the possibility of the heir’s own claiming is preferred to the
possibility of getting the debt to the heir.
وا ن تعذر تاخرت مط البتھ ال ي یوم القیامة 383
384 El-Fetava’l -Hayriyye fi Nef‘i-l Berriye, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Murad Molla, 1131 (vr.
101a-101b).
385 “Zeyd deynini Amr’a vermedin Amr fevt olsa ahar vilayette varisi olmak ihtimali olsa şer’an
Zeyd deynini kime vermek gerekdir. El-Cevab: Beytülmale vermek gerekdir.” Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi, İzmir, 254, (book 15).
141
As discussed in the kanunnâme section, especially Kanunnâme-i Beytülmal-i Hassa,
the adressee in the debt claims of an heirless deceased person is also the beytülmal.386 The
office either meets the case by paying the debt to the claimant or appointing a vasi (trustee)
to oversee debts on the property.
3.6.3 Pre-emptive Grants and Avoiding Escheat: Cases of Muslims and
non-Muslims
As discussed in the kanunnâme section, the beytülmal officers were also in charge of
taking the heirless estates of the non-Muslim subjects. However, based on some regulations,
these revenues might be collected among their own social group for their own benefit. The
fetvas in Kemalpaşazade’s (d.1536) collection also reveal the beytülmal’s approach to non-
Muslims: “Bir Kâfir, hasta oldukta beytü'l-maldan kaçırıp rızkını bir kimseye hibe eylese,
sahih olur mu? El-cevap: Olur.” 387
In the opinion of the Kemalpaşazade, if a non-Muslim is [seriously] ill and
purposefully grants his/her inheritance to a third person to hinder beytülmal’s taking, it is
lawful.
Though the circumstances are not identical, a pre-emptive kind of action is applied
to the property of Muslims. Based on a verbal statement, two persons mutually agree to hold
386See some cases in Kenan Yıldız, “Üsküdar’ın Sosyal ve İktı̇sadı̇ Hayatı ile İlgı̇lı̇ Üsküdar Kadı
Sı̇cı̇llerı̇ndekı̇ Kayıtların Tesbı̇t ve Analı̇zı̇ (954-980 / 1547-1573)”, MA Thesis, Marmara
University, 2005, pp. 13, 24, 28 and others.
387 Mecmûatü'l-Fetâvâ, Süleymaniye Atıf Efendi, 2835 and other copies are examined in Ahmet
İnanır, Şeyhülislam İbn Kemal’in Fetvaları Işığında Kanûni Devrinde Osmanlı’da Sosyal
Hayat, İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2011, pp.41-44, 189.
142
the property of one in case any of the two dies: “Zeyd şu kadar eşyasını hibe eder oldukda
‘ben senden evvel fevt olursam eşya senin olsun, sen benden evvel fevt olursan eşya-i
merkume yine benim olsun’ deyu bu veçhile hibe ve teslim eylese hibe-i mezbure sahiha olur
mu? Beyan buyurula. El-cevab: Olmaz. 388
Yenişehirli Abdullah (d.1743), however, does not see such an agreement as lawful.
In general, the fetvas of the Şeyhülislams do not state the grounds for the answers, except for
some generic notes. Thus, why a non-Muslim’s on-purpose anti-beytülmal action is found
lawful and why two Muslims’ mutual agreement is not, is confusing.
The fetvas are short and devoid of crucial details. The reader lacks context, the untold
conditions and facts which conceal its meaning. With respect to the beytülmal, the fetvas
suggest solutions based on the corpus of Islamic law and the kanunnâmes. The actors like
vasi, kayyım, kadı, and beytülmalcı cooperated in the cases of property claims and restitution.
Additionally, rather than kanunnâmes, the fetvas demonstrate that the proper functioning of
the beytülmal institution was only possible by the intervention of the kadı.
3.7 Conclusion
The two beytülmals, either the public treasury or the revenue type, were operating in
Ottoman Empire based on the legal system and principles from the early fifteenth century on.
While the first was in a close connection with the principle of fiscalism, the second functioned
more for dispensing justice. with respect to the kanunnâme texts, the use of the term between
1450 and 1700 was different. Strikingly, the beytülmal as a revenue type was utilized in the
sicils, kanunnâmes, and orders during the reign of Mehmed II. Indicating its use before his
388 Sinan Çuluk, Yılmaz Karaca (haz.) Osmanlı Arşivinde Şeyhülislam Fetvaları, Başbakanlık
Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü: İstanbul, 2015, p. 100.
143
reign, the term was devoted only to the unclaimed properties and government right of escheat.
The properties that belonged to the treasury were described as beglik. However, during the
reign of Süleyman I witnessed excessive use of the term, particularly in general and
provincial kanunnâmes. Additionally, the theoretical grounds of the beytülmal as public
treasury were stated by Dede Cöngî’s risale under his reign. Taking into consideration Âşık
Çelebi’s zeyl (addendum), one might say that the sixteenth century witnessed the increasing
interest on the use of the concept of beytülmal, and its theory. According to Hüseyin Yılmaz,
this was largely a result of the influence of Mamluk tradition of political writing that finds its
way into the Ottoman political literature, particularly on the subjects es-Siyâsetü’ş-Şer‘iyye
and beytülmal.389
However, starting with Mehmed II, the general kanunnâmes stated the framework
and the procedure for the beytülmal as a revenue, i.e., the escheat right of the state. As a legal
or co-heir to unclaimed properties, the public authority claimed the beytülmal revenues based
on some circumstances like the land regime, military status, geography, religious and ethnic
groups etc. Specifically, Süleyman I’s era might be said the most original and inventive one.
The provincial kanunnâmes issued under his reign regulated the beytülmal in a more
elaborative way in deference to local, social, administrative and military characteristics of
the revenue. The modifications in the regulations majorly paid regard to a balanced allocation
of the tax farm and beytülmal collection among the social groups.
Lastly, the normative texts demonstrate that the instiution managed two mains task:
property claiming and restitution. It was the addressee in both cases as it aims to protect the
389 Hüseyin Yılmaz, Caliphate Redefined: The Mystical Turn in Ottoman Political Thought,
Princeton University Press, 2018, p. 7, 84.
144
right of each possible claimant. However, as revealed also in fetva section, neither task of
the institution was achieved unless the cooperation of the actors was established in the field,
particularly the kadıs.
145
CHAPTER 4
BETWEEN LEGAL AND FINANCIAL: BEYTÜLMAL AND
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
4.1 Introduction
“1247 senesi evailinden [1]249 senesi
Rebîulevveli evasıtına gelince bazı kesânın tereke bahalarından Beytülmal Nazırı ağa
tarafından emâneten teslîm-i Hazîne-i Âmire olunup ber-mûceb-i ilm u haber varisleri
tarafına red ve i‘ta olunanlardır.”390
The Ottomans paid considerable attention to supervising unclaimed properties in
their realm. They formed the beytülmal office the primary function of which was to claim
unclaimed properties on behalf of the government. Both in its classical meaning in Islamic
history and narrower sense in the Ottoman Empire, the beytülmal aims to claim, protect, hold,
and direct unclaimed properties for the benefit of the subjects of the political organization.
The previous chapter focused on the law of beytülmal utilizing mainly the normative texts
comprised of rules and legal regulations. They implied certain procedures according to which
the office should have functioned.
Against this background, the current chapter aims at examining how the Ottomans
institutionalize the property claims through beytülmal. It will scrutinize the foundation and
organization of the office based on empirical sources and consider the following questions:
What was the nature of this office? What were the grounds for dividing the beytülmal as
amme and hassa? What were the methods used to determine the claims made on behalf of
the public? Who were the official claimers and intermediary agents in the field?
390 BOA: D. BŞM.d. 9939, p.2, 29 Ra 249 (16 Aug. 1833).
146
Additionally, the current chapter will consider if and why the beytülmal office can
be considered a specifically Ottoman institution. Definitions of an institution and approaches
to institutional history may vary based on one’s field of specialization, research agenda, and
intellectual concerns.391 This section of the chapter will tackle the nature and the significance
of the beytülmal office and how to approach it, regarding it as a legal and financial institution
in view of its endurance from about the early fifteenth century to the final years of the
empire,392 and that it operated in the center and the provinces according to a set of rules and
established practices that made it a significant part of the greater bureaucratic organization.
It closely collaborated with the kadı’s court to serve the judicial purpose of delivering to the
rightful claimants their due shares of an estate. In addition, the office collected a considerable
amount of revenue that helped provision the local and imperial treasuries at different levels.
In sum, this chapter begins with an examination of the general characteristics of the
Ottoman office of beytülmal in the pre-modern era, and then focuses on its organization and
administration in overseeing unclaimed properties.
4.2 The Making of the Beytülmal as an Ottoman Institution
One can argue that a characteristic feature of political institutions or organizations is
to uphold a general theoretical or idealistic framework and to adopt the basic tenets or
principles of this framework to generate and maintain a societal order. In this sense, the
Ottomans upheld Islam and its shari’a, which informed the rules and regulations that the
Ottomans relied on to build and manage institutions in different parts of the empire. To a
391 Arzu Güldöşüren “Türkiye’de Kurum Tarihçiliği Literatürü.” TALİD, 19/37, 2021, pp. 395-
466.
392 There were changes and modifications in the functioning of the office during the 19th century,
and will be discussed below.
147
great extent, the miscellaneous forms of human relations and diverse legal settings were
maintained by virtue of the predictability that this framework and its principles provided for
people.393 William R. Scott’s three-pronged definition of an institution should help us
understand this feature of Ottoman rule: “Institutions comprise regulative, normative, and
cultural-cognitive elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide
stability and meaning to social life.”394
Alternatively, from the perspective of an economic historian, “institutions are
humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction.” It consists of both informal
constraints embodied in sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct and
formal rules like constitutions, laws, and property rights.395 Reserving the accommodational
practices of the pre-modern period and its nuanced implementations, it is safe to state that
beytülmal was an Ottoman institution that operated in different parts of the empire informed
by a theoretical framework of relatively well-articulated beliefs, rules, regulations, and
customs. Apart from the material conditions that affected the beytülmal office, property
393 Engin D. Akarlı, “Maslaha from ‘Common Good’ to ‘Raison D’etat’ in the Experience of
Istanbul Artisans, 1730-1840” in Hoca ‘Allame, Puits de Science: Essays in Honor of Kemal
H. Karpat, ed. Kaan Durukan, Robert W. Zens, Akile Zorlu-Durukan, İstanbul: ISIS Press,
2010, pp. 63-79.
394 William R. Scott, Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities, Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications, 2014, pp. 55-71.; Gail Bossenga, “Institutions as a Mode of
Historical Analysis” Journal of the Western Society for French History, vol.44, 2016, pp. 9-
19.
395 Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 3-11 and 36-54. See also Şevket
Pamuk, “Institutional Change and the Longevity of the Ottoman Empire, 1500-1800” Journal
of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2004, pp. 225-247.; Şevket Pamuk “Economic
History, Institutions, and Institutional Change”, International Journal of Middle East Studies,
Vol. 44, No. 3, 2012, pp. 532- 535.
148
relations, influenced by religious principles, custom, and worldly concerns, constituted the
basis of the beytülmal as an institution. Its longevity and extensiveness at temporal and transimperial
levels indicate that the Ottomans remained concerned with unclaimed properties as
a legal matter and a revenue type.
However, it would be only approximate to take its institutional and operational
portrait. The beytülmal was a complex and multilayered institution the elaboration of which
is not straightforward. From the agents working for the office to the different ways of
collection and spending, it had considerable accommodated procedures. First and foremost,
the beytülmal had a widespread organization implementing various forms of practices
depending on spatial and temporal circumstances, the status of the land, the status of the exowner
and the value of the unclaimed property at hand, and the like. Furthermore, there were
“beytülmals” of different corporate groups that were subject to different sets of regulations
such as the beytülmal of vakıfs, yeniçeris (janissaries), bostancıs396 (imperial guards). In
addition, there were beytülmals for some specific groups,397 or specific imperial military
campaigns (sefer-i hümâyûn beytülmali).398 Along with these corporate beytülmals, there was
396 C.ADL. 88/5302, 5 R 1172 (6 Dec. 1758).; “…Taifei mezburdan biri bila vâris-i maruf vefat
eyledikde terekesi asitâne-i saadette yeniçeri beytülmalleri gibi bostancıbaşı tarafından
beytülmalleri kabza memur olan kimesne kassam-ı askeri marifetiyle terekesini tahrir ve
defter ve beytülmalci hıfzedip varisi zuhur eyledikde vech-i şer üzere bade isbatı’l-verase
teslim olunup varisi ahar diyarda bulunan müteveffanın terekeleri bostancıbaşı nezaretiyle
…” C.SM 38 /1940, 24 Z 1147 (17 Apr. 1735).
397 “Mukataa’i Beytülmâl-i Gönüllüyân-ı yemîn ve yesâr.” D.BRM.d. 24290, p.2, M 1088 ( Mar.
1677).
398 “İcmâl-i muhasebe-i varidât ve teslimatı beytülmal-i hassa-i sefer-i hümâyûn…” The
payments made from this revenue was stated as “et-teslîmât be hizâne-i amire-i sefer-i
hümâyun bi’d-defâat”. MAD.d 5568, p.10.” (1021/1612-163).; See also YB.04.d.15 for a list
149
also the possibility to make special contractual arrangements in advance to prevent the
subjection of an estate to beytülmal regulations.399
Additionally, there were mukataas (tax-collection units or tax-farms) devised to
collect beytülmal revenues. Mültezims (or contractors who served as amils or intendants of
revenue) managed the beytülmal mukataas. Certain agents working in the field such as emins
(stewards) and katibs (clerks) assisted the mültezims. These people came from different
career lines. Mültezims were mostly of a military-administrative (seyfî) status, bearing the
titles of sipahi and çavuş in general. Ordinary people (reaya) such as tradesmen in a related
line of activity, and non-Muslims (Christian and Jewish) could also become mültezims.400
These variations attest to the diversity (and complexity) of the conditions within
which the beytülmal operated. Still, the overarching claims of the government on unclaimed
property provided coherence to the activities of the beytülmal office and kept it in the same
line of government business.
4.2.1 Situating Beytülmal in the Ottoman Bureaucratic Organization
The functions of the beytülmal office made it a part of the greater governmental
organization. At the local level, the fulfillment of the fundamental tasks expected of the
beytülmalci depended on the kadı’s cooperation by virtue of the legal nature of these tasks.
Thus, the beytülmalci had to work within the limits of the law—the legal principles and actual
of inheritances of military officers who died in Cyprus and whose inheriance was recorded
by beytülmal-i hassa officer.
399 See for instance A.DVNSMHM.d 52/704, 16 S 992 (15 Feb. 1584).
400 Mehmet Genç, “İltizam” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 22, 2000, pp. 154-158.; TS.MA.d
4183, p.6, 4183, p.7; TS.MA.d 2580/0020.; MAD.d.7160, p.8 and 18.
150
regulations governing beytülmal—and under the kadı’s de facto supervision in each case. At
the imperial level, the beytülmalcis were accountable to the defterdar (finance director) in
fiscal matters because they collected revenue based on public rights and claims regarding
these revenues. The officers were accountable to and administered by two bureaus (kalems)
under the Defterdarlık (the equivalent of a finance ministry401) in Istanbul, namely the
Mukataa and Mevkûfat bureaus:402 The Bureau of Mukataas recorded and maintained the
appointments of the officers in the field like âmils, emins, katibs and nâzırs as well as the
details regarding the mukataa holders, revenues, and conditions.403 The Bureau of Mevkufat
was in charge of recording the income from the properties that were put in the custody of the
Treasury temporarily, like escheated or unassigned tımar lands, and unclaimed properties.404
401 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah yay., 2020, pp.244-246.
402 For instance an account register included beytülmal and mevkûfât revenues in Mihaliç and its
dependancies in 1650. D. BŞM.d 188, p.12, 8 Za 1060 (2 Nov. 1650).; See also D.BŞM.d.
25, p.2. 10 Ş 954 (25 Sep. 1547).
403 For instance, the cluster of documents under the classification of Baş Mukataaa Kalemi (The
Chief Bureau of Mukataas) includes correspondence on the mukataa contracts made between
the imperial center and several sancaks including Belgrad, Vidin, Kırkkilise, Tavaslı, Gedüs,
Şeb, Sofya, and Tuzla. The first document is a letter written by Seyyid Hasan, the kadı of
Bergos. According to this document, the last emin who oversaw beytülmal-i hassa in the
sancaks of Vize and Kırkkilise did his job excellently from the beginning to the end of his
tenure. Thus, the kadı requests the reappointment of the same emin for the same mukataa.
(“…tahvilinin bidayetinden nihayetine varunca efradımızdan bir ferd rencide ve remide
olmayub mezburdan kemal-i mertebe razı ve şakirleriz, … Uslub-u sabık üzere giru
mukataatın mezkureye emin olmasın rica ederiz...” D.BMK. 2/1, 20 Ca 1001 (22 Feb 1593).
The documents following this letter includes a list of the relevant mukataas, including
beytülmal-i hassa ones, the amount of revenues, and other details based on the contracts.
404 Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 974- 975 (M. 1567-1568) Malî Yılına ait bir Osmanlı Bütçesi” İÜİFM:
C. 19, Sayı 1-4, (1957/58) 1960, p. 277-332.; Linda T. Darling, Revenue Raising and
151
The records show that three different mevkufatçıs worked under three different defterdars in
the year 1567-68.405
In the sixteenth century, the fiscal bureaus were to a great extent developed and
operating across the empire. The legal entity and institutional significance of the bureaus
were not specified but references to the performance and duties of the officers in charge of
these bureaus, like Ruznamçeci, Mukataacı, Mevkufatçı, and Teşrifatçı, give an idea. The
same applies to the beytülmalcis. Along with the official correspondence that regards the
office as such, the office was known by the addressees via the performance of the actual
beytülmalcis in the field.
A document dating from Bayezid II’s reign should illustrate the point: A group of
local people complained that the emin unjustly took the property of an Acem who was killed
in Kefe by an unbeliever: “… Taman’da bir Acem kişisin kafir şehid eyledi …” The Acem
left six thousand tents (çadır) and several concubines (cariye) behind. Maneuvering the
selling of the property of the deceased, a certain emin and the beytülmalci unlawfully kept
the property in their own hands. Though the price in total might have exceeded 30,000 Kefevî
akçes, somehow, they showed the value of the sale at least 20,000 akçes below this rate. They
did so most probably to show the property as beytülmal-i amme (which is sold to mukataa
Legitimacy: The Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660,
E.J. Brill, 1996, p.65.; Oktay Özel, “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform'
Revisited”, JESHO, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1999, p. 226-246.
405 The role of the mevkufatçı was defined as “Başdefterdarın eğer beytülmal ve yava ve tımar
gayridir ki mevkuf olan mezburın kalemindedir, ancak anu yazar.” Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 974-
975 (M. 1567-1568) Malî Yılına ait bir Osmanlı Bütçesi” İÜİFM: C. 19, Sayı 1-4, (1957/58)
196o, p.277-332.; İsmail. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletin’nin Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilatı,
Ankara: TTK, 2020 (4. Baskı), pp. 342, 344.
152
and might be used only locally) instead of hassa (which had to be reserved for the state, or
sent to İstanbul, at that time).
This trickery was generally stated as “hassayı ammeye tebdil etmek” (changing the
value fells to beytülmal-i hassa, which is more than 10.000 akçes, to the value of beytülmali
amme, below 10.000):406 “Şöyle onatca satılsa otuz bin Kefevî akçe eylerdi, amma kendunun
tama‘ından ötüri bu yedi, ki akçesiyle çadırı beytülmalciye iki buçuğa sattı sonra dutub
beytülmalciden üç bin çadırı kendu aldı.” The complainants defined the property as
‘hü[da]vendigarın akçesi’ (the money due for the sovereign) or ‘padişahımın malını yediler’
(“… gobbled what was due my padişah”) as if it was not mîrî. Although the complainers also
expressed ethical concerns about the emins’ behaviors in general asking ‘bu nice
eminlikdur?’, they directly blame Yahya, the emin in Kefe, not the office.407
Other documents as well indicate that the beytülmalcis and the emins got greedy
about usurping the share or claims of the Imperial Treasury. For instance, another petition
complains that the beytülmalcis took hold of the eight thousand akçes left behind by a Russian
merchant who died in Kefe and not a penny of this amount reached the sultan: “Bir Rus
406 Neither the normative texts nor the empirical sources mention that beytülmal-i hassa was sold
as mukataa prior to the first quarter of the sixteenth century. The local figures were ordered
to deliver only the beytülmal-i hassa revenues to the treasury. However, beytülmal-i amme
was claimed by the emins who were authorized to sell or manage the property in comply with
the current regulations. In this case, 30.000 akçes is more than fit for beytülmal-i hassa.
Instead of keeping and delivering that amount in total for the treasury, the beytülmalci might
have wanted to show this property as beytülmal-i amme, which is below 10.000, so as to
benefit more. TS.MA. e 450/19, 07 S 918 (24 Apr. 1512)
407 The late Kunt also discusses the pre-modern particularities of Ottoman institutions in his
seminal article on the vakıfs. İ. Metin Kunt, “The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy:
Notes on The Köprülü Family Endowments” in Studies in Ottoman History in Honor of
Professor V. L. Ménage (ed. Colin Imber and Colin Heywood), Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1994,
pp. 189-198.
153
bazirgânı Kefe’de fevt oldu, sekiz bin Osmanî akçe rızkı kaldı, beytülmalciler aldılar ...
hü[dâ]vendigâra nesne olmadı…”408 This might not be a surprise if one reflects upon the
centrality of the sultan, kadı and kuls, rather than the state, court, and affiliation of the
government functionaries.
However, the seventeenth-century names of the bureaus point to a relatively
sophisticated institutional development in time. For instance, the bureau of the Muhasebe-i
Evvel was named as Başmuhasebe (Chief Accounting Office) around the beginning of the
seventeenth century.409 In his careful study of the Ottoman fiscal bureaus under the
Başmuhasebe, Gülfettin Çelik classifies the bureaus first regarding the revenues and expenses
of the imperial treasury (irâd and masraf).
Under the chief account office, there were three main bureaus.
Defterdarlık (Bâb-ı efterî)410
1. Maliye Kalemi411
2. Tarihçi Kalemi412
408 TS.MA.e 450/19, 07 S 918 (24 Apr. 1512]
409 Gülfettin Çelik, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi Hazine’nin Maliye Büroları” in Osmanlı
Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler I, p.115.
410 The equivalent of finance ministry.
411 The bureau in charge of recording the outgoing orders of the finance department. Linda T
Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: The Collection and Finance Administration in the
Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, E.J. Brill, 1996, p.18.
412 An office in charge of dating the documents of the financial administration and organizing
dues. Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah yay., 2020, p.249.; Baki
Çakır, “XVI-XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Mukataa Sı̇stemı̇'nı̇n Yapısı ve İşleyı̇şı̇”, Ph. D
Diss., Marmara University, 2003, p. 21.; Gülfettin Çelik, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi
Hazine’nin Maliye Büroları” in Osmanlı Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler I, p.115.
154
3. Ruznamçe Kalemi413
The bureaus in charge of supervising specific revenues in the Imperial Treasury
(Hazîne-i Âmire) in the 1640s are as follows;414
1. Kalem-i Muhasebe-i Evvel
2. Kalem-i Muhasebe-i Haremeynüş-şerifeyn
3. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Mensuh
4. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Haslar
5. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Avlonya
6. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Buruşa
7. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Kefe
8. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Evvel
9. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Maden
10. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Ağriboz
11. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Haremeynüş-şerifeyn
12. Kalem-i Mukataa-i İstanbul
13. Kalem-i Mukataa-i Ûlâ
14. Kalem-i Muhasebe-i Anadolu
(The bureaus later seen in the imperial budgets)
15. Ziyade-i Cizye Kalemi
413 The bureau of the registry that coordinates and the revenues and expenditures of the imperial
treasury. Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah yay., 2020, p.249.;
414 Gülfettin Çelik, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi Hazine’nin Maliye Büroları” in Osmanlı
Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler I, pp.117-118.; Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi,
İstanbul: Dergah yay., 2020, pp.254-270.
155
16. Mukataa-i Ağnam (Ağnam-ı Celebkeşan) kalemleridir.
17. Muhasebe-i Cizye kalemi
18. Muhasebe-i Şıkk-ı Sâni (Piskopos Mukataası)
The last four bureaus in the later 1600s show that fiscal administration was organized
based on the type of revenue groups rather than a spatial classification of the revenues which
implies a more institutionalized fiscal administration. However, some of these bureaus had
been subject to alterations in the last decades of the seventeenth century based on the
developments in the technology of the communication, and geographic and political
circumstances.
The lower-ranking bureaus under the Muhasabe-i Evvel were grouped based on their
modus operandi, like halifeliks, eminliks (trustees), gümrüks (customs), hazines (local
treasuries), muhassıllıks (tax collection), mukataas (tax farms) and so on.
The beytülmal was not mentioned as an overarching body responsible for supervising
unclaimed properties, or as a government function put under trustees (eminlik). Rather, as
İstanbul Beytülmal Mukataası under the title of Mukataas. Below is the list of these revenuerelated
administrations and the list of the mukataas under Başmuhasabe Kalemi.415
1. Halifelikler
2. Eminlikler
3. Baruthaneler
4. Gümrükler
5. Hazineler
415 This list was based on Gülfettin Çelik’s work on the Fiscal Bureaus in the Ottoman Empire.
Only the mukataas section was expanded. Çelik, “Merkezi Hazine’nin Maliye Büroları”, pp.
119-123. For the fiscal bureaus of revenue see also Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi,
İstanbul: Dergah yay., 2020, pp.254-270.
156
6. Muhassıllıklar
7. Mukataalar
• Adana Mukataası
• Ayntap Mukataası
• Belgrad Mukataası
• Erzurum Gümüşhanesi Mukataası
• Ergani Mukataası
• Hama Madeni Mukataası
• İstanbul Beytülmal Mukataası
• Kastamonu Küre-i Nühas Mukataası
• Keban Mukataası
• Sayda ve Beyrut Mukataası
• Espiye Madeni Mukataası
8. Kalyonlar
9. Voyvodalıklar
10. Meliklikler
11. Others
Along with the İstanbul Beytülmali Mukataası, the following bureaus supervised the
beytülmal revenues of different parts of the empire roughly between the second half of the
sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century.
Muhasebe-i Evvel
Kalemi
İstanbul Beytülmali Mukataası, Yave, kaçgun, müjdegâne,
and beytülmal of non-Muslims of Crete, Çorlu, Ereğli,
157
Kocaeli, Tekirdağ, Bergos, Pınarhisarı, Saray and beytülmal
of Ankara.
Haslar Kalemi Beytülmal of Siroz
Mukataa-i Evvel
Kalemi
Beytülmal of Vize and Kıkkilise, and the port of Silistre
Bursa ve Avlonya
Mukataaları
Beytülmal of Siroz
Since the bureaus in this category oversaw collecting and recording revenues (irâd)
for the imperial treasury, the dominant function that characterized them was highlighted at
the expense of their legal responsibilities and features as fiscal institutions. Therefore, they
are regarded more as a revenue, beytülmal mukataası or mahsûl-i beytülmal, of a specific
place rather than a legal or financial institution as such.
However, considering the geographical diffusion and the variety of the functions of
the office, neither Istanbul nor mukataa expresses the significance of it within the greater
bureaucratic organization. Additionally, the extent of the beytülmal and its potential revenues
could not be estimated through fiscal records alone. For instance, Barkan’s study of the
sixteenth-century budgets indicates that they exclude the revenue records of certain provinces
entirely. The most likely explanation for this gap is that these revenues were spent locally to
cover local expenses (mahallinde sarf).416 Based on his findings, Barkan concludes that the
sixteenth-century budgets do not allow the estimation of all revenue sources of the realm,
their overall potential, geographical diffusion, or the relative significance of each revenue
416 Or the revenue was recorded but the amount was strikingly less than a previous budget.
158
item.417 Indeed, a considerable number of documents show that the beytülmal revenues were
spent locally while also being sent to the imperial treasury.
As the earlier kanunnâmes texts and Bursa court records show, the procedures related
to the establishment, management, and collection of public claims regarding the beytülmal
and the system in which the office operated and the agents or contractors fulfilled their
responsibilities were still in the making in the fifteenth century.418 However, studies focusing
on the beytülmal’s institutional significance and legal responsibilities may produce different
results.
So far only Bilgin and Bozkurt attempted an independent study on the subject that
focuses on the beytülmal mukataas.419 They use the term beytülmal as an adjective to denote
revenues collected through heirless or semi-heirless muhallefats, if they did not overtly refer
to the meaning of beytülmal as public treasury. This usage might be misleading because the
concept was used for property that remained unclaimed not only for heirlessness but for
417 Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 974- 975 (M. 1567-1568) Malî Yılına Ait bir Osmanlı Bütçesi” İÜİFM:
C. 19, Sayı 1-4, (1957/58) 196o, p.277-332.
418 Halil İnalcık and Robert Ahnegger, Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani II.
Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasakname ve Kanunnâmeler, (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2000), p.70-71.; “…Metrûkâtından bir evini beytülmalciden dört bin altı yüz akçaya
satun almış idüm.” (BOA, MŞH.ŞSC. d, 2458/vr.237b) 6 Şubat 1480; “…ve padişah
tarafından zâbit-i beytülmal olan Mevlânâ Muhyiddîn…” (BOA, MŞH.ŞSC. d.,
2458/vr.17a), 1478; “…Beğ sancağı livâsını Şehâbeddin Paşa tasarrufunda olandan gayrı ve
Sultanöyüğü ve Bilecik ve İznikmüd ve İnönü yavasın ve beytülmalın dutan Birincioğlu
Mehmed…” BOA, MŞH.ŞSC. d, 2458/vr.59a, 1479.
419 Arif Bilgin and Fatih Bozkurt, “Bir Malî Gelir Kaynağı Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin Terekeleri
ve Beytülmâl Mukataaları”, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20,
2010/2.
159
different reasons.420 However, the beytülmal office was not only in charge of claiming
heirless or semi-heirless muhallefats. This study prefers the adjective ‘unclaimed’ so as to be
more inclusive of the properties that the beytülmal had a claim over.
The concept applied also to the destiny of these properties for preservation,421 and to
the title of the offices,422 and officials423 in charge of the various procedures involved in the
settlement of the potential and actual claims regarding such property. The body of officials
to which the Ottoman sources refer as emîn-i beytülmâl, or beytülmâlci, and beytülmâl katibi
were responsible for taking charge of properties defined as “unclaimed” or “heirless” (bilâ
vâris or vârissiz) in general both in the imperial center and the provinces. The same sources
also point to the legal procedures that the kadıs and the emins had to observe regarding the
treatment of such property,424 thereby signifying the legal dimension of their official
420 The majority of the beytülmal cases was related to properties left behind by people who died
without an heir. See for example C. ADL. 6/357, C. ADL. 34/2022, İE. MHF. 1/17, AE.
SSÜL.II 1/93 and (“Üsküdar’da Bostani taifesinden bila varis fevt ve terekesi beytülmal
olan…”) DVN.ŞKT 93/231.
421 “Galata vesâir diyarda bilâ varis fevt olub İstanbul’da ve tersanede bulunan eşya ve
muhallefatları ve nukûd her ne zuhur eder ki canib-i beytülmal’e aid olub…” MAD.d.2730,
p. 188.;
422 “…varis-i ma’rufu olmamakla cüz’i ve küllî metrûkâtlarına kadîmu’l-eyyâmdan hassa
beytülmâl tarafından zabtolunup…” MAD.d.3427, p. 334.
423 “Kaziyye, beytülmalcilerin mirinin padişahın malını yediklerini beyan eder.” TS.MA.e 450
/19, (918/1512-13).
424 “…İstanbul’da Beyceğiz mahallesinde vefat eden Aişe nam Hatun’un beytülmale ‘ayid ve
raci’ olan evini cümle tevabi’i ve levahiki ile otuz altı bin akçeye taraf-ı miriden iştira idub
akçesin bi’t-tamam beytülmal eminine teslim ve eline kassam tarafından hüccet-i şer’iyye
alub…” TS.MA.e 892/21, 27 C 944 (1 Dec. 1537). The emin in charge of collecting
unclaimed properties had to cooperate with the kadı for the proper management of the
160
responsibilities. This study choses to refer to the office as beytülmal eminliği or emâneti425
considering the Ottoman use of the term to denote officials charged or contracted to conduct
procedures regarding specific tasks within certain legal limitations. It can be translated as
“the custodian, or trusteeship, of unclaimed properties.”426
Beytülmal mukataas acquired additional significance when the iltizam system
became one of the principal engines for collecting public claims in the first half of the
seventeenth century. The emanet system was also prevalent in some places in which the
emins were paid a fixed salary. In Hungary for instance, the beytülmal revenue was collected
mostly by means of emanet in the sixteenth century.427 Bursa Hassa Harç Emini claimed and
controlled the same revenues in Bursa and the districts in its periphery in the first quarter of
the seventeenth century. Additionally, peculiar to Bursa, the beytülmal was not divided into
beytülmal under his responsibility. For example, İE.MHF.1/18 indicates that the emin’s
attesting and the kadı’s huccet (evidentiary document) were keys for solving problems. The
officials and their roles will be discussed below in detail.
425 This title was also used in some of the documents as follows: “… İstanbul Gümrüğüne ilhak
olunan beytülmal emânetinin…” HAT. 1399/ 56288 (29 Z 1205); “An tahvil-i ağa emin-i
mukataa-i emânet-i beytülmal-i hassa…” İE.ML 72/6714 (1115); “Rıdvan Çavuş’a
beytülmal emâneti tevcihi…” AE.SAMD.I. 2/162, 20 L 1014 (28 Feb. 1606).; “Donanma-yı
Hümayun beytülmal emâneti hizmetinde olan Mustafa…”, A. DVNSMHM. d. 4/879, 21 N
967 (15 Jun. 1560).
426 See also Linda T. Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: The Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, E.J. Brill, 1996, p.196.
427 Pál Fodor, “Some Notes on Ottoman Tax Farming in Hungary” Acta Orientalia Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 54, No.4, 2001, p. 427-435.
161
amme and hassa categories,428 and the same emin claimed both. Since an official appointed
by the Hassa Harç Emini administered these mukataas, the collection of their yield was rarely
auctioned or contracted out by means of iltizam.429 Between 1598 and 1613, the
administration of beytülmal was mostly at the hands of emins.430 The beytülmal of Bursa431
yielded a considerable amount of revenue for the treasury. For instance, between the years
1603 and 1606, this amount was 1,770,000 akçes in total and ranked second in the ordering
of revenues after the mukataa of mizan-ı harir (tax on silk trade).432
4.3 A Chronology of the Beytülmal
The social, economic, and military problems facing Ottoman rule, particularly in the
late seventeenth century, affected the organization of government bureaus. The beytülmal
office also underwent modifications basically within the mukaataa organization. One major
428 For a basic translation of these words, one could suggest that amme is public and hassa is the
imperial beytülmal revenues. However, in terms of claiming, beytülmal-i hassa emins could
also claim the beytülmal of ordinary people, whose revenue is equal to or more than 10.000
akçes. Also, beytülmal-i hassa emins did not always send what they have collected as revenue
to the imperial center. Directing the revenues was majorly depended upon the type of fiscal
needs of the local and imperial treasuries.
429 Arif Bilgin, Osmanlı Taşrasında bir Maliye Kurumu Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, Istanbul:
Kitabevi, 2006, p. 91-95.
430 Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p.199-205.
431 It is important to note that the mukataa contracts generally specified the emins’ jurisdiction.
While Bursa might mean the central district of Bursa, the districts around it such as Gemlik,
Kumla, İnegöl and Yenişehir should be included in the contract, if to be claimed by the same
emin. Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 92.
432 Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 63. This amount might be because the beytülmal
mukataası covers both amme and hassa in Bursa in this period.
162
fiscal change could be said the introduction of mâlikâne system in 1695. In this system, the
mukataas (revenue units) were contracted for the life time of a highest bidder—rather than
up to three years.433 The beytülmal mukataas were also sold and undertaken in the malikâne
system in the eighteenth century. For instance, the amme and hassa beytülmals of Bursa were
sold into malikâne holders nine times between 1698 and 1721. Similarly, in Ankara, the
beytülmal434 mukataas were sold into malikâne system by 1716, the revenues of which were
considerably high and assigned as private lands of the provincial ruler (Mirliva Hassı).435
The beytülmal-i amme and hassa mukataas of İstanbul and its dependencies (tevâbiî)
were attached (mülhak) to the İstanbul Gümrüğü Mukataası (The Tax Farm of the Customs
of İstanbul and its dependencies), though the beytülmal did not yield revenue based on
commercial activities. The Gümrük mukataası was working as a nezaret (ministry) since it
oversaw the collection and management of the beytülmal revenues in an area extending from
Istanbul to Edirne, in addition to its other responsibilities. The emin of the Gümrük
Mukataası appointed a beytülmalci to claim the beytülmal-i amme revenues in significant
433 Mehmet Genç, “Osmanlı Maliyesinde Malikâne Sistemi”, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda
Devlet ve Ekonomi, İstanbul: Ötüken Neşr., 2000, pp. 99- 147, 100.; Halil İnalcık, “Military
and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire 1600- 1700”, Archivum Ottomanicum, VI,
1980, pp. 282-337.; Yavuz Cezar, Osmanlı Maliyesinde Bunalım ve Değişim Dönemi,
İstanbul: Alan yay.,1986, pp. 32-34.
434 “Mâl-ı gâib, mâl-ı mefkûd, yâve ve kaçgun, ispençe-i gebrân, dokuz kıt’a zemîn, bâc-ı hamrı
nefs-i Ankara and some other taxes”.
435 Hakan Doğan, “Osmanlı Devletı̇’nde Dı̇vanı̇ Sı̇stemden Malı̇kâne Sı̇stemı̇ne Geçı̇ş Sürecı̇ ve
Uygulamaları (1695-1730) –Ankara ve Bursa Örneğı̇-” Ph. D Diss., Kırıkkale Üniversitesi,
2017, pp. 265, 272, 309-312, 420-22 and others.; Nilüfer Alkan, “18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra
Yönetı̇m Düzenı̇nı̇n Sosyo-Kültürel Yapıya Etkı̇lerı̇ (Bursa Örneğı̇)” Ph.D Diss., Uludağ
Üniversitesi, 2010., pp. 88-89.
163
places like Silivri, Edirne, or İstanbul. 436 However, the management of the beytülmal
mukataas were separated from the İstanbul Gümrük mukataası and put under the Treasury
(canib-i miri) in 1776.437
Since the management of beytülmal mukataas was intrinsically related to judicial and
fiscal administrations, developments that involved the latter affected the organization of the
beytülmal mukataas as well. Particularly, the growing expansion and elaboration of the
bureaucracy in the nineteenth century impacted the administration of unclaimed properties.
Judiciary reforms likewise led to the reorganization of the beytülmal institution. For instance,
Muhallefât Halifeliği, which oversaw the recording and holding of the patrimonies of
government functionaries and the confiscated properties of the high-ranking servitors of the
sultan, changed into Beytülmal Müdürlüğü in the Tanzimat period.438With the initiative of
436 The inventories, burial procedures and the debts of heirlessly deceased persons were all dealt
with and covered by the Istanbul Gümrüğü Mukataası on behalf of the government. Saim
Çağrı Kocakaplan “İstanbul Gümrüğü (1750-1800): Teşkilat ve Ticaret”, Ph.D Diss.,
Marmara University, 2014, p. 39.
437 “Taht-ı iltizamımda olan İstanbul Gümrüğü mülhakatından olup bundan akdem gümrük-i
mezbur umenası taraflarından zabt olunagelen beytülmal-i amme ve hassa mukataasının
gümrük-i mezburdan ifrâz ve canib-i miriye zabt olundukta…” BOA C.ML. 320/13152, 29
10 1191 (30 Nov. 1777). According to this document, the government ordered the emins in
charge of mukataas in Filibe, Gümülcine, İnöz, and Menteşe provinces to cover the 4,500
kuruşes of deficit of İstanbul Gümrüğü Mukataatı that would result from the beytülmal’s
separation from that nezâret. See also Arif Bilgin, Fatih Bozkurt, “Bir Malî Gelir Kaynağı
Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin Terekeleri ve Beytülmâl Mukataaları,” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20, 2010/2, p. 5.
438Abdurrahman Vefik, Tekâlif Kavâidi, c.1 İstanbul, 1328, p. 203.
164
Ziya Paşa, the fiscal system was organized into five main bureaus which also brought the
abolishment of the Beytülmal Müdürlüğü and some other offices439 in 1908.440
Heirless or semi-heirless property was one of the most common types of unclaimed
property for which the government supervision remained very close. The related courts and
kassams (dividers or law officials who fixed inheritance shares) oversaw the division of the
muhallefat of the members of the askerî class. Three courts were formed for dealing with
cases related to fixing the shares in muhallefats, namely the Kısmet-i Askeriye Mahkemesi
(1000-1342/ 1591-1924), Mülgâ Beledî Kassamlığı (1066-1303/ 1655-1886), and Beytülmal
Kassamlığı (1254-1327/1838-1909).441 The main task of these courts was to register the
properties claimed both by the heirs and the government rather than sequestering,
safekeeping, and administering unclaimed property as it was the case under the beytülmal
system before the Tanzimat era.
The kassams were şer’i court officials who dealt specifically with the division of
muhallefats.442 While the askerî kassams443 divided and recorded the inheritance of the askerî
class, the beledî kassams oversaw dividing the inheritance of the reaya. The askerî kassams
439 Vergi and Aşar Müdürlüğü, and Muhâsebât-ı Atîka Müdürlüğü.
440 Zafer Toprak, Türkiye’de Milli İktisat 1908-1918, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür yay.,
2019, p.341.
441 Tahsin Özcan, “Muhallefât”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol.30, 2020, pp. 405-406.
442 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilatı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi, 1988 p.121.
443 Officials in charge of dividing the inheritance of government officers.
165
claimed resm-i kısmet444 on behalf of the chief judges (kazaskers) in Istanbul rather than the
local kadıs. Imperial decrees delineated the boundaries of the askerî status and distinguished
public (amme) inheritances from imperial (hassa) ones to prevent the rise of any conflict
between the local kadıs and the kazaskers regarding the division of estates.445
The beledi kassams divided and fixed inheritances upon the request of regular
subjects, and on behalf of the provincial kadıs. These kassams were not authorized to
intervene in fixing the shares among the possible major (kibâr) claimers. This rule excludes
the following cases; if the possible heirs to muhallefats were not there and then (like gâib and
mefkûd), or they were underage of rightfully claiming their shares (sağîr, sağîre), or not
capable to do that for any reason (like mecnûn). Otherwise, the kadı could only perform this
duty upon the request of the major claimers.446 However, as a remarkable difference, the
444 A fixed tax demanded upon fixing the shares of the inheritance among lawful claimers. It was
generally between 1.5% and 2% of the muhallefat which subject to the division. Ömer L.
Barkan, “Edirne Askeri Kassam’ına Ait Tereke Defterleri 1545-1659,” Belgeler, III/5
(Ankara, 1966), p. 5
445 Ömer L. Barkan examines a kanunnâme sent by Feyzullah Efendi, (the kazasker of Rumelia)
to kadıs of Rumelia in 1605 that aims to make clear the extent of askerî class. “Edirne Askeri
Kassam’ına Ait Tereke Defterleri 1545-1659,” Belgeler, III/5 (Ankara, 1966), p. 5; See also
the definition of the askeri class and who were considered in that group in a similar decree
sent to the kadıs of Anatolia in 1615 in Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 91 fn.158.
446 “Min ba‘d verese-i müteveffâ kibâr olub mâdem ki, anlar cânibinden kısmet taleb eylemeyeler
ve müteveffânın metrûkâtın yazmayalar...Meğer ki, müteveffânın evladı sığâr ve eytâm olub
yazılub kısmet olmamağla hukûk-ı eytâm zâyi‘ ve telef olmak lâzım gele, ol vakit varub
kısmet eyleyüb emvâl-i eytâmı nakîr ve kıtmîr yazub defterler eyleyeler”. ‘Resm-i Kısmet
Kanunnâmesi’ in Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri,
İstanbul,1992, v.5, p. 53-54.; Fatih Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterlerı̇ ve Osmanlı Demografı̇
Araştırmaları”, Tarih Dergisi, s. 54, 2011/2, pp. 91-120.; Barkan, “Edirne Askerî Kassamı”,
p.3; A.DVNSMHM.d. 62/580, 10 Receb 996 (5 Jun 1588).
166
askerî kassams divided and recorded inheritances on behalf of the kazaskers.447 This was part
of the routine duties of the kassams and compulsory in the case of the unclaimed properties
of government functionaries of different levels. For example, the kazaskers of Anatolia and
Rumelia claimed within their respective jurisdiction the unattended inheritances of those who
belonged to the askerî class (and their family members).448 Imams, müezzins, müderrises, and
other performers of religious or judicial tasks on official rosters were included in this class.
Kassams were busy, particularly in Edirne, Bursa, and İstanbul, where many members of the
askeri class lived. In distant provinces, where legal courts did not always have kassams, the
kadıs and naibs (deputy judges) divided the inheritance of the askerî class and collected the
dues on divisions (resm-i kısmet) on behalf of the kazaskers to be collected later by intendants
(askerî kassam müfettişi).449
Several regulations were promulgated for the proper conduct of beytülmal affairs and
the division of inheritances in the nineteenth century. These regulations were concerned
mainly with the recording of the properties in an estate, their safekeeping, fixing division
dues, proper protection of orphans’ properties, and preventing the possible abuses of the
447 Mehmet İpşirli, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kazaskerlik (XVII. Yüzyıla Kadar)” Belleten 61, 1997,
pp.597-700, esp. 622-623, 673.
448For instance, Kısmet-i Askeriye Mahkemesi that recorded the muhallefat of the askeri class in
İstanbul worked under the Rumeli Kazaskerliği. See, for example, İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 64
Kısmet-i Askeriye Mahkemesi 59 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1143 / M. 1730-1731), İstanbul: Kültür
AŞ, 2019.
449 Said Öztürk, Askeri Kassama Ait On Yedinci Asır İstanbul Tereke Defterleri, İstanbul: OSAV
(Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı), 1995, p. 68., and Halil Sahillioğlu, “Askerî” TDV İslam
Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 488-489.
167
officials in charge. The regulations also aimed at defining the role, authority, and limitations
of each related judicial body including the Evkaf, Kassam, and Kazasker courts.450
The insufficient supervision of inheritance (tereke) recordings and the administration
of the orphans’ properties enticed the government to assign these tasks to specific offices
after 1851. Accordingly, the kazaskerliks of Rumelia and Anatolia would keep the
inheritance records, and Emval-i Eytam Nezareti (Administration) would manage the
properties of the orphans of the askerî class. The latter was incorporated into the Office of
the Şeyhülislam in 1852.451
Compared to the relatively locally claimed and administered beytülmal revenues in
the early modern period, the nineteenth century beytülmal regulations aimed at establishing
a centralized system, eliminating intermediary figures, and streamlining and standardizing
the practices that varied across the empire earlier. For instance, beytülmal that accrued from
vakıf lands was collected on behalf of the administration of the relevant vakıf to meet
expenses according to its deed. However, following the foundation of the Evkaf-ı Hümâyun
Administration (Nezâret) in 1826, the management of the beytülmal revenues of dispersed
vakıfs was put under this administration’s authority in conjunction with the efforts to
centralize revenue collection in general. The administration and collection of the beytülmal
revenues of certain non-vakıf lands were also brought under the jurisdiction of the Evkaf-ı
450 Said Öztürk, Askeri Kassama Ait On Yedinci Asır İstanbul Tereke Defterleri, İstanbul: OSAV
(Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı), 1995, p. 71-74.
451 Bilgin Aydın, İlhami Yurdakul, Şeyhülislamlık (Bab-ı Meşihat) Arşivi Defter Kataloğu,
İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM), 2006, p. 291-295.
168
Hümayun Nezareti in 1839.452 However, according to a document, dated six months later in
the same year, the beytülmal’s management seems to have been put under the administration
of the Treasury (Hazine-i Amire).453
Maliye Hazinesi Beytülmal Kassamlığı promulgated a regulation (nizamname) that
consisted of thirty-six articles in 1883 to prevent improprieties in the administration of
inheritances and unclaimed properties.454 According to this regulation, the unclaimed
properties of missing people (gâibs and mefkûds) and any heirless property should be kept in
trust for five years before delivering it to the Treasury as revenue. However, the Kazaskerlik
Muhallefat and Evkaf Mahkemeleri were transferred to the Ministry of Justice (Adliye
Nezareti) along with the other remaining şer’i courts and their branches in 1914.
The earlier practices that applied to the management of the beytülmal appear to have
continued into the late nineteenth455 and early twentieth century depending on circumstances
452 “…beytülmal varidatı Evkaf-ı Hümâyun hazinesine nakl ve tahsis buyurularak Beytülmal
Kassamlığıyla Müdürlüğü ve Muhallefatı Mümeyyizliği ilgâ olunmuş ve Muhallefat
Kaleminde beytülmalden başka kable’l-afv mazbut olan muhallefatlar ile Mansure Hazinesi
varidatından olan emlak ve çiftlikat ve sairenin defatir ve evrakı dahi kalem-i mezburda
mukayyed ve mahfuz bulunmuş idüğünden…” BOA HAT. 531/26183, 16 Za 1254 (31 Jan.
1839).; BOA HAT. 555/ 27458.; See also C.ML. 351/14423.
453 MAD.d. 18870, p.4 21 M 1256 (25 Mar. 1840). These are the preliminary observations
regarding the beytülmal in the nineteenth century. It needs a further research to understand
the institutional reorganizations of the period regarding the beytülmal.
454 “Maliye Hazinesi Beytülmal Kassamlığı vezayifiyle Beytülmale aid terekata dair memurin-i
‘ilmiyyeden mürekkeb teşkil kılınan komisyondan kaleme alınıp şurâ-yı devletce tashih
edilen talimat lâyihasının sûret-i musaddakasının…” BOA İ. ŞD 63/3673, 23 Ra 1300 (1 Feb.
1883).
455 For instance, see an emirnâme (written order) that clearly explains the beytülmal procedure.
A.MKT. 133/23, 5 B 1264 (7 Jul. 1848) and A.MKT. MHM 5/89, a beytülmal case in on the
169
notwithstanding the relatively standardized regulations of the nineteenth century. For
instance, a document consisting of letters between Karachi and Istanbul shows that Emine
Hatun from Diyarbakır died in India and left a certain amount of inheritance: some moveable
property (metrukat and mücevherat) consisting of jewelry, furniture, utensils, and
receivables. The correspondence between the Province of Diyarbekir, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, and the Ottoman Consulate in India shows that some people around Emine
misappropriated the said property. Since it was not certain whether she had heirs in
Diyarbekir, the imperial center ordered first the investigation and settlement of this issue and
then the claiming of the property for the beytülmal if no potential claimers existed in
Diyarbekir. 456
4.4 Ways of Claiming: Beytülmal-i Amme and Beytülmal-i Hassa
The Ottomans ran a bureaucratic, agrarian, and territorially expansive empire. They
built a broad organization consisting of many administrative, religious, fiscal, military, and
judicial officials early on. These government servants differed from ordinary subjects for
way to hajj A.MKT. 215/81, 5 N 1865 (25 Jul. 1849), A.MKT. 207/82, 29 B 1265 (20 Jun.
1849).
456 “…Malum-ı âli buyrulduğu üzere bu misullu memalik-i ecnebiyyede vefat eden teb’a-i
saltanat-ı seniyyenin usul-ı müttehizesi vechile tanzim ve tesyir olunan vefatnameleri üzerine
mahall-i vilayetlerinde varisleri olmadığı tahakkuk eyledikten sonra metrukatlarının canib-i
beytülmale aid olacağına nazaran mahall-i vilayetinde veresesi olup olmadığı tahkik edilmek
üzere evvel emirde müteveffiye-i mezburenin iktiza eden vefatnamesinin tanzim ve tesyiri
ile beraber gerek verese zuhur etmesine ve gerek muhallefatın canib-i beytülmale aid olacağı
anlaşılmasına…”BOA HR. HMŞ. İŞO 174/17, p.20 and others., 23 B 1307 (15 Mar. 1890).
See also cases in İzmir in the late nineteenth century. Fatma Erbay, “H.1311–1314 (M.1893–
1896) Tarı̇hlı̇ (51 Numaralı) İzmı̇r Kassam Sı̇cı̇lı̇nı̇n Transkrı̇psı̇yonu”, MA thesis, Adnan
Menderes Üniversitesi, 2009.
170
being tax-exempt in general. Seemingly based on this legal distinction between the ordinary
tax-paying subjects (reaya) and privileged Ottoman ruling class (askerî), the unclaimed
properties were divided into public (amme) and private (hassa) categories. Accordingly, if
the inheritance (muhallefat) was from a holder of government office or appointment (sahibi
mansıb ve cihet) then the intendant (emin) of beytülmal-i hassa oversaw the claiming and
collection of the properties in that estate.457 Beytülmal-i amme emini was responsible for the
unclaimed or heirless estates of lesser value that falls to the beytülmal from regular subjects.
Linda Darling translates the term beytülmâl-i hâssa as “the repository of estates of
deceased members of the ruling class”.458 Considering the beytülmal as a repository may be
misleading for it undermines its significance in generating a social, legal, and financial order.
The office was not just for storage or safekeeping. It had multiple functions. As a trusteeship,
it administered the properties that came under its jurisdiction in various ways rather than just
storing them. In a sense, it served the moral and material needs of the public and private
claimants over the properties. Besides this, beytülmâl-i hassa managed also the muhallefats
of ordinary people the value of which was equal to or above 10,000 akçes. However,
properties of ordinary people the value of which below 10.000 akçes fell under the
responsibility of beytülmal-i ‘amme. Consequently, “the trustee of the estates of heirless
457 “Eğer bir kimesne fevt olub zahirde varis-i ma‘rufı kalmayub vaki olan muhallefâtı beytülmal
içün zabt olunmak lazım geldikde… eğer müteveffa olan kimesne kapı kullarından ise
veyahud ehl-i berat ise cüz'i ve külli vaki‘olan muhallefatını hassa beytülmal eminine zabt
etdürülür.” Said Öztürk, İstanbul Tereke Defterleri, 1995, p.89, Bilgin and Bozkurt,
“Beytülmal Mukataaları”, 2010, Ahmet Akgündüz, Kanunnameler, v.1, p.181-182.; I. Selim
Kanunnâmeleri 1512-1520, (Haz. Yaşar Yücel, Selami Pulaha), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
1995, p. 189.
458 Linda T. Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: The Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, E.J. Brill, 1996, p.196.
171
deceased government officers, and ordinary people whose estates were valued above 10,000
akçes” would be a more accurate translation of beytülmal-i hassa. Similarly, beytülmal-i
‘amme might be translated as “the trustee of the estates of ordinary tax-paying subjects the
value of whose inheritance below 10,000 akçes.” To be more accurate;
- Beytülmal-i ‘amme was in charge of the unclaimed property of ordinary people the value
of which is below 10.000 akçes.
- Beytülmâl-i hâssa was in charge of the unclaimed property of ordinary people the value
of which is equal to or above 10.000 akçes, and irrespective of the amount the unclaimed
property of the ruling class.
The Ottoman government paid considerable attention to the estates of people of
askerî status. The extent and definition of the askerî acquired a particular significance in the
case of unclaimed property. In his seminal work on askerî kassam registers, Barkan delves
into the meaning of askerî for the Ottomans and asks how this class that represents a
privileged status came to include people fulfilling a great variety of tasks.459 Performers of a
broad range of military, administrative, judicial, and religious tasks (and their families) were
considered to have an askerî status, judging by the treatment of their estates.460 He founds it
459 Ömer L. Barkan, “Edirne Askerî Kassam’ına Ait Tereke Defterleri 1545-1659” Belgeler,
III/5, (Ankara, 1966), p. 4-8.
460 The government tried to overcome the problems arising from the spreding of the askerî class
with repeated decrees that set limits to inclusion in this class. Halil Sahillioğlu, “Askerî” TDV
İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 488-489.; However, Barkan argues that the details and
the extensiveness of the definition of the askerî class might (also) have aimed to incrase the
revenus for the kazaskers over resm-i kısmet as they were the men of weigt in the sultan’s
divan. Barkan, “Edirne Askeri Kassamı”, p. 6. For a detailed examiniation of askerî title see
also Said Öztürk, “XVII. Yüzyıl Askerı̇ Kassam Defterlerı̇nı̇n Sosyo-Ekonomı̇k Tahlı̇lı̇”,
Ph.D Diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993, pp. 20-23.
172
saliently bizarre to include people who produced certain strategic crops (like çeltikçi, tuzcu),
and materials or services (madenci, derbendci, doğancı, yaya, müsellem etc.) within the same
class of the reciters of the Qur’an (cüzhan), and tellers of beads (tesbih çeken) on special
occasions, and seyyids. He argues that there is an obvious divergence between these groups
on the basis of their contribution to the well-being of the empire. For instance, the farmers
were exempted from paying certain taxes only after they put their highest effort and labor
(emek) into production.461 From a mere fiscal perspective, one might think that the
government lost its crucial tax revenues (like avarız or tekâlif-i örfiyye) via these
‘unnecessary’ exemptions. However, one should also consider the social fabric, and the
inevitableness of the policy of accommodation for an early modern empire where the modern
means of tax collection, communication, and administration were not applicable.
Additionally, considering beytülmal-i hassa, it could be a more practical and secure method
to claim the beytülmal returns through such an extensive network of askerî class where each
member of each corporate group was accountable to their fellows and leaders in many
respects.
For instance, a hukm was sent to the kadı of İstanbul in 1031(1622) upon the
grievances about the improper claiming of the beytülmal-i hassa, and the intervention of third
persons to the beytülmal’s operation. For a more attentive division between the hassa and
amme claims, the document defines the borders for the askerî class —while explicitly
excluding the janissary corps from this class.
“… malum olaki mahmiye-i istanbulda sakin olan ma’zul ve mansub
beylerbeyleri ve sancakbeyleri ve müteferrika ve çaşnigir ve dergâh-ı muallâm
çavuşları ve altı bölük halkı ve zuamâ ve erbâb-ı timar ve cebeci ve topçu ve top
461 He found it odd to include the zevâid-hors (the beneficiaries of pious foundations) to askeri
class along with the seyyids, and describes them group as “eli beratlı hazır yiyici askerî sınıf”.
Barkan, “Edirne Askeri Kassamı”, p. 9.
173
arabacıları ve dergâh-ı muallâm kapucıları ve matbah-ı amire hademesi ve ehl-i hiref
taifesi ve kuzât ve müderrisîn ve talebe taifesi ve hatip ve imam ve müezzin ve
cüzhan ve mütevelli ve kâtip ve câbi ve sair ehl-i cihet ve doğancı ve çakırcı ve bi’lcümle
ehl-i berât olup yeniçeri ve acemi oğlan taifesinden mâ‘ada bir kimesne vefat
edip zahirde vâris-i ma‘rufu olmayanların cüz-i ve külli metrukatları kadimu’leyyâmdan
hâssa beytülmal tarafından zabt olunub mahsul-ı tahsil ve dahil-i hazine
olagelmişken mahalle imamları, müezzinleri ve mahalle kethüdaları ve hancıları ve
han-odabaşıları ve ehl-i sûkun kethüdaları yiğitbaşıları meyyit vaki oldukda min
ba’ad hâssa beytülmal eminine haber etmeyub amme beytülmalcilerine mürâcaat
etmekle vaki olan mahsul mabeynlerinde ekl ve bel‘ olunub mâl-i mîrîye külli hayf
ve gadr olub zikrolunan taifenin mu’teklerinin ve zevcelerinin dahi cüz-i ve külli
metrukatları hâssaya raci olmakla zikrolunan taifeden biri hâssa beytülmal eminine
haber virmezden mukaddem kimesne dahl eylemeye…462
Along with the status of the ex-owner, what makes the difference between them was
also the value of the muhallefat (inheritance). Anatolian kadıs were asked to be duly aware
of muhallefat that involved heirs (veledeti gâib). In case a şer’i beytülmal [that is an estate
that had a legitimate heir according to the Islamic legal principles] came before them; they
should deliver it to the beytülmal officers (amils463) Accordingly, if one finds a muhallefat
with a value of fewer than 10,000 akçes, they should deliver it to the ‘amils (pl. ‘ummâl,
agent or tax farmer, mültezim): “on binden aşağısın amillerüme teslîm eyleyesiz.” However,
462 YB.04. 3/42 (1031 /1622).
463 ‘Âmil was the officer who collects zakat (alms), ghanima (booty), fay’ (taxation of conquered
peoples), jizyah (poll-tax), and kharja during time of the prophet Muhammed. The term was
also used to denote (any) government officer, but in general the pre-Ottoman Islamic history
used it for the officer in charge of tax collecting. However, the Ottomans used this term for
the mültezims who undertake tax-collection of a certain unit (or a bunch of units) for a certain
time period. Mehmet Erkal, “Amil” TDK İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.3, 1991, pp. 58-60.;
Darling, Revenue Raising Legitimacy, p.130.; Mehmet Genç, Erol Özvar (haz.) Osmanlı
Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler I, p.17.; Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, pp. 35, 135-140.
174
they (the beytülmalcis) should take hold of the muhallefats with a higher value on behalf of
the state (beglik içün zabt idesiz).464
“…Ve şehirlu taifesininden dahi kimesne fevt oldukda yalnız amme
beytülmalinin eminine haber olunmayub hassa beytülmal eminine dahi haber olunub
ma‘rifet-i kadı ile meyyitin üzerine varılub müteveffanın metrukatı on binden ekal
olur ise amme beytülmalcilerine zapt ettirilub eğer on binden ziyade olur ise hassa
beytülmal emininie zapt ve ahz ve kabz ettiresun. Ve kefereden bir kimesne mürd
oldukda varisi olmayanın metrukatının on binden ziyadesi hâssaya raci‘ iken hayli
zaman kefere taifesinin dahi papazları ve mahalle kethüdaları asla hassa beytülmal
eminine müracaat etmeyub kefere beytülmacilerine vaki olan mahsul mabeynlerinde
ekl ve bel‘ olunduğu ilam olundukta vech-i meşruh üzere imamlar ve müezzinler ve
mahalle kethüdalarına ve hancılara ve odabaşılara ve kefere papazlarına ve mahalle
kethüdalarına müracaat eylemeyüb hassa beytülmal eminine haber vireler. Ve
şehirluden bir kimesne fevt oldukta hassa beytülmal eminine ve amme beytülmal
eminine ma’an haber verip on binden ziyade ise hassa beytülmal eminine zabt ve
kabz ettirub hilaf-ı emr-i şerif kimesneye iş ettirmeyesin…”465
Based on the legal regulations and the documents that dated back to the second half
of the fifteenth century, it is safe to state that the Ottomans considered the beytülmal-i ‘amme
as property that was under the custodianship of the state treasury and should return to it
(miriye raci ve aid). They relied on mukataas and the agency of tax farmers (amils) to
administer these estates and to collect the revenue that accrued therefrom. The beytülmal-i
amme was also called “hurde” beytülmali466 when referring to estates with a value of less
464 “Sûretü’l-hükmi’s-sultânî li-ecl-i beyti’l-mâl” (BOA. MŞH.ŞSC.d., 2458/vr.76b); Ahmed
Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri v.1, (İstanbul: FEY vakfı yay.,
1990), p.575.; Halil İnalcık, “Bursa Şer’iyye Sicillerinde Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in
Fermanları”, Belleten c. XI, s.44 (Ankara: TTK, 1947) p. 693-708.
465 YB.04. 3/42 (1031 /1622).
466 “…liva-i mezkure mevkufatı, hurde beytülmali ve hassası mukataaları eminleri gelub…”
BOA MAD.d. 7435/653 (984).; Arif Bilgin, Fatih Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, 2010,
p.3. BOA MAD, 2775: 313, 807; BOA KK, 67: 19.
175
than 10,000 akçes. In addition, beytülmal-i ‘amme included “avam” beytülmali,467 which
denoted heirless properties left by ordinary people.
For the beytülmal-i hâssa, the earlier regulations do not indicate the title of officials
who oversaw the properties. They state that the beytülmal of the holders of official positions
and their relatives and other beytülmals with a value exceeding ten thousand akçes should
not be sold to the amils as mukataas. Such officials as emins, beytülmalcis, and amils who
oversaw the properties in the hassa category did not have the authority to sell and use them
unless they were explicitly ordered to do so. Hassa in this context implied mainly the
destination of the revenue.
For instance, the Kanunnâme-i Beytülmal-i Hassa which was promulgated in
Bayezid II’s reign (1481-1512) to regulate the management of hassa beytülmal and the debt
claims related to it, did not assign this task to a specific office and indicated that this revenue
was the Palace’s share:
“Memâlik-i Mahrûsemde mansıbı ve ciheti olanlardan ve anlarun
müte'allıkinden fevt olub terekeleri beytülmal cihetiyle veya usubet sebebiyle
kapuma müteveccih olsa, bunlarun gibilerin muhallefâtı kalil ve kesir her ne kadar
olur ise âmile mukata'aya verilmiş değildir ve kapuma ciheti olmayanlardan dahi
şunlar ki cümle terekeleri kadı defterinde on bin veya on binden ziyâde ola, medyun
olsun olmasun ve terekelerin duyûn ihâta etsün etmesün anlarun dahi beyt'ül-malı
amile satılmış değildir.”468
Although the amils could be authorized to sell beytülmal-i amme (kadı ma'rifetiyle
metrukâtı bey’i men yezîd edub satalar) they were [only] the overseers of the beytülmal-i
467 “… Selanik’de yevmi 5 akçe ile beytülmal-i avam katibi olan Halil’in kitabeti…” BOA AE.
SSÜL.I 5/272, 29 Z 969 (30 Aug. 1562).; “Avam beytülmaline mültezim olan Manol veledi
Mesket…” BOA D A.DVNSMHM.d. 22/415, 12 R 981 (11 Aug. 1573).
468 Paris, Turc 35 (48a-50a) Examined in detail in the 2nd chapter. For the date of this kanunnâme
Akgündüz gives Bayezid II’s period. Akgündüz, Kanunnameler v.2. p.118.
176
hassa acting on behalf of the sultan (on binden yukaru ne kadar beytü’l-mal vâki' olursa ol
yerun kadıları emânet birle benum içun zabt edeler).469
The heirship of the sovereign, his right of escheat,470 was common in Islamic polities
and applied to the Ottoman sultans as well. However, if the deceased was a government
functionary, the sultan’s heirship right became firmer on two broadly recognized grounds.
First, the sultan was the leader of his subjects. In case a person of the askerî status died
without an heir, his or her family was deemed the group with which he was affiliated before
his death (ocak, bölük, tekke, eminlik etc.) was considered to have been his family. As the
head of these governmental bodies, the sultan, was the ultimate legatee of their wealth, either
partially or entirely.471 The heirless properties of deceased people of an askerî status were,
thus, reserved for either the private treasury of the ruler (hazine-i enderun), or for the imperial
treasury (hazine-i âmire).472
469 “Kanunnâme-i Mihaliç Hükm-i Sureti”, Paris, Turc 39 (121a-125b)
470 The reversion of the property to the state on the owner’s dying without legal heirs
471 The Janissaty Corps (Kapıkulu Ocakları) were among these governmental institutions. For
instance, when the Governor of Aleppo died, it became apparent that he had not delivered to
the Hazine-i Endrerun-ı Hümayun the beytülmal of the Janissaries he collected in his previous
position as the Commamder of Janisssaries (Ağa-i Yeniçeriyan): “Sabıka Ağayı yeniçeriyanı
dergâh-ı âli müteveffa Haleb valisi Mustafa Paşa’nın altmış beş senesi Şabanu’l-
Muazzamının yirmi birinci gününde yeniçeri ağalığı tevcih ve altmış sekiz senesi
Cemâziyelevveli üçüncü gününde rütbe-i vizaret ihsan-ı hümayun buyrulmağla yeniçeri
beytülmali akçesi ve tuğ-ı hümayun caizesinden müteveffa-i mezburun tarafından hazine-i
Enderun-ı hümayuna teslimi lazım gelen…” BOA TSMA.e 32-37, 29 Ramazan 1168 (9 Jul
1755).; See also İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve Osmanlı
Devleti İç Hazinesi” Belleten, Ocak 1978, Cilt XLII, sayı.165, pp.67-93.
472İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve Osmanlı Devleti İç Hazinesi”
Belleten, Ocak 1978, Cilt XLII, sayı165, pp.67-93.; Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi,
177
Secondly, the wealth of the government functionaries, especially the higher-ranking
ones, were considered not private but public property as they acquired that wealth because of
the positions they held. In case they die heirless or semi-heirless, the muhallefat was
appraised and used accordingly. Nevertheless, claiming the beytülmal of the government
officers was a conventional legal function of the Ottoman government. Its justification was
far different from the frequent confiscation practices in the later periods.473
Hassa literally means “private possession” and “distinction.” In the Ottoman context,
it implied the sovereign (sultan), an imperial status, and the elite cadres. Beytülmal-i hassa
was a revenue related to the so-called “inner” (enderun) component of the central/imperial
treasury. Called under various (but related) names (such as hazine-i emiriyye, miriyye, ‘âmire,
padişahî, or devlet), the imperial treasury evolved into a twofold organization in time. The
so-called “external” (birun) treasury received the revenues designated for the imperial center
and disbursed the expenses of the central state organization out of these funds. The “inner”
treasury served as a reserve fund, helped meet the expenses of the Palace, and provided
support for the public good as deemed appropriate by the sovereign.474 However, from the
İstanbul: Dergah Yay. 2020, p. 278-279.; Cengin Orhonlu, “Hazine” TDV İslâm
Ansiklopedisi, vol.17, 1998, pp.130-133.; Tahsin Özcan, "Muhallefât", TDV İslam
Ansiklopedisi, vol.30, 2020, pp. 405-406.
473 This argument was expanded to include private gains of the officers, and, at the end, to the
confiscation of the whole property rather than escheat despite the existence of the legal heirs.
For further discussion see. F. Azize Çakır “Confiscation Practices, Politics of Wealth
Accumulation, and the Case of Mehmed Saı̇d Halet Efendı̇ (1761-1822)”, Ph.D Diss.,
Istanbul Şehir University, 2020.; Yasin Arslantaş, “Confiscation by the ruler: A study of the
Ottoman practice of Musadere, 1700s-1839” Ph.D Diss., University of London, 2017.
474 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve Osmanlı Devleti İç
Hazinesi” Belleten, Ocak,1978, Cilt XLII- Sayı 165, p.67-93.; Halil İnalcık & Donald
178
late seventeenth century onwards the interaction and the traffic between them, particularly
from Hazîne-i Hassa to the Hazîne-i Âmire, intensified and reached in an irreversible point.
For the pressing needs of the empire, especially after 1683, the quantities borrowed from
Hazine-i Hassa increased to a level that the reimbursements were hardly possible in
prolonged years.475
One might find some parallels between the selling of beytülmal-i hassa mukataas and
the blurring line between the two hazines. However, Hazine-i Enderûn was not the
destination of beytülmal-i hassa exclusively. Except for high-ranking officers, like the chief
Quataert, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi (1300- 1600), (çev.) Halil
Berktay, c.1, İstanbul: Eren Yay., 2000, p. 117.; Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi,
İstanbul: Dergah Yay. 2020, p. 278-279.; Tahsin Özcan, "Muhallefât", TDV İslam
Ansiklopedisi, vol.30, 2020, pp. 405-406.; Cengin Orhonlu, “Hazine” TDV İslâm
Ansiklopedisi, vol.17, 1998, pp.130-133
475 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah Yay. 2020, p. 278-279.; İ. Hakkı
Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve Osmanlı Devleti İç Hazinesi”
Belleten, Ocak 1978, Cilt XLII- Sayı 165, p.67-93.; Kadir Arslanboğa, Osmanlı Devleti’nde
Hazine Harcamaları 1649-1683, Ankara: Çanakkale Onsekis Mart Üniversitesi yay.,2014,
pp. 5-6.; Cengin Orhonlu, “Hazine” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol.17, 1998, pp.130-133.
179
eunuch of the harem,476 provincial governors,477 high-ranking officials, military
commanders478 etc., it was not a regular destination for the beytülmal. In general, the
beytülmal collected by the hassa officers were sent to the imperial treasury or spent in spot
to meet a variety of expenses— ranging from salaries of public functionaries to funerary
expenses of the needy. Hazine-i Enderun was also used as the place where the articles of
476 “Defter oldur ki dârüssaâde ağalu[ğu]ndan ve saraylı hatunlarından ve ağalar ’uteka
cariyelerinden bi-emrillâh-i teâla Mısır’da fevt olanların dârüssaâde ağalarından fermân-ı
hümâyun-ı âlişan mucebince beytülmal ağası olan Sefer Ağa’nın marifetiyle metrukatların
kabz olunup füruht edip akçelerin tahsil olunup fermân-ı hümâyun-ı âlişân mucebince
müteveffâ-i mezburların … deynlerin edâ edip ve utekalarına bir hissesin verip iki hissesin
rikâb-ı hümâyun irsâl olunan akçedir …” Another muhallefat was written as follows:
“Dârüssaâde ağalarından Sünbül Ağa’nın utekalarından Bâd-ı Sabah hatun hâl-i hayatında
utekalarına vasiyyet edip ba‘dehû bi-emrillâhi teâlâ fevt olup beytülmal içun kalan
metrukatından tahassul olunan akçedir, cem‘an 29,727 paradır.” TS.MA.e 685/17, 5 C 1083
(28 Sept. 1672).
477 “Kandiye valisi Maktûl Ahmed Paşa’nın muhallefatı olmak üzere … mecmû‘u 4,419 altun
dergâh-ı âli kapucıbaşlarından Mustafa Ağa yediyle gelup teslîm-i hazîne-i enderûn
olmuştur.” This detailed daily account register (defter-i müfredat) also shows the type of
revenues delivered to the Hazîne-i Enderûn. TS.MA.d 13- 24a, (1092/1681).
478 For instance see the list of muhallefats of some government officers. With the order of the
sultan these muhallefats were sold in auction (mezad): “Emr-i hümâyun üzere Enderûn-ı
Hümâyun tarafından fürüht olunan muhallefat bahaları” Some of the titles in this list are as
follows; Rusçuk Seraskeri, Defterdâr İsmet Alî Efendi, Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası, Abaza
Mehmed Paşa, Abdurrahman Paşa, Adana Beylerbeyisi Karslızâde Hasan Paşa. There is also
a collection of muhallefats stored in Enderun hazinesi which contains swords. The iron parts
of these swords were removed so as to be sold in the auction: “Ba‘zı muhallefattan müctemi‘
olup füruht olunan sökündü kılıç demirleri bahası 122.5 kuruş.” TS.MA.e 401/16
(1187/1773).
180
value (like precious jewelry, furs, fabrics, and cloths, etc) were stored.479 Nevertheless, it
could be claimed that one of the most consistent revenues for Hazine-i Enderun was the
beytülmal of yeniçeris.480 In theory, the beytülmal of yeniçeris was saliently a revenue for
beytülmal-i hassa, but neither emin were allowed to claim their properties.481Yeniçeri
beytülmali could be said one of the most autonomous corporate beytülmal in the Ottoman
empire.
The archival records show that beytülmal-i hassa emini served in different lands of
the empire and relied on the mukataa method to administer the beytülmal in the sixteenth
479 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve Osmanlı Devleti İç
Hazinesi” Belleten, Ocak,1978, Cilt XLII- Sayı 165, p.67-93.; Kadir Arslanboğa, Osmanlı
Devleti’nde Hazine Harcamaları 1649-1683, Ankara: Çanakkale Onsekis Mart Üniversitesi
yay.,2014, pp. 3-6.; Saliha Önen Sarıerı̇kli & Gülser Yardım “Nevşehı̇rlı̇ Damat İbrahı̇m Paşa
ve Damatlarının Enderûn Hazı̇nesı̇’ne Aktarılan Mallarının Değerlendı̇rmesı̇”, Karamanoğlu
Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakülte5(1), 2022, pp. 1-16.; Gülser Yardım, “17. Yüzyılın
İkinci Yarısına Ait Bir Deftere Göre Muhallefattan Hazineye Aktarılan Eşyalar” Mavi Atlas,
9(1), 2021, pp. 147-170.
480 After confirming the value of each beytülmal, 25 per thousand of it was reserved for yeniçeri
ocağı, the rest was marked as hazine (treasury). See Ali Şenyurt, “Yeniçeri Ortaları
Yardımlaşma Sandıkları” (Janissary Company Charity Funds), KOSBED, 33, 2017, pp. 155-
170.; Tayfun Toroser (haz.), Kavanin-i Yeniçeriyan (Yeniçeri Kanunları). İstanbul: Türkiye
İş Bankası Kültür yay., 2011, pp.49-50, 172-173, 187.; “… Ömer Paşa’dan matlub olan
yeniçeri ocağı beytülmali akçesinden şimdiye dek tahsil olunup defterdâr efendi tarafından
gelup hazîne-i enderûn-ı hümâyûna irâd kayd olunan 8500 kuruş.” TS.MA.e 916/7, (1178
/1764).; “… yeniçeri beytülmali akçesi olmak üzere … beytülmalci el-Hâc İbrâhim Ağa ve
el-Hâc Mehmed Efendi kulları yedlerinden yalnız yirmi bin kuruş enderûn-ı hümâyun
hazinesine teslim olunduğu…” C.AS.842/35962, 15 S 1148 (7 Jul 1735).
481 “…bi’l-cümle ehl-i berât olup yeniçeri ve acemi oğlan taifesinden mâ‘ada bir kimesne vefat
edip zahirde vâris-i ma‘rufu olmayanların cüz-i ve külli metrukatları kadimu’l-eyyâmdan
hâssa beytülmal tarafından zabt olunub mahsul-ı tahsil ve dahil-i hazine olaglemişken…”
YB.04. 3/42 (1031 /1622).; TS.MA.e. 32/27 (1168/1755).
181
century. The hassa emins were also authorized to auction off the right to manage and collect
the beytülmal revenues.482 For instance, a document from 1537 shows that beytülmal-i hassa
mukataası was undertaken by an emîn and sipahi: “Muhasebe-i mahsulat-ı beytülmal-ı hassa
ki der İstanbul vaki’ şode an tahvil-i Pîrî Rüstem emin-i silah ve Nasuh Matrâkî an ebna-i
sipahiyan katib fi’l-vaki’ fi ğayet-i Ra sene 943.483
Another example from 1574 shows that people of askerî status could undertake a
beytülmal-i hassa mukataa together with arrangements to collect other revenues:
“Liva-i Mora sipahiyanından Mahmud kulların gelib…liva-i mezbure
mukataatın…tahvili cedidini tevarih-i muhtelife ile üç yıl sekiz yük akçe ziyade ile
mültezimine füruht idüb, bî-kusur haklaştırmak üzere kabul ve iltizam ederim şol
şartla ki; sipahi oğlanları cemaatinden livayı mezbure mevkufatın ve hassa
beytülmalin ber veçhi emânet zabt eyleyen Hasan’ın üç yıllık muhasabesi görülüp
mevkufat mukataasını ber veçhi iltizam ve beytülmal-i hassayı ber vechi emânet
olmak üzere zabt olunmağın…”484
The right to pursue beytülmal-i amme and hassa claims were generally undertaken
by different mültezims and contracted by different emins and katibs. This practical division
must have helped manage the task relatively efficiently. However, a considerable number of
cases indicate that the same emin could oversee both types of beytülmals and authorize the
482 BOA AE. SMMDIV 53/6:05 (1073/1662).
483 BOA MAD.d. 23347, p.5 and other pages (Ra 943/ Sep.1536).; see also BOA MAD.d. 23349,
p.2-3, 01 S 945 (29 Jun. 1538).
484 BOA A. DVNSMHM d. 25/2005 (982). Another document also shows that a sipahi applied
for a contract to oversee the beytülmal-i hassa revenues and the public fruit and flour
weighing machines in Iznik: “Bi’l-fi’il Kocaeli Sancağı beyi Hasan Bey kulları arz gönderip
İznikmid’de vaki kapan-ı meyve ve dakîk ve beytülmal-ı hassa mukataası Muhammed [b.
Mustafa, ebna-i sipahiyan] nam kimesne uhdesinde üç yıla üç yük akçe iltizamda olup hala
tahvili tamam olmamağın tahvil-i cedidi on bin akçe ziyade ve on bin akçe peşin vermek
üzere Muhammed kullarına deruhhe olunup berat-ı alişan-ı sadaka buyrulmak babında inayet
ricasına ilam eder. BOA AE. SAMD. I 7/624 (1018)
182
same mültezim to collect them.485 The combination of different types of beytülmals in the
same mukataa contract may not appear surprising if one considers that mukataa contracts
frequently included the right to manage and collect different revenues.486
At any rate, mukataa contracts in general stated in clear language that left little doubt
about the types of revenue sources they covered and who had the right (and responsibility)
to collect them. This was the case, particularly after the first quarter of the sixteenth century.
For instance, a document from 1519 does not clearly specify the nature of the beytülmal
revenues to which it refers. (The late fifteenth-century kanunnâmes were similarly vague
regarding this matter.) İskender Bey, the Governor (mîr liva) of Malatya transfers (tahvil487)
the right to collect certain revenues from the hassa lands allotted to him as prebend (for his
stipend) to Mehmed Bey in the form of a mukataa. Mehmed Bey would collect “mahsul-ı
resm-i arus ve niyabet ve bâd-ı heva ve beytülmal ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûd, yuva ve
kaçgun ve cürm-i cinayet” in the township of Malatya and some of its villages.488 The lack
of distinction between hassa and amme beytülmals in this document may have been related
485 “Toygun Mustafa Ağa emin-i beytülmal-i amme ve hassa der İstanbul an akçe-i emânet-i
beytülmal …” BOA AE. SMST. II 54/5488.; BOA AE. SMST. II 129/14242.; BOA AE.
SOSM. II. 1/22.
486 Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2006, p. 90-95; Hülya Taş, XVII.
Yüzyılda Ankara, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu., 2006, p.58; MŞS, 98: 26-27; MŞS, 112:
201/1. M. Akif Erdoğru, (2004), “Osmanlı Kıbrısı‟nda Önemli Bir Görevli: Beytülmâl-ı
Hassa ve Âmme Emini”, CIEPO XIV. Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 18-22 Eylül 2000 Çeşme,
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, p. 149-160.
487 The assignment, or transfer of the rights of tax collection to an undertaker for a certain time
period (1 to 3 years). Mehmed Genç, Osmanlı İmpraratorluğu’nda Devlet ve Ekonomi,
İstanbul: Ötüken, 2000, p. 103.
488 “Hasha-i İskender Bey mîr-liva-i Malatya an tahvil-i Mehmed Bey b. Yahya Paşa” BOA.
MAD.d. 15450/1, 20 R 925 (21 Apr. 1519).
183
to the status of the land. Since the land assigned to Governor İskender Bey was hassa, there
was no need for further specification of the anticipated beytülmal revenues as hassa and
amme. Mehmet Bey was authorized to claim any unclaimed property in the specified area on
behalf of the governor (mirliva).
The evidence at hand indicates that the Ottomans paid closer attention to the
collection of beytülmal revenues along with changing conditions and growing
commercialization of the economy later in the sixteenth century and thereafter.
Emins undertook the nitty-gritty task of administering the unclaimed properties.
Working in the field actively, both the hassa and amme emins were integral parts of the
beytülmal office. Their cooperation was also necessary in some cases, particularly if the line
between the hassa and amme was not crystal clear for the sides involved. There are a
considerable number of cases in which the two emins accuse each other of interfering in their
spheres. According to a decree dating from 1579, for instance, the holder of beytülmal-i hassa
mukataas in the provinces of Hamid, Teke, and Alaiye complained that the kadıs and
beytülmal-i amme emins in these provinces prevented the hassa emins from pursuing their
legitimate claims and hence harmed the beytülmal-i hassa revenues. When an estate fell into
the beytülmal-i hassa category on the ground that no known heirs made claims regarding it
in the designated period,489 some people came from other sancaks and kadılıks with claims
of heirship. The amme emins encouraged the provincial kadıs to hear these cases without
paying attention to the due process and to assign the estates in question to those outsiders
who claimed heirship. By doing so they undermined the beytülmal-i hassa revenues. This
decree was addressed to the kadıs who were accused of hearing cases without the attendance
of beytülmal-i hassa nâzırs and emins. It warned the kadıs that they would be held responsible
489 Not defined in the document.
184
for the compensation of the consequent revenue losses if they were involved in such
fraudulent stratagems (hile u hud’a).
“Hükm-i şerifim vardukda siz ki toprak kadılarısız bu hususa her biriniz gereği
gibi mukayyed olub her kanginiz ki taht-ı kazasında hassa beytülmali vaki olub
zahirde vâris-i ma‘rufu olmaya, hassa beytülmali nâzırı hazır değil iken amme
beytülmal eminleri muvacehesinde dinlemeyub hassa beytülmal nâzırına haber
verub ikisinin muvacehesinde şer’le göresiz…Şöyle ki mezkurân nâzırlar hazır değil
iken amme beytülmalci muvacehesinde veraset da’vası istima’ eyleyub hile u hud’a
ile hassa beytülmale gadr eylediğiniz zahir ola, ol takdirde vaki olan zarar sizden
tazmin ettirilir bilmiş olasız.”
This informative document indicates how the law was elaborated on and
promulgated through correspondence between the center and the provinces. It states the
relevant rules:
“Şöyle ki müteveffanın muhallefatı on binden ekall olub, dergâh-ı muallam
olmayub hassa beytülmale alakası olmayanları amme beytülmal mültezimlerine zabt
ettiresiz. Mal-ı beytülmalden kimesneye bir akçe ve bir habbe bel‘ ve ketm
ettirmeyesiz.”
The kadıs and the amme emins were warned that the cash value of the estate would
not matter if the deceased was a government officer. That is to say, the status of the deceased
sufficed for a hassa emini’s involvement to uphold the claims of the Imperial Treasury on an
estate:
“…Ve elviye-i mezbûrede sancakbeyi ve zuamâ ve erbâb-ı tımar ve kapum
kulları ve bi’l-cümle berât-ı hümâyun ile dirliğe ve cihete mutasarrıf olanlar fevt
olub varis-i ma’rûfı kalmadıkda cüz’i ve küllî vaki olan muhallefâtlarına hilâf-ı
kanûn amme beytülmal nâzırları ve eminleri faslettirilmeyip kanun üzere beytülmali
hassa eminlerine zabt ettirub hassa beytülmale zarar ve gadr olmaktan hazer idub
ve muhtacı arz olan kaziyyeleri yazub kapuma arz idesiz.”490
490 A. DVNSMHM d. 41/349, 21 N 987 (11 Nov. 1579).
185
Similar procedures and guidelines are applied also to beytülmal-i amme properties.
For instance, a decree warned the kadıs in the province (sancak) of Kastamonu to refrain
from hearing cases related to miri (revenues) in the absence of emins and nâzırs (inspectors).
This disregard for due procedure would hurt the revenues of the Treasury and harm the
interests of mültezims (tax farmers):
“…zikrolunan toprak kadılarına tenbih ü te’kid eyleyesin ki malıma müteallik
husus vaki‘ oldukda dersaadetimden emr-i şerif veyahut müfettiş ve nâzır
caniblerinden mürâsele vasıl olmadın ve emin ve ademisi anda hazır değil iken
fuzuli kenduleri istima‘ etmeyeler ve ettirmeyub mâl-ı miriye gadr, mültezimin
iltizamına zarar müterettib olmaktan hazer idesiz…”491
It was İshak’s complaint that prompted this decree. İshaq was an intendant
representing the Treasury who held his post by way of iltizam (emin ber veçh-i iltizam). His
iltizam involved the right to collect several revenues, including beytülmal, mâl-ı gâib, mâl-ı
mefkûd, yave, kaçgun, resm-i bennak and bâd-i heva along with a few others. İshak
underlined that the kadis’ rush to settle cases without due attention to established procedures
undermined the interests of the Treasury and its agents.
The Ottomans divided the beytülmal revenues into amme and hassa categories on
theoretical and practical grounds. Their approach to the management of these revenues
appears to have been influenced by the intention to maximize the yield along with the
conditions that prevailed on the ground in different locations (and times). Separate mültezims,
emins, and katips were deemed necessary to run a mukataa, whether amme or hassa, in some
cases. However, this division was not even considered in many other cases.
For instance, the record keeper (katib) for beytülmal-i hassa of Selanik asks the
imperial center to combine the tasks of the beytülmal-i amme clerk with his (those of the
beytülmal-i hassa clerk) so that the government could save on the five akçes of daily wages
491 A. DVNSMHM d. 41/543, 23 L 987 (13 Dec. 1579).
186
paid to the former. Offering five akçes saving for the treasury in case his position is expanded,
he also reminds the central government that the combination of the two positions would be
appropriate because only one emin oversaw the revenues within their jurisdiction:
“Selanik’te yevmi 5 akçe ile beytülmal-i avam kâtibi olan Halil’in kitabeti
bende kullarına ilhak olunursa yevmi beş akçe hazineye kalur deyu emelidir. Ve
resm-i iki kalemin emini bir olub kâtibi dahi bir olmak münasiptir deyu rica eder.”492
The beytülmal collected in vakıf lands was also administered in different ways.
According to legal regulations, the agents of the related vakıf were entitled to claim all
beytülmals in vakıf lands:
“Kanun-ı Padişahî bi-emri Sultani budur ki evkâf-ı selâtin ve evkâf-ı ümerâ
serbest olub beytülmaline ve yavesine kimesne dahl etmeye deyu ellerinde selâtîn-i
maziyeden hükümleri ve Padişahımızdan mukarrernameleri vardır”.493
Both types of unclaimed properties, whether amme or hassa, were reserved for the
vakıf.494 Vakıf administration(s) could collect and supervise the beytülmal mukataas either
together or seperately. For instance, a mültezim was in charge of claiming beytülmal-i hassa
and amme on behalf of the vakıf of Şehzade Mustafa-i Atik in Bursa. The mültezim sent a
petitition to the porte to complaint about some local figures who interfered his collection of
492 AE. SSÜL.I 5/272, 29 Z 969 (30 Aug. 1562)
493 Biga Livası Kanunu (922/1517) in Ömer L. Barkan, Kanunlar I, pp. 19-2., See also Ö. Lütfi
Barkan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda bir Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakıflar ve
Temlikler I: İstilâ Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri ve Zâviyeler." Vakıflar Dergisi,
2/ 1942, p.359 (pp.279-386.)
494 Timur Kuran (ed.), Mahkeme Kayıtları ışığında 17. Yüzyıl İstanbul’unda Sosyo-Ekonomik
Yaşam Vol.1 (Social and Economic Life in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul: Glimpses from
Court Records), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası yay., 2010, pp. 681-682.
187
the beytülmal, in the villages of the districts of Mihaliç and Kirmasti, and asked for a decree
to prevent them:
“…Mihaliç eminleri ve Kirmasti eminleri ve Bursa mütesellimi ve Kütahya
mütesellimi ve sair ehl-i örf taifesi hilaf-ı şer ve hilâf-ı emr u defter reaya fukarasını
rencide etmeleriyle min ba‘d dahl u taarruz olunmayub ve beytülmal-i amme ve
hassa dahi taraf-ı vakftan zabt olunub minvâl-i meşrûh üzere bir ferd dahl ve ta‘arruz
eylememek babında mültezim tarafıdan fermân-ı şerif ihsan buyrulmak babında
arzuhal…”495
However, a ledger that includes the accounts of the vakıf of Eyüb el-Ensârî, Sultan
Bayezid, Mehmed Paşa, and Gazanfer Ağa refers to beytülmal revenues as “beytülmal-i
reayâ-yı evkaf-ı mezbur.” The term reaya in this context implies people who lived or worked
on vakıf lands.496 Another source also mentions beytülmal as revenue along with other income
like cürm-ü cinayet and bâd-ı heva without making a distinction between amme and hassa.497
The evident market demand for beytülmal mukataas and various petitions related to
the issue indicates that the amme and hassa revenues were sold either as separate mukataas
to different mültezims or in a bundle with other mukataas to a certain mültezim. Official
documents indicate that there had emerged a market for the sale and purchase of the rights to
manage the unclaimed properties of civilians (beytülmal-i amme mukataas) already in the
fifteenth century. Similar commercialization of the unclaimed property of the askerîs
(beytülmal-i hassa mukataas) took longer. The government, however, paid considerable
495 AE. SAMD.II 5/414.
496 This account book includes the revenues and the expenditures of vakıfs and mentions only the
beytülmal of reaya. It provides a list of names and the cash value of the muhallefat of each
name. Neither the account book nor its title (heading) refers to beytülmal-i hassa revenues.
TS. MA.d. 1359, 2b, 29 Z 1081 (9 May 1671)
497 TS. MA. d. 2583, 29 Ş 1031 (9 July 1622).; See also TS. MA.d. 1631, 1b, (1009/1600)
188
attention to surveying and collecting the unclaimed property of the askeris (beytülmal-i
hassa) all along.
4.5 Public Claimers and Their Agents
Several agents were involved in the process of managing unclaimed properties. These
agents basically claimed, recorded, preserved, and sold the possessions in question ultimately
putting them back into circulation as goods and commodities across the empire. Also, they
earned an income for themselves and for the offices or institutions they represented in the
process. Since the contents of unclaimed properties might vary greatly, from a piece of fava
bean to an adorned mansion, the tasks that their management required and the agents needed
to fulfill those tasks varied accordingly. Along with the nature and conditions of the
properties, the social and professional affiliations of their previous possessor and temporal
(historical) and spatial conditions also mattered in claiming beytülmal.
As discussed above, the beytülmal officers were accountable to the defterdar, the
head of the fiscal organization. The authority and responsibility of the agents working on the
ground showed significant variations. The next section will review the role of these agents
beginning with those involved in the handling of beytülmals that “concerned” the Imperial
Treasury directly and “claimed” by it (mîrîye raci, cânib-i mîrîye ait).
4.5.1 Kadı
Rating the Ottoman kadı as the most central figure of the beytülmal operations would
not be an overstatement. The kadı played an integral part in these operations as an auditor of
fiscal transactions and representative of the law. His chief roles could be examined under two
titles:
189
(i) Inspection of fiscal transactions related to the beytülmal: As Koçi Bey describes,
the kadıs were auditors of fiscal transactions within their jurisdiction.498 Mültezims managed
the beytülmal mukataas with the active intermediation of the kadıs as auditors and the director
of properties (nâzır-ı emvâl). In general, prospective mültezims submitted their offers to
undertake a mukataa to the nâzır in charge if the mukataa was governed by a nezâret. If not,
the mültezims made their offers to the provincial defterdar (finance director) if there was one.
If not, they applied to the chief defterdarlık in the imperial center through the mukataa
inspector (mukataa müfettişi). Mukataa inspectors were mostly people knowledgeable of the
law. Thus, the incumbent kadı of the district, a retired kadı, or an instructor (müderris) of law
in the district would shoulder the task.499 Approval of the mültezim, formulating the terms
defining the mukataa contract and verifying the credentials of the required guarantor (kefil)
were all done under the supervision of the inspector kadıs.500 The kadıs resolved the problems
that emerged in practice between the mültezims and the agents such as emin and amil
498 Koçi Bey Risalesi, sad. Zuhuri Danışman, Ankara: MEB, 1972, p. 67.
499 DVNSMHM.d. 41/161, 3 N 987 (24 Oct. 1579).; MAD 4689, p.2, (1009/1600). The
conditions in this document also show the differences between the emanet and iltizam
systems. Baki Çakır, “XVI-XVIII. Yüzyillarda Osmanlı Mukataa Sı̇stemı̇'nı̇n Yapısı ve
İşleyı̇şı̇”, Ph. D Diss., Marmara University, 2003, p.151.
500 “Vidin beyine ve kadısına hüküm ki, Belgrad kadısı müfettişi Mevlâna Muslihiddin mektub
gönderub sancaklarında vaki olan mukataat-ı mülteziminin tahtı iltizamında olan
mukataattan Ösek ve Karlofça ve Semendire iskeleleri ve İsakçı ve Sekrofçe ve Çob
memlehası ve mevkufatı ve beytülmal-i hassa ve mabeyn-i kıla‘-i livâ-i Bosna ve Klis ve
Zaçesne ve Cezire-i Sirem ve Pojega mukataaların…” A. DVNSMHM. d. 26/777, 29 C 982
(16 Oct. 1574).; “Mukataat müfettişi Kastamonu kadısı Mevlâna Vildan’a ve Kastamonu
sancağı kadılarına hüküm yazıla ki…” A. DVNSMHM. d. 41/543, 23 Ş 987 (15 Oct. 1579).
190
regarding the mukataas.501 Additionally, the kadıs were responsible for controlling the proper
keeping of the records of the mukataa revenues and related payments to the beytülmal.502
(ii) Upholding the Law and Validation of Property Claims
The kadıs represented the law and acted according to a certain set of legal procedures.
They were in a position to sanction the government’s claims to unclaimed properties. They
were responsible for checking and verifying the claims that others could make regarding the
property that was expected to accrue to the beytülmal. The kadis were duty-bound to protect
the interests of rightful claimants. Accordingly, both the public claimants and private
individuals could get their claims officially verified, confirmed, and hence legally recognized
only by the agency of the kadı. Additionally, the kadı alone could verify and affirm the debt
claims of third parties over unclaimed properties hence providing legality for beytülmal
operations.
For instance, according to a court certificate (hüccet) issued by Hasan, the Kadı of
Kandiye, in 1670, Halil Bey had a debt claim over the inheritance of Ali Bey who had died
without heirs.503 Ahmed Ağa, the beytülmal emini, had already acquired the property for the
miri and rejected Halil Bey’s debt claim (…gıbbe’s-sual mezbur Ahmed Ağa müdde-i
mezburun müteveffa-yı mezbur zimmetinde hakkı olduğunu inkar etmeğin…). The kadı asked
Halil Bey to provide clear evidence (mübeyyine beyyine) to support his claim. Upon two
501 İ.E. ML. 1/78, 26 Z 981(18 Apr. 1574).; Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, pp.7, 118, 148.
502 The estates of the deceased person claimed by the beytülmal were recorded under the title of
“an mahsûl-i beytülmâl-i amme.” Each entry started with the phrase “an muhallefat-ı…” See
MAD.d. 102/ 19b-20a, 10 B 966 (18 Apr. 1559).; . For an inspector (müfettiş) approved
summation of accounts (İcmal Defteri), see MAD.d 4421/s.40-41, 17 M 1022 (9 Mar. 1613).
503 AE. SMMD. IV 41/4733, 29 R 1081 (15 Sept. 1670)
191
person’s testimony in favor of Halil in the court, the kadı affirmed Halil’s claim of 182
semen504 from the deceased Ali’s inheritance.
Acting according to recognized legal guidelines and procedures, the kadı courts
helped maintain a sense of lawfulness. The central role that they played in the verification
and recognition of private claims appears to have been especially significant in legitimizing
the government’s property claims. The documents at hand show how the judicial process
worked. The kadıs’ concern with hearing, checking, and validating justifiable claims
contrasted with the pertinacity with which some of the beytülmal officers tended to pursue
public property claims.
The kadı’s court was the place of appeal against unjust escheats undertaken by the
beytülmal officers. A decree (ferman) that Sultan Mehmed III sent to Esad Efendi (d.1625),
the Kadı of İstanbul (and a former kazasker) in 1599 illustrates the point. A petition by Yusuf
initiated the process that led to this decree. Yusuf complained about the beytülmalcis as they
unjustly took away his house which he had inherited from his late wife Ümmühan Hatun and
which Ümmühan Hatun had inherited from her late father: “…mezbure Ümmühan hatunun
babasınıdan irs-i şer‘le intikal eylemiş mülk evini mezbur Ümmühan hatun vefat etmiştir deyu
beytülmal eminleri kabz edip ziyân-ı hayf eylemişlerdir”. He, Yusuf, asks the Sultan a just
hearing of the case that no one can intervene: “şer‘le zabt ve tasarruf ettirilub ahardan
504 Rather than a currency unit, semen literally means the price or the value of a thing. In this
case, it is used in the meaning of the price (bedel) of the money in circulation (tedavül).
Considering the date of the case in question, it could be both kuruş and akçe. However,
considering the value, it would be akçe (180 kuruş amounted to 21,600 akçes, 180 akçes
amounted to 1.5 kuruş). See Şevket Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire,
Cambridge University Press., 2000, pp. 159-162.; Beşir Gözübenli, "Semen" TDV İslâm
Ansiklopedisi, Vol.36, 2009, pp. 465-467.; Şevket Pamuk, “Kuruş” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi,
Vol. 26, 2002, pp. 458-459.; Halil Sahillioğlu, “Akçe” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 2,
1989, pp. 24-227.
192
kimesne dahl ettirilmemek babında inayet rica ederim.” The Sultan decreed that no one
should interfere with Yusuf’s property during his lifetime (hayatta oldukça mülküne kimesne
dahl eylememek emr idüb buyurdum ki) and that the kadı should settle this matter justly in
the presence of the beytülmal emins (beytülmal eminleri muvacehesinde hak üzere tayin
eyleyub göresiz).505
His role was also significant in the cases related to trans-imperial agents. They were
supposed to act on behalf of the government in delivering the properties of foreign people in
faraway territories. In case a foreign merchant, traveler, or envoy died (or went missing) in
Ottoman territories, and in case s/he was going around peacefully, the kadıs should facilitate
sending their properties to their homeland.506 For instance, when the beytülmalci attempted
to take the property of an Armenian merchant who died in Tokat, the kadı was ordered to
settle the dispute on the basis of a decree. According to this, in such cases, the beytülmalcis
should wait until the kadı’s approval of property claiming (madem ki varisi vech-i şer‘ üzere
imtiyaz eylemedikçe). The kadı should confirm first whether the deceased had fellow
merchants (taife) to send the property to the deceased’s potential heirs in his homeland, Iran:
“…Tokat’ta helak olan (…) David nam Ermeni’nin … metrukatını beytülmal
içün kabz etmek murad eyledikde Acem taifesinden bila varis helak olanların
metrukatı yine taife-i mezbura teslim olunup Acem diyarında olan varislerine irsal
ederiz, bizim yedimizde hatt-ı şerifimiz vardur deyu teslimden imtina
etmeleriyle…”507
505 TS. MA. e 717/24, 14 L 1007 (10 May 1599).
506 Serap Yılmaz, “İranlı Ermeni Bı̇r Tüccarın Terekesı̇ ve Tı̇carı̇ Etkı̇nlı̇ğı̇ Üzerı̇ne Düşünceler”,
Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, VII, 1992, pp. 191-215.
507 AE. SMST. II. 38/3740, 9 Za 1108 (30 May. 1697).; See also DVNSMHM.d 102/677, 10 B
1103 (26 Mar. 1692).
193
4.5.2 Emin
The second central figure in the implementation of the government’s claims over
unclaimed properties was the emin. Emins worked in close contact with the kadıs. “Emin”
literally means faithful, reliable, and trustworthy (mutemet). The Ottomans used the word as
a title for holders of certain administrative positions that were called emanet and entrusted
with the task of receiving or paying out government money. Emins carried out many essential
tasks to maintain public services. For instance, Harc-ı Hassa Emini was concerned with
palace finances and supplies and the maintenance of the palaces and other royal and
governmental buildings in the city. Other important emins were the supervisors or
commissioners of the Kitchen (Matbah Emini), the Mint (Darphane Emini), the Powder Mill
(Baruthane Emini), and the Dockyards (Tersane Emini).508 There were also emins in charge
of various mines, custom houses, and revenues. An emin had to have a certain degree of
experience and knowledge, a sense of responsibility, and a reputation for being unsusceptible
to corruption and abuse. Along with conducting certain tasks in person, the very duty of emin
was to superintend (nâzır) the related services and revenue collection.
In principle, the emins were salaried government commissioners as opposed to being
tax farmers, grantees, or lessees. They represented the government in its dealings with other
parties. In the case of mukataas, the emins oversaw the proper collection of the revenues and
supervised the expenses of the related agent. Since the emins did not have a personal financial
508 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devlet’nini Saray Teşkilatı, Ankara: TTK, 1984, p.375-381.;
Halil Sahillioğlu, “Emin”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 11, 1995, pp. 111-112.; Bilgin,
Bursa Harc-ı Hassa Eminliği, p.20.; Bernard Lewis, “Emīn”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam,
New Edition, vol.II, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.695-696.
194
interest in mukataas, they handed over the revenues in full to the treasury.509 The imperial
center used the mukataa revenues to meet different expenses in the center and the provinces
through the agency of the emins and inspectors. This empire-wide reliance on emins was one
of the main features of the Ottoman fiscal system and helped maintain fiscal stability and the
balance between the center and the provinces.510
As overseers of beytülmal mukataas, emins checked any potential abuses of the
collector (mültezim), prevented any needless expenses that undermined revenues, and
reviewed the accounts to check the recording of the clerks (katips).511 For example, the
cerement and burial (techiz and tekfin) cost of the deceased was one of the main expenses
met out of the beytülmal revenue. Particularly, when a needy person died, these expenses
were paid directly out of the revenues of the relevant beytülmal mukataa.512 A considerable
number of documents indicate that emins were sent notes (tezkire) specifically to remind
509 Halil Sahillioğlu, “Emin”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 11, 1995, pp. 111-112.; Baki Çakır,
“Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p.135-140.; Lewis, “Emīn” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam.
510 Having extensive powers in supervising monetary affairs of the empire in different bureaus
and mukataas and the right of deposition in royal domains, the emins made a crucial segment
of the Ottoman fiscal administration. See Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 20-21.
511 “Emine hükmümce vacibdir ki halkun gümüşü darabhaneye gelindüği vakit gümüş katında
sahib-i ayarla terazi yanında otura, teraziyi onat gözedüb vezni rast etdüre ve amil kendi ve
yahud emini bile ola gümüş tamam tartılub alındıktan gümüş sızılduğu yere vara, gecesi
gözleye, uğrulatacak yer ve hem kalb nesne katılacak yer oldur, yegrek kim ihtiyat ede ki
nesne uğrulanmayub ve yaramaz nesne katılmaya. Halil İnalcık and Robert Ahnegger,
Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait
Yasaknâme ve Kanunnâmeler, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000), p.18.
512 D. BŞM 7677/53, 20 C 1121 (27 Aug. 1709).; İE. DH 2/137, 09 R 1092 (28 Apr. 1681).
195
them or to request them to cover the burial costs of the needy and to itemize these
expenditures in their records.513
Emins, along with the kadıs, protected the beytülmal mukataas against any
intervention of third persons or local authorities.514 The mültezims were also required to work
closely with the emin or agent in charge of the revenue source. The fifteenth-century
regulations and orders kept in the court registers underline that the amils (mültezims) should
do their work with the knowledge of and in cooperation with the emins.515 These emins
generally served according to the emanet (or eminlik) system, whereby the emins received
their payments from the proceeds of the related mukataa.516 These payments of the mültezims
were later entered into their accounts (mahsub).
513The documents in the cluster of D.BŞM.BLB (Başmuhasabe Kalemi Belgrad Beytülmali)
include such reminders sent from Istanbul to the Emin of the Beytülmal in Belgrade:
“Belgrad’da Beytülmal emini olan Yusuf Ağa el-Mükerrem, Ba’de’s-selam inha olunur ki
Ebu Bekir Efendi mahallesinde fevt olan Mehmed nam fakirin teçhiz ve tekfinine kifayet
eder malı olmamağla beytülmalden dahi defn olunmak içün mürasele iltimas olunmamağın
tahrirat kılınmıştır. Lede’l-vusul gerektir ki fakîr-i mezburu beytülmalden defn idesiz.
D.BŞM.BLB d.1/4, 15 Ca 1097 (9 Apr. 1686).
514 “…beğlerbeği ve sancak beği subaşılarına ve zuamâ ve erbâb-ı tımâr ve evkâf ve emlâk
zabıtları ve gayrilere tenbîh ve tekîd idesiz ki min-ba‘d havâss-ı hümâyûnum reâyâsının vâki
olan hukuk u rüsûm ve cürm-i cinâyet ve beytülmâl ve sâyir bâd-ı hevâsına dahl
itmeyeler….Meğer bunlardan birinün cürm-i galîzi sâdır ve hükm-i kâdî lâhık sebt-i sicill
olup salb ü siyâsete veya kat-ı uzva müstehak olduklarında salb ü siyâsete me’mûr oldukda
emînleri marifetiyle yerinde icrâ itdürüp… DVNSMHM.d. 41/287, 14 N 987 (4 Nov. 1579).;
DVNSMHM.d. 41/242, 5 N 987 (26 Oct. 1579).
515 Linda Darling, Revenue Raising Legitimacy, pp. 129-130.
516 Baki Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 136.
196
Potential tax farmers (mültezims) could abstain from undertaking mukataas as
iltizams because of unpromising returns.517 In these cases, the bureau in charge of the
mukataa in question could appoint emins to collect the due taxes and other expected revenue
by means of emanet. The emins did not take a risk in this type of undertaking (ber vech-i
emanet). They were paid according to the number of days they worked (kıst al-yevm)
managing the mukataa like a government official. An emin put in charge of a mukataa could
bid for converting (tahvil) the mukataa unit under his responsibility to an iltizam. This
mélange of two means was called “emânet ber vech-i iltizâm” and turned the emin to an emîn
ber-vech-i iltizâm518 or emîn u mültezim.519 The same combination ensued also in case a
mültezim successfully put himself in for the eminship of his mukataa. In these mixed types
of beytülmal mukataas, the mültezim-emin oversaw inspecting and claiming of the properties
at issue. He could collect his payment for eminlik (emânet ulûfesi) from the revenues of the
mukataa, depending on the contract signed for its conversion (tahvil).
517 Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Emini, pp. 69-71, and 84.; Linda Darling, Revenue Raising
Legitimacy, p.128.
518“…Kastamonu mevkufatına ve cendere-i Kastamonu ve mîzân-ı harir ve cendere-i İlisu ve
beytülmal ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûd ve yave ve kaçgun ve resm-i bennak ve bad-i heva
ve tevabi’i mukataasına sene 985 Recebinin yigirmi ikisinden üç yıla ber vech-i iltizam emin
olan İshak…” A.DVNSMHM.d.41/543, 23 L 987 (13 Dec. 1579).; Halil Sahillioğlu, “Emin”,
TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 11, 1995, pp. 111-112.; Linda Darling, Revenue Rasing
Legitimacy, pp. 127-128.
519Emin-mültezim or mültezim-emin was aslo used. “… Kaza-i mezbura tabi Gerne ve Dimyana
haslarıa bi’l-fiil mültezim emini olan Mehmed Südde-i Saadetime gelüp havâss-ı mezbure
içinde vaki olan yave ve beytülmel ve mâl-ı gâib ve mâl-ı mefkûd iltizamıma dahil olup…”
DVNSMHM.d. 41/ 242, 5 N 987 (26 Oct. 1579).; D. BŞM.MHF 1/23, 11 L 1006 (17 May
1598).
197
In undertaking mukataas by way of iltizam, the mültezims could offer some people
as emin and katib for employing in their mukataas.520 These pieces of informations were
defined in the mukataa contracts which were affirmed by a müfettiş. Mültezims could also
apply to remove an emin or katip from the office and offer to recruit another person. For
instance, Ömer Ağa and İdris Çavuş were undertaking the beytülmal mukataas in Edirne in
1616 by way of iltizam. During their tahvil, they decided to remove katib Mehmed Arslan
and, instead of him, they wanted to take another Mehmed (Abdullah) for the office. As they
marked in their petition, this is possible based on their contracts given the reason that katip
is incapable for the office (hizmet-i kitabete kadir olmamağın) and he is in his own will
(kendu hevâsında olmağın).521
The ‘imperial’ emins,522 appointed by the imperial center, watched over the revenues
and expenses of the mukataas on behalf of the müfettiş or nazır. The mültezims could also
employ others, called amil emini (emin of the tax collector), for assistance needed to manage
a mukataa.523 Thus, the mültezim of a beytülmal mukataası might have two emins to fulfill
two complementary objectives. The first objective would be assistance in matters that
concerned the interests of the government, such as maintaining the mukataa properly and
520 Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p.42.
521 AE. SAMD. I 8/746, 17 L 1025 (28 Oct. 1616).
522 Linda Darling, Revenue Raising Legitimacy, pp. 32-33.
523 Halil İnalcık and Robert Ahnegger, Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani II.
Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknâme ve Kanunnâmeler, (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2000), p.18-19. As the kanuname suggest, two emins were ordered to work in
cooperation.; Also, in cases of miscounduct, the emins and the mültezims’ agents were
warned for their unjust claiming of beytülmal: “umenâ ve mültezimin sair iş erleri… reâyadan
mürd olanların varis-i marûfları var iken cümle muhâllefatın alub mabeynlerinde tevzî
eylediklerin…” DVNSMHM.d. 23/80, 27 R 981 (26 Aug. 1573).; Baki Çakır, “Osmanlı
Mukataa Sistemi”, pp. 137, 155.
198
collecting the revenues in due cooperation with the katib and the kadı. The second objective
would concern the interests of the mültezim (amil) on the ground as a commissioner.524 Both
of these emins would also make the necessary payments such as the costs of transfer and
delivery (ihracat and teslimat) out of the revenues of the mukataa.525 The emin was the main
agent of beytülmal operations on the ground. He oversaw the selling of the unclaimed
properties deemed as beytülmal to provide for their reuse and re-circulation across the
empire.526 Baki Çakır mentions that a person called mutemed (relied on, trustworthy) was
also appointed in the beytülmal mukataas.527
People of a certain locality might also name an emin (and a katib) to fulfill a specific
task while working along with the ‘imperial emin’ appointed by government authorities.
These ‘semi-imperial’ emins also made claims regarding beytülmal properties on behalf of
the local people and the government. For instance, correspondence between the
representatives of Tuna Province and the imperial center in 1827 indicates that the former
requested the confirmation of a certain emin they chose and nominated among themselves to
facilitate the pilgrimage of people from their province. This emin would have access to
beytülmal revenues to do his job. 528 Further research is needed to check the extent to which
the central government accommodated such provincial requests whether by allowing the
524 “Ayak amili” (errands agent) was another term used for the commissioner hired by the
mültezim. DVNSMHM.d. 41/635, 29 L 987 (19 Dec. 1579)
525 D. BRM. D. 24258, p.2-3 (1002/1593-94)
526 “…mahmiye-i İstanbul’da Beyceğiz mahallesinde vefat eden Aişe nam Hatun’un beytülmale
ayid ve raci’ olan evini cümle tevabii ve levahiki ile otuz altı bin akçeye tarafı miriden iştira
idub akçesin bi’t-tamam beytülmal eminine teslim ve eline kassam tarafından hüccet-i
şer‘iyye alup…” TS.MA. e. 892/21 (27 06 944); TS.MA.e 1238/64 (29 S 987 /27 April 1579)
527 Baki Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p.177 see f.n. 928.
528 C. ML. 406/16633, 17 B 1242 (14 Feb. 1827).
199
designation of a special emin or adding the requested task to those of the imperial emin
already assigned to the area. Though the document did not mention why the regular beytülmal
emini did not work also for Danubian pilgrims on the way to hacc, the accommodational
policy of the imperial center towards the demands of the local people in the ninteenth century
was worthy of attention.
By definition of his charge, an emin played a central role in court cases related to the
beytülmal mukataas for which he worked. His presence, expertise, and testimony were
essential for solving the wide range of issues that came up in these court
hearings.529Particularly, cases of re-claims and problems related to the debts of the deceased
called for the presence and cooperation of the emins in the court.530 For instance, Davud
Çelebi, a katib in the imperial divan, died without a known heir except for his wife. Mahmud
Ağa, the emin of the beytülmal-i hassa in İstanbul kept all his muhallefat presuming it
beytülmal. Müşerref and Cemile separately sued that in the zimmet (debt or arrear) of Davud
529 “Müfettiş ve emin ma’rifeti olmadın miri hususları min ba’ad toprak kadıları istima’ itmemesi
içün emr-i şerif ricasın i’lam eylemiş …emin ve ademisi anda hazır değil iken fuzûlî
kendüleri istima etmeyeler ve ettirmeyub mal-ı miriye gadr [ve] mültezimin iltizamına zarar
müterettib olmaktan hazer idesiz…” A.DVNSMHM.d. 41/543, 23 Ş 987 (15 Oct. 1579).;
“...Medine-i Kandiye kazasına tabi Pedye nahyesinde Askalay nam karye ahalisinden Ca’fer
Çelebi b. Halil Bey karye-i mezburede bila varis vefat eden Alî Bey’in terekesinden vaz’-ı
yed olan beytülmal emini Ahmed Ağa mahzarında dava ve takrir-i kelam edip mezbur Alî
Bey’in hayatında…” AE SMMD.IV 41/4733, (16 Aug.1670).; A.DVNSMHM.d. 41/349, 21
N 982 (4 Jan. 1575).; A.DVNSMHM.d. 41/ 287, 14 N 987 (4 Nov. 1579).
530 “…mahmiye-i merkume de beytülmal-i hassa emini olan fahrü’l-Akran Mahmûd Ağa b.
Mehmed mahzarında ikrâr-ı tam ve takrir-i kelâm edip müteveffa-yı mezburun mahmiye-i
merkumeden koyun emini mahallesinde vaki lede’l-ciran malumu’l-hudud mülk-i menzili ve
sair ism-i mâl-ı ıtlak olunur cümle muhallefatı emini merkum yediyle sûk-ı sultanide füruht
olundukda…” İE.MHF 1/18, 6 B1038 (1 Mar. 1629).; TS.MA. e. 1239/59, 12 R 1059 (25
Apr. 1649).
200
Çelebi each had their share of mihr-i müeccel531(…Üç bin fizzî Osmanî râyicu’l-vakt akçe
mihr-i müeccel). Both wives explained their case in court in the presence of the emin Mahmud
Ağa. The wording in these documents manifests that the emin’s presence was also significant
for preventing any future false claims and re-claims on the beytülmal in question.532
Keeping track of beytülmal properties within his mukataa was one of the main
responsibilities of a beytülmal emini. He was expected to keep an open eye on the emergence
of unclaimed properties and establish the actual condition of these properties, including their
form, type, and value. People living in the same neighborhood were also held responsible for
keeping the emins posted about unclaimed properties.533 The emins were allowed to make a
certain amount of payment to informers to encourage their cooperation. Called müjdegâne,
this payment was generally around between 2.38% and 8.46% of the total value of the
531 The deferred, or second, payment in the marriage act in Islamic law. It is a promise to pay a
sum of money to wife. See Cem Behar “Neighborhood Nuptials: Islamic Personal Law and
Local Customs: Marriage Records in a Mahalle of Traditional Istanbul (1864-1907)”,
International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2004, pp. 537- 559.
532 After got paid their rights, each wifes repeated that they had no any receievables anymore:
“ba‘de subûti’şer‘i bi’t-tamâm ahz ve kabz eyledim, min ba‘ad mihr-i müeccelimden
muhallefât-ı müteveffâ-yı merkumda bir akçe ve bir habbe hakkım kalmadı.” İE.MHF. 1/15,
29 Ş 1038 (23 Apr. 1629).
533 For instance, locals were encouraged to cooperate with the beytülmalci upon their complaints
about long waits for the burial of the deceased : “…Gerekdir ki, min ba‘d eğer müslümanlarun
ve eğer nasârânın ve eğer yahûdânın meyyitleri vâki' oldukda meyyit canibinden fil-hâl bir
kimesne varub beytülmalcıya haber eyleye ve beytülmalcı dahi derhal te’hir etmeyüb
meyyitin üzerine varub beytülmale raci‘ esbabı var ise zabt edüb ve yoğ ise fil-hal defne
icâzet verüb heman ol gün meyyiti hakkına koyalar…” Akgündüz, Kanunnameler, v.6, II,
p.130-131.; Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, p.8.; İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 64
Kısmet-i Askeriye Mahkemesi 59 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1143 / M. 1730-1731), İstanbul: Kültür
AŞ, 2019, pp. 300,301, 450, and 451.
201
inheritance.534 Court registers make this point clear although they do not give information
about the names or occupations of the informers.535
4.5.3 Katip
Katip means clerk, the person who is responsible for a “faultless production and
careful recording of the imperial documents.”536 Katips were an inseperable part of the
Ottoman legal and financial institutions in every aspect. The record(s) kept by katips was the
most critical instrument for the proper functioning of the Ottoman bureaucratic organization
at different levels. As for the beytülmal institution, at the very least, the significance of the
katip, and what he recorded, could be said twofold; one is for the government the other is for
individuals.
As examined above, the beytülmal was closely wired into the Ottoman fiscal and
legal institutions. Being a mukataa revenue, any fiscal transaction in and around beytülmal
revenue was kept by the katips for the statement of incomes and expenditures at the end of
each mukataa period. These fiscal registers helped maintain the circulation of goods and
money across the empire, thus, katips provided a more planned and effective way for the
534 Along with other payments, the rate of müjdegane to total inheritance is changing between
2.38% and 8.46%. Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları", pp.8, 9, 23, 31.; In his study
of urban history in the light of Mudanya sicils (1645-1800), Yunus Uğur also found the rates
of the expenses for the government claimed inheritances as follows, resm-i kısmet: 8.33%,
müjdegane: 2.08%, katibiyye, 4.17%, teçhiz ve tekfin: 20,83%, and hüddamiye, 4.17%. See
Yunus Uğur, “The Ottoman Court Records and Making of Urban History with Special
Rereference to Mudanya Sicils (1645-1800)”, MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2001, p. 88.
535 Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları,” pp. 8, 23-28.
536 Christine Woodhead, “From Scribe to Litterateur: The Career of a Sixteenth-Century Ottoman
Kâtip”, Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 9, No. 1, 1982, pp. 55-74.
202
redistribution of sources. This weight of katips could be generalized to include all mukataas,
not only the beytülmal.
However, what makes the katips noteworthy for the beytülmal was their records
unique to each specific case. Accompanied with the beytülmalcis (emins), katips were present
at the place where properties are deemed as beytülmal. They kept the actual beytülmal records
and supervise its copying with the physical conditions of properties, from tiny pieces to an
adorned house, from cushions, pants, and copper vessels to a good deal of gold or mounts.
Katips should seal the properties that fell to the beytülmal before the burial of heirless
deceased persons. They (emin and katip) should be prompt at keeping and registering the
beytülmal so as to prevent any illegal appropriation by third parties.537 First and foremost,
these records helped secure the beytülmal as it was once registered by public officers. It was
vital for any possible future claims, either public or private, as katips recorded the
beytülmal(s) without knowing certainly whether all the properties would return to the mîrî.
Secondly, the notary function of katips made claims possible even for a very late appeared
heir, or petitioner.
Ideally, katips were appointed to beytülmal mukataas at the beginning of tahvils,538
but in tahvil removings and appointments were also possible based on the conditions. For
instance, the mültezim and emin in the beytülmal mukataası of Edirne petitioned that the
katip, appointed at the beginning of the tahvil, was incapable and on his own will, and need
537 Arif Bilgin and Fatih Bozkurt, “Bir Malî Gelir Kaynağı Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin Terekeleri
ve Beytülmâl Mukataaları”, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20,
2010/2.
538 The assignment, or transfer of the rights of tax collection to an undertaker for a certain time
period (in general 1 to 3 years). Mehmed Genç, Osmanlı İmpraratorluğu’nda Devlet ve
Ekonomi, İstanbul: Ötüken, 2000, p. 103.
203
to be removed from the office.539 Mültezims could suggest katips to their mukataas showing
them also as kefils (guarantors).540 Or, some people could also petition to be appointed for
the office of kitâbet (recording) of the beytülmal mukataas.541 Being a mukataa employee,
emin’s salary was paid from mukataa revenues which later entered into the mültezims’s
account (mahsûb).542
The archival registers mostly name the katips in conjunction with the emins, the
central figure of the beytülmal institution.543 His witnessing each case and accompanying
539 AE. SAMD. I 8/746, 17 L 1025 (28 Oct. 1616).
540 For instance, the mültezim who undertook the bunch of mukataas (beytülmal-i amme, mâlı
gâib and mefkûd, yave, kaçgun, and cizye-i gebran) in Edirne and its dependincies (tevâbii)
offering 820,000 akçes. He conditioned that his guarantors Hacı Muhammed b. Hızır and
Hacı Muhammed Karagöz will be katips in his mukataas: “… debbağ Hacı Halil
mahallesinden Hacı Muhammed bin Hızır yevmi 20 akçe ulufe-i kadimesiyle beytülmali
amme ve yave haracı mukataalarına katip olmak şartıyla 40.000 akçeye kefil olub ve
Kahtaluoğlu mahallesinden Hacı Muhammed Karagöz yevmi 5 akçe ulufe-i kadimesiyle
nahiyeye katib olmak şartıyla 30.000 akçeye kefil olub…” İ.E. ML. 1/78, 26 Z 981 (18 Apr.
1574).
541 AE. SSÜL.I 5/272, 29 Z 969 (30 Aug. 1562).
542 In the eighteenth century, while emin and nazır got paid 6.5 % of the total muhallefat, katips
got 4% of it. Bilgin & Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, p.6; Zafer Karademir, “Osmanlı
İltizam Sözleşmelerine Yansıyan Yönleriyle Yahudi Girişimciler (1560-1630)” Osmanlı
Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies, L (2017), pp. 73-116. See also Çakır,
“Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p.41.
543 “…bi’l-fiil beytülmal emini olan kıdvetül’l-emâsil Ahmed Bey ve kâtibi olan Mehmed Çelebi
muvacehesinde takrir-i kelam ve sevk-i merâm edip …tezkere muktezasınca şer’le sabit olan
zikrolunan meblağı emin elinden katibi ma’rifetiyle bi’t-tamam alub kabz ve teslim
ettirub…” AE. SSÜL. I. 5/307, 21 Ş 956 (14 Sep. 1549); see also Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa
Sistemi”, pp. 139-140.
204
emin made both the public and private claims sounder in the face of unlawful claims.544 As
some registers manifested, they agreed with each other about the verification of claims.
However, in some cases, this sentence could be concluded with “as far as their interests were
not conflicting.”
Though it was a case of rare, katips were also acting in the foreground and involved
in tricky episodes. For instance, a case in Eygpt shows that the beytülmal katibi Derviş was
held responsible on the account that the beytülmalci Abdi died immediately after having
dinner in his house. The imperial center ordered a further investigation about the katip:
“Sipahi oğlanlarından Abdi mahrûse-i Mısır’da beytülmal emaneti hizmetinde
iken katibi olan Derviş nam kimesne mezburu ziyafet tarikiyle evine alup, gidup,
bazı nesne yedirub henüz anda iken za‘if ve lâ-ya‘kil olup ol hal ile getürüldükten
sonra bilâ te’hir vefat itdüği ilâm olunmağın… bu babda bizzat mukayyed olup
mezkura ne makule nesne yedirmiştir? Sebep nedir? Mezkur Derviş ne hallu
kimesnedir, hakkında ne vechle şehadet iderler?”545
Again, in Egypt, beytülmal katibi İbrahim recorded that Hablas, who owed to miri
and was the şeyh of Buhayra, died. Upon his statement, he was summoned to Mısır Divânı
(council in Egypt) and was asked again, and repeated his previous words that Hablas died.
Doubting this, the council sent some men to Hablas’s house and found him alive. Katip was
punished with penal servitude.
“Buhayra şeyhi olan Hablas’ın miriye olan deyni içün Abdülkerim marifeti ile
mevcudâtı zabt olundukda Mısır müteferrikalarından olup beytülmal katibi olan
İbrahim mezbur Hablas … adlı bir Arap kulun fevt olmuştur deyu deftere kayd
ettirüp sonra divân-ı Mısır’da suâl olundukta yine fevt olmuştur deyu cevab
virdükten sonra evine âdem gönderilüp mezbûr Arap hayatta olmağla…kizb ve
hıyaneti zâhir olmağın … Mısır kal‘ası burcunda habs olunduğun … alâkası kat‘
olunup… gemilerde küreğe konulmak emr idüp…”546
544 It provided a double-confirmed claims on the properties in question. See for instance KK.d.
2434, p.30., 29 Za 955 (19 Dec. 1549)
545 DVNSMHM.d. 66/359 and 66/61, 16 B 998 (22 Feb. 1590).
546 A. DVNSMHM.d. 33/212, 20 N 985 (1 Dec. 1577).
205
It does not seem possible to understand what was the actual motivation of the katip
at purposefully showing an alive person as dead, but it is clear that katips were not only the
clerks that records what found as beytülmal item by item. The strength of his position comes
from his actual involvement in the field for each case and having a better grasp of the persons
and things subject to the beytülmal, and the accounts of the mukataa in question.
4.6 Conclusion
In the last two chapters, the theoretical whys and whereofs of the beytülmal, and the
norms and regulations related to it were examined respectively. Having this background, the
current chapter attempted to visualize the beytülmal with its relation to the wider Ottoman
bureaucracy, its central and provincial organization, and its agents. It aimed to understand
the features that made the beytülmal a legal and financial institution in the Ottoman Empire
in the early modern period and pushed its limits for bringing out an overarching government
body in charge of the administration of unclaimed properties.
Differing from the modern perspective (of the institutions), what makes the
institutions in the early modern era was not the buildings, or a fully-fledged and vertically
organized bureaus that bound to the central authority in a direct and definitive way. The
chapter took on that institutions are the social structures and organizations that guide and
govern human interactions through ideals, principles, norms, and regulations. It grounded
beytülmal in this wider scheme of the institutions on the account that the Ottomans, both the
subjects and the ruling elites, benefited from it to make sense of their world in their
expectations and obligations.
The mukataa system was the most concrete and paramount engine of the beytülmal
in bringing out it as an overarching body that prevailed in almost all the corners of the empire.
It provided the commercialization of the unclaimed property as revenue to be collected.
Along with the norms and regulations, the mukataas helped the government to reach,
206
spatially and temporarily, the subjects of the empire (either askerî or reaya), both in property
claims and in the redistribution of the sources.
Moreover, from the late fifteenth century on, the division between amme and hassa
beytülmals were already in force according to different empirical sources. However, the
commercialization of beytülmal-i hassa came a bit late, around the first quarter of the
sixteenth century. Based on that, beytülmal-i hassa was designed to claim the beytülmal of
the people of askerî origin and their families regardless of the value of the properties. Apart
from being a mere practical or economical purpose, amme and hassa beytülmals (letting aside
the other corporate ones), might have provided a more secure network in which the members
were accountable to each other for claiming property.
The government’s all-embracing property claim became known, and eminded people
through the beytülmal institution, in other words, by the agents serving in different lands of
the empire. Being at the center of the governmental organizations, the kadı, emin and katip
served the beytülmal, and kept it a relatively consistent and coherent institution for ages.
207
CHAPTER 5
CONTROLLING PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REALM:
BEYTÜLMAL AND ITS FOUR MAIN FUNCTIONS
5.1 Introduction
In order to engender a proper redistribution of the revenues and sources regarding
unclaimed property, the Ottomans implemented the beytülmal institution based on a modus
operandi. Taking into consideration the public, semi-public, and private interests of the
claimers, as well as the distributive power of the Ottoman political organization, it is possible
to suggest that the beytülmal institution functioned on four main axes: (i) Trustee (emanetçi)
for keeping and restitution: The beytülmal officers were responsible to hold the unclaimed
property in trust for a certain period so as to provide the rightful owners a length of time to
collect their shares. As the first legal-ly claimer in this stage, the office acted only as a trustee
aiming to help secure justice and protect the rights of legitimate claimants. However, if no
one came forward and claim properties in a certain time period, the beytülmal officers would
include the unclaimed properties in the treasury (dahil-i hazine or mazbût-ı beytülmal547).
This was basically to protect the holdings of the treasury, as well as the right of a potential
private claimant. This inclusion meant that the central or provincial fiscal authorities could
use and direct these new properties to meet the expenses of the government. Yet, the rightful
private parties were still provided an opportunity to claim the property or its price (semen),
547 Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâiyât (haz. Abdülkadir Özcan), Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 1995, p. 79.
208
if they properly established their claims in court. In these cases, the beytülmal office served
the purpose of rightful restitution.
(ii) Revenue Collector: Public officers deemed a precisely unclaimed property as a
refreshing ‘revenue’. Having authorized to claim these properties on behalf of the treasury,
the beytülmal acted as the collector of a type of mîrî revenue. The beytülmal mukataas were
developed to serve this end. They were administered and operated mainly by way of iltizam
or emanet. They fostered economic activities and generated employment over a significant
question of law.
(iii) Spender of a Government Fund: The collected beytülmal revenues amounted to
a considerable sum of means in different parts of the empire. Holding this wealth, the
beytülmal was supposed to work in tandem with the fiscal authorities in the center and the
provinces so as to properly distribute or dispense the funds it acquired as a revenue collector.
In the simplest term, the funds were used for the expenditures of the beytülmal mukataas’
itself. There were regular expenses that the emins were familiar with and expected to deliver.
The imperial center could also direct the beytülmalcis to accommodate certain irregular
payments by sending specific orders.
(iv) A Fund for Charitable Payments: The beytülmal institution was in charge of
making some necessary payments to the needy. Having its roots in the pre-Ottoman period,
the beytülmal provided subventions to widows, orphans, patients, and other needy
individuals. Relevant hüccets548 issued by the courts reflect the pattern of charitable
expenditures that the beytülmal office initiated in different parts of the empire. As such, the
beytülmal office acted as a charitable institution.
548 An official legal deed prepared by the kadı verifying his desicion.
209
This section of the thesis will examine the above-mentioned functions of the
beytülmal to illustrate and make sense of its institutional existence. Relying primarily on
empirical sources, the chapter aims to shed a bit of light on the ways in which the state and
its subjects benefited from the beytülmal.
5.2 Beytülmal as the Trustee for Safekeeping and Restitution
The rules and regulations that were adopted or legislated as early as the fifteenth
century manifest that one of the chief concerns of the lawmakers regarding the beytülmal was
to protect the shares of the rightful claimers. On that ground, the beytülmal stepped forward
to point register and safe keep the properties that were left behind when the de jure
owner/claimer was yet to be identified. Holding the title of emanet (trust/trustee), the
beytülmal was ideally supposed to suspend any claims of ownership for a length of time.
Within this period of suspension, the beytülmal was to re-check the properties and help to reaccommodate
the rightful claimers if possible and turn over the properties to them. This was
a process that redefine property relations for public and private claimers.
Upon hearing about the cases of unclaimed property, the beytülmalcis responded
promptly to register and claim for keeping the properties in question. In the first instance,
this was to prevent unlawful seizures who sought an opportunity to exploit the unsettled
conditions. In these circumstances, the beytülmal acted as the official-legal trustee of the
properties it took under its custody. The kadı was a key agent in these operations, and the
beytülmalcis received their authorization (berat) from the imperial center. That primary role
of the institution, trusteeship, had vital importance, especially for a number of cases: for the
children who have not reached the age of maturity yet to legally claim their shares, for the
legitimate claimers who were far away and unable to claim their shares there and then, and
also for the creditors whose claims might have been jeopardised otherwise. The following
examples aim to elaborate on this function of the office.
210
Mustafa b. Yakub died in the district of Gemlik. Though the document is silent on
his identitiy except for his name (nam kimesne), his estate was held by Mehmed Ağa b. İlyas,
the de facto beytülmal emini for Janissaries. The estate (muhallefat) included a garden. The
emin Mehmed Ağa sold this garden (emâneti hasebiyle bey‘ ettuği) to a certain person.
However, Zülfikar came up as the only legal heir of the deceased (usûbet-i nesebiyye cihetiyle
bi’l-inhisâr varisi) and established his claim before the beytülmal emini. Since the garden
was sold, Zülfikar was only able to collect the price of the total estate (yetmiş üç bin nakd-i
fızzî râicü’l-vakt akçeyi) from the beytülmal emini and attested that he has taken all what he
claimed for (müteveffa-yı mezburun muhallefatından merkum Mehmed Ağa yedinde bir akçe
ve bir habbe hakkım kalmadı).549
As far as the document states, the beytülmal kept this estate as a trust, and still at the
liability of the emin. However, in theory, the emins were not authorized to sell any piece of
the estates in their trust in the first six-month after receiving them. Deviation from this rule
was possible only in case of fear of spoiling the spoilable contents of the estate such as food.
How long did the emin wait before selling the garden and why he sold it are not explained,
but the use of the concept of emanet implies that the price was not deposited to the treasury.
Additionallty, although the document does not explain whether the deceased held an askerî
status, the public claimer in charge was the beytülmalci of the Janissaries.
The case of Bedîi Efendi clarifies the trustee function of the office in different words
and phases. Bedii Efendi died in 1070. Seemingly he did not have an heir. Mehmed Ağa, the
beytülmal emini in charge in İstanbul sold Bedii’s property and delivered the proceeds to the
treasury. Although the price was deposited to the treasury (an canib-i mîrî duhûl kerden), and
although the claimers came forward three years later (bi-sebebi sahibi zuhur kerden) the price
549 TS.MA. e. 1264/69 (1029/1620).
211
of the estate was paid to the claimers.550 These two cases shed light on the trustee function of
the office. Whether the estate was in the liability of the beytülmal or its price was already
delivered to the treasury and in someone else’s pocket across the empire, the claimers were
given a chance to establish their claims. In the latter case, the beytülmal serves as a bridge
over which the claimers could notarise that the properties in question were once registered,
claimed, and kept by public officers—the beytülmalcis in question.
Time was one of the important elements to establish an appropriate private claim. A
too long delay in making a claim put the possibility of restitution at risk in the face of the
emins and kadıs. However, the story behind the case might prevail, and the time might remain
of no consequence in some situations. For instance, some people were captured on the border
of Budin, and they could hardly be free after fifteen years (Müslümanların ekseri on beş
yıldan ziyâde müdded ancak halas olmak müyesser olub). The local officers refused to hear
the case because of time limitation (on beş yıl mürûr eylemiştir deyu taallül olunub).
However, the order (hukm) sent to the governor-general (beylerbeyi) and the treasurer
(defterdâr) of Budin states that these people should be compensated for whatever happened
to their belongings. If it was the beytülmalci, or mevkufatçı551 that took these properites for
the state (mîrî), they should ensure restitution (halas olub gelenlerin ma-mülkleri ol
zamanlarda kimler alub zabt eylemişler ise eğer beytü’l-mâl ve mevkuf eminleri mîrî içün
alub zabt eylemişler ise beytü’l-mâlden taleb idüb şer’le hakların ne ise alıviresin).552
550 AE. SMMD. IVI 53/6205 (1073/1662).
551 The officer in charge of recording the revenues from properties temporarily in the possession
of the treasruy.
552 A.DVNS.MHM.d. 24/160, 9 Şevval 981 (1 Feb. 1574), A.DVNS.MHM.d. 31/236, 15 Ca 985
(30 Aug. 1577).
212
This trustee function of the beytülmal was also accountable in cases of debt claims.
As far as the estates are sufficient, the first disbursement from the estate by the beytülmal
would be debt payments.553 For certain, the beytülmalcis were not favoring debt claims,
particularly in the absence of heirs. Nevertheless, for the creditors, the first place to recourse
was the beytülmalci’s door. If they successfully established their claims, they could collect
the debt owed to them. For instance, Cafer Çelebi had a debt claim on the estate of the heirless
deceased Ali bey in the village of Pedye in Kandiye in 1081. According to Cafer’s claim, he
had lent a value of 500 units (semen554) to the deceased Ali bey. Before he died, Ali had paid
back 318 units of his debt, but the rest 182 units (semen) remained in Ali’s charge. Because
the estate was in the liability of the beytülmalci Ahmed Ağa, Cafer demanded the debt from
him but got rejected:
“Müteveffâ-yı mezbur terekesine mezbur [beytülmalci] Ahmed Ağa vâzi’u’lyed
olmakla suâl olunup meblağ-ı bâkî mezburdan alıverilmesi matlubumdur
dedikte gıbbe’s-suâl mezbur Ahmed Ağa müteveffa-yı mezburun terekesine vaz’ıyedi
ikrar, müddeî mezburun müteveffâ-yı mezbur zimmetinde hakkı olduğunu
inkar etmeğin”
The court asked Cafer to support his claim with strong evidence (mübeyyine beyyine).
Upon that request, for testifying his claim Cafer brought two of his countrymen, Şahin and
553 See chapter III.
554 Rather than a currency unit, semen literally means the price or the value of a thing. In this
case, it is used in the meaning of the price (bedel) of the money in circulation (tedavül).
Considering the date of the case in question, it could be both kuruş and akçe. However,
considering the value, it would be akçe (180 kuruş amounted to 21,600 akçe, 180 akçe
amounted to 1.5 kuruş). See Şevket Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire,
Cambridge University Press., 2000, pp. 159-162.; Beşir Gözübenli, "Semen" TDV İslâm
Ansiklopedisi, Vol.36, 2009, pp. 465-467., Şevket Pamuk, “Kuruş” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi,
Vol. 26, 2002, pp. 458-459.; Halil Sahillioğlu, “Akçe” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 2,
1989, pp. 24-227.
213
Mehmed, to the court. Their testimony supported and established Cafer’s claim, and
consequently, he collected the debt owed to him from the beytülmalci.555
Along with the third persons, the public claimers should also ascertain whether the
deceased owed to the government, or to officials in different ranks. For a variety of reasons,
lending money was common among government officials. Upon death of a debtor, the
officials should make the disbursements from the estate of the deceased to pay his debts. By
definition of his charge, the beytülmal-i hassa officer was responsible in such circumstances.
A hüccet (legal deed) prepared by Yusuf b. Hüseyin, the Kazasker of Anatolia (one of the
two chief judges of the empire) provides an example. According to this document, Gazanfer
Bey, the late Sancakbeyi of Musul, owed money to Rüstem Paşa. The Paşa’s claim was
certified. Paşa’s representative (vekil) Behram brought the certification (tezkere-i şerif)
before the beytülmal emini and his katib who were in charge of Gazanfer’s inheritance, and
requested the payment of Gazanfer’s debt to the paşa out of this inheritance:
“…bi’l-fiil beytülmal emini olan kıdvetül’l-emasil Ahmed Bey ve kâtibi olan
Mehmed Çelebi muvacehesinde takrir-i kelam ve sevk-i meram edip dedikde
bundan akdem Musul sancağı beyi olub fevt olan Gazanfer Bey b. Abdullah
zimmetinde müvekkilim olan müşarunileyh paşa hazretlerinin yağ bahasından 2120
Şâmî akçesi olub fevt olub zimmetinde baki kaldığı dergâh-i aliyede şer’le sabit
olmağın mezburların ellerinde olan muhallefatı bahasından verilmek [için] tezkire-i
şerif verilmişti…”556
Since the late Gazanfer Bey’s estate was held in trust by the beytülmal-i hassa officer,
the only addressee for Rüstem Paşa was beytülmal-i hassa. His agent established his debt
claim before the emin and collected the amount Gazanfer owed Rüstem from the emin.
555 “...her biri edâ-i şehâdet-i şer’iyye ettiklerinde gıbbe riâyet-i şerâyiti’l-kabûl şehâdetleri
makbul olmağın…” AE. SMMD IV. 41/4733 (1081/1670).
556 AE. SSÜL. I. 5/307 (956/1549).
214
This emanet function of the office was manifest in the cases of restitution. In his work
Zübde-i Vekâiyât, Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa (d. 1717) includes a case that should serve as
an example of the cases of restitution. Under the heading of “Fevt ve Ahz-ı emvâl-i Kızıl
Ali”, Sarı Mehmed Paşa narrates that a famuously wealthy merchant named Kızıl Ali
died:“...sâhib-i servet ve ziyâde mâl ile şöhret bulan tâife-i tüccârdan Kızıl Ali nâm
bâzergân…” His death announcement declared that he was ‘heirless’: “‘Bilâ-vâris fevt oldu’
deyü ihbâr olunmağla”. The imperial center appointed Zülfikar Ağa, a kapucubaşı at Dergâhı
Âlî, to take charge of Kızıl Alî’s estate (40 kîse akçe). After the estate was appropriated for
the treasury (mazbût-ı beytülmal),557 his heirs came forward and establish their claims for
restitution. Mehmed Paşa continues as follows: “…'adâletlü Pâdişâh-ı 'âlî-şân hazretleri
câdde-i şer‘-i mutahharadan inhirâfa rızâ-yı hümâyûnları olmaduğundan, meblağ-ı mezbûru
girü tamâmen verese-i mezkûra muktezây-ı şer‘-i şerif üzere teslîme fermân buyurdular (3 L
1087/ 9 Dec 1676).”558
The wording of this anecdote does not provide information on the beytülmal as an
institution, but it sheds light on how a prominent and learned Ottoman559 appreciated the
sultan’s fair approach to serving for justice in the case of the division of the inheritance
(muhallefat) of a wealthy subject. Within this context, it was not only the law (şer’i şerîf) but
557 It is almost certain that the word beytülmal here is used in the sense of a hazine rather than
the beytülmal office. It refers not to an ‘emin’ or ‘beytülmalci’, but to the appointment of a
high ranking official (Zülfikar Ağa) to take possession of the property on behalf of the mîrî
(treasury):“taraf-ı mîrîden ahz ü kabzı içün tayin olunan… Zülfikar Ağa”
558 Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâyiât, (Haz.) Abdülkadir Özcan, Ankara: TTK,
1995, p. 79-80.
559 Sarı Mehmed Paşa was the chief Defterdar (the treasurer) and a member of the divân for
several years.
215
also the sultan’s moral standing in upholding the law that led to the proper way of conduct
for the restitution.
Nevertheless, Sarı Mehmed Paşa’s comment on the functioning of the beytülmal is
valuable, particularly for a few reasons. He became a chief defterdâr (treasurer) in the middle
of a rampant crisis in the early decades of the eighteenth century. The beytülmal office was,
to borrow from Wright, a “branch of the treasury.” Sarı Mehmed’s comments and anecdotes
from the golden age under the reign of Süleyman, and his moralistic reminders of the evil
consequences of the appropriation of properties by the treasury without due cause reflect his
thoughts on the beytülmal office’s appropriate conduct of its business:
“If money comes in under the designation of beyt ül-mal let them deposit it at
the Bab-i Humayun as a trust fund until the coming of the heirs. It is said that the
late Sultan Suleyman Khan (God’s Mercy and Pardon on him!) followed in his age
of felicity this excellent rule: If the heir makes his appearance within seven years,
and if he cannot prove according to the canon law his rights of inheritance, it is taken
by the treasury. Let them be diligent and careful in observing this laudable
practice.”560
For the beytülmalcis, restitution or the refunding of the appropriations was one of the
most unpleasant parts of their operations561 although it was rare.562 For instance, between
May1604 and Jan 1609, the beytülmal refunded only eight heirs who established their claims
in the court.563 Along with the cases in which the restitution of properties was carried out
560 “Ve beytülmal namıyla akçe düşse veresesi gelince bâb-ı hümâyunda emânet vaz’ eyleyeler,
yedi seneye dek” Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Nasa’ih ül-vüzerâ ve’l-umerâ, by Walter. L.
Wright, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1935, pp.70-71.
561 Haim Gerber, State, Society and Law in Islaim: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective,
Albany: SUNY press, 1994, pp. 45, 138-139.
562 Arif Bilgin, Osmanlı Taşrasında Bir Maliye Kurumu: Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, İstanbul:
Kitabevi, 2006, p. 185.
563 Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 185.
216
properly by the beytülmalcis, there were also cases that the common people sued the
beytülmal emins for their unlawful seizure of the estates of deceased people.564 This is the
case, especially after the appropriation of the properties of wealthy and supposedly heirless
deceased people.565
For instance, a merchant died in Bursa and the beytülmalci appropriated his
properties for the treasury.566 The merchant’s two sons proved their heirship (isbât-ı verâset)
in the court but Pîrî Çavuş, the Harc-ı Hassa emini (the agent for the Privy Purse) in Bursa,
did not refund the money. Suing Piri Çavuş, the two sons sent a petition to Istanbul, and said
that the çavuş seized the money for his own benefits, and not for the mîrî: “…mâl-ı gâibdir
deyu bendelerine ait olan hisse-i şer‘iyyeyi miriye deyu kabz idub miriye virmeyub kendu ekl
u bel‘ idub bu fakir bendelerine ve sayir eytam kullarınıza zulüm eylemişlerdir…”. The
amount in question was 377,194 akçes and was delivered to the beytülmal, not pocketed by
Piri Çavuş. According to the decision, which did not breathe a word for warning the emin,
the heirs were refunded 300,000 akçes.567 Commenting on this case, Bilgin suggests that both
the government and its bureaucrats appear to have adopted a fiscalist approach in view of the
fiscal crisis of the period. They put the benefit of the treasury first as 377,194 akçes
constituted a considerable sum. However, the legal decision acknowledged the heir’s right
despite the difference of 77,194 akçes.
564 Gerber, State, Society and Law in Islam, p. 138.
565 Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p. 95. fn.177.
566 This case was catched by Arif Bilgin. Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, p.95., see MAD.d. 5452,
p. 128. (1015/1606)
567 MAD.d. 5452, p. 128. (1015/1606).
217
The beytülmal emaneti aimed not to lose even a shadow of property to an invalid
private claim. It consistently fulfilled its trusteeship function in the first instance. However,
one can claim that different motivations might have prompted the beytülmaci to act quickly
in practice. Delivering the estate to lawful heirs, increasing the beytülmal revenue for the mîrî
or the mukataa in iltizam, or overeagerness due to entirely selfish interests might have driven
the beytülmalcis. Yet, the kadı and the beytülmalci needed to observe certain notarial
procedures in each case. They had to keep an official register which, ideally, documented the
identity of the ex-owner and the quantity and the quality of the properties put under the trust
of the beytülmal. In a sense, the legal procedures—and the agents’ observance of them—
sustained this trusteeship function of the institution. Thus, both the public and the private
claimers could be able to benefit from the services of the beytülmal.
5.3 Beytülmal as the Collector: Property Claiming through Beytülmal Mukataas
As discussed above, the beytülmal office took part in the greater Ottoman fiscal
organization as the beytülmal mukataas of specific locations. In this section, this title and the
revenue-collecting function of the office will be dealt with. What were the main grounds for
claiming beytülmal as a revenue through tax-farming? How did the iltizam and emanet
systems apply to the beytülmal? What were the drawbacks and benefits of these systems?
Before delving into the revenue collection, the section will briefly tackle the logic of the
mukataas, and then beytülmals’ relation to it.
Tax-farming through mukataas was the backbone of the Ottoman fiscal organization
from the fifteenth century568 onwards until the final stages of the empire. Mukataas were
568 Yaşar Yücel, “Reformcu Bir Hükümdar Fatih Sultan Mehmed”, TTK Belleten, c. LV, s.212,
1991, p. 83.
218
fiscal units that yielded revenue collected from a wide range of taxes and duties levied on
production and exchanges in all sectors of Ottoman economic activities. Having its roots in
the medieval Abbasid, Seljuk, and Ilkhanid periods, the iltizam system was used for the sum
turned over by a tax farmer in return for paying certain sums to the treasury.569 Through the
iltizam and emânet systems the mukataas, as tax units, were contracted out to agents called
mültezims and emîns who were people of different origins from across the empire.
The range of the sources of mukataa revenues varied considerably. Taxation imposed
on agricultural and commercial production was a major source. Other sources included
various fees, dues, tolls, and other taxes collected from commercial activities. A mukataa
could involve a variety of revenues or a single item depending on the objects of taxation and
the location of the mukataa. Additionally, the number of mukataas, and the diversity of
revenue units, were inversely proportional with the expanse of the space. If the number of
diverse mukataas in a region is high, it is more likely that the expanse of this region is less.
Conversely, for instance, the empire-wide tobacco tax, which corresponds to %1 of total
revenues annually, was contracted to tax-farmers as a single-element revenue unit and
organized as ten mukataas only. Another example is the empire-wide tax on coffee
consumption; it was organized as two mukataas only, one in Istanbul and the other in Syria.570
The nature of the tax element and the potential amount of revenue it yields were decisive in
569 Bosworth, C.E. and Gerber, H., “Muḳāṭaʿa” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,
vol.VII, ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH. Pellat., Leiden- New
York: E.J. Brill, 1993, p.508.; Mehmet Genç, “Mukaataa” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 2006,
c.31, pp. 129-132.
570 Mehmet Genç, “Mukaataa”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 2006, c.31, pp. 129-132..
219
the organization and undertaking of the mukataas. In general, however, different kinds of
revenue items were combined within a single iltizam.571
The mukataas were auctioned to mültezims for a certain period. The highest bidder
won the right to collect the specified revenues according to the terms set in the iltizam
contract (tahvil). The mültezim was expected to pay a fixed annual sum to the government
for the revenues he collected for the duration of his iltizam contract. He was liable in case of
a loss but owned the surplus. Depending upon the circumstances and the nature of the
mukataas, some mukataas were contracted as ber vech-i emânet (by means of trusteeship)
instead of iltizam (by means of undertaking). These mukataas were administered by officials,
called emîn, in return for a fixed salary (emânet ulûfesi or emânet mevâcibi).572 Mainly the
mukataas of an administrative nature were run by the emânet system. Unlike the mültezims,
emins were expected neither to cover their loss and nor to pocket excess revenue. The emîn
had to deliver the yield of the mukataa to the government, as he was entitled only to a certain
amount of payment as salary.573 However, if the emin took charge of a mukataa (deruhte) for
571 Linda T. Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996, p.125.
572 Baki Çakır, “XVI-XVIII. Yüzyillarda Osmanlı Mukataa Sı̇stemı̇'nı̇n Yapısı ve İşleyı̇şı̇”, Ph.D
Diss., Marmara University, 2003, p. 120.
573 Koçi bey also states the distinctive feature of emins as follows “… Emânet derler ki “bu
mansıbı bana verin ne kadar akça alursam getirim teslimi hazine edeyim” der, her ne hasıl
olursa getirüp hazineye teslim eder. Ana emin derler. Fakat halk arasında doğru adam az
bulunduğu için iltizam ile verilir. Onun için mültezim derler.” Koçi Bey Risalesi, sad. Zuhuri
Danışman, Ankara: M.E.B., 1972, pp. 142-143.
220
a return (bedel), then the emin was named “emîn by means of iltizam” (emin ber vech-i iltizam
or emin ü mültezim).574
The emânet system was majorly applied during the sixteenth century, but the iltizam
system overshadowed it towards the end of the century. The central administration favored
iltizam system for it was less costly and it called for fewer bureaucratic staff for the operation
and provided maximum yield from tax collection. Although the pitfalls that posed fiscal
threats both for the government and the undertakers (mültezims), “returning to the emânet
system instead of iltizam” was not considered as a remedy throughout the ages.575 However,
the complex pattern of measures taken to avoid these pitfalls of the iltizam system until the
end of the empire reflects the dynamism of the iltizam system in the Ottoman empire.576
In principle, one can undertake a mukataa for periods ranging from one to twelve
years.577 However, archival sources indicate that most of the iltizam contracts were for one
to three years. There were also contracts in which a six-year period (tahvil) was agreed upon.
However, as a very common practice, the nâzır as supervisor of the mukataa in the region
could re-sell the same mukataa to a new bidder before the ending of the tahvil of the previous
mültezim.578 Various reasons prompted those situations, including the health of the mültezim,
his negligence (ihmal) of the mukataa or being unfit to hold the mukataa (nâ-ehl). Above
these reasons, considering the cash need of the government, even a tiny increase in the price
574 Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 121.; Ömer L. Barkan, (haz. Hüseyin Özdeğer) XV. ve
XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esasları, c. I,
Kanunlar, İstanbul, 1943, p.140.
575 Mehmet Genç, “İltizam”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 22, 2000, pp. 154-158.
576 Genç, “İltizam”, TDV.
577 Genç, “İltizam”, TDV.
578 Bilgin, Hassa Harç Eminliği, pp. 70-71
221
of the mukataa (ziyâde) was enough for the re-sale of mukataas to a new bidder.579
Consequently, for saving their interests, the contractors sometimes included a term to protect
their interests against such re-sales: “…tahvilimiz içinde ziyade ile tâlib zuhur ederse sadaka
buyurulan terakki mukarrer kalub ve kesri içun verdiğim akçeyi bana vermeyince mukataa
verilmeye …”580
5.3.1 Beytülmal Mukataas
As significant revenue yielding units, the beytülmal mukataas were run in keeping
with the modus operandi of the central and provincial treasuries. Irrespective of its type and
amount, unclaimed property was of interest to the government. Along with its legal
implications for third persons, the government considered unclaimed property in the category
of a revenue to be claimed and collected based on the Islamic legal tradition. It devised the
beytülmal as mukataa units across the empire so as to administer this task. Considering the
territorial extension of the empire and the early modern means of revenue raising, these
mukataas were pertinent for the Ottoman fiscal organization. Mukataas enabled the system
to draw on even small amounts of goods or money to be benefited in the course of the empire:
auctioning of the beytülmal mukataas either alone or along with a bunch of other revenue
sources, relying on beytülmal revenues to meet certain expenses or including a part of these
revenues in the imperial treasury were the essential ways of the in which the beytülmal
579 A.DVNSMHM.d. 41/512 (987/1579); A. DVNSMHM. d. 25/2005 (982/1574).; Genç,
“İltizam”, TDV.; Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy, pp. 136-151., Fatma Şensoy,
“Mukataalarda Muhasebe Kayıtları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başında Bursa Mukataası Örneği”,
Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7, 2014, pp. 208-209.; Çakır, “Osmanlı
Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 130-131.
580 İ.E. ML. 1/78 (981/1574); A. DVNSMHM. d. 25/2005 (982/1574).
222
mukataas became important. They were firmly integrated into the overarching mechanism of
the Ottoman financial structure.
In fact, the system of mukataa or iltizam was mostly applied in settings in which
controlling, collecting, and liquidating properties proved difficult for the government.
Collection of heirless properties, which also called for a complex organization, were of this
kind. Leasing out the right to collect revenue to private parties, the government provided
maximum efficiency for the relevant operations of the treasury.581
Claiming the beytülmal was not a consistent revenue collection as it was not based
on regular activity such as agricultural production or trading. By its very nature, it was an
irregular and coincidental revenue (zuhûrata bağlı, like tayyârât582). Mainly for that reason,
relying on the emânet system to arrange beytülmal was considered more appropriate
sometimes. For instance, in his examining of the Ottoman tax farms in Hungary, Pal Fodor
enumerates four reasons for the recourse to the emânet system as opposed to the iltizam. The
first three of these reasons involved technical problems that the iltizam system encountered.
However, the fourth reason is related directly to the nature of the beytülmal as a source of
revenue.583 Some documents may indicate that the emânet system was considered ‘morally’
581 Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert (ed.), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Ekonomik ve Sosyal
Tarihi, 1. Cilt: 1300-1600, Çev.Halil Berktay, İstanbul: Eren yay., 2000, p.105
582 Though the Ottomans did not used the word tayyârât in the meaning of beytülmal, one of the
revenues under the title of tayyârât could be a beytülmal type of revenue but not contracted
as mukataa. “irâd-ı tayyârât ve bâd-ı hevâ”. C. DH. 348/17370 (1104/1692-93).; C. ML.
702/28694 (1151/1738), A. DVNSMHM.ZYL. 18/240b/1 (1015/1606); A. DVNSMHM.d.
85/410 (1040/1631).
583 Pal Fodor, “Some Notes on Ottoman Tax Farming System in Hungary”, Acta Orientalia
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 54/4, 2001, pp. 427-435.
223
more fit for claiming beytülmal than iltizam, in cases of abusive mültezims in particular.584
However, mukataa contracts in this period manifest that, when the conditions were suitable,
and the mukataa units yielded sufficient revenue to bear on iltizam (iltizama tahammülü
olmak),585 the government preferred to apply the iltizam system to maximize the revenues in
the early modern period.586 The the novel aspect of the beytülmal mukataas might be said the
flexibility and dynamism of the system, rather than the switch from emanet to iltizam, or vice
versa.587 To accommodate different conditions or shifting—at least in the case of beytülmal
mukataas, the system was capable of choosing a suitable method of claiming depending upon
the circumstances. Moral concerns might have affected choices, but the local and imperial
administrators were mostly in pursuit of maximizing the revenues.588
584 “…Sen ki beğlerbeğisin min ba‘d beytülmal emanetin iltizâma virmeyub gayet mütedeyyin
müslüman kimesneye emanet tarîki ile virub müslümanlara te’addi itdirmeyesin”
585 MAD.d 5452 p.72a, (1015/1606).
586 MAD.d 5452 p.72a, 1(1015/ 1606).; A. DVNSMHM. d. 41/512 (987/1579).; A. DVNSMHM.
d. 41/309, (987/1579).
587 For instance the beytülmal mukataası of the Jews of Istanbul was undertaken by way of iltizam
in 972 and it resulted in 30 thousand akçes deficit after three years of tahvil. Upon that result,
no bidders showed up and it was contracted by way of emanet (tâlib olmayıp ve zabtı mümkün
değildir deyu ber vech-i emânet tayin buyrulan). However, the new holders also left the
mukataa such that it remained uncollected for severeal years. Then, in the month Ramazan
of the year 983 Mustafa and Haydar bid for iltizam. Considering the earlier deficit, they
undertook the mukataa (ber vech-i iltizam) 10 thousand akçes less (40 thousand) than the
earlier price. KK.d. 4994/ 58M. (983/1575).
588 Based on a possibilitiy of a more profitable tax collection in Zigetvar, the local administrators
notified the imperial center. According to the response, if the case is such, the necessary steps
should be taken: “…havass-ı hümayunum içun defter-i cedide kayd olunub müstakil mukataa
olursa her sene iki kere 100.000 akçeye yarar kefiller ile iltizama talib kimesneler alub âna
224
The task to collect unclaimed properties was generally combined with the task of
managing a bunch of other mukataas.589 Generally, the government made combined more
than one revenue source together for bidders who sought iltizams.590 One of the reasons for
that was to disperse the risks that the mültezims might face. Through risk dispersion, any
surplus in one item could be used to make up for the deficit encountered in another.591 In such
cases, the government could pair lucrative mukataas with unprofitable ones so as to make the
bunch of mukataas more appealing to the bidders.592 Having a list of unprofitable (çürük) and
non-earning (bî-hasıl) mukataas, the government sold them at a discount.593 By these means,
the government increased the cash shares that were transferred to the treasury over the selling
bedel havass-ı hümayundan müşarun ilehye bazı karyeler ta’yin olunub verilmek malı miriye
enfa’ olduğun ilam olunmağın…şöyleki kaziyye arz olunduğu gibi ise … müstakil mukataa
eyleyub miri içün zabt ettirub…” A. DVNSMHM. d. 9/205, 1(0 Za 977/16 April 1570).; “…
Husus-ı mezbur arz olunduğu üzere ber vech-i iltizam zapt olunmak mâl-i miriye evla
olmağın…” MAD 5452, 91 and 92 (1015/1606).; See also Darling, Reveue-raisinig and
Legitimacy, pp.128-129.
589 Mehmet Genç, “Mukataa” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 31, 2020, pp. 129-132.; Deniz
Kahraman, “XVIII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Ankara Sancağındaki Mâlikâne-Mukataalara
Dair Bazı Bilgiler”, Bilig, 29:2004, pp. 139-174.
590Doğan Yörük, “XVI. Yüzyılın Ortalarında İltizam Sisteminin Yaygınlığı: Lârende Kazası
Örneği” SUTAD, 47, 2019, p.221.
591 “…Ve iki tahvil [beytülmal-i hassa and mevkufat mukataas] biri birinden ayrılmayub birinin
fazlası, birinin kesrine mahsub ola” C.ADL. 34/2017 (2 Za 1013/1605) “…zikrolunan
mukataaları biri birinden ayrılmayub birinin fazlası birinin kesrine mahsub olunmak şartıyla
ber vech-i kefalet nezaret kabul eden zaim Ömer…” A. DVNSMHM.d. 26/777 (26 C
982/1574).; TS.MA. d. 4183/2a. (1040/1631).
592 Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy, p.150., Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p.131.,
Doğan Yörük, “16. Yüzyıl Ortalarında İltizam Sisteminin Yaygınlığı: Lârende Kazası
Örneği” SUTAD, Aralık 2019, 47, pp. 217-238.
593 Baki Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 62.
225
of the mukataas. Moreover, through the system, it handed over the risks of tax collection to
the mültezims and defraying of the local expenses which were made on the spot relying on
mukataa revenues. This fiscal-institutional decentralization, in a sense, represented the
imperial center’s quest for the effectiveness of the system concerning its revenues and
expenses.594
The imperial center notified the provincial administrators almost in each sancak (subprovince)
to implement the rules designated to protect the beytülmal, not to lose even a
shadow of property to an invalid private claim, and to prevent the beytülmalcis from lining
up their own pockets.595 So as to guard the potential public properties over which the
government might have a claim, and to protect the rightful shares of the individuals across
the empire, the office was organized more locally than centrally. In addition, the collection
594 Linda Darling, “Osmanlı Maliye Tarihinde Gelir Toplama ve Meşruiyet” in Osmanlı Maliyesi
Kurumlar Bütçeler I (haz. Mehmet Genç ve Erol Özvar), İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşı̇v ve
Araştırma Merkezı̇, 2006, p. 21.
595 “Ve eğer zikr olunan mevâddır ve gayri lâzım olur husûslardır bi-hasebi’ş-şer’ ve'l-kānûn
görüp asla meşkûk mübhem komayup malımın tahsîlinde envâ’-ı ihtimâmın vücûda
getüresin.” A. DVNSMHM.d. 34/369, 22 S 986/30 April 1578.; “…emvâl ü erzâkdan bir
akça ve bir hâbbesi zâyi ve ketb olduğına rızâ-yı şerîfim yoktur, şöyle ki bir nesnesi zâyi ve
ketb ola senden tazmîn itdürilmek mu’âteb olursun ana göre mukayyed olasın.” Derya Elvan,
“18 Numaralı Mühimme Zeyli Derfteri (H.1013-1015/M.1604-1607) (vr.131-260)” MA
Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2017, pp. 408-409. “…Şöyle ki müteveffanın muhallefatı on
binden ekall olub dergâh-ı muallam olmayub hassa beytülmale; alakası olmayanları amme
beytülmal mültezimlerine zabt ettiresiz. Mâl-ı beytülmalden kimesneye bir akçe ve bir habbe
bel’ ve ketm ettirmeyesiz… ol takdirde vaki olan zarar sizden tazmin ettirilir bilmiş
olasız…Ve liva-i mezburede sancakbeyi ve zuama ve erbabı tımar ve kapum kulları ve
bilcümle beratı hümayun ile dirliğe ve cihete mutasarrıf olanlar fevt olub varisi ma’rufu
kalmadıkda cüzi ve külli vaki olan muhallefatlarına hilafı kanun amme beytülmal nazırları
ve eminleri dahl ettirilmeyib kanun üzere beytülmali hassa eminlerine zabt ettirub hassa
beytülmale zarar ve gadr olmaktan hazer idub ve muhtacı arz olan kadıları yazıp kapuma arz
idesiz” A. DVNSMHM.d. 41/349 (21 N 987/1579).
226
of unclaimed property involved explicitly more complex procedures than those applied in the
collection of agricultural and commercial taxes. So as to get maximum output from this
complex task of property claiming, the government tended to deal with private persons in
leasing out the beytülmal mukataas.596
Despite imperial center’s tendency to favor iltizam, some mukataas run by iltizam
did not always yield favorable results. In some cases, neither the revenues were collected
efficiently, nor the people of townsfolk were satisfied with the mukataa holders. As could be
seen also in some regitsters, complaints about the abusive conduct of the mültezims poured.
If the imperial center realized that the system was not even working basically, it sent orders
for switching to emânet system to guarantee the systems’ better operation at the hands of
reliable persons. For instance, Kansu, the emîr-i Hac597 in Damascus, complaints about the
misconduct of the beytülmalcis and offers to appoint the them by way of emanet: hüccac-ı
zevi’l-ibtihâcın beytülmalı iltizâm ile virilmek caiz değildir ber vech-i emanet gayet
mütedeyyin ve müslüman kimesneye virilmek lazımdır.598 In response to the grievances about
the abusive use of the office by kethüda Yûsuf,599 the serdâr-ı beytülmal of hüccâc (head of
the beytülmal for pilgrims), the imperial center forewarned the local administrators to ensure
that those mukataas were put under the management of god-fearing Muslims as emânet.
596 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihi, c.1, 200, p. 105.
597 The public official in charge of providing order and safe travel for the pilgrims on the way to
hajj. The two emîr-i Hacc of the Ottomans, the Damascene and the Egyptian, were liable for
the huccac whose route map geographically coincide with their region of responsibility.
Münir Atalar, “Emîr-i Hac” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.11, 1995, pp. 131-133.
598 A. DVNSMHM.d. 23/70 (980/1573).
599 Yûsuf was the head of the community (kethüda) of the janissaries in Damascus at that time
period, and entitled to collect the beytülmal of the hüccâc.
227
The imperial center also wanted to eliminate the question of debt and remainder
(zimmet and bakaya). Since mukataa holders (mültezims) could not always balance their
accounts, the treasury had to deal with the deficit in the treasury and had to chase after the
dues that mültezims owed the treasury. In order to put an end to this fiscal problem, the
historian Mustafa Âlî, who was also a defterdar, counceled the government to rely on the
emânet system instead of iltizam.
“Pes neden-ki ri’âyet-i şer’-i nebevi ve mütâba’at-i sünnet-i mustafavî
muktezasınca memâliki mahrûseden iltizâm ref' olunmaya ve mukâtaat-ı zuamânun
ve bölük halkınun mu'teddün-bih u mâldâr ve mu'temedün-'aleyh u perhîzkâr olan
rü-şinâsân u ahyârınaber vech-i emânet u nezâret virilmeye.”600
Âlî also advised that the way of trusteeship and contracting with the people of the
regiments (bölük halkı), instead of mültezims, would increase their ability to be able to take
part in the campaigns: “…ve hem emânet u nezâretle istihdâm olunan sipâh arkalanub sefer
seferlemeğe liyâkat u qudret bulurdu…”601
Âlî was right in his advice to a certain extent. The beytülmal mukataas were mostly
undertaken by military classes, especially in the sixteenth century. The kapıkulus (servitors
600“Why then should the contractor system (iltizâm) not be abolished in the well-guarded lands
[of the Empire] as demanded by an observation of Divine Law and by an application of the
sacred tradition of the Prophet? Why are the mukataat not given by way of trusteeship and
supervisorship to reliable, wealthy, trustworthy, honest persons of the zaîms and Janissary
cavalry?” Mustafa ‘Âli: Mustafâ ‘Âlî’s Counsel for Sultans of 1581: Edition, Translation,
Notes, Andreas Tietze (ed. and trans.), v.II, Vien: Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie
Der Wissenschaften, 1982, pp. 43-45, 168.
601 Mustafa ‘Âli: Mustafâ ‘Âlî’s Counsel for Sultans, 1982, p. 168.
228
of the sultan’s gate), sipahis602 (mounted soldiers, cavalry) and ebnâ-i sipahiyan (sons of
cavalry) were holding mukataas in an out of the mülazemet603 system.604 However, as could
be seen in the documents, one of the terms included in the mukataa contracts by way of
emânet was exemption from military campaigns.605 For instance, a person contracted a
bundle of mukataas using a combination of the iltizam and emânet methods simultaneously.
Strikingly, while he held the mevkûfat mukataası by way of iltizam, he held the beytülmal-i
hassa by way of emânet, and his contract exempted him from military campaigns.606
However, in another contract Abdi b. Mehmed undertook beytülmal-i amme and hassa
together with a few other mukataas. He was the bölükbaşı (captain) of the 69th regiment of
602 “In return for the right to collect revenues from his assigned villages, the Ottoman provincial
cavalryman, or sipahi, had to provide for his arms (short sword and bows), armor, and horse
and to report for military service along with his armed retainers when called on by the sultan.”
Gábor Ágoston, The Last Muslim Conquest: The Ottoman Empire and its Wars in Europe,
Princeton University Press, 2021, p.41.
603 The system of initiation to the hierarchy in the administrarive and military organization of the
Ottoman Empire. Mehmet İpşirli, “Mülâzemet”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.31, 2020, pp.
536-537.
604 TS.MA. e.191/9 (05 C 1046/1636); AE. SAMD. I. 7/624 (4 Z 1017/1609); TS.MA.d 2573/6
(18 L 1040/1631).; Erhan Afyoncu, "Sipahi" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 37, 2009, pp.
256-258.
605 “…ki cümle 20.000 akçe-i terakki inayet olunub tahvilleri içinde seferi hümayun vaki olursa
mukataa hizmetinde olub sefere gitmeyeler…” A. DVNSMHM.d. 25/2005 (24 Ra 982/1574).
606“…Sipahi oğlanları cemaatinden livayı mezbure mevkufatın ve hassa beytülmali ber veçhi
emanet zabt eyleyen Hasan’ın üç yıllık muhasebesi görülüp mevkufat mukataasını ber vechi
iltizam ve beytülmal-i hassayı ber vech-i emanet olmak üzere zabt olunmağın …” A.
DVNSMHM.d. 25/2005 (24 Ra 982/1574).
229
sağ bölük gurebası,607 and took over (deruhte, iltizam) the mukataas in question upon the
death of the mültezim in charge of them. Abdi’s contract included terms to protect his
financial interests but did not mention any conditions related to exemption form military
campaings.608
According to Linda Darling’s research, the cavalry gained a primary position in tax
farming (iltizam) by the first quarter of the seventeenth century. This was an advantage for
the Ottoman government as “it tapped the wealth of the military elite and kept them busy
during the off-season for campaigning.”609 The sipahis offered set-offs (mahsûb) from their
salaries (ulufe and mevâcib) to pay their debts to the treasury resulting from the mukataa
contracts they made. Called hazîne-mânde,610 these withholdings provided savings for the
treasury resulting from the fees from the mukataas to meet the salaries. Additionally, when
sipahis from the Altı Bölük halkı611 wanted to undertake (deruhte) a mukataa, they showed
607 Garipler (gurebâ) was one of the regiments serving as cavalry among the Kapıkulu corps. The
six regiments serving as cavalry were sipah, silahdaran, sağ ulûfeciler, sol ulûfeciler, sağ
garipler (gurebâ-i yemin), sol garipler (gurebâ-i yesar). İsmail H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı
Devleti Teşkilatından Kapıkulu Ocakları I (Acemi Ocağı ve Yeniçeri Ocağı), Ankara: TTK,
1988, pp. 2-4.
608 İ.E. ML. 1/78 (981/1573).
609 Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy, pp. 169-170.
610 A tax collector leaves his salary ‘in’ the treasury and compensate himself with the fees from
tax farming. Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy, p. 313; Fatma Şensoy, “Mukataalarda
Muhasebe Kayıtları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başında Bursa Mukataası Örneği”, Muhasebe ve Finans
Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7, 2014, pp. 208-209.
611The cavalary branch of the standing army known as the “People of the Six Regiments”
Christopher Whitehead "The Veledeş Conflict: A Reassessment of the Mid-Seventeenth-
Century Rebellions of the Altı Bölük Halkı." Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies
Association 8, no. 1 (2021), pp. 291-310.
230
their dues in the treasury as cash they should have paid in advance.612 Since these soldiers
were in charge of a mukataa, i.e., tax-collection, they could also get the right of exemption
from engaging military campaigns.613
Holding a mukataa whether as an iltizam or an emânet was the principal way to claim
and collect beytülmal. However, outside these methods, both the local officers and other
figures in a neighbourhood could also assume this task under certain circumstances. For
instance, a document shows that the mukataas related to the beytülmal-i hassa and mevkufat
remained under loose government control and were neither put under a properly-authorized
person (bî-berat), nor sold and contracted to any person (nâ-furuht) for the last six years.
However, the last year Nâzır Mustafa administered the mukataa and he suggested to the
mukataa inspector and former supervisor (mukataa müfettişi and nâzır-ı sâbık) that since the
mukataa had become messy and disorganized, he might hold it as well for an additional three
years to organize it for the benefit of the miri. The record of the properties in this document
shows that what was collected as beytülmal mukataası before the appointment of a mültezim
612 Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 56.
613 “…Sipahi oğlanları cemaatinden livâ-yı mezbure mevkufatın ve hassa beytülmalin ber vechi
emanet zabt eyleyen Hasan’ın üç yıllık muhasabesi görülüp mevkufat mukataasını ber vechi
iltizam ve beytülmal-i hassayı ber vech-i emanet olmak üzere zabt olunmağın …Mehmed
Çavuş kullarına 10.000 ve mezbur Osman Paşa’nın adamlarına kefilim Ferhad nam sipahiye
7.000 ve bana 3.000 ki cümle 20.000 akçe-i terakki inayet olunub tahvilleri içinde seferi
hümayun vaki olursa mukataa hizmetinde olub sefere gitmeyeler…” This mukataa contract
noted the conditions regarding the way the mukataa is held (iltizam or emânet), the payments
and the conditions for the holders (terakkis and the roles), and the exemption from the
campaings. A. DVNSMHM. d. 25/2005 (24 Ra 982/ 1574); see also Çakır, “Osmanlı
Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 44.
231
or emin with a permit through berat614 was also registered and controlled by other officials in
the area. In this respect, the key figures in the city, like mukataa inspector and supervisor
kept en eye on the unclaimed property with or without an official contract.615
To sum up, the issue of the different types of unclaimed property (mâl-i mefkûd, mâlı
gâib, muhallefât, yava, kaçgun etc.) had legal implications that concerned public officials
and private subjects. They paid attention to and discuss the terms based on the rules and
regulations prevailing in the empire. However, utilizing the early modern means of rendering
services and revenue raising (iltizam and emanet), the Ottomans commercialized this task of
property setting and making property claims through the beytülmal mukataas. It attributed a
commercial value both to the properties in question, and the ways they were claimed and
collected. Through this legal-commercial operation and its yield, certain officials could make
a living and different parties could utilize the circulation of goods and money that accrued
from unclaimed properties across the empire.
5.4 Beytülmal as the Spender of a Government Fund
Early modern empires covered vast and diverse territories. Their governments had to
perform multifaceted tasks under diverse settings. The Ottoman empire was not an exception.
The Ottomans had to cover a wide range of military expenditures, disbursements in return
for services, charges for construction and repairs, and many additional costs. In order to
generate a reliable well-working system and to eliminate fiscal difficulties arising from long
wars, rebellions, adverse climate conditions, and so on, the revenues and the expenditures
614 A diploma of privilege, bestowed on a particular person the right to collect the revenues of a
particular area by the imperial authority.
615 C. ADL. 34/2017 (1013/1604).
232
had to be dealt with appropriately based on the rules and regulations ideally. Beytülmal
mukataas constituted one of the branches, and revenue sources of the Ottoman central and
local treasuries. The revenues that accrued from beytülmal mukataas also made up a
considerable amount of wealth. The beytülmal funds were assigned to cover a dazzling
spectrum of expenditures including payments within the mukataas, the private expenses of
the people at issue in beytülmal cases, and the regular and irregular public expenses of the
government.
5.4.1 A Fund for Private and Public Expenses of the Beytülmal
Before passing on to the use of beytülmal by the government, it is necessary to
identify first the processes for obtaining the beytülmal. As in the other mukataas, the
beytülmal had its own expenses to be covered first, such as payments to persons working for
the mukataa—katip, emîn, âmil, etc. Apart from these expenditures related to the mukataa
itself, two processes that needed to be completed for the use of every single beytülmal: the
phases of private and public expenses respectively.
One might suggest two terms to clarify these processes. The first is de-personification
of the property: Before departing this life, or went missing for good,616 people hold their
properties or possessions themselves. They disconnected from their belongings when they
die or go missing. Beytülmal takes charge of what they left behind, but first severs all
connections to the original owner. The original owner’s debts to third parties, the shares of
legitimate heirs, coffin, and owner’s burial (techîz and tekfîn) expenses (if pertinent) and the
like need to be paid out of the possessions of the original owner. In this phase, the property
becomes de-personified, but is not publicized yet. Though the original owner is no longer
616 Such that the missing individual drift apart totally, gaybet-i munkata’a.
233
around, these expenses can still be regarded as his/her private expenditures paid out of the
properties now held under beytülmal’s trust.
The second term is net-beytülmal: After the de-personification of the property, the
amount freed from the original owner is reserved for the government. However, public
claimers could not use this de-personified entity directly yet. The officials in charge ought to
meet first some operational expenses to get to the value claimable as net beytülmal.
Depending on the type of the operations that each case necessisated, these expenses involved
(in general) müjdegâne, dellâliye, resm-i kısmet, hammâliye, dîdebâniye, ihzâriye, kira etc.
If the amount of the beytülmal’s value is sufficient, all the expenses were covered by the
beytülmal in question.617 After deducing the private payments in the process of depersonification
and the operational expenses in the phase of obtaining net-beytülmal, the rest
(in cash or kind) constituted the net-beytülmal, and the government could use it for various
expenditures.
However, it is necessary to underline here that payments made to various parties in
both phases led to a circulation of money, which, to a certain extent, commercialized the
administration of the unclaimed properties.
The net beytülmals were either directed to the imperial center or consumed in spot
for local expenses by the order of the center. For example, in the case of Bursa, Bursa Hassa
Harç Eminliği ordered the use of the beytülmal revenues to pay for provisions procured for
the imperial kitchen (Matbah-ı Âmire) in Bursa.618
617 In case of beytülmal-i amme revenues, sometimes the amount of heirless property claimed by
the government was inadequate even to cover the private expenses of the original owner. In
such cases, the imperial center orders to cover the expenses like cerement (kefen) and burial
from the beytülmal eminliği of the region in question. A. DVNSMHM.d.46.46 (989/1581).
618 Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2006, pp.91-95.
234
An early example of the beytülmal defters619shows the amount collected through
mukataa under the tahvil of Mehmed from ebnâ-i sipâhiyân in the district of Galata, and the
expenses made from these revenues: Mahsûlât ve ihrâcât-ı beytülmal-i hâssa ve mâl-i gâib
ve gayrı der mahrûse-i Galata an tahlvil-i Mehmed, emin an ebnâ-i sipâhiyân.620 According
to that between Zilhicce in 957 and the end of Ramazan in 958 (between December 1550 and
October 1551), Mehmed claimed the muhallefat of thirty-one people in Galata, three of
whom were non-Muslims. The revenue he collected amounted to 111,425 akçes. The
document first gave a list of the muhallefats under the title of mahsûlât, and then lists the
expenses made from the collected amount after saying vuzia’l-mâl.621 Although it is not
detailed sufficiently to allow further comments on the type of properties and operations
belonging to that each case involved. The list reveals the range of the expenses and their ratio
to the total amount of the beytülmal in the mid-sixteenth century.
Mehmed covered the following costs for the private expenses of the deceased
persons: the costs of the coffin and other burial expenses (techîz and tekfîn),622 the shares of
the wife and husband (hisse-i zevc ve zevce), and the irreversible payments, delayed dowry,
(mihr-i müeccel) based on marriage contracts, and payment based on the testament of the
619 The type of the registers that include beytülmal accounts. See MAD.d. 23352 (949/1543):
“Yoton’dan olan beytülmal defteridir icmâl ser bölüküne teslim edilmiştir”.; For a register
dates back to the first quarter of sixteenth century see MAD.d. 15450, p.2, 15-16 (925/1519).
Including beytülmal, the register has some other revenues in the imperial lands in Malatya.
620 MAD.d. 23361, p.2 (958/1551).
621 In these type of registers, this phrase identifies expenses covered from the total amount.
622 See similar costs in D.BŞM. 40815, p.12 (934/1527)
235
deceased Mevlânâ Bedreddin623 (be-cihet-i vasiyyet…). Having covered the private payments
related to each beytülmal, the remaining revenues became public properties.
The register also provides information on the operational expenses undertaken to
liquidate properties, and to be able to use them. These expenses included: Müjdegâne; as a
reward for those who cooperated with the officials to inform them about the beytülmal.624
Indeed making a certain amount of payment to such informants was allowed. Particularly,
in the cases of yava and kaçkun (a lost animal and absconding slave) the person who found
and got the owners (or officers) informed about what s/he found, or brought what s/he found
to the attention of the beytülmalcis had the right to charge a certain amount of payment
depending on the conditions in each case.625 However, the documents are not fruitful in
tracing the identity of informers in cases of beytülmal. Besides, this practice implies that
depending upon the status of the land (like tımar, vakıf etc), the müjdegâne626 could be
reserved either for the miri, or for the tax collector of that land.627
623 One of the thirty-one people who deceased heirlesly. The record shows that Bedreddin Efendi
left a certain amount of his inheritance as bequest. MAD.d. 23361, p.3 (958/1551).
624 Though stated as 4% in the kanunnâme, in practice, it was amounted between 2.01% and 8.46
of total beytülmal in question. Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, p.8-9; Fatih
Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterleri ve Osmanlı Maddî Kültüründe Değişim (1785-1875 İstanbul
Örneği)” Ph.D Diss., Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2011, p. 191.
625 Ahmed Akgündüz, Kanunnâmeler, v.4, 1992, p.374.
626 The documents of the later periods name this expense ihbâriye.; AE. AE.SABH.I. 57/4008
(1194/1789); Yavuz Cezar, "Bir Ayanın Muhallefatı Havza ve Köprü Kazaları Ayanı Kör
İsmail-Oğlu Hüseyin (Müsadere Olayı ve Terekenin İncelenmesi)." Belleten XLI, no.16,
1977, pp. 41-78.
627 A. DVNSMHM. d.41/ 215 (987/1579); C..NF. 47/ 2336 (1164/1751).; C..EV. 382/19393
(1147/1734).
236
Dellâliye: Dellâls were the officially appointed auctioneers or brokers in real estate
sales. They were supposed to know the market price of the properties that the beytülmalcis
would want to sell. Similar to their role in regular —non-tereke —sales, these brokers got
their payments known as dellâliye as a commission (which was one percent in the
Kanunnâme of Mehmed II) of what they helped in selling. The right to work as an official
dellâl was often farmed out to the highest bidders. Dellâls played a crucial role in the
circulation of goods and money across the empire.628
Hammâliye: It is a fee paid for the hammâls, or porters of movable properties.
Hammâls helped in transferring properties in terekes to stores (for keeping them), or markets
to sell.629 Dîdebâniye: The fee paid to the watchmen or sentries who are in charge of keeping
the safety of the properties in question.630 İhzâriye: The fee paid to the muhzırs who summon
the litigants and defenders to the courts in keeping with the order of judges.631 Kirâye-i
dükkân: Meaning literally shop, dükkân (pl. dekâkîn) was the store where unclaimed
properties were kept by the beytülmal emins. The properties were stored there until the
concerned claimers arrived or until the time come to sell them for ready money with the help
of the dellâls. The rental payments to those shops (kirâye-i dükkân) are covered from the
628 Yûsuf Halaçoğlu, “Dellâl”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.9, 1994, pp. 145-146.; AE. SAMD.
II 19/2027 (1105/1693).
629 AE. SMMD. IV 4/358 (1077/1666).
630 Said Öztürk, “Kassâm”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 24, 2001, pp. 579-582.; “Mahrûse-i
Burusa’da beytülmal-i amme ve hassa mukataası mahsulünden olmak üzere yevmî 8 akçe
vazife ile dîdebân olan…Mehmed b. Mustafa…” AE. SMMD. IV 24/2736 (1058/1648).
631 Recep Ahıshalı, "Muhzır” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.31, 2020, pp. 85-86.
237
beytülmal fund.632 Though the registers do not give specific locations for them, they were
most probably close to the marketplaces in the cities.633 Navlun was also a fee paid for the
transportation of the goods in question via ships or boats. 634
Based on this particular record, the ratio of the expenses to total proceeds of the
beytülmal-i hassa collected in a year period was 42.34%. This ratio reveals that the net
beytülmal that accrued to the government for the benefit of mîrî was 67.66% of the gross
value of the beytülmal, which is more than half of the total amount. The ready money
delivered to the imperial treasury (teslîm be Hizâne-i Âmire) was 75,396 akçes and free from
any property relations. Below shown the ratio of each (bundle of) expense to the total amount
in the middle of the sixteenth century.
Table 4: Galata Beytülmâl-i Hassa Mukataasi (Zilhicce 957- Ramazan 958)
Amounts in akçe % of total
revenue
Total Revenues 111,425,5 (akçe) 100%
Expenses
Dellâliye, hammâliye kirâiye-i dükkân 1,993 1.78%
Techîz ve tekfin 2,562 2.29%
Müjdegâne, ihzâriye 2039 1.82%
Duyûn-ı sabite ve edâ-i kefâlet-i mîrî 17,030 15.2%
632 In another register for beytülmâl-i amme and hassa in Bursa the cost is defined as “be-cihet-i
kirâye-i dükkânı-ı beytülmal”. D. BRM.d. 24258 (1003/1595).; AE. SSÜL. I 3/166.
(962/1555).; YB..04.d…16/2b (979/1572).
633 Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, 2010, p.8
634 The expenditures like navlun and resm-i gümrük indicate that certain inheritances had to be
transported from their original location to the storage facililty of the beytülmal or from the
storage facility to an appropriate market place (by boat and paying tolls along the way). This
document also refers to other expenses like edâ-i kefâlet-i mîrî, but it does not specify for
which person they were paid. MAD.d. 23361 (29 N 958/1551).
238
Navlun … resm-i gümrük 1,986 1.78%
Hisse-i zevc ve zevce ve mihr-i müeccel 3,600 3.23%
Sicil 161 0.1%
Vasiyyet-i hane an vakf-ı Mevlana Bedreddin
ve nakdiyye-i muhallefat-ı mezbur ber-muceb-i
kazasker efendi
17,810 15.9%
(Expenses related to beytülmal only) 47,181 42.34%
Teslim be-Hizâne-i Âmire 75,396 67.6%
Total expenses (with excess) 122,577635
Another register of the same district, Galata, shows revenues and expenses of the
mukataa of beytülmal-i hassa for two months in 959636—the year following the previous
register. Compared to the previous one in which the total revenue is 111,425,5 akçes, this
register includes only four muhallefats that amount o 44,246 akçes in total. While the
previous register covers a period of nine lunar months, the later register covers a period of
two lunar months (şehrayn). 41,183 akçes was submitted to Hizâne-i Âmire. Different from
the previous register, the list under the title of expenses (el-ihrâcât) includes debts due third
persons that had to be paid from the muhallefat(s). Based on the kadı’s entry in the register,
470 akçes were used to cover these debts (deyn-i müsbet ber mûceb-i hüccet).637
635 Though it was not specified in the register, the total costs exceeded the total revenue with
11,1515,5 akçes.
636 Between 27 Şevval and 27 Zilhicce in the year 959/ 1552 Between 16th of October and 14th
of December. AE. SSÜL.I 2/109 (959/1552).
637 These types of registers do not particularise the expenses for each muhallefat, instead, it lists
them as cost items in total.
239
Table 5: Galata Beytülmal-i Hassa Mukataasi (27 Şevval 959- 27 Zilhicce 959)
Revenues (vâridât)
Amounts
in akçe
% to total
An muhallefât-ı İlyas b. Abdullah müteveffa der
kurb-u Ağriboz metrukateş der keştî-mande638 5,004
An muhallefât-ı Fadim Hatun el-müteveffiye der
mahalle-i Hoca Ali der kurb-ü Galata 65
An muhallefât-ı Mahmud Reis el-meşhur bevardiyan
der mahrûse-i Galata der mahalle-i
Bereket 36,800
An muhallefât-ı Mustafa b. Abdullah
Kalafatî639der keştî-mânde 2,377
Asl-ı mal (total revenues from four
muhallefats) 44,246
Expenses (el-ihracat)
Mevâcib-i emîn 480 1.08%
Mevâcib kâtib 450 1.01%
638 In the last two account registers, the ex-owner of the properties subject to beytülmal were
Muslims, non-Muslims (Jews, Christians), merchants and people from different towns and
cities, and from different occupations (papaz, Acem, Adavî, rençber, kantârî, azebân etc.).
Here, keştî-mânde means ‘remained in ship’ that implies that the property of deceased person
was in the ship; and he might be a merchant, a mariner, or in the lowest possible, a passenger.
Galata was a crossroads of trade between Asia and Europe, the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean since medieval times. Being a port site, it had an intense dynamism of
diplomacy, commercial exchage and cultural encounters. It was the European port of
Costantinople/Istanbul where the identities of local inhabitants continuously being reshaped.
For further discussion on Galata see Fariba Zarinebaf, Mediterranean Encounters: Trade and
Pluralısm in Early Modern Galata, California, Oakland: University of California Press,
2018.
639 Kalafatî (caulker, v. caulk) repairs ships, seals and fills between woods for making it airtight
and watertight. As understood from the register, he (and his muhallefat) remained in the ship
(keştî-mânde).
240
Deyn-i müsbet ber muceb-i hüccet 770 1.74%
Hisse-i zevc ve zevce 661 1.49%
Dellâlin 489 1.10%
Hammâlin 10 0.022%
Sicil ve muhzıriyye 94 0.212%
Nafaka-i gulâmân 90 0.203%
Kirâye-i dükkân 19 0.042%
Total Expenses (el-ihracat) 3,063 6.92%
Teslim bud be-hizane-i amire 41,183 93%
One can claim that 44,246 is not a large sum as the total revenue of beytülmal.
However, for the imperial treasury, the most favorable part of this account would be the ratio
of the payment it received to the total amount which was 93%. As could be seen in these two
different registers of the same district, what yielded (more) revenue in the beytülmal
mukataas was the affluence of the persons’ whose properties fell to the beytülmal rather than
the high number of beytülmal cases. This is the case, particularly, when the cost of liquadating
the properties (such as dellâliye or hammâliye expenses) to net beytülmal was cheap, and
private payments of the beytülmals are economical (like hisse-i zevc and zevce, techiz-tekfin,
and duyûn). For instance, the ratio of the total costs (private and public) to total revenue was
only 6.9% in this case.
The range of the expenses in the beytülmal registers might differ from each other
based on some variables. For instance, the register kept in Bursa for the mukataas of
beytülmal-i amme and hassa under the administration of Bursa Hassa Harc Emini640 reveals
640 The Bursa Privy Purse Office. See Arif Bilgin, Osmanlı Taşrasında Bir Maliye Kuruu Bursa
Hassa Harç Eminliği, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2006.
241
how a revenue turned into an expense at the hands of beytülmal emins. According to the
register, Emine died in 1001 in the district of Harîrî in Bursa, and her cariye, Mâhitab,
remained as part of her estate. The beytülmalci claimed Mâhitâb cariye and sold her to
Kerime Hatun—a third person unrelated to the estate. However, something happened to
Mâhitâb641 that made the sale void. Based on the hüccet642 of kadı Muhyiddîn, the beytülmaci
had to repay the price of the sale of Mâhitab cariye to Kerime Hatun.643 The list of the estates
in this register does not include the aforementioned Emine. Emine died in 1001, and the
thirty-four persons on the list died in 1003. However, the cost concerning Mâhitab was
charged from the same beytülmal and noted as the expenses of the beytülmal mukataası of
the year 1003.
This document also includes a restitution payment. Selver bt. Abdullah died in 26
Zilhicce 1000 (3 October 1592) and her estate was taken (kabz) by the Mehmed Çavuş, the
emin for beytülmal-i hassa in Bursa. Though the document is silent on the identity of the
heirs that came up, based on the hüccet of the kadı, the beytülmalci paid the price of the estate
in 1003 to Hasan: “edâ-i bahâ-yi muhallefât-ı Selver bt. Abdullah… be-yed-i Hasan b.
641 I could not read the word, but in either case (died or got free), the sale became void and the
beytülmalci had to refund the payment to Kerime Hatun.
642 The copy of an entry in the kadıs’ register (sicil).
643 “Be-cihet-i edâ-i baha-i Mâhitab cariye ki an muhallefât-ı Emine (?) (?) el-müteveffiye der
mahalle-i Hariri fi evaili Rebîulevvel sene 1000 ve metrukâteş Mehmed Çavuş emîn-i sâbıkı
beytülmali’l-mezbur kabz kerde ve cariye-i mezbure an muhallefat-ı müteveffiye-i mezbure
Kerime nam hatun bey’ kerde. Lakin cariye-i mezbure (?) bude. Ez an sebeb akçe-i Kerime
Hatun el-mezbure dâde ber-mûceb-i hüccet-i Mevlâna Muhyiddin Kâdı-i sabık-ı Bursa beyed-
i Piri Çavuş veled-i Kerime el-mezbure Fi 4 Cemâziyelahir 1003.” D.BRM. d. 24258,
p.3 (1003/1595).
242
Abdullah dâde ber mûceb-i hüccet-i mevlâna Muhyiddin kâdı-i sabık-ı Bursa.”644 The
revenue (3795 akçes) obtained through the estate of Selver Hatun in 1000 turned into an
expense in the year 1003.645
5.4.2 A Fund for Regular and Irregular Public Expenses
Once the property was deemed as beytülmal, there were a number of ways to use it
by the government: as a reserve fund in times of pressing needs, a fund for lending to people
who are in urgent financial need, a fund for paying wages of different ranks of government
functionaries, and so on. Among them, the last could be said the most prevalent and regular
way of spending of the beytülmal across the empire. Along with the regular ones, the
beytülmal also covered some irregular expenses of the government. Upon the orders sent
from the imperial center or the provincial administrators, the officers in charge of the
beytülmal revenues channeled these funds to cover those irregular expenses or transferred
these to the places stated in the order. By their nature, these expenses were not systematical
and continuous and were generally prompted by current circumstances; such as an expense
for military campaigns, a need for the repairment of a religious or governmental building,646
644 For more examples of different regions like Vize and Kırkkilise in 995 see BMK.d. 22451,
p.2 (995/1586).; for Edirne MAD. d. 23347, pp.14-19 (1536-37).; D. BŞM. d. 7677,
Document No. 53 (1120/1709).
645 Said Öztürk wrotes that 241 (24,1%) registers include slaves or cariyes as items remained in
the inheritances out of 1000 tereke registers kept in the seventeenth century by İstanbul
Askerî Kassamlığı. Said Öztürk, “XVII. Yüzyıl Askerı̇ Kassam Defterlerı̇nı̇n Sosyo-
Ekonomı̇k Tahlı̇lı̇”, Ph.D Diss. Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993, p.149.
646 AE. SAMD. III. 145/14116 (1022/1613)
243
or a payment for a specific private claimant, etc.647 Based on the conditions of each mukataa,
the müfettişs or nâzırs supervised the utilization of the beytülmal revenues—either spending
the revenue on the spot (ocaklık)648 or transfer it somewhere.649
There were mainly two types of regular spending for the beytülmal revenues. In the
first, with the revenue freed from any private expenses, the beyülmal made up its own costs.
This, in effect, helped for properly operating the system. The payments of employees of the
mukataa like emîn, âmil, and kâtib,650 the rental payments for the shops where the unclaimed
properties kept, kira,651and the restitution of the property to a newly appeared (zuhûr eden)
eligible claimer were the most common expense items of the beytülmal.652 In the second, the
officers in charge of the beytülmal mukataas delivered some pre-defined sums to their place.
The amounts were generally ascertained based on each mukataa’s yields. Being the primary
regular expense of the beytülmal, the salary payments (mevâcib and vezâif) of non-beytülmal
employees was holding the lion’s share in total expenditures.
647 AE. SMST. II. 58/6043 (1112/1701).
648 Beside its meaning in administrative organization, the Ottomans used ocaklık in the meaning
of revenue allowance. It was the assignment of some revenue sources on behalf of certain
localities in exchange of covering of some specific expenses of the state. These expenses
might be the provisions for Matbah-ı Amire, Istabl-ı Âmire and equipments for Tersâne-i
Amire, or the salaries of the officials. Orhan Kılıç, "Ocaklık" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi,
Vol.33, 2007, 317-318.; Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, p. 101.
649 Fatma Şensoy, “Mukataalarda Muhasebe Kayıtları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başında Bursa
Mukataası” Örneği, Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7, 2014, pp. 208-209.
650 Mevacib-i ümena or mevâcib-i kâtiban-ı mukataa
651 “Be-cihet-i kirâye-i dükkân-i beytülmal” BRM.d 24258 (1002/1593-94).; AE.SSÜL.İ. 2/109
(959/1552),; Bilgin and Bozkurt, “Beytülmal Mukataaları”, 2010, p.8.
652 AE. SMMD. IV. 53/6205 (1073/1662).; A. DVNSMHM.d.24/160 (981/1574).
244
However, the circulation of the beytülmal revenues, either in cash or in kind, was
materialized in a multifarious way. There were some determinants that made the way of that
circulation, like the type and amount of the beytülmal, the sort of the expense of the
government, the turn of the events, etc. As could be seen in the registers, the unforeseen turn
of events, like an urgent need for public and private agents often resulted in the
circumstantially issued orders (ber mûceb-i emr-i ‘âlî) for spending of the beytülmal. That is
why this section sees fit to name the beytülmal as a fund for regular and irregular expenses
of the government.653
There are a considerable number of account registers of the beytülmal located under
different categories in the archive.654 For instance, in a document, dated relatively early
period, the beytülmal register also includes the account for the emvâl-i müteferrika
(miscellaneous revenues) and emvâl-i havâss (the revenues of the imperial demesne
lands).655Abdülvehhâb Efendi, the Kadı of Konya and the financial inspector of the imperial
lands in Karaman (Nâzır-ı emvâl-i havâss-ı vilayet-i Karaman) confirmed the register. The
revenue (Abdülvehhab Efendi supervised its collection) was in total 2,735,415 akçes in a
year and twelve in 934-935 (1528-1529). While the yield from emvâl-i müteferrika and
653 The revenue taken into consider here is the net beytülmal, freed from any private and
operational expenses.
654 MAD. d, D. AHM.d., D.BMK.d, D. ISM.d, TS.MA.e, TS.MA. d., C.ML., C.NF, A.
DVNSMHM.d, different sub-categories of A.E. and so on. Though these registers are
different in respect to their details, form and wording, the diversity of beytülmal registers
helps to figure out the place of the beytülmal in the agenda of different reports.
655 TS. MA. d. 4666/01 (936/1530).
245
beytülmal656 was 145,003 akçes in total, the rest was collected through the mukataas, iltizam
and emânet (tahvîlât-ı ummâl and tahvilât-ı ümenâ). The kadı (who was also the müfettiş and
nâzır in this case) supervised the revenues and expenses of the mukataas in question. He
affirmed the register in question during his span of authority. From this total amount,
2,738,341 akçes were used for the expenses as shown below (vuzi‘a min zâlik).
Table 6: Revenues and Expenses of the Imperial Domains in Konya and Karaman
Revenues
Amounts Rates
Asl-ı mâl fi sene ve on iki eyyâm
2,735,415 100%
An tahvilât-ı ummâl-i hashâ-i vilayeti
mezbûre
2,186,628 80%
An tahvilât-ı ümenâ-i ki ber vech-i
emânet zabt kerde
403,784 15%
An emvâl-i müteferrik ma’a
beytülmal ber-vech-i usube (?)657
145,003 5%
656 For the method of collection of the beytülmal revenues, the document uses the phrase
“beytülmal ber vech-i usûbet”. I could not figure out what does that mean in the context of
mukataa. I came accross with this word in Barkans’s seminal work on the Ottoman financial
budget for the year 933/934. In a similar way, he noted this type of revenue as “an-beytülmali
hâssa ve usûbet”. Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 933- 934 (M. 1527 -1528) Mali Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe
Örneği” İ.Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.15, no.1-4, 1953, see esp. p. 287.
657 ‘Asabe’ ع) ب صھ ) means “the body of a deceased person's collateral relations to whom no
definite portion of the inheritance is assigned by law and who become residuary legatees after
the assigned portions have been paid over.” ‘Asaba’, New Redhouse Turkish-English
Dictionary, Istanbul: Redhouse yay. 1986, p.78.; Hayreddin Karaman, “Asabe” TDV İslam
Ansiklopedisi, Vol.3, 1991, pp. 452-453.; Usûbe ع و ص) ب ھ ), the noun form, was not very
common in the registers concerning to the matters in the mukataas. In this register the word
is used as if it denotes a method of collecting the revenues “ber vech-i usûbe” (like iltizam or
emanet). Barkan also came up with usubet (which he noted as ع و ص ب ت ) in the context of the
beytülmal in his work on the Ottoman fiscal budget of the year 1527-1528 (An beyt-til-mal-i
hassa ve 'usubet). Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 933- 934 (M. 1527 -1528) Mali Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe
246
Expenses
Vuzia‘ min zalik ma‘a’z-ziyâde658
2,738,341 100 %
Et-teslîmât: be-Hizâne-i Âmire659
1,015,603 37%
Mevâcibât-i Kılâ-‘i İçil660
1,406,097 51%
Mevacibât-i ümenâ ve küttâb ve
mütekâidîn661
96,379 3.5%
İhracat-ı müteferrik ma’a salyâne-i
türbe-i münevvere ve Şeyh Bulduk ve
Zâviye-i Ömer Bey662
220,220
8%
Ez-ziyâde ‘ani’l-asl (the amount
spent exceeding the revenue)
2,929
One striking point in this example is that the mukataa revenue was not sufficient to
cover the expenses of the period in question —it lacks 2,926 akçes. Additionally, the rate of
Örneği” İ.Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.15, no.1-4, 1953, pp. 251-329.; This word may
have been chosen based on the heirship of the government in case no residuary heirs showed
up and claimed the inheritace, and particularly for the askerî class: “Memâlik-i Mahrûsemde
mansıbı ve ciheti olanlardan ve anlarun müte‘allikatından fevt olub terekeleri beytülmal
cihetiyle veya usûbet sebebiyle kapuma müteveccih olsa…” Kânunnâme-i Beytülmâl-i Hâssa
in Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukûki Tahlilleri,v.2, İstanbul: Fey vakfı
yay., 1990, p. 119., see fn. 1.; Ömer N. Bilmen, Hukukı İslâmiyye ve Istlâh-ı Fıkhiyye Kâmusu
v.4, İstanbul: Bilmen yay.,1985, pp.107-108.
658 The expenses made from that amount with the excess
659 The sum delivered to the treasury.
660 The payments (el-mevâcibât) of the soldiers in the tower of İçil.
661 Payments for the emîns (ümenâ), the clerks (küttâb), and the retired (mütekâidîn)
662 The other payments (ihrâcât-ı müteferrika) and the yearly allowances (salyane) for those; the
zaviye (sûfi lodge) of Ömer Bey, the tomb (türbe-i münevvere) and Şeyh Bulduk.
247
the beytülmal revenues to total yield was only 5%. The register does not include details about
the number of beytülmals (muhallefats or others) claimed in this period. The method of
claiming was not specified except for the word usûbe. The collected revenues were used for
covering the regular expenses of the locality first; it paid the salaries of the officers (working
for the mukataas, or soldiers defending the empire), and the yearly allowances for dervish
lodges and tomb. The mukataa also delivered 37% of total revenues to the imperial treasury.
By its very nature, the unclaimed property is a revenue of the locality first, where
collected, and fell to use of the government primarily in spot. On that account, it was
operating in almost all the corners of the empire for the overarching property claim of the
government—considering together with its legal grounds. It produced revenues for both the
provincial and the imperial treasuries. However, it did not only operate for revenue
collection; it was also the government’s strategy for having services provided in the locality
in a network of hierarchically organized officers and making the necessary payments to the
persons in charge. Thanks to the institution of ‘assignment’ (havale), the government could
either make the payments in the place where the revenue was collected or in remote
territories.
Other than the emin and mültezim, havale (assignee) is the person who is authorized
by holding a letter of transfer (havale) for taking some specific public revenues. Havale could
possess these revenues on his own behalf, or to send to the treasury, or a to a third person
based on the letter he holds. In the sixteenth century, havales were mainly preferred for the
following settings; when the claimer of the mukataa revenue was a particular person, the
central treasury was in pressing need of revenues, and for specific spending of the state.
Havale might also be opted for the safe delivery of the revenues if the liability of an emin
248
was in question.663 Utilizing these revenues in spot and in the roundabout system, the
government, to an extent, overcame the pitfalls caused by the lack of banks for transferring
money and an efficient road system for transportation in the early modern period.664
The havale, generally an official assigned this payment, would come to the mukataa
holder, amil (tax farmer), and claim a certain sum of money. This claim was grounded by
virtue of a hükm by the sultan. For instance, in a hukm sent to the kadıs in Vidin and Kırkkilise
it was stated that all the beytülmal revenues of the districts should be sent to the imperial
treasury. According to the document, the money would be delievered to the havale (…emîni
mezkûr marifeti ile varan havale kuluma kabzettirdüb…) as he was assigned to deliver it to
the treasury.665
In general, these payments were made with the notice of emin and kadı, as the
supervisory representatives of the central administration, and kadı recorded these payments
in the registers.666 The orders of havale are three types: (i) the order specifies directly a
663 Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, pp. 158-159.; Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy,
pp. 157-158.
664 Bosworth, C.E. and Gerber, H., “Muḳāṭaʿa” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,
vol.VII, ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH. Pellat., Leiden- New
York: E.J. Brill, 1993, p.508.
665 MAD.d 9824/101, 22 B 1024 (17 Aug. 1615)
666Thinking their roles as the notaries in different parts of the empire, the role of the kadıs and
registers kept were of importance. For studying mukataas and havala transactions, the hüccets
kadıs gave to the tax-farmer in return for a payment made to the assigned; and a mektub given
to the bearer of assignation stating the reason and the explanation, when the payment was not
made were most valuable sources. İnalcık, Halil, “Ḥawāla” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam,
New Edition, vol.III, ed. B. Lewis, V.L. Menage, Ch. Pellat And J. Schacht, (Leiden: E.J
Brill; London: Luzac&Co), 1986, pp. 282-285.; For the inclusion of siclis’ different registers
249
claimant of the revenue— like military officers in the provinces— for paying the allowances
like salyane, ulûfe, or mevâcib667 (ii) the order assigns at the disposal of emin to cover the
provincial public expenses —like constructions, repairments and so on— or to cover the
needs of the palace.668 (iii) the order reserves the revenue for handing over to Sultan’s
emissary as sums to be included in the treasury, Hazine-i Amire.669 Considering the
circumstances of the period and the territorial extensiveness of the empire, this type of
utilization of the revenues was best fit for a vast and inevitably decentralized empire like the
and the literature on sicils see Yunus Uğur, “Mahkeme Kayıtları (Şer’iye Sicilleri): Literatür
Değerlendirmesi ve Bibliyografya”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 2003, pp. 305-
344
667 For instance, Beytülmal-i amme (hurde) and beytülmal-i hassa mukataas in Vize and
Kırkkilise yielded 27,213 akçes between 994 (Şevval) and 995 (Muharrem). As hâvale, the
salary of a certain İbrahim Bey (4,400 akçes) was paid and the rest of the revenue (el-bâkî
16.281) was delivered to him based on his holding a berat of bi-havâle BMK.d. 22451, p.2
(995/ 1586).
668 “Be-cihet-i mevâcib-i İbrahim Bey kilari an havale-i mukataa-i mezbur” (a paymet for larder
from the mukataas of hurde and beytülmal-i hassa in Vize and Kırkkilise) BMK.d. 22451,
p.2 (995/1586).; Arif Bilgin, Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2006, pp.91-95.
669 “Teslim be-Hizâne-i Âmire” AE.SSÜL.İ. 2/109 (29 Z 959/1552).; “Der kîse teslim İbrahim
Bey bi-havale-i mukataa-i mezbur” BMK.d. 22451, p.2 (995/1586).; MAD.d. 23361, p.3
(958/1551).; AE. SSLM.II 1/5 (979/1571).; Darling, Revenue-raising and Legitimacy, pp.
130-131, 157-158.; Çakır, “Osmanlı Mukataa Sistemi”, pp.158-160.; The payments of
mukataa revenues were sent to the central treasury from the 17th century onwards via polices
(bill of exchange). This was provided by sarrafs established in the main towns. However, till
the declaration of the Tanzimat in 1839, i.e. the abolishion of tax-farming (mukataa)
payments via assignment continued. Halil İnlacık, “Ḥawāla”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam,
New Edition, vol.III, ed. B. Lewis, V.L. Menage, Ch. Pellat And J. Schacht, (Leiden: E.J
Brill; London: Luzac&Co), 1986, pp. 282-285.
250
Ottomans.670 Through the network of these assignees, the remote territories of the empire
came together in the circulation of bits of pieces of unclaimed properties that devolved to the
beytülmal.
The beytülmal revenues were not always yielding in promising quantities. Like in the
example above, it was put together with some other mukataa revenues. For instance,
according to the summary register (İcmâl Defteri), the mukataa revenues in Edirne and the
revenues from tahmîs-i kahve (tax on coffee trade)671 and the beytülmal were put together to
cover the salaries (vezâyif) of mütekâidîn (the retired), duâgûyân,672 huddâmân,673 and
670 For instance, one-year revenue of Egypt could hardly be received by the imperial center up to
four or five years. Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah yay. 2020,
pp.228-229.
671 İdris Bostan, "Kahve" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.24, 2001, pp. 202-205.
672 Literally and originally, the duâgûs are the prayers for the well being of the state. They
perform and lead the religious ceremonies in the palace or in other occasions. By the end of
the 16th century, they also attained some symbolic positions (cihet) such that their allowance
reached to a considerable point. Their salary was paid from the revenues of customs,
mukataas and vakıf lands. Mehmet İpşirli, “Duâgû” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.9, 1994,
pp. 541-542.; Rhoads Murphey, “The Veliyyüddin Telhis: Notes on the Sources and
Interrelations Between Koçi Bey And Contemporary Writers of Advice to Kings,” Belleten,
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1979, pp. 547-571, see fn.21.
673 Huddam is the plural of the word hadım which means servants (esp. Eunuchs). Here it is used
for the employees of the mukataa. Their occoupation was denoted in the documents as
hüddâm-ı câmi-i şerif, hüddâm-ı vakıf, hüddâm-ı dârüşşifa and so on. See for example Ömer
L. Barkan “Süleymanı̇ye Camii İmaretı̇ Tesı̇slerı̇ne Aı̇t Yıllık Bir Muhasebe Bı̇lançosu
993/994 (1585/1586)” Vakıflar Dergisi, 9, 2006, pp.109-161.
251
müşâherehorân674.675 As shown in a register dated 1670, the range of the revenue units in a
bunch of mukataa might cover different cities and different kinds of revenue sources like
beytülmal, the revenues of gardens and vineyards (bâğât and besâtîn), the rents of the shops
(icâre-ı dekâkin) and public baths (hamam) and so on. In return for that diversity, the range
of the items in the list of expenditures covered; the purveyance for the public kitchen (zehâir,
revgan), the salaries of the mukataa workers and the servants in the vakıf (hüddâmân, vazîfehorân),
the amounts for the repairments of mosques and public baths, the debts, etc.676
Principally, it was the same financial inspector (nâzır or müfettiş), under whose
administration these different mukataas were put together and controlled.677
674 The government functionaries generally work in the finance department. Different from the
askerî class paid quarterly, their salary is paid on a monthly base from the treasury. Erhan
Afyoncu, “Müşâherehorân” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 32, 2006, pp. 153-154.; See also
Ömer L. Barkan, “H. 974-975 (M. 1567 -1568) Mali Yılına ait bir Osmanli Bütçesi”, İ.Ü.
İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, C.19, No.1-4 (Ekim 1957-Temmuz 1958), esp. pages 277-278
and his study “H. 933- 934 (M. 1527 -1528) Mali Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği” İ.Ü. İktisat
Fakültesi Mecmuası, C.15, No.1-4, esp. pages 308 and 313 for the types of the occupations
of müşâhere-horân.
675 D.İSM.d. 25438, p.2 (1172/1759).
676 This register shows the revenues and expenditures related to the endowment (varidat and
masarifat defteri) of Eyyüb Ensâri TS. MA.d.1359, 2b-3a. (1080/1670-71).
677 For instance, in the first half of the 17th century, the tahmîs-i kahve mukataası was
administered together with the beytülmâl-i amme-i mahmiye-i İstanbul and beytülmâl-i
hâssa-i Galata along wiht a few others. Eşref Temel “İstanbul Tahmı̇shanesı̇ (1590-1836)”,
MUTAD, VIII (2), 2021, pp. 373–401.
252
The regular beytülmal expenses were recorded in advance on the mukataa for the
persons who benefited from these revenues.678 The müezzin-i hâssa,679 for instance, was
appointed to yevmi sekiz akçe vazife (eight akçes stipend per diem) from the reveneus of the
beytülmal-i hassa in Istanbul.680 Stated in the documents as vazifeye mutasarrıf or
beytülmalden istihkakı olmak,681 different groups of government functionaries got paid their
salaries from the beytülmal revenues.682
By its nature, unclaimed properties fell as beytülmal suddenly and unexpectedly—
upon an heirless death, foundering of a merchant ship, a missing individual, etc. Similar to
its uneven fall as revenue, the beytülmal covered some pop-up expenses of the government.
In respect to that the beytülmal could be viewed as one of the standby funds of the government
for irregular expenses.
The beytülmal registers do not authentically signify the expenditures whether regular.
However, sporadic, or rare items under the title of ihrâcât imply some exceptional payments.
Though it was out of the scope of this study to delve into the minute details of beytülmal
678 Being one of the most essesntial sources on the functioning of the beytülmal, the catalogue
D. BŞM. İSB. (Bâb-ı Defterî Başmuhasebe İstanbul Beytü’l-mali Mukataası) includes a
considerable number of documents related to arrangements of salary payments from the
mukataa of Beytülmal-i Hassa (and amme) in Istanbul. See for example D. BŞM. İSB. 3/1,
5, 20; 4/1, 2, 3, 60 and 125.
679 The person who calls the faithful to prayer in Enderun. Mustafa Sabri Küçükaşçı, “Müezzin”
TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 31, 2020, pp. 489-495
680 “İstanbul’da vaki Beytülmâl-i Hâssa mukataasından yevmi olmak üzere sekiz akçe vaziyefeye
mutasarrıf olup…” TS. MA. e. 956/6 (1084/ 1673).; AE. SMMD. IV 92/10921 (1087/1676).
681 AE.SAMD.III 85/8479 (1119/1708); TS.MA. e. 956/6 (1084/1673).
682 Based on capacitiy of the returns, these revenues were collected either from a bunch of
mukataa or only from the beytülmal.
253
accounts, the documents help understand its role as a reserve fund in times of unexpected
payments of different types.
As in the regular ones, the salary payments were the leading item among the irregular
expenses. For the mukataas, the stipendiary lists were prepared in advance. However, for
some servants of the state who could not be paid because of the deficits (kusur), the fiscal
authorities prepared quick notes for making up the costs from the beytülmal fund. Based on
the orders sent from the imperial center (ber-mûceb-i fermân-ı şerîf) in the form of a tezkire
(memoranda or note), the emîn in charge channeled the revenues for a special setting or
claimant.683 Apart from the account registers, the existence of those tezkires for covering
‘some’ expenses also indicates the use of the beytülmal as a reserve fund in times of need.684
Particularly, in the cases of purchases of some crucial equipment for defending the borders
or fighting in the wars, or purveyance for the imperial kitchen, beytülmal emins were sent
tezkires. For instance, the fund of the Beytülmal-i hassa in Istanbul was used to pay the
expenses for the equipment (barutçıyan, kundakçıyan, perdâhan) that are necessary for
defending the Belgrad Fortress. 685
In another register, a tezkire was given to Lütfullah Efendi,686 emin-i beytülmal-i
hassa in Bursa, to cover the expenses of simidhâne-i hâssa (the palace bakehouse).687 This
payment was later entered into his account (mahsub). While this was a very short note for
683 AE. SMRD. IV 1/76 (1037/1628).
684 AE. SMRD. IV. 7/719 (1043/1633).; AE. SMRD. IV. 9/899 (1041/1632)
685 AE. SMST. II. 80/8545 (1106/1695).
686 Issued by the Kaimmakam Pîrî Çavuş, the Harc-ı Hassa Emini in Bursa.
687 “Beytülmal-i Hassa emini Lütfullah Çelebi tezkire vusul buldukda Simidhane-i hassa
mühimmâtiyçün beş çift çuval alıverup simidhâne-i hassaya teslim idüp… muhasebede
deynine mahsub oluna…” İE. SM 2/114 (21 N 1029/ 20 August 1620).
254
channeling the revenue, these rare expenses were also listed in the expenditures list of
beytülmal account registers.688
For instance, in an account register, the payments Ömer b. Abdurrahman Ağa—
emin-i beytülmal-i hassa in İstanbul—made was listed. Based on the order, the emin covered
the expenses for İbrahim Paşa’s tents (haymehâ) and some other equipments (hırdavat çuka,
akmişe-i mütenevvia, haymehâ-i celeb, etc).689
Intrinsically, all these technical terms came to mean that being an item of mukataa
and the revenue raised, the unclaimed property was one of the key funds at the hands of the
empire. Through the mukataa organization, the imperial treasury and local authorities cast a
method to circulate and utilize the bits of pieces of things in the beytülmal—irrespective of
the amount. Moreover, the above-mentioned fiscal functions of the beytülmal, either
collecting or spending, brought together the laypersons and the Ottoman officials in the same
document. That is to say, a cushion belonged to an heirless deceased person, a comb or a pot,
in one way or another, might be utilized by a certain paşa for covering the costs of some
equipments in defending the empire. The correspondence of the Ottoman officials came side
by side with the names of the heirless deceased, or missing individuals, the things that
belonged to those names and their expenses of burial in the same document.
688 For instance the beytülmal account register for Vize and Kırkkilise in 994 and 995 included
a list of expenditures (be-cihet-i ihrâcât). Along with the amounts like salaries and delivery
to the treasury, four thousand akçes was delivered to a certain Mustafa for buying kendir
(cannabis) by the order of the imperial center: “be-cihet-i berâ-yı kendir teslim be-yed-i
Mustafa an (?) hassa ber mûceb-i emri şerif” BMK.d. 22451 (995/1587).
689 “An tahvil-i Ömer b. Abdurrhaman an ebna-i sipahiyan emin-i beytülmal-i hassa ve Nasuh b.
Karagöz an cemaat-i mezkure katib an baha-i haymeha-i İbrahim Paşa ki bera-yı füruht dade
el-vaki' fi 15 M sene 945” MAD.d.23349, p.2 (945/1538).
255
5.5 Beytülmal as a Reserve Fund for Charitable Expenses
Based on the theory of the beytülmal (in the sense of the treasury), the fourth category
of the revenues690 claimed and collected on behalf of the government was reserved for
charitable expenses.691 The government was holding the right of heirship in case of unclaimed
properties for securing both the right of Muslims in general and the rights of minors who did
not reach the age of maturity yet. It aims to provide financial support for the expenses of
private persons, like maintenance payments (nafaka), the funerary expenses of the needy
(techîz and tekfîn), and so on. In this respect, even the term confined to the office/officer
responsible for escheating the unclaimed properties, when it comes to the charitable
690 According to the theory of beytülmal (lt. the house of wealth in Islamic states), there are four
category of reveneus for an Islamic political organization and each sort of revenue had a
peculiar law of disbursement. Among them, the fourth is the revenues obtained through the
inheritance (mukhallefāt) of the heirless deceased persons that the state has the ultimate
claimer; the properties obtained when one of the two, in a married couple, died without
inheriting another person, and the troves (al-luqata). Dede Cöngi, Risâle fî Emvâli Beyti’lmâl
ve Aksâmihâ ve Ahkâmihâ ve Masârifihâ, Süleymaniye Ktp. Esad Efendi, no. 3560, v.6a-
6b.; For further discussion see Abu Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302, pp.80-81, Abu al-
Ya’la Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Farra (d.458), al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed. Muhammad
Hamid al-Faqî, Beirut: Daru’l-Kutubu’l-‘Ilmiyye, 2000 (1421 H), pp.244, 249.; Abu al-
Hasan 'Ali b. Muhammed al-Maverdi (d.450), al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed. Ahmed Cad,
Cairo: Daru’l-Hadis, 2006 (1427 H), pp. 307-308.
691 In his pamphlet on the beytülmal, Dede Cöngî explains each category of revenues for the
government and the allowances made from each of these revenues. Based on that the
government uses the revenues in the fourth as follows: allowance to diseased poor people for
providing them treatment and medicine; enshrouding and burying (techîz and tekfîn) the death
who has no any property; supporting the abandoned children and paying the price if they (the
abandoned children) commit a crime; allowance for the people who cannot earn for his/her
and so on. Dede Cöngi, Risâle fî Emvâli Beyti’l-mâl ve Aksâmihâ ve Ahkâmihâ ve Masârifihâ,
Süleymaniye Ktp. Esad Efendi, no. 3560, v.12b.
256
payments, the theoretical whys, and wherefores of the beytülmal institution in the Ottoman
Empire were nothing short of pre-Ottoman Islamic States’.692
The beytülmal mukataas come across as pointedly designed to increase the revenues
for the treasury. The account registers would saliently evidence that phenomenon. The
revenues benefited in a dazzling spectrum of expenses both in the center and periphery, and
the imperial treasury collected the rest as a cash payment. However, a substantial number of
archival documents of different categories also manifest that the office act as for the benefit
of Ottoman subjects in some ways. Particularly for those who died pennilessly and without
heirs, and for those who experience difficulties in providing for themselves.
For example, Neslihan and her daughter Saliha from Galata district in Istanbul
remained devoid of means of subsistence as her husband is absent (gâib). Ahmed, the
husband, neither left behind something nor sent for their sustenance (either nafaka or kisve).
Thus, she asked the court to provide for her and daughter’s maintenance (havâic-i sarf). Upon
her request, the kadı issued a payment for her as debt until her husband re-appears.693
692 See chapters I and II.
693 İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri, Galata Mahkemesi, no.90, 15b-5, 1663. (109, p.121); It is also worth
to note that this sicil register (Galata Mahkemesi, no. 90 (1073-1074/1663) starts with a fetva,
which asks about the validity of a marriage of a woman whose husband is missing. According
to that two realible persons withnessed the death of Bekir, who is missing with gaybeti
munkatı’a, and confirmed this to his wife, Hind. Knowing her husband’s death, Hind waits
the necessary period, and intends to marry to another man named Bişr. Assuming the exhusband
is alive, can any (third) person prohibit this marriage? The answer is no: “Sikātdan
Zeyd ve Amr gaybet-i münkatı’a ile gāib olan Bekir’in zevcesi Hind’e Zeyd’in vefâtın
müşâhede eyledik deyû haber verdiklerinde Hind’e Zeyd’in vefâtına ilm hâsıl olmağla ba‘de
inkızâi’l-idde nefsini Bişr’e tezvîc edip Bişr Hind’e ( ) dâhil olmak murâd eyledikde ba‘zı
kimesneler câiz ki Bekir hayâtda ola deyû Bişr’i Hind ile izvâc mu‘âmelesinden men‘e kādir
olur mu beyân buyurula.” Olmaz, Ketebehû el-fakīr (?) Yahya -ufiye anhu.
257
Another payment was made for Fatma, who needs sustenance since her absent
husband (gâib) did not cut up for her. The kadı provide 10 akçes after that time on as loan to
her husband (mezbûrenin nafakası, kisvesi ve sâir havâic-i lâzımesi için zeyilde mezkûr
târihden i‘tibâren gāib-i mezbûr zevci üzerine râyicü’l-vakt on akçe farz ve takdîr etti).694
The remarkable point here is that the gâib husband is expected to return and cover his debt
as his wife was issued an ongoing payment from the beytülmal. That also indicates the kadı’s
precision in choosing the word gâib, instead of mefkûd.695 However, one can claim that either
the gâib husbands would return or not, the beytülmal ventured to pay those amounts.
The same procedure applies to orphans (yetim, pl. eytâm) or foundling (lakît)
children. In fact, protecting the rights of the eytâm often mentioned as the raison d'être of
the beytülmal. The sicils call the beytülmal officer mu‘înu’l-eytâm (who helps orphans). For
instance, a child was found in the courtyard of Uzun Câmii in Trabzon province. Hatice bt.
Ömer nursed the 3 years old child who was named Hasan. However, Hatice states that she
could not afford to maintain and raise the child and requests nafaka in the court in the
presence of beytülmal officer.696 Upon her request, the kadı issued a payment for Hasan.
694 İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri, Galata Mahkemesi, no.90, 2b-1, (14.p.57).; See also 43a-1 (311,
p.257); 12a-2 (82, p.103).
695 Missing individual, no one know his/her whereabouts.
696 “… Uzun câmi-i şerîfinin avlusunda li-ecli’t-terbiye bana teslîm ve Hasan ismiyle tesmiye
olunan işbu hâzır-ı bi’l-meclis üç yaşında lakîtanın asla malı olmayub ebeveyni dahî nâ
malum olduğu gibi kendisini infâka vasî ider bir kimsesi bulunmadığından ben dahî mu‘sıre
olmamla lakîta-yı hâzıra-i mezbûru bilâ nafaka idare ve terbiyeye muktedire olmadığımdan
lakît-i hâzır-ı mezbûrun nafaka ve kisve ve sâir levâzım-ı zarûriyyesi îçün ebeveyn ve vasîsi
zuhûruna değin cânib-i beytü’l-mâldan i‘tâ olunmak üzere…” Sinan Başaran, “1498
Numaralı Rize Şer‘iyye Sicil Defterinin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirmesi”, MA Thesis,
Niğde Üniversitesi, 2011, p. 155.
258
However, if any of Hasan’s relatives appear as his guardians (vasî), s/he has to pay back the
total nafaka issued for Hasan until that time to the beytülmal.697
On the other hand, there are a significant number of documents on the use of the
beytülmal to cover the funerary expenses of heirless and penniless died persons. The most
orderly grouped cluster on the issue is “Belgrad Beytülmali” and is classified under the
Başmuhasabe Kalemi. Concerning almost entirely the heirless and penniless deceased
persons in Belgrad, there are three clusters of documents comprising 412 registers in total.
Covering roughly the period between 1091698 and 1110, they include the correspondence
between the kadı (or nâib, his deputy) of Belgrad and the beytülmal emini. In each of those
registers, the kadı states that with the murasele699 he issued, he charges the beytülmal emini
with covering the expenses for techîz and tekfîn (enshrouding and burial) of the heirless and
penniless deceased person from the beytülmal. According to the registers, the deceased were
generally hanging around public places like that of hans, odas, imârethanes, and mosques
697 “…Hasan’ın nafaka ve kisve ve sâir levâzım-ı zarûriyyesî içün men lehû hakku’t-taleb ve’lahz
üzerine rücû olunmak üzere cânib-i beytü’l-mâldan işbu tarih-i vesîka beher mâh (ay)
yirmi beşer guruş nafaka ve kisve bahâ farz ve takdîr olunub meblâğ-ı mefrûz-ı mezkûru
lakîte-i hâzır-ı mezbûr Hasan’ın nafaka ve kisve ve sâir levâzım-ı zarûriyyesine harc u sarfa
ve lede’l-iktizâ istidâneye ve inde’z-zafer vasîsi zuhûruna değin cânib-i beytü’l-mâla
rücûa…” Sinan Başaran, “1498 Numaralı Rize Şer‘iyye Sicil Defterinin Transkripsiyon ve
Değerlendirmesi”, MA Thesis, Niğde Üniversitesi, 2011, p. 155.
698 Only the first document of the first cluster dated 1605 and about a debt claim on the beytülmal
of an heirless deceased soldier (sipahi). D.BŞM.BLB. 1/1(1013 /1605).
699 An official letter of the court comprises of the kadı’s order.
259
before leaving this life. Except for fakir700 (poor, pl. fukara) and garîp701(destitute), no
affiliation or adjective is mentioned for them. Yet more, some registers do not say the name
and address them only bâi‘su’l-murasele (reason for the present letter)—probably the name
was not known by any.702 The most common expression in these muraseles was “...gariben
fevt olan fakirin techîz ve tekfînine kifâyet eder malı olmayub …”.703 Burying them through
the financial support of the beytülmal revenues of the province is ordered as “beytülmalden
defn idesiz.” Below is an example of these muraseles which touches an heirless deceased
woman from Sava:
“Medîne-i Belgrad’da beytülmal emini olan Mustafa Ağa el-mükerrem,
Ba‘de’s-selâm inhâ olunur ki Sava Mahallesinde vefat eden bir hatunun techîz ve
tekfîninine yarar ism-i mâl ıtlak olunur bir şey olmadığı inhâ ve beytülmaldan defn
olunması içün murasele iltimas olunmağın tahrîr ve irsâl kılınmıştır. Vusûlünde
mezbûreyi beytülmalden defn idesiz…”704
Sava was known as the hometown of non-Muslims. Copts, Jews and Gebrân
(Christian) were living there and specified as “mahalle-i Sava cemaat-i gebrân and Yahudi
der-varoş-ı Belgrad.”705 Though the register does not say her name, ‘the deceased woman’
(vefat eden hatun) might also be a non-Muslim; and for her funeral, no details is stated.
Considering together with the frequency of the name ‘Abdullah’ and the no-name persons,
700 In the meaning of impoverished people.
701 Not having close family, relatives, or friends. For instance, in a petition addressing the Sultan
(probably Bayezid II), a woman describes her destituteness “garîp kişidük, akrabamız yoğdı
ki anları göreler gözedeler.” TS. MA. e. 755/52 (918/1512).
702 D.BŞM.BLB 3/126 (1110/ 1698).
703 D.BŞM.BLB 1/128 (1098/1687).
704 D.BŞM.BLB 3/118 (1109/1698).
705 For further details see İlhan Türkmen, “Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre 1740’larda Belgrad’ın
Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı”, Belleten, 2016, c.80, s.288, pp. 411-438.
260
this might be an intentional wording in the registers that avoids some additional
correspondence and religious duties for the funerals.
In addition to Belgrad Beytülmali, the documents under Ali Emiri706 includes a
noticeable number of registers on the burial expenses of the needy. Particularly, AE.
SMMD.IV consists of registers of this type, and almost all the cases occur in Bursa.
Addressing the beytülmal emini there, the nâib of Bursa charges him (the emin) with covering
the funeral expenses of the deceased; many of whom were the inhabitants of public places
like odas, hans, mosques, tekkes and zaviyes (Mercan Odaları, Kuşbazlar Hanı, Pirinç Hanı,
Boyacı Odaları etc.):
“Beytülmal emini inhâ olunur ki, Namazgâh mahallesinde fevt olan fakire
mu‘tâd-ı kadîm üzere kefen baha virub bu tezkireyi hıfz idesin tahriren fî şehr-i
Zilhicce sene 1092. el-fakîr es-seyyid Mehmed el-nâib bi-medinet-i Bursa”.707
“Beytülmal emini es-seyyid Veli Çelebi gıbbe’s-selâm inhâ olunur ki Hazret-i
Emir Câmii Şerifi kurbünde vaki Zeynîler zaviyesinde fevt olan fakir ki üzerine
kefen bahası lazım gelur vâris-i ma‘rufu olmamağla gerekdir ki mu‘tâd-ı kadîm
üzere kefen bahasın virub bu tezkireyi hıfz idesiz…”708
Interestingly, the wording of these registers strictly sticks to the phrase mu‘tâd-ı
kadîm üzere (being an ancient custom). However, the dates in both clusters (Belgrad
Beytülmali and AE. SMMD.IV) go back to the last quarter of the seventeenth century only.
It is readily apparent that here the term kadim (ancient) does not only refer to the history of
the beytülmal institution in the Ottoman empire. Rather, it refers to the theory and history of
the beytülmal in Islamicate world, and more broadly the meaning of public treasury.
According to this, it is an obligation upon the state to cover some expenditures such as to
706 See for example AE. SMMD. IV 28/3132 (1092/1681), 87/10363(1095/1684), 22/2437
(1096/1685).
707 AE. SMMD. IV 4/380 (1092/1682).
708 AE. SMMD. IV 57/6627 (1095/1684)
261
maintain its needy persons, the prisoners, the hospital services,709 and the funerary expenses
of the poor and destitute.710 The local administrators are supposed to deal with the burial of
the deceased in their lands.
For instance, in a hukm sent to the kadı of Medine and Şeyhülharem, the imperial
center orders the court to send some men to enshroud the deceased people on the way to hacc.
According to an earlier register, the beytülmal emins were prohibited to escheat properties of
people deceased on the way to Hacc, if they have relatives (akraba) or countrymen
(hemşehrî) with them. The emir and şerif oversaw the beytülmal cases there.711 However,
when someone died neither the beytülmalci nor the kadıs dealt with the burial of the deceased.
The corpses stayed on the roads, and dogs ate them: “…meyyit içun dahi miri canibinden
kefen alınub defn olunmamağla meyyit yollarda kalup bazı kilab ekl edub ziyade teaddi
olduğu…”712 The order states that in case the beytülmalcis are too late, the court should send
709 As Shefer also states “…poor people were admitted into hospitals where medical care was
distributed free, whereas the well-to-do engaged private doctors and were treated in the
privacy of their own homes.” Miri Shefer, “Charity and Hospitality: Hospitals in the Ottoman
Empire in the Early Modern Period” in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts
(Edited by Michael Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer), SUNY Press: Albany, 2003,
pp.295-313.
710 Dede Cöngi, Risâle fî Emvâli Beyti’l-mâl ve Aksâmihâ ve Ahkâmihâ ve Masârifihâ,
Süleymaniye Ktp. Esad Efendi, no. 3560, v.12b.
711 In the context of pilgrimages, beytülmal means recording the metrukat of deceased people
and handing over their properties to either the relatives, if any, or countryman supposing they
had their heirs in their hometown. In case of no heir, the beytülmal would take the property.
The role of kadı in this process is to supervise (mukayyet olup) the process, but not to take a
fee for recording or dividing the metrukat. See A. DVNSMHM.d. 31/564 and 31/565
(985/1577).
712 A. DVNSMHM.d.46.46 (989/1581).
262
some capable men, first, for recording the metrûkât and then for furnishing cerement for the
deceased so as to prevent any possible harm to the corpses:
“…mahkeme canibinden adem gönderilup müteveffanın metrukatı var ise
yazılup defter olunup bir mahfuz yerde marifet-i şer’le hıfz olunup ve vakti ile
meyyit teçhiz ve tekfinlenub metrukatı olmayan fakirler müteveffasına dahi kefen
aldırub ale’l-fevr defn ettirub kable’d-defn meyyite haşerât ırzından ve gayriden …
zarar müteretteb olmak ihtimali olmaya”.713
The background of this event is more dramatic. Four years before the above order,
the beytülmal officers are prohibited to intervene in the beytülmal of the pilgrims (hüccâc).
The order states that some of the hüccâc became seriously ill on the way to hacc and covetous
beytülmal officers took all belongings and properties of these seriously ill people and left
them in a place714 remedilessly. They (the hüccâc) were dying of diseases in cries and
laments: “Hâcc-ı şerîf yolunda hüccacdan bazılar hasta oldukda henüz teslîm-i rûh itmeden
beytülmâl emîni ve âdemleri soyub esbâb ve emvâlini alub bir yerde koyub gidüb maraz
feryâd ve figân iderek fevt oldukları…715 From then on, the kadı and emîr-i hac shall not
appoint a beytülmalci, and any officer who intervenes in these affairs on behalf of beytülmal
emaneti shall be imprisoned in the tower in Damascus.716
After having grasped that beytülmal was not working properly in providing for the
needy, the imperial center tried to figure out the issue by replacing the office, not the
officer.717 The fact remains that administrative regulations on the individuals and their
713 A. DVNSMHM.d.46.46 (989/1581).
714 Though the document does not use the words like sahra and çöl, the archival summary says
the pilgrims were left in the desert.
715 A. DVNSMHM.d 23/344 (981/ 1573).
716 A. DVNSMHM.d 23/345 (981/ 1573).
717 One year before (980), there was also an attempt to change the method of appointing the
beytülmalci. See A. DVNSMHM.d 23/70 (981/1573).
263
properties in case they die was a running battle among the local authorities and the officers
appointed from the center. This is the case, especially on the way to Hac, Mecca and Medina,
a remote region from the center where travelers were more cosmopolitan, and belong to the
different strata of the society.
One conclusion that may be drawn from these registers is that the involvement of the
beytülmal institution in charitable actions is strikingly limited. Though the office ventured to
cover some charitable expenditures of the needy, it was also in hope of a possible future
repayment. This would not underestimate its function as a fund for charitable expenditures.
Rather, it implies that one can not estimate the Ottoman policies718 related to the charitable
functions of the state (and society) by examining the beytülmal institution. Moreover, there
are a considerable number of documents that do not use the term beytülmal but include
charitable actions. As shown in the registers, hearing their say to the Sultan via petitions,
some people could get contributions from the treasury.719 Additionally, the maintenance
helps, and other charitable expenditures were covered in a huge network of vakıfs and private
endeavours in the center and the provinces. This is mostly because “throughout its history,
the most powerful formal vehicle for voluntary charitable and philanthropic endeavors in the
718 In his work, the late Kunt also states that the endowment was one of the backbones of the
Ottoman policy in maintaining the empire. The imperial vakıfs and others founded by
government officials played a pivotal role for covering the charitable expenditures. İ. Metin
Kunt, “The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy: Notes on the Köprülü Family
Endowments” in Studıes in Ottoman History in Honour Of Professor V. L. Ménage, (ed.by
Colin Heywood and Colin Imber), Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1994, pp. 189-198.; Kayhan
Orbay, “The Imperial Waqfs within the Ottoman Waqf System”, Endowment Studies 1, 2017,
pp. 135-153.
719 For instance, a women asks help for her orphans since her husband went with Hayreddin Paşa
and captured there: “… ben gayetle fakire oldum ve dört oğlancıklarım dahi yetim oldular…”
TS. MA.e. 971/92.; see also TS. MA.e.755/52 (918/1512).; TS. MA.e. 967/48 (886/1481).
264
Islamic world was probably the endowment, vakıf”.720 However, it is vital to keep in mind
that the poor who were the possible beneficiary of these institutions were not a homogenous
group. While some of them had access to solidarity networks or could hear their say to the
Sultan, there was also a group of ‘invisible poor’ whose reach to the offerings was more
difficult than others.721
5.6 Conclusion
This chapter aimed to cast light on the operation of the beytülmal from the
perspective of an institution. Taking it as a legal and financial institution, it examined the
main functions that it carried out during the late fifteenth to late seventeenth centuries.
Keeping in mind its legal grounds, it sought to understand the ways of collecting, spending,
and benefiting the Ottoman subjects from the beytülmal.
By the agency of the kadı, the beytülmal provided legality to its being the ultimate
heir for the unclaimed property. It is a salient phenomenon that the office first functioned as
a notary where the unclaimed property is registered for a possible authentic claimer—either
the subjects or the government. Along with the legal regulations, the cooperation of kadı and
beytülmalci featured the institution as the protector and the trustee of the rights and shares.
Thus, the beytülmal emâneti collected and hold the properties for delivering the shares to the
rightful claimers. Moreover, corroborating the title of emânet, the legal claimers who run
720 Amy Singer, “Charity’s Legacies: A Reconsideration of Ottoman Imperial Endowment-
Making” in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts (Edited by Michael Bonner,
Mine Ener and Amy Singer), SUNY Press: Albany, 2003, pp.121-143.
721 Eyal Ginio, “Living on the Margins of Charity”, in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern
Contexts (Edited by Michael Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer), SUNY Press: Albany,
2003, pp.165-185.
265
very late at showing up in designated time limits (6 months or 1-3 years) could also claim
reversion and got paid by the office. Though the office’s reaction in the cases of reversion
was not as prompt as in the collection, the register once kept by the beytülmalci and kadı
secured one’s claim at the very least.
As for the function of the collector, the mukataas could be said the fiscal engine of
the beytülmal operations. It was the beytülmal mukataas that helped to raise systematically a
revenue from the unclaimed property. In the great scheme, it determined the human source
for the operations, the method of claiming (iltizam or emânet), the ways of spending the
revenues, and the possible beneficiaries in the region. Through the beytülmal mukataas, the
unclaimed property had the meaning of a commercial thing and took part in the daily life
activities of the provincial and central fiscal organizations. From the beytülmals’ register by
the officers to its selling in the market, the intermediary figures involved in the operations
got paid their shares based on the rates determined in advance.
As in the other mukataas, the government made use of the beytülmal revenues to
cover a wide range of expenditures of the empire. While the salaries and other regular
payments were the major items of expenditures, there were also some irregular costs met
from the beytülmal fund.
In a nutshell, the Ottomans functioned the beytülmal for providing the government
and the individuals—in line with the theory. Upon an heirless death, it acted like a guardian
or heir; registered the estates, gave the shares to the rightful claimers, covered the debts to
third persons, executed the will (vasiyyet), and helped with the funeral. All these private
expenses were covered from the beytülmal of that specific person, if there was enough. When
it comes to the penniless and heirless deceased persons, it undertook the covering of funerary
expenses from the beytülmal. However, having a due sense of reality and the ability to utilize
a touching and sorrowful property, they practically administered the institution and raised the
revenues for the empire. Bearing in mind its drawbacks, the beytülmal institution could be
266
self-evidence for understanding what was the potential of law in attaching individuals and
government over death and missing in a centralized empire in the early modern era.
267
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Property claims and their administration in the early modern Ottoman empire have
been the focus of this study. Available sources show that the Ottomans paid considerable
attention to supervising unclaimed properties. Building on the Islamic legal tradition, the law
(laws, decrees, and instructions) and its implementing agencies helped create a consistent
method and a considerably well-organized system to regulate and manage public and private
claims on heirless, abandoned, and unclaimed properties in general. Beytülmal emerges as a
particularly significant concept (and theme) to understand Ottoman views of public property
and means of asserting public claims on property.
An inquiry into public claims on property needs to begin with specific legal issues.
Ownership rights and categories of public and private property call attention to the context
of Islamic legal tradition. From the early Islamic ages onward, the rulers and governments
claimed and collected taxes in cash or kind from their subjects, Muslim or non-Muslim. These
contributions and other acquisitions of the governments were deemed public property.
Reflecting upon Islamic principles and sources constituting the "shari'a," scholars formulated
the fundamentals of legal reasoning and produced practical regulations (fiqh). They viewed
public property as a trust of sorts. Public property or wealth should be kept and supervised
as a trust under the ruler's custodianship. The government should use it to serve the needs,
interests, and benefits of the subjects –Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
In this respect, the legal tradition acknowledged that the ruler had the right to claim
property and maintain a public treasury to protect the Islamic polity and its subjects. The
redistributive capacity of the state apparatus (and the ruler) was the main ground of this
acknowledgment. Three main rationales explain that capacity (in the context of Islamic
268
history): (a) Maintaining a government apparatus, (b) maintaining an army and financing
wars, and (c) maintaining a stable religiopolitical balance/order. As part of these general
tasks, the ruler was also responsible for providing for the needy and relieving fellow Muslims
overwhelmed by heavy financial obligations.
Beytülmal (lit. house of wealth) was at the center of the framework of missions
outlined above, pointing to the government's redistributive capacity. Beytülmal was both the
physical destination of public revenues and the place where redistribution materialized.
Islamic polities employed the term beytülmal literally and figuratively from the seventh
century. Legal scholars interpreted the Qur'anic verses through jurisprudence and introduced
the ways of property collection in an Islamic polity. Early works of Islamic scholars, like
Abû Yusuf, Mâverdi, and Abû Ubayd b. Sallâm, underline the significance of raising revenue
and explain in detail the categories of the revenue and disbursement that should guide the
beytülmal's work. These categories included regular tax payments like haraj, jizya, or ‘uşr
and intricate settings involving multiple ownership claims. These settings involved estates of
the heirless or semi-heirless persons, found goods, treasure troves, retrieved stolen goods,
and the like.
Growth and diversification of public revenues challenged beytülmal, particularly in
the second half of the seventh century. The urgent need for a more elaborate and sophisticated
bureaucratic organization became evident under the caliphate of the Umayyads and later the
Abbasids. Diwans, as specialized governmental bureaus, were established first to deal with
financial, military, and administrative matters. A bureau called bayt al-māl al-verese and
dīwānu'l-mawāris also emerged to administer the properties of those who died heirless or
semi-heirless (and probably other kinds of unclaimed property). The diwans that were
established for supervising financial matters have played a significant role in managing the
revenues and expenditures of the state, i.e the beytülmal.
269
One can see certain links between these pre-Ottoman use of the beytülmals of these
pre-Ottoman contexts and beytülmals of the Ottoman empire. Although the fifteenth-century
sources do not mention it, beytülmal was mainly used in the sense of a public treasury
(hazine, hazine-i âmire) in the sixteenth century. Dede Cöngi's risale on this subject
demonstrated the transmission of legal knowledge on the issue of public property and its
reception in the sixteenth century. Additionally, Ebussuud's use of the concept in his fetvas
and, later, Naimâ's elaboration showed the Ottomans' adoption of what we can call the classic
theory of beytülmal. Like their predecessors, the Ottoman scholars elaborated on the
categories of the revenues of the beytülmal in the sense of public treasury. The fourth revenue
category they mention involves heirless estates and unclaimed properties (of different types).
Similarly, using this revenue category ought to serve the needy, pay for certain expenses
(such as burial costs) for people who could not afford them, and the like. Given the
employment of the term in archival registers, it is safe to state that the beytülmal (in its
classical connotations) served as a reminder to the Ottoman ruling class and the ruled some
of their moral responsibilities and the need to reserve resources to meet these obligations.
As Akarlı discusses, the Ottoman empire was an Islamic state in the sense that its
ruling cadres championed and "felt bound by the high ideals of Islam and its shari'a."
Ottoman scholars relied on their extensive knowledge of legal classics to adopt, adapt, and
interpret Islamic law to help generate and maintain an Ottoman order. Beytülmal is an
example. The Ottomans mostly followed the Hanefî legal doctrines in property claims
regarding the issues of escheat and the government's heirship. However, the general and
provincial kanunnâmes and legal opinions indicate that practical concerns gave way to
elaborating or remaking those legal opinions in the early sixteenth century.
Legal and administrative-financial concerns help to explain those adjustments.
Scholars tried to define first such terms as gâib mefkûd, yava, and kaçgun regarding
unclaimed properties. They also validated such terms as emânet, emin, kayyım, vasî, and
270
tereke that represented components of the administration of beytülmal revenues. The general
kanunnâmes and fetvas provided details about the procedures to pursue a claim, both for the
public and private claimers. These procedures and guidelines included issues related to
undertaking mukataas, keeping the property in trust for a while, its sale by the emins, and the
role of the kadıs in operation. For instance, in a well-circulated fetva attributed to Ebussuud,
he defines the terms for absent and missing individuals and adds, "…it is only the property
of a deceased person that can be sold as a mukataa and not the property of one who simply
leaves his/her home or of someone who leaves his property in trust [of someone]."722
Administrative and financial concerns expressed in the provincial kanunnâmes are
also noteworthy. By their nature, provincial regulations reflect intricate details regarding the
different types of land (such as vakıf, tımar, serbest tımar, has, and miri lands) that the
Ottoman land regime recognized and how beytülmal claims should apply to these lands.
Provincial regulations also set down the local officials and military units entitled to certain
revenues. According to these regulations, beytülmal revenues were assigned (in clusters or
individually) to certain officials as their income or for delivery to the treasury. The provincial
regulations thus indicate how the government set the spatial borders of a revenue unit and
assigned these units to different officials. Furthermore, examining these laws, regulations,
and fetvas to understand the management of various types of unclaimed property, i.e.,
beytülmal, shed light on the Ottoman ruling cadres and scholars' policies for the
accommodation of the Ottoman subjects' legal and financial interests.
The importance of the provincial kanunnâmes becomes even more evident when they
are read together with such archival registers as mühimme and atik şikayet defters (registers
722 “…Mal-i gâib ve mal-i mefkûd deyu beyt-ül-mâl ile mukâta'ya verilen tereke-i meyyit olandır.
Her evinden çıkıp giden kişinin malı değildir. Yahut malını emânet koyup giden kişinin malı
değildir.”
271
of essential decisions and old complaints). These registers reflect that claims for beytülmal
were a constant cause of contentions between the local officials and heirs, between different
local figures (such as government officials, military officials, or vakıf administrators) who
held the right to collect certain revenues in that area, and between the local and central
administrations. The accommodation of conflicting interests partially depended upon the
parties' respective economic and political influence. Legal norms interpreted with due
attention to changing local and regional/imperial conditions guided the resolution of
contentions. As Johansen puts it, it was the jurists' intellectual achievement as they produced
systematic legal regulations by combining the "social and cultural traditions of the Near East
perceptively" with the political experiences of the Muslims.723
This study has shown that the formation of the beytülmal as an office under the
Ottomans necessitates viewing the beytülmal as a legal and financial institution (if a
specifically Ottoman one). As such, beytülmal endured from about the early fifteenth century
to the empire's final years. It operated in the center and the provinces according to a set of
rules and procedures, making it an integral part of the greater Ottoman bureaucratic
organization. The beytülmalcis cooperated with the kadı's court to fulfill their judicial task of
delivering their due shares of an estate to rightful claimants. Most significantly, however, the
beytülmalcis collected considerable revenue through the mukataas they managed. This
revenue met the needs of local and imperial treasuries at different levels.
Keeping in mind the conceptual and practical origins of beytülmal (as public treasury
where certain revenues accumulated) in the early Islamic period, one can claim that beytülmal
was not a distinctly Ottoman invention or institution, whether in the sense of public treasury
723 Baber Johansen, The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent: The Peasants’ Loss of Property
Rights as Interpreted in the Hanafite Legal Literature of the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods,
New York: Croom Helm, 1988, pp.3-4.
272
or as an office that claimed certain types of property. However, the Ottoman use of the
concept to cover only a specific group of revenues to claim on behalf of the public treasury
and the typically Ottoman methods used to collect these revenues call for speaking of a
peculiarly Ottoman institution. Thus, the potential revenues considered under the category of
"beytülmal" were put into mukataas. Beytülmal mukataas prevailed in almost all corners of
the empire. The mukataa system of revenue collection had its drawbacks. However, it was
suitable for revenues considered under the "beytülmal" category because of their erratic yield
and the complex procedures observed in their collection. Muqataas allowed the combination
of potential beytülmal revenues with each other and other revenues to balance their
inconsistency. Furthermore, mukataa contracts made room for the legally necessary steps to
accommodate rightful claims on a property and to prevent unfair appropriations.
Another distinctly Ottoman feature of the administration of beytülmal was the
division of the potential beytülmal revenues according to the value of a property, the status
of the ex-holder (whether askeri or reaya), and the status of the land. Each of these divisions
is determinant for the ways of claiming, revenue collection and its use for the expenses.
Finally, the Ottomans also allowed what we could call corporate groups to autonomously
manage the beytülmal revenues accruing from members of their group (like janissaries,
bostancıs, matbah-ı âmire servitors). Some of these groups were allowed to utilize beytülmal
revenues for the collective benefit of the group. The Janissaries' beytülmal fund is a particular
case in point.
The primary division of the "beytülmal" revenues into amme and hassa categories
gave the government a relatively systematic, organized, and reliable method to claim and
manage the relevant properties. Thus, the government paid closer attention to controlling the
properties left behind by high-ranking officials and estates valued at over 10,000 akçes in
the hassa category. Interestingly, while the management of beytülmal-i amme was brought
under the mukataa system early in the fifteenth century, a similar commercialization of the
273
beytülmal-i hassa occurred in the sixteenth century. However, beytülmal-i hassa commanded
the close attention of the imperial center all along. The registers indicate that the value of
inheritance did not matter if the deceased (or the lost) person was of the askeri status; only
the emin of the beytülmal-i hassa could manage that estate and collect the revenue that would
accrue from it.
The kadı, emin, and katip served as central figures in the management of property
claims, as they did in other mukataas. Although the emin or the mültezim was the first person
to lay hands on properties that constituted a potential or actual source of beytülmal revenue,
he could not proceed with the steps necessary to claim it and to cash it out without the kadı's
involvement. The kadı had to approve the beytülmalci's register (kept by the kâtip) and keep
a copy for the court. The kadı heard, checked, and settled creditors' claims, particularly in the
case of heirless deceased individuals. In pleading their case before the kadı, private claimants
confronted the beytülmalci who represented public interests ("Kadı huzurunda" and "emin
muvacehesinde," say the registers in their records about virtually all relevant cases that came
before the courts.) The kadı heard the claims, resolved the differences, and refixed or
redivided the shares accordingly. Clearly, the kadıs had multiple responsibilities to fulfill
within their respective jurisdictions in the provinces. They served as inspectors or auditors of
certain financial transactions, including the undertaking of various typey of mukataas as well
as the beytülmal. Their involvement checked the activities of the mültezim. Kadıs also acted
as intermediaries between the mültezims and the imperial center. They helped formulate the
terms of the mukataa contracts and verified the credentials of the required guarantors (kefil).
In summary, the kadı played a crucial role in managing property claims and ensuring that
public interests were represented.
The beytülmal's legal, financial, and institutional capacities discussed above indicate
that it carried out various significant tasks for the subjects and the government. We can
review these functions under four categories:
274
1. Trusteeship for the safe keeping of specific properties and the restitution (or indemnification)
of relevant claims
2. Collection of a specific segment of government revenues
3. The direction of these revenues to designated ends.
4. Serving as a reserve fund for certain charitable expenses
Beytülmal claimed heirless, abandoned, and other unclaimed properties but had to
keep them as a trust to allow potential rightful claimants the time to come forward and
establish their claims. Legitimate claimants could claim their share or compensation even
after the passage of the set waiting period if the courts validated their claims. The registers
that the beytülmalcis took and the kadıs kept ensured the basic conditions for a possible future
claimer. The institution's title (beytülmal emâneti) expresses this responsibility of the office
as a bailee or trust. This trusteeship defined the legal character (and responsibilities) of the
institution to a large extent.
Secondly, the beytülmal mukataas enabled the government to manage a highly
fluctuating source of revenue, the collection of which involved intricate steps to boot. As a
collector of revenue, the beytülmal was firmly integrated into the broader Ottoman financial
apparatus. Even the little bits of goods and cash that could be raised through the beytülmal
mukataas assisted the state's overall finances. The auctioning of beytülmal revenues in the
form of mukataas, individually or in combination with other revenue sources, contributed to
financial transactions. The revenues thus raised helped meet certain local expenses or found
their way to the central government's coffers to help cover its needs. In either case, these
transactions contributed to economic vitality.
Thirdly, the beytülmal had to manage the revenues it raised. One might underrate the
value of the properties that came under beytülmalcis' control, as these properties mostly
involved personal possessions of limited value. However, various sources indicate that
although the yield of the beytülmal revenues was inconsistent and unstable (nâ-mukarrer), it
275
reached surprisingly high sums at times. A poor heirless person's legacy brought nearly
nothing to the beytülmal. However, an heirless official or wealthy merchant might leave
substantial sums behind, just as a thief's arrest might lead to a considerable amount of hoarded
gold. At any rate, the revenues raised had to be appropriately managed. The beytülmalci
mültezims or emins had to liquidate the properties under their liability first to meet their
administrative expenses and then fulfill their obligations to the local and imperial treasuries.
Thus, the beytülmalcis would have to channel certain amounts out of the revenue they raised
to specific destinies depending on the instructions of the imperial center or the authorized
provincial administrators (nezâret).
Lastly, the institution functioned as a reserve fund for specific charitable purposes to
assist the subjects who needed immediate financial support. This function was consistent
with the original theory of the beytülmal as public treasury discussed above. According to
that theory, the ruler should utilize the revenues of the fourth category that is, the revenues
accrued from heirless estates or various types of unclaimed property– on the needy and the
sick people, or to cover the funerary expenses of the people who died pennilessly. The
available sources indicate that the beytülmal systematically covered the funerary expenses of
the poor and the destitute to a considerable extent. There are a fair number of registers
concerning the instructions for the payments for coffin and other burial expenditures of the
needy. The sources also indicate that the beytülmal covered the subsistence or maintenance
payments (nafaka) made to the needy and financially supported people who shouldered
raising an orphan child that was found in the street. However, in the latter types of
maintenance payments, beytülmal officers also wrote down some conditions regarding these
payments. These conditions were based on a refund of the payment the beytülmal made out
of its fund. For instance, in case a missing husband returns and takes care of his family or in
case a missing child’s family arrives and takes their child back to raise her/his themselves,
the beytülmal had the right to ask the payments that were made to those out of its funds (such
276
as nafaka or payments for child raising expenses). To put it differently, despite providing
financial aid, the department expected to reclaim the funds upon the improvement of
recipients' circumstances. This was done in order to ensure that the funds could continue to
be used for their intended charitable purposes.
The rise and operation of the Ottoman beytülmal administration for a long time in a
territorially widespread empire with an ethnically and religiously diverse population deserve
attention. On the one hand, it represents the continuation of beytülmal as a foundational
Islamic notion and institution. On the other hand, however, it points to the transformation of
the concept in time to express practices and procedures that served much more specific
purposes. This dissertation highlights that transformation and as such, joins many other recent
studies that invite us to view continuities in Islamic and Ottoman history amid the dynamic
changes that affected human life.
This dissertation has also shed light on notions of property. The Ottoman government
was eager to ensure that property did not remain in limbo and to claim unattended or
unclaimed property to turn it into a source of revenue. Equally clearly, however, specific
legal measures and procedures were observed to assure the protection of private rights against
abusive or unjustifiable government interventions. The courts played a crucial role in
maintaining this distinction between public and private rights or property claims.
Indeed, the findings of the present dissertation constitute only an introduction to this
issue of sorting out differences between public and private claims on property and the
intermediacy of the judicial system (in its adjudicative and notarial capacities) in the
settlement of such disputes. These findings also further the inquiry to respective directions.
For instance, an unclaimed property might be a subject of politics, particularly related to
diplomatic relations. The Ottoman archives have rich information on disputes regarding the
property rights of foreigners –whether they were merchants, captives, travelers, or diplomats–
visiting Ottoman lands. The sources indicate that beytülmal (unclaimed properties) was one
277
of the causes of contentions regarding these foreigners. While some of these contentions were
caused by the beytülmalcis, some others depended on the war and peace periods. Research
on this material would enable us to acquire a fuller understanding of not only the operation
and attitude of beytülmal but also the governments’ reactions in cases of the properties of
foreigners. Such a study would also enable us to view Ottoman law in a comparative
international context (in war and peace).
Additionally, circumventing the beytülmal was also one of the issues of disputes
between the public and private claimers. The debates on the law of inheritance, fetvas, and
empirical sources are reflecting the weight of this subject in the beytülmal. Further research
could illuminate the practical implications and types (such as bequests, family vakıfs, gifts,
etc.) of the maneuvers that circumvent the share of the government, i.e., the beytülmal. It
could also shed light on the relevant jurisprudential arguments on the lawfulness of these
maneuvers and the government’s policies to prevent them.
This dissertation also makes notable contributions to Ottoman financial history
because beytülmal was a source of revenue that remained significant from the fifteenth
century to the end of the empire. Thus, the distinction between beytülmal-i hassa and amme
and the regulations regarding their respective conduct contributes to understanding the
relations between the Ottoman financial apparatus's provincial and central branches or
officials/offices. In future research, we should pursue other manifestations of this distinction
in general in Ottoman financial and provincial administration.
Another implication of the current study involves the nature of mukataa contracts. A
review of beytülmal mukataas sheds light on the finer aspects of mukataa contracts that more
typical tax collection arrangements do not reveal as vividly. A combination of different
revenue sources under one contract is a case in point. The proliferation of such contracts may
be mutually related to the growth of cash-based tax collection practices in the Ottoman
empire. However, this connection remains to be better established and explained.
278
Finally, this dissertation has highlighted that the Ottomans were careful to establish
an environment where private individuals could assert and defend their rights against public
claims. The evidence suggests that what we can term collectivities or corporate entities, such
as endowments (vakıfs) and funds (sandıks) of vocational groups, could also be parties to
proceedings to reconcile property claims. Research on these cases should also enable us to
elaborate on our understanding of the complex relationships revolving around "property" in
the Ottoman empire. Cases related to heirless estates and unclaimed properties were
widespread in the empire and involved people from all walks of life. The regulations,
procedures, and due process that applied to these cases connected them as if in a network.
Financial contracts (mukataas) added another thread that spun this network together along
with public, private, and collective claims and circulation of goods and money. All in all,
beytülmal made Ziba bt. Abdullah's two pieces of wool abaya (sof ferace) a humble financial
contribution to a soldier's provision while he was defending the empire. Or it made Ayşe's
pied rug (alaca kilim) a contribution to Hatice and her daughter's allowance because Hatice's
husband had gone missing (mefkûd).
279
REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES: ARCHIVAL REGISTERS
AE. SAMD. I Ali Emiri Ahmed I
AE. SSÜL.I Ali Emiri Süleyman I
AE. SSÜL.II Ali Emiri Süleyman II
AE. SAMD. II Ali Emiri Ahmed II
AE. SAMD. III Ali Emiri Ahmed III
AE. SMRD. IV Ali Emiri Murad IV
AE. SMMD. IV Ali Emiri Mehmed IV
AE. SOSM. II. Ali Emiri Osman II
AE. SSLM.II Ali Emiri Selim II
AE. SMST. II Ali Emiri Mustafa II
AE.SABH.I. Ali Emiri Abdülhamit I
A. DVNS. MHM.d Bab-ı Asafi Divan-ı Hümayun Sicilleri Mühimme Defterleri
A. DVNS.MHM.ZYL.d Bab-ı Asafi Divan-ı Hümayun Sicilleri Mühimme Zeyli Defterleri)
A.DVN.ŞKT. d Bab-ı Asafi Divan-ı Hümayun Sicilleri Atik Şikayet Defterleri
C. DH. Cevdet Dahiliye
C.ML. Cevdet Maliye
C.NF. Cevdet Nafia
C.AS. Cevdet Askeriye
C.ADL. Cevdet Adliye
C.BH. Cevdet Bahriye
C.SM. Cevdet Saray
C..EV. Cevdet Evkaf
280
TS.MA. e. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Evrakı
TS.MA. d. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Defterleri
MAD.d. Maliyeden Müdevver Defterleri
KK. Kâmil Kepeci Defterler
MŞH.ŞSC.d. Meşihat Şeriyye Sicili Defterleri
TT.d Tapu Tahrir Defterleri
D. BŞM Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi Evrakı
D.İSM.d Bab-ı Defteri İstanbul Mukataası Defterleri
D.BMK.d Bab-ı Defteri Baş Mukataa Kalemi Defterleri
D.BMK.BRM.d. Bab-ı Defteri Bursa Mukataası Defterleri
D. BŞM. İSB.d Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe İstanbul Beytül Mali Mukataası Defterleri
D.BŞM.BLB Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Belgrat Beytülmali
İE. DH. İbnülemin Dahiliye
İE.MHF. İbnülemin Muhallefat
İE.ML. İbnülemin Maliye
İE. SM. İbnülemin Saray Mesalihi
İ. ŞD. İrade Şûrâ-yı Devlet
HAT. Hatt-ı Hümayun
A.MKT. Bab-ı Asafi Mektubi Kalemi
A.MKT. MHM Sadaret Mektubi Mühimme Kalemi Evrakı
HR. HMŞ. İŞO Hariciye Nezareti Hukuk Müşavirliği İstişare Odası Evrakı
YB. (04) Yabanci Arşiv Bulgaristan
İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri, Üsküdar Mahkemesi, no.9.
İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri, Galata Mahkemesi, no.90.
281
PRIMARY SOURCES: MANUSCRIPTS
Dede Cöngî, Risâle fî Emvâli Beyti’l-mâl ve Aksâmihâ ve Ahkâmihâ ve Masârifihâ,
Esad Efendi, no. 3560, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi.
Pîr Muhammed b. Hasan el-Üskûbî (ö.1611) Mu'înü'l-Müftî fi'l-Cevab ale'l-Müsteftî,
Osman Huldi, no.036. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi.
Ali Akkirmanî (d. 1620-21), Fetevay-i Akkirmani, Hafid Efendi, no. 98, Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi.
Ibn Tabbah ed-Dımaşki, Derviş b. Ibrahim (d. 1597-98), Ayn'ul-Mufti li Gayni'l-
Müstefti, H. Hüsnü Paşa, no. 521, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi.
Hayreddin b. Ahmed, al-Ramlî, El-Fetava’l-Hayriyye fi Nef‘i-l Berriye, Murad Molla,
no. 1131, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi.
“Kanunnâme-i Mihaliç Hükm-i Sureti” Paris, Turc 39 (121a-125b).
“Kanunnâme-i Beytülmal-i Hassa” Paris, Turc 35 (48a-50a).
PUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES
Abu Yusuf Ya’kûb b. Ibrahim, Kitāb al-Kharaj, Bulak, 1302.
Ibnu’l-Esir, El-Kâmil Fi’-t-Târih vol.II, trans. by Beşir Eryarsoy, İstanbul: Bahar,
1991.
Kadı Ebu Yusuf, Kitabü’l-Haraç, trans. Ali Özek, İstanbul: Özek, 1973.
Ebu Abdullah Muhammad b. Omar al-Wakidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, Beirut: Dar
al-’Alemiyye, 1989.
Abu al-Hasan 'Ali b. Muhammed al-Mâverdi (d.45071058), al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye,
ed. Ahmed Cad, Cairo: Daru’l-Hadis, 2006.
282
Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mawardi (d. 450 AH/1058), Al-Ahkam as-
Sultaniyyah, (The Laws of Islamic Governance) trans. Asadullah Yate, London:
Ta-ha Publishers, 1996.
Abu al-Ya’la Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Farra (d.458), al-Ahkamu’s-Sultaniye, ed.
Muhammad Hamid al-Faqî, Beirut: Daru’l-Kutubu’l-‘İlmiyye, 2000.
Abu Ya’la Muhammad Ibn al-Husayn al-Farra, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, pub.
Muhammad al-Faqiyyi, Egypt, 1938.
Abū ’Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, The Book of Revenue (Kitāb al-amwāl), trans.
Imran Ahsan Kan Nyazee, Garnet Publishing, 2003.
Abu’l-Fażl Beyhaqi, The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Mas’ud of Ghazna
1030-1041) vol. II, trans. Clifford E. Bosworth, rev. Mohsen Ashtiany, Boston-
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011.
Nizâm al-Mulk, Siyasatnâma, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, trans.
Hubert Darke, Yale University Press, 1960.
The Qur’an, trans. M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University Press, 2005
Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa Kanunnâmesi, Milli Tetebbu’lar Mecmuası, c.1, s.3,
(Temmuz-Ağustos 1331), pp. 516-517.
Abdurrahman Vefik, Tekâlif Kavâidi, c.1 İstanbul, 1328.
Mustafâ ‘Âlî’s Counsel for Sultans of 1581: Edition, Translation, Notes Vol.II,
Andreas Tietze (ed. and trans.), Vien: Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie
Der Wissenschaften, 1982.
Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Nasa’ih ül-vüzerâ ve’l-umerâ, trans. Walter. L. Wright,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1935.
Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâiyât, haz. Abdülkadir Özcan, Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 1995.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi X. Kitap, haz.
Seyit Ali Kahraman, Yücel Dağlı, Robert Dankoff. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi yay.,
2007.
283
Kanunnâme-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani: II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid
Devirlerine Ait Yasakname ve Kanunnâmeler, haz. Halil İnalcık, Robert
Ahnegger, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000.
Kânunnâme-i Âl-i Osman, haz. Abdülkadir Özcan, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2003.
Muhammad Abû Zahra, Aḥkâm al-Tarikât wa’l-Mawârîs, Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-
‘Arabî, 1963.
Mustafa Na’îmâ Efendi, Tarîh-i Na’îmâ: Ravzatü’l Hüseyin fî Hulâsât-i Ahbâri’l-
Hâfikayn, haz. Mehmet İpşirli, Ankara: TTK, 2014.
Koçi Bey Risalesi, sad. Zuhuri Danışman, Ankara: MEB, 1972.
Osmanlı Kânûnnâmeleri, Milli Tetebbular Mecmuası, c. 1/s.1, 1331(1915), pp. 49-
112.
Kavanin-i Yeniçeriyan (Yeniçeri Kanunları), haz. Tayfun Toroser, İstanbul: Türkiye İş
Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2011.
I.Selim Kanunnâmeleri (1512-1520), yay. Yaşar Yücel, Selami Pulaha, Ankara: TTK,
1995.
PUBLISHED ARCHIVAL REGISTERS
İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 64 Kısmet-i Askeriye Mahkemesi 59 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1143 /
M. 1730-1731), İstanbul: Kültür AŞ, 2019.
Erbay, Fatma. “H.1311–1314 (M.1893–1896) Tarı̇hlı̇ (51 Numaralı) İzmı̇r Kassam
Sı̇cı̇lı̇nı̇n Transkrı̇psı̇yonu” Master’s Thesis, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi,
2009.
Elvan, Derya. “18 Numaralı Mühimme Zeyli Derfteri (H.1013-1015/M.1604-1607)
(vr.131-260)” Master’s Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2017.
Başaran, Sinan. “1498 Numaralı Rize Şer‘iyye Sicil Defterinin Transkripsiyon ve
Değerlendirmesi.” Master’s Thesis, Niğde Üniversitesi, 2011.
284
Ertürk, Ayten. “2 Numaralı Mühimme-i Mektûme Defteri (H. 1208-1211/ M. 1793-
1797) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirmesi (s. 1-30)” Master’s Thesis, Fırat
Üniversitesi, 2016.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Afyoncu, Erhan. “Sipahi” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 37, 2009, pp. 256-258.
Afyoncu, Erhan. “Müşâherehorân” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 32, 2006, pp. 153-
154.
Ágoston, Gábor. The Last Muslim Conquest: The Ottoman Empire and its Wars in
Europe, Princeton University Press, 2021.
Ahıshalı, Recep. "Muhzır” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Vol.31, 2020, pp. 85-86.
Ahmad, Muhammad Mushtaq. “The Notions of Dār al-Ḥarb and Dār al-Islām in
Islamic Jurisprudence with Special Reference to the Ḥanafī School.” Islamic
Studies, vol.47, no.1, 2008, pp.5-37.
Ahsen, Menazir. “Beytü’l-mâl ve İslam Ekonomisindeki Rolü.” trans. Mehmet Erkal,
Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, s.6, 1986, pp. 219-228.
Altuğ, Uğur. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Beytülmal.” in 60. Yılında İlim ve Fikir Adamı
Prof. Dr. Kazım Yaşar Kopraman'a Armağan, Ankara: Berikan, 2003, pp. 85-
89.
Akarlı, Engin D. “Gedik: A Bundle of Rights and obligations for Istanbul Artisans and
Traders, 1750–1840” in Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social:
Making Persons and Things, ed. Alain Pottage, Martha Mundy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 166-200.
Akarlı, Engin D. “Maslaha: From ‘Common Good’ to ‘Raison d’état’ in the
Experience of Istanbul Artisans, 1730-1840.” in Hoca, ‘Allame, Puits De
Science: Essays in Honor of Kemal H. Karpat, ed. K. Durukan, R.W. Zens and
A.Z. Durukan, Istanbul: The Isis Press., 2010, pp.63-79.
285
Akarlı, Engin D. “The Ruler and Law Making.” in Law and Empire: Ideas, Practices,
Actors, ed. Jeroen Duindam, Jill Harries, Caroline Humfress, and Nimrod
Hurvitz., London-Boston: Brill, 2013, pp.87-109.
Akarlı, Engin D. “Islamic Law in the Ottoman Empire.” Oxford International
Encyclopedia of Legal History v.4, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 263-
270.
Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri v.1, İstanbul: Fey
Vakfı Yayınları, 1990.
Akgündüz, Ahmet. Kanunnâmeler, v.4, 1992,
Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri v.5, İstanbul: Fey
Vakfı Yayınları, 1992.
Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri v.6, Istanbul: Fey
Vakfı Yayınları, 1993.
Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri v.7, Istanbul: Fey
Vakfı Yayınları, 1993.
Aktan, Hamza. Mukayeseli İslam ve Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Işık Akademi, 2008.
Aktan, Hamza. “Miras” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 30, 2020, pp. 143-145.
Alkan, Nilüfer. “18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra Yönetı̇m Düzenı̇nı̇n Sosyo-Kültürel
Yapıya Etkı̇lerı̇ (Bursa Örneğı̇)” Ph. D Diss., Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2010.
Arı, Abdüsselam. İslam Miras Hukuku, İstanbul: Pınar, 2018.
Arslan, Hamza. “İslam Miras Hukukunda Terike Taksiminde Gözetilen Maslahatlar.”
Master’s Thesis, Fırat Üniversitesi, 2009.
Arslanboğa, Kadir. “1589-90 ile 1602-3 Malî Yıllarına Ait Osmanlı Devleti
Bütçelerinin Oluşturulması ve İncelenmesi”, Ph. D Diss., İstanbul Üniversitesi,
2012.
Arslanboğa, Kadir. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hazine Harcamaları 1649-1683, Ankara:
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014.
286
Arslantaş, Yasin “Confiscation by the Ruler: A Study of the Ottoman Practice of
Müsadere, 1700s- 1839,” Ph. D Diss., The London School of Economics and
Political Science, 2017.
Atalar, Münir. “Emîr-i Hacc” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi. Vol.11, 1995, pp. 131-133.
Atçıl, Abdurrahman. “Procedure in the Ottoman Court and the Duties of Kadıs”,
Master’s Thesis, Bilkent University, 2002.
Atçıl, Abdurrahman. Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Atçıl, Abdurrahman. “Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a Geçişte Mısır’da Adlî Teşkilât ve
Hukuk (922-931/1517-1525)ç” İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38, 2017, pp. 89-
121.
Aydın, Yâkub. “İstanbul Mülga Beledı̇ Kassamlığı Sı̇cı̇llerı̇ 1 Numaralı Defterı̇n
(1066-1072) Transkrı̇psı̇yon Ve Değerlendı̇rmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara
Üniversitesi, 2021.
Aykan, Yavuz. “Property Between Life and Death: A Legal Debate over the property
of a Missing Person (Gâib) in Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Amid”, Turcica,
50, 2019, pp. 209-226.
Bakkaloğlu, Abdussamet. "Tefvîz" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.40, 2011, pp. 310-
311.
Barkan Ömer L. “XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Toprak
İşçiliğinin Organizasyonu Şekilleri, Kulluklar ve Ortakçı Kullar.” İstanbul
Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.1. s.1, 1939, pp. 29-74.
Barkan, Ömer L. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda bir Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak
Vakıflar ve Temlikler I: İstilâ Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri ve
Zâviyeler." Vakıflar Dergisi, 2, 1942, pp.279-386.
Barkan, Ömer L. “H. 933- 934 (M. 1527 -1528) Mali Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği.”
İ.Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.15, no.1-4, 1953, pp. 251-329.
287
Barkan, Ömer L. “H. 974- 975 (M. 1567-1568) Malî Yılına ait bir Osmanlı Bütçesi”
İÜİFM: c. 19, s.1-4, (1957/58): pp. 277-332.
Barkan, Ömer L. “Edirne Askerî Kassam’ına Ait Tereke Defterleri 1545-1659.”
Belgeler cilt III, sayı 5-6, Ankara: TTK, 1966, pp.1-479.
Barkan, Ömer L. XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Zirai
Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esasları: Kanunlar I, haz. Hüseyin Özdeğer,
İstanbul: İ.Ü. Yayınları, 2001.
Barkan, Ömer L. “Süleymanı̇ye Camii İmaretı̇ Tesı̇slerı̇ne Aı̇t Yıllık Bir Muhasebe
Bı̇lançosu 993/994 (1585/1586)” Vakıflar Dergisi, 9, 2006, pp.109-161.
Barthold, W. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 2nd ed., trans. H.A.R. Gibb,
Oxford University Press, 1928.
“Bayt al-mal” in Al-Mavsû’ati’l-Fiqhiyyah, 2nd ed. vol.8, Wizaratu'l-Awqaf ve'sŞuûni'l-
İslamiyyah, Kuveyt, 1986, pp.242-264.
Berkey, Jonathan P. The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East,
600-1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Beg, M.A.J. “al-K̲ h̲āṣṣa wa ’l-ʿĀmma” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,
vol. IV, ed. E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis And Ch. Pellat and C. E. Bosworth,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997, pp. 1098-1100.
Behar, Cem. “Neighborhood Nuptials: Islamic Personal Law and Local Customs:
Marriage Records in a Mahalle of Traditional Istanbul (1864-1907).” IJMES,
vol. 36, No. 4, 2004, pp. 537- 559.
Berki, Ali Himmet. İslam Hukukunda Ferâiz ve İntikâl, Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Dairesi
Başkanlığı, 1986.
Berki, Şakir. “Türk Miras Hukukunun Esasları.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi
Dergisi, c. 11, s. 3-4, 1954, pp.174-221
Bilmen, Ömer N. Hukukı İslâmiyye ve Istlâh-ı Fıkhiyye Kâmusu vol.5, İstanbul:
Bilmen, 1985.
288
Bilmen, Ömer N. Hukukı İslâmiyye ve Istlâh-ı Fıkhiyye Kâmusu vol.6, İstanbul:
Bilmen, 1985.
Bilgin, Arif. Osmanlı Taşrasında Bir Maliye Kurumu: Bursa Hassa Harç Eminliği,
İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2006.
Bilgin, Arif, and Fatih Bozkurt. “Bir Malî Gelir Kaynağı Olarak Vârissiz Ölenlerin
Terekeleri ve Beytülmâl Mukataaları.” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20: 2, 2010, pp. 1-31.
Bossenga, Gail. “Institutions as a Mode of Historical Analysis.” Journal of the
Western Society for French History, v.44, 2016, pp. 9-19.
Bostan, İdris. "Kahve" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.24, 2001, pp. 202-205.
Bosworth, C. E. The Ghaznavids Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern India 994-
1040, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1992.
Bosworth, C.E. and Gerber, H. “Muḳāṭaʿa” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New
Edition, vol.VII, ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH.
Pellat., Leiden- New York: E.J. Brill, 1993, p.508.
Bosworth, C.E., et al. “al-Muʾallafa Ḳulūbuhum” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, New
Edition, vol. VII, ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH.
Pellat. Leiden-New York: E.J. Brill, 1993, p. 254.
Bozkurt, Fatih. “Tereke Defterlerı̇ ve Osmanlı Maddı̂ Kültüründe Değı̇şı̇m (1785-1875
İstanbul Örneğı̇)”, Ph. D Diss., Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2011.
Bozkurt, Fatih. “Tereke Defterlerı̇ ve Osmanlı Demografı̇ Araştırmaları.” Tarih
Dergisi, s. 54, 2011/2, pp. 91-120.
Bölükbaşı, Ömerül Faruk. 18.yy’ın İkinci Yarısında Darphane-i Amire, İstanbul: Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2013.
Brewer, John, and Susan Staves (ed.), Early Modern Conceptions of Property, New
York: Routledge, 1995.
Brunschvig, R. “ʿAbd” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.I, ed. H. A.
R. Gibb et al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986, pp. 24-40.
289
Burak, Guy. The Second Formation of Islamic Law: The Hanafi School in the Early
Modern Ottoman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Carruthers, Bruce G., and Laura Ariovich. “Sociology of Property Rights.” Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 30 (2004): pp. 23-46.
Canbakal, Hülya. “The Ottoman State and Descendants of the Prophet in Anatolia and
the Balkans (c. 1500-1700).” Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient, vol. 52, no. 3, 2009, pp. 542-578.
Canbakal, Hülya. "Birkaç Fetva Bir Soru, Bir Hukuk Haritasına Doğru." in Şinasi
Tekin'in Anısına: Uygurlardan Osmanlıya, ed. Günay Kut, Fatma Büyükkarcı
Yılmaz, İstanbul: Simurg, 2005, pp.258-270.
Cezar, Yavuz. Osmanlı Malı̇yesı̇nde Bunalım ve Değı̇şı̇m Dönemı̇, İstanbul: Alan,
1986.
Cezar, Yavuz. "Bir Ayanın Muhallefatı: Havza ve Köprü Kazaları Ayanı Kör İsmail-
Oğlu Hüseyin (Müsadere Olayı Ve Terekenin İncelenmesi)." Belleten XLI,
no.16, 1977, pp. 41-78.
Cici, Recep. “Osmanlı Hukuk Düşüncesini Etkileyen Başlıca Kaynaklar.” Uludağ
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi, c.8, s. 8, 1999, pp.215-146.
Cin, Halil, and Ahmet Akgündüz, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi,
1989.
Cohen, Amnon, and Bernard Lewis. Population and Revenue in the Towns of
Palestine in the Sixteenth Century, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1978.
Coulson, N.J. Succession in the Muslim Family, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.
Coulson, N. J., Cl. Cahen, B. Lewis, and R. le Tourneau. “Bayt al-Māl” in The
Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.I, ed. H. A. R. Gibb et al. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1986, pp.1141-1149.
290
Coulson, N.J. A History of Islamic Law, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
1964.
Çakır, Azize. “Confiscation Practices, Politics of Accumulation and the Case of
Mehmed Said Halet Efendi (1761-1822)”, Ph. D Diss., Istanbul: Şehir
University, 2020.
Çakır, Baki. “Osmanlı İmpratorluğu’nun Bilinen En Eski Bütçesi (1495-1496) ve
1494-1495 Yılı İcmali”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman
Studies, XLVII, 2016, pp.113-145.
Çakır, Baki. “XVI-XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Mukataa Sı̇stemı̇'nı̇n Yapısı ve
İşleyı̇şı̇”, Ph. D Diss., Marmara University, 2003.
Çakar, Enver. “Kanunı̇ Sultan Süleyman Kanun-Nâmesı̇ne Göre 1522 Yılında
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarı̂ Taksı̇matı.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi, c.12, s.1, 2002, pp. 261-282.
Çelik, Ahmet. “Aşık Çelebı̇’nı̇n ‘Mı̇racu’l-İyale ve Mı̇nhacu’l-Adale’ Adlı Eserı̇ndekı̇
Sı̇yaset Düşüncesı̇” Master’s Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2014.
Çelik, Gülfettin. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi Hazine’nin Maliye Büroları” in
Osmanlı Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler vol.I, haz. Mehmet Genç and Erol
Özvar, İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşı̇v ve Araştırma Merkezı̇, 2006, pp. 115-
148.
Çuluk, Sinan, and Yılmaz Karaca (haz.), Osmanlı Arşivinde Şeyhülislam Fetvaları,
İstanbul: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2015.
Darling, Linda T. Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: The Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Darling, Linda T. “Osmanlı Maliye Tarihinde Gelir Toplama ve Meşruiyet.” in
Osmanlı Maliyesi Kurumlar Bütçeler vol.I haz. Mehmet Genç and Erol Özvar,
İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşı̇v ve Araştırma Merkezı̇, 2006, pp.39-49.
Davis, Natalie Zemon. The Return of Martin Guerre, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard
University Press, 1983.
291
Dayıoğlu, Aynur. “Galata Beytülmal Muhallefat Müfredat Defterinin Tedkiki (Sene
H. 955/1548)”, Bachelor Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1955.
Demircioğlu, Sezgin “615 Numaralı İstanbul Askerı̇ Kassam Defterı̇nı̇n
Değerlendı̇rmesı̇ (H. 1205-1206 /M. 1790-1791).” Master’s Thesis, İstanbul
Üniversitesi, 1993.
Doğan, Hakan. “Osmanlı Devletı̇’nde Dı̇vanı̇ Sı̇stemden Malı̇kâne Sı̇stemı̇ne Geçı̇ş
Sürecı̇ ve Uygulamaları (1695-1730) –Ankara Ve Bursa Örneğı̇-” Ph. D Diss.,
Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, 2017.
Donner, Fred M. Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1981.
Donner, Fred M. “The Formation of the Islamic State.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 2, 1986, pp.283-296.
Donner, Fred M. Muhammad and the Believers at the Origins of Islam, Cambridge
(Mass): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010.
Duri, Abd al-Aziz. Early Islamic Institutions: Administration and Taxation from the
Caliphate to the Umayyads and Abbasids, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2011.
Duri, A.A. et al. “Dīwān” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.323-337.
Düzdağ, Ertuğrul. Şeyhülislam Ebu’su’ud Efendi Fetvaları Işığında 16. Asır Türk
Hayatı, İstanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1972.
Düzenli, Pehlül. “Osmanlı Fetvasında ‘Muteber Kaynak’ ve ‘Müfta Bih Mesele’
Problemi.” TALİD, 12:22, 2013, pp. 9-78.
Pehlül Düzenli, “Osmanlı Hukukçusu Şeyhülı̇slâm Ebussuûd Efendı̇ ve Fetvâları” Ph.
D Dissertaiton, Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2007.
Emecen, Feridun. “Yaya ve Müsellem” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.43, 2013, pp.
354-356.
292
Erdoğru, M. Akif. “Osmanlı Kıbrısı'nda Önemli Bir Görevli: Beytülmâl-i Hassa ve
Âmme Emini.” in CIEPO XIV. Sempozyumu Bildirileri (compiled by Tuncer
Baykara), Ankara: TTK, 2004 pp. 149-161.
Erkal, Mehmet. “Ganimet” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.13, 1996, pp.351-352.
Erkal, Mehmet. “Beytülmal” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.6, 1992, pp. 90-94.
Erkal, Mehmet. “Amil” TDK İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.3, 1991, pp. 58-60.
Fayda, Mustafa. ‘Fey’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 511-513.
Floor, Willem. “Kassa” Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. XVI, Fasc.1 pp.106-112.
Fodor, Pal. “Some Notes on Ottoman Tax Farming System in Hungary.” Acta
Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 54/4, 2001, pp. 427-435.
Genç, Mehmet. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Devlet ve Ekonomi, İstanbul: Ötüken,
2009.
Genç, Mehmet. “Esham” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.11, 1995, pp.376-380.
Genç, Mehmet. “İltizam” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 22, 2000, pp. 154-158.
Genç, Mehmet. “Mukātaa” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 31, 2020, pp. 129-132.
Gerber, Haim. Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600-1700,
Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1988.
Gerber, Haim. State, Society and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative
Perspective, Albany: SUNY Press, 1994.
Ginio, Eyal. “Piracy and Redemption in the Aegean Sea During the First Half of the
Eighteenth Century.” Turcica 33, 2001, pp. 135-147.
Ginio, Eyal. “Living on the Margins of Charity.” in Poverty and Charity in Middle
Eastern Contexts ed. Michael Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer, Albany:
SUNY Press, 2003, pp.165-185.
Gökbilgin, M. Tayyib. “Edirne” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 10, 1994, pp. 431-442.
Gözübenli, Beşir. "Semen" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.36, 2009, pp. 465-467.
Halaçoğlu, Yûsuf. “Dellâl” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.9, 1994, pp. 145-146.
293
Haldon, John. “The Resources of Late Antiquity.” in The New Cambridge History of
Islam vol.1, ed. Chase F. Robinson, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp.19-
71.
Güldöşüren, Arzu. “Türkiye’de Kurum Tarihçiliği Literatürü.” TALİD, 19/37, 2021,
pp. 395-466.
Hamidullah, Muhammad. “Budgeting and Taxation in the Time of the Holy Prophet.”
The Journal of Pakistan Historical Society, 3, 1955, pp.1-11.
Hamidullah, Muhammad. The Battlefields of the Prophet Muhammad, (4th ed.) New
Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1992.
Hamidullah, Muhammed. İslam Peygamberi, trans. Mehmet Yazgan, İstanbul: Beyan,
2013
Hathaway, Jane. The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Heyd, Uriel. Studies in Ottoman Criminal Law, ed.V. L. Menage, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1973.
Heyd, Uriel. “Some Aspects of Ottoman Fetva.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, 32:1, 1969, pp. 35-56.
Hodgson, Marshall G.S. The Venture of Islam: The Classical Age of Islam, I, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1974.
İlgürel, Mücteba. “Subaşı” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 37, 2009, pp. 447-448.
Imber, Colin. Ebu’s-su’ud Islamic Legal Tradition, Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1997
Imber, Colin. “Ebu’s-Su’ud” in Islamic Legal Thought: A Compendium of Muslim
Jurists, ed. Oussama Arabi, David S. Powers, and Susan A. Spectorsky. Leiden
& Boston: Brill, 2013, pp.401-444.
İnalcık, Halil. “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire.” Archivum
Ottomanicum, VI, (1980): pp. 283-337.
İnalcık, Halil. “Kanunnâme” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.24, 2001, pp. 333-337.
294
İnalcık, Halil. “İspençe” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 23, 2001, p.177.
İnalcık, Halil. “Islamization of Ottoman Laws on Land and Land Tax.” in Essays in
Ottoman History, ed. H. İnalcık, İstanbul: Eren, 1998, pp.155-173.
İnalcık, Halil. “Bursa Şer‘iye Sicillerinde Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in Fermanları.”
Belleten, c.11, s.44, 1947, pp. 693-708.
İnalcık, Halil. “Ḳānūnnāme” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. IV, ed.
E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis And Ch. Pellat and C. E. Bosworth, Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1997, pp. 562-567.
İnalcık, Halil. “Tımar” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. X, ed. P.J.
Bearman et al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000, pp. 502-507.
İnalcık, Halil. “Ḥawāla” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.III, ed. B.
Lewis, V.L. Menage, Ch. Pellat And J. Schacht, (Leiden: E.J Brill; London:
Luzac&Co), 1986, pp. 282-285.
İnalcık, Halil. “Suleiman the Law-giver and the Ottoman Law” in The Ottoman
Empire, Conquest, Organization and Economy, London: Vairorum Reprints,
1978, pp. 105-138.
İnalcık, Halil. “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş Örfi-Sultani Hukuk ve Fatih’in Kanunları.”
Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, c.13, s.2, 1958, pp.102-
126.
İnalcık, Halil. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi (1300- 1600),
c.1, translated by Halil Berktay, İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2000.
İnanır, Ahmet. Şeyhülislam İbn Kemal’in Fetvaları Işığında Kanûni Devrinde
Osmanlı’da Sosyal Hayat, İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2011.
İpşirli, Mehmet. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kazaskerlik (XVII. Yüzyıla Kadar).” Belleten
61, 1997, pp.597-700.
İpşirli, Mehmet. “Mülâzemet” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.31, 2020, pp. 536-537.
İpşirli, Mehmet. “Duâgû” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.9, 1994, pp. 541-542.
295
İslamoğlu, Huri. (ed.) Constituting Modernity Private Property in the East and West,
London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2004.
Johansen, Baber. The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent, London: Croom Helm,
1988.
Johansen, Baber. Contingency in a Sacred Law: Legal and Ethical Norms in the
Muslim Fiqh, Leiden: E.J. Brill., 1999.
Johansen, Baber. “Casuistry: Between Legal Concept and Social Praxis.” Islamic Law
and Society, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1995, pp. 135-156
Johnstone, T.M. “G̲ h̲azw” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.1055-1056.
Juynboll, Th.W. “Farāʾiḍ” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, p.783.
Kahraman, Deniz. “XVIII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Ankara Sancağındaki Mâlikâne-
Mukataalara Dair Bazı Bilgiler.” Bilig 29, 2004, pp. 139-174.
Kalıpçı, Mahmud Esad. “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Müsadere Kurumu”
Master’s Thesis, İstanbul University, 2013.
Kallek, Cengiz. Sosyal Servet: İslam’ da Yönetim Piyasa İlişkisi, İstanbul: Klasik,
2015.
Kallek, Cengiz. “Müellefe-i Kulûb” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 31, 2006, pp.475-
476.
Karademir, Zafer. “Osmanlı İltizam Sözleşmelerine Yansıyan Yönleriyle Yahudi
Girişimciler (1560-1630).” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman
Studies, L, 2017, pp. 73-116.
Karagöz, Fatma Gül. “The Evolutıon of Kânûnnâme Writing in the 16th and 17th
Century-Ottoman Empire: A Comparison of Kânûn-i Osmânı̂ of Bayezid II and
Kânûnnâme-i Cedı̂d.” Master’s Thesis, Bilkent University, 2010.
296
Karaman, Hayreddin. “Asabe” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.3, 1991, pp. 452-453.
Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the Age of Caliphates, 2nd ed. Harlow, UK:
Pearson/Longman, 2004.
Kenanoğlu, Macit. “Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri Neşriyâtı Üzerine Bir Tahlil.” TALİD
3:5, 2005, pp. 141-186.
Kılıç, Orhan “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hac Emirliği Müessesesi: Mısır Örneği.” in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Egypt During the Ottoman Era
26-30 November 2007 Cairo, İstanbul: Research Centre for Islamic History,
Art and Culture (IRCICA) and Arab Republic of Egypt Supreme Council of
Culture, 2010, pp. 137-180.
Kılıç, Orhan. "Ocaklık" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol.33, 2007, 317-318.
Kheirani, Leila. "Turkish Words in the Ottoman Documents: Inheritances of Women
as Example." Vakanüvis 1, 2016, pp.280-292.
Kocakaplan, Saim Ç. “İstanbul Gümrüğü (1750-1800): Teşkilat ve Ticaret”, Ph. D
Diss., Marmara University, 2014.
Köprülü, Fuad, W. Barthold, İslam Medeniyet Tarihi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
1973.
Kunt, İ. Metin. “The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy: Notes on The Köprülü
Family Endowments.” in Studies in Ottoman History in Honor of Professor V.
L. Ménage, ed. Colin Imber and Colin Heywood, Istanbul: The Isis Press,
1994, pp. 189-198.
Kuran, Timur. “The Provision of Public Goods under Islamic Law: Origins, Impact,
and Limitations of the Waqf System.” Law & Society Review, Vol. 35, No. 4,
2001, pp. 841-898.
Kuran, Timur. (ed.) Mahkeme Kayıtları ışığında 17. Yüzyıl İstanbul’unda Sosyo-
Ekonomik Yaşam, Vol.1 (Social and Economic Life in Seventeenth-century
Istanbul: Glimpses from Court Records), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası
Yayınları, 2010.
297
Kurt, Meral “Kısmet-i Askerı̂ye Mahkemesı̇ 01 Numaralı Defterı̇ (Transkrı̇psı̇yon Ve
Değerlendı̇rme)”, Master’s Thesis, Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2019.
Kurt, Yılmaz. “I. Ahmed (1603-17) Dönemine Ait bir Osmanlı Kânunnâmesi.”
Belgeler, c.XXXI, s. 35, 2010, pp.1-48.
Küçükaşçı, Mustafa Sabri. “Müezzin” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 31, 2020, pp.
489-495
Kütükoğlu, Mübühat S. Lutfi Paşa Âsafnâmesi: Yeni Bir Metin Tesisi Denemesi,
İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1991.
Lapidus, Ira M. “State and Religion in Islamic Societies.” Past & Present, no:51,
1996, pp.3-27.
Lewis, Bernard. “Emīn” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II, ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.695-696.
Løkkegaard, Fred. Islamic Taxation in the Classical Period, Lahor: Sind Sagar
Academy, 1979.
Løkkegaard, Fred. “Fayʾ” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II, ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.869-870.
Løkkegaard, Fred. “G̲ h̲anīma” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II, ed.
P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.1005-1006.
New Redhouse Turkish-English Dictionary, Istanbul: Redhouse,1986.
Mez, Adam. The Renaissance of Islam in the Tenth Century, trans. by Salahaddin
Khuda Baksh and D. S. Margoliouth, Patna: Jubilee Printing and Publishing
House,1937.
Minovi, M, and V. Minorsky, “Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī on Finance.” Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1940, pp. 755-789.
298
Moumtaz, Nada. God’s Property: Islam, Charity, and the Modern State, Oakland: The
University of California Press, 2021.
Mundy, Martha. “The Family, Inheritance, and Islam: A Re-examination of the
Sociology of Farâ’id Law.” in Islamic Law: Social and Historical Contexts, ed.
Aziz el-Azmeh, London: Routledge, 1988, pp.1-123.
Murphey, Rhoads. “The Veliyyüddin Telhis: Notes on the Sources and Interrelations
Between Koçi Bey and Contemporary Writers of Advice to Kings.” Belleten,
1979, pp. 547-571.
North, Douglass C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Oğuz, Gülser. “Bı̇r Osmanlı Kentı̇nde Taşınır Ve Taşınmaz Mal Varlığına Dayalı
Servet Analı̇zı̇: Edı̇rne Örneğı̇”, Ph. D Diss., Ankara Üniversitesi, 2013.
Orbay, Kayhan. “The Imperial Waqfs within the Ottoman Waqf System.” Endowment
Studies 1, 2017, pp. 135-153.
Orhonlu, Cengiz. "Hazine" TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol.17, 1998, pp.130-133
Öner, Abdülkerim. “Dört Halife Döneminde Beytülmal.” Ph. D Diss., Dicle
Üniversitesi, 2018.
Öner, Abdülkerim. “Hz. Peygamber Döneminde Beytülmal.” e-Şarkiyat İlmi
Araştırmalar Dergisi/Journal of Oriental Scientific Research (JOSR), c. 11, s.
1, 2019, pp. 74-95.
Özcan, Tahsin. “Muhallefât” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol.30, 2020, pp. 405-406.
Özdeğer, Hüseyin. 1463-1640 Yılları Bursa Şehri Tereke Defterleri, İstanbul: İstanbul
Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1988.
Özel, Oktay. “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform' Revisited.”
JESHO, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1999, pp. 226-246.
Özen, Şükrü “Bir Mirasın Gölgesinde Velâ Tartışması: Müzellef Ahmed Efendi’nin
Tereke si ve Ganîzâde Mehmed Nâdirî’nin Şeyhülislâma Mektubu.” Osmanlı
Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XLI, 2013, pp.71-124.
299
Öztürk, Said. “XVII. Yüzyıl Askerı̇ Kassam Defterlerı̇nı̇n Sosyo-Ekonomı̇k Tahlı̇lı̇.”
Ph. D Diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993.
Öztürk, Said. Askeri Kassama Ait On Yedinci Asır İstanbul Tereke Defterleri,
İstanbul: OSAV (Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı), 1995.
Öztürk, Said. “Kassâm” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 24, 2001, pp. 579-582.
Özvar, Erol. “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Bütçe Harcamaları (1509-1788)” in Osmanlı
Maliyesi: Kurumlar ve Bütçeler I, haz. Mehmet Genç and Erol Özvar. İstanbul:
Osmanlı Bankası Arşı̇v ve Araştırma Merkezı̇, 2006, pp. 197-238.
Pamuk, Şevket. “Institutional Change and the Longevity of the Ottoman Empire,
1500-1800.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2004, pp.
225-247.
Pamuk, Şevket. “Economic History, Institutions, and Institutional Change.”
International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2012, pp. 532-
535.
Pamuk, Şevket. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Pamuk, Şevket. “Kuruş” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 26, 2002, pp. 458-459.
Polat, Süleyman. “Osmanlı Askerî-Malî Tarih Kaynaklarından Sefer Ruznamçe
Defterleri ve Bütçelerinin Kaynak Değeri Üzerine İncelemeler (XVI. Yüzyıl
Sonu ve XVII. Yüzyıl İlk Yarısı).” Akademik Bakış, c. 8, s.15, 2014, pp. 241-
267.
Powers, David S. Studies in Qur’an and Hadith: The Formation of the Islamic Law of
Inheritance, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Powers, David S. “The Islamic Inheritance System: A Socio-Historical Approach.”
Arab Law Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1993, pp. 13-29.
Repp, Richard. The Mufti of Istanbul: The Study in the Development of the Ottoman
Learned Hierarchy, London: Ithaca Press, 1986.
300
Robinson, Chase F. “The Rise of Islam, 600-705.” in The New Cambridge History of
Islam v.I, ed. Chase F. Robinson, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 173-
225.
Sahillioğlu, Halil. “1524-1525 Osmanlı Bütçesi”, İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 41/ (1–
4), 1985, pp. 415–449
Sahillioğlu, Halil. “Askerî” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 488-489.
Sahillioğlu, Halil. “Akçe” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 24-227.
Sahillioğlu, Halil. “Emin” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 11, 1995, pp. 111-112.
Salzman, Ariel. “An Ancien Régime Revisited: ‘Privatization’ and Political Economy
in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire.” Politics & Society, 21/4, 1993,
pp. 393-423.
Sarı, Sema Aktaş. “3a-3b Numaralı 1648-1679 Tarı̇hlı̇ Kırım Kadıasker Defterlerı̇ne
Göre Kırım’da Sosyal ve Ekonomı̇k Hayat”, Master’s Thesis, Sakarya
Üniversitesi, 2016.
Sarıerı̇kli, Saliha Önen, and Gülser Yardım “Nevşehı̇rlı̇ Damat İbrahı̇m Paşa ve
Damatlarının Enderûn Hazı̇nesı̇’ne Aktarılan Mallarının Değerlendı̇rmesı̇.”,
Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakülte 5(1), 2022, pp. 1-16.
Sariyannis, Marinos. “Ruler and State, State and Society in Ottoman Political
Thought.” Turkish Historical Review 4, no.1, 2013, pp.83-117.
Schacht, Joseph. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1979.
Schacht, Joseph, and A. Layish. “Mīrāt̲h̲” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New
Edition, vol.VII, ed. C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel W.P. Heinrichs and CH.
Pellat., Leiden- New York: E.J. Brill, 1993, pp.105-113.
Scott, William R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities, Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2014.
Seven Mehmet. “İlkeler ve Hisseler Açısından İslam Miras Hukukunun Dayanakları”
Master’s Thesis, Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2006.
301
Şensoy, Fatma. “Mukataalarda Muhasebe Kayıtları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başında Bursa
Mukataası Örneği, Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi sayı 7,
2014, pp. 200-247.
Şenyurt, Ali. “Yeniçeri Ortaları Yardımlaşma Sandıkları.” (Janissary Company
Charity Funds), KOSBED, 33, 2017, pp. 155-170.
Shaw, Stanford J. The Financial and Administrative Organization and Development of
Ottoman Egypt 1517-1798, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1962.
Shefer. Miri. “Charity and Hospitality: Hospitals in the Ottoman Empire in the Early
Modern Period.” in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts ed.
Michael Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer, Albany: SUNY Press, 2003,
pp.295-313.
Singer, Amy. “Charity’s Legacies: A Reconsideration of Ottoman Imperial
Endowment-Making.” in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts ed.
Michael Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer), Albany: SUNY Press, 2003,
pp.121-143.
Tabakoğlu, Ahmet. “XVII ve XVIII Yüzyıl Osmanlı Bütçelerı̇.” İstanbul Üniversitesi
İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, c.41, 1-4 (1985), pp. 389-414.
Tabakoğlu, Ahmet. Osmanlı Mali Tarihi, İstanbul: Dergah, 2020.
Taş, Hülya. XVII. Yüzyılda Ankara, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006.
Taşkın, Figen. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Mültezim Kesimi ve İstanbul Mukataaları
(1550-1605)”, Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1992.
Temel, Eşref. “İstanbul Tahmı̇shanesı̇ (1590-1836).” MUTAD, VIII/ 2, 2021, pp. 373–
401.
Terzi, M. Akif. “İstanbul 1131/1719 Tarihli Askerî Kassam Defteri” Master’s Thesis,
İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1995.
Toprak, Zafer. Türkiye’de Milli İktisat 1908-1918, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları, 2019.
302
Tuğ, Salih. İslam Vergi Hukukunun Ortaya Çıkışı, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi
İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1984.
Tuğluca, Murat. “Osmanlı’da Devlet-Toplum İlişkilerinin Açık Alanı: Şikayet
Mekanizması ve İşleyiş Biçimi (1683-1699).”, Ph. D Diss., Hacettepe
Üniversitesi, 2010.
Türkmen, İlhan. “Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre 1740’larda Belgrad’ın Sosyo-
Ekonomik Yapısı”, Belleten c.80, s.288, 2016, pp. 411-438.
Uğur, Yunus. “The Ottoman Court Records and Making of Urban History with
Special Rereference to Mudanya Sicils (1645-1800).” Master’s Thesis,
Boğaziçi University, 2001.
Uğur, Yunus. “Mahkeme Kayıtları (Şer’iye Sicilleri): Literatür Değerlendirmesi ve
Bibliyografya”, TALİD, 2003, pp. 305-344.
Uğur, Yunus. “A Historical Interaction of the City with its Mahalles: Ottoman Edirne
in the Late Seventeeth and Early Eighteenth Centuries.” Ph. D Diss., Boğaziçi
University, 2014.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. Hakkı. “Osmanlı Devleti Maliyesinin Kuruluşu ve Osmanlı Devleti İç
Hazinesi.” Belleten, cilt XLII, sayı 165, 1978, pp. 67-93.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. Hakkı. Osmanlı Devlet’nini Saray Teşkilatı, Ankara: TTK, 1984.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. Hakkı. Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtından Kapukulu Ocakları-I, Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1984.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. Hakkı. “Onaltıncı Asır Ortalarında Yaşamış Olan İki Büyük Şahsiyet:
Tosyalı Celâl- zâde Mustafa ve Salih Çelebiler.” Belleten, c. XXII s.87,1958,
pp. 391-441.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. Hakkı. Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilatı, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 1988.
Ürekli, Bayram, and Doğan Yörük. “H. 1002/ M. 1594 Tarihli Bir Vakıf Defterine
Göre Edirne’deki Sultan II. Murâd Câmii ve İmâreti Evkâfı.” Selçuk
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 2004, pp.17-39.
303
İsmail. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletin’nin Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilatı, (4. Baskı),
Ankara: TTK, 2020.
Walsh, J. R. “Fatwā” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol.II, ed. P.
Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991, pp.866-867.
Waldron, Jeremy. “What is Private Property?” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.
5, No. 3, 1985, pp. 313-349.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.
Whitehead, Christopher. "The Veledeş Conflict: A Reassessment of the Mid-
Seventeenth-Century Rebellions of the Altı Bölük Halkı." Journal of the
Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 291-310.
Woodhead, Christine. “From Scribe to Litterateur: The Career of a Sixteenth-Century
Ottoman Kâtip.” Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 9,
No. 1, 1982, pp. 55-74.
Yardım, Gülser. “17. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısına Ait Bir Deftere Göre Muhallefattan
Hazineye Aktarılan Eşyalar.” Mavi Atlas, 9/1, 2021, pp. 147-170.
Yeni, Harun. “The Yörüks of Ottoman Western Thrace in the Sixteenth Century”
Ph.D Diss., Bilkent University, 2013.
Yeni, Harun. “Osmanlı Rumelisi’nde Yörük Teşkilatı, Kökeni ve Nitelikleri.”
Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), 42, 2017,
pp. 187-205.
Yeniçeri, Celal. İslamda Devlet Bütçesi, İstanbul: Şamil, 1984.
Yıldız, Kenan. “Üsküdar’ın Sosyal ve İktı̇sadı̇ Hayatı Iile İlgı̇lı̇ Üsküdar Kadı
Sı̇cı̇llerı̇ndekı̇ Kayıtların Tesbı̇t ve Analı̇zı̇ (954-980 / 1547-1573).” Master’s
Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2005.
Yılmaz, Hüseyin. Caliphate Redefined: The Mystical Turn in Ottoman Political
Thought, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.
304
Yılmaz, Mehmet Şakir. “Koca Nişancı of Kanuni: Celâlzâde Mustafa Çelebi,
Bureaucracy and Kanun in The Reign of Süleyman The Magnificent (1520-
1566).” Ph. D Diss., Bilkent University, 2006.
Yılmaz, Serap. “İranlı Ermeni Bı̇r Tüccarın Terekesı̇ ve Tı̇carı̇ Etkı̇nlı̇ğı̇ Üzerı̇ne
Düşünceler.” Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, VII, 1992, pp. 191-215.
Yörük, Doğan. “XVI. Yüzyılın Ortalarında İltı̇zam Sı̇stemı̇nı̇n Yaygınlığı: Lârende
Kazası Örneğı̇.” SUTAD, 47, Aralık 2019, pp. 217-238.
Yücel, Yaşar. “Reformcu Bir Hükümdar Fatih Sultan Mehmed.” Belleten, c. LV,
s.212, 1991, pp. 79-86.
Zarinebaf, Fariba. Mediterranean Encounters: Trade and Pluralısm in Early Modern
Galata, California, Oakland: University of California Press, 2018.
Zečević, Selma, “Missing Husbands, Waiting Wives, Bosnian Muftis: Fatwa Texts
and the Interpretation of Gendered Presences and Absences in Late Ottoman
Bosnia,” in, Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History, ed.
Amila Buturović İrvin Cemil Schick. London, I.B. Tauris, 2007, p. 335-361.
Ziadeh, Farhat J. “Property Rights in The Middle East: From Traditional Law to
Modern Codes.” Arab Law Quarterly, Vol.8, No.1, 1993, pp. 3-12.