423

 OTTOMAN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND NON-MUSLIMS IN THE PRE-MODERN ERA


The non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, governed by Muslims, have been a subject of interest for researchers since the 19th century. In this study, the status of non-Muslims among the Ottoman subjects has been examined. The study examines the status of non-Muslims among the subjects, focusing on their status during the classical period and the changes in that status. The study aims to evaluate the claims made by European states in the 19th century regarding the Ottoman Empire's inability to govern its non-Muslim subjects and the alleged second-class status of non-Muslims. Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaism, which maintained an assertion of universal dominion, allowed non-Muslims to become subjects of the Islamic State through the concept of the zimma. The Ottoman Empire was able to integrate the non-Muslim populations in the regions it conquered into its subjects through the mechanism of the zimma contract, thereby granting non-Muslims the same fundamental rights that were
iv
accorded to Muslims. Through the zimma contract, non-Muslims who became subjects of the Ottoman Empire were brought together in the status of re’âya alongside Muslims as part of Sultan's subjects. The re’âya status served as a higher identity for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Ottoman Sultans regarded their non-Muslim re’âya subjects as entrusted to them by God, known as vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya. In the study, mühimme registers and qadi court registers have been utilized as primary sources. Additionally, due to the extensive nature of the existing literature on the subject, secondary sources have been meticulously examined. Based on the documents and insights from secondary sources, it is concluded that within the Ottoman administrative perspective, non-Muslims were not differed from Muslims, under the possibilities provided by Islamic law, and were regarded as vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriyâ, similar to Muslims.
Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Pre-Modern Period, Non-Muslim, Re'âya, The zimma
v
ÖZET

Müslümanlar tarafından yönetilen Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun, gayrimüslim tebaası 19. yüzyıldan itibaren araştırmacıların ilgisini çeken bir konu olmuştur. Bu çalışmada gayrimüslimlerin Osmanlı tebaası içindeki durumları incelenmiştir. Çalışma gayrimüslimlerin tebaa içerisindeki durumlarını incelerken, gayrimüslimlerin klasik dönemdeki statülerine ve statünün değişimine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, 19. yüzyılda Avrupalı Devletlerin, Osmanlı’nın gayrimüslim tebaasını yönetemediği ve gayrimüslimlerin ikinci sınıf statüde olduklarına dair iddialarının değerlendirilmesidir. İslam, evrensel hakimiyet iddiasına bağlı olarak, Hristiyanlık ve Yahudilikten farklı bir şekilde, Müslüman olmayanların da zimmet ile İslam Devleti’nin uyruğu olmasına imkân vermiştir. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun fethettiği bölgelerdeki gayrimüslim halkı uyruk haline getirmesi zimmet akdi sayesinde mümkün olmuş ve Osmanlılar zimmet ile Müslümanlara tanıdığı tüm temel hakları, gayrimüslimlere de tanımıştır. Zimmet akdi ile Osmanlı uyruğu haline gelen gayrimüslimler, Müslümanlar ile birlikte
vi
sultanın tebaası olarak re’âya statüsünde buluşmuşlardır. Re’âya statüsü Müslümanlar ve gayrimüslimler için bir üst kimlik görevi görmüştür. Osmanlı sultanlarının, re'âyası olan gayrimüslimler tanrının bir emaneti yani, vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya olarak kabul edilmiştir. Çalışmada mühimme defterleri ve kadı sicilleri birincil kaynaklar olarak kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, konu ile ilgili mevcut literatürün çok geniş olması sebebiyle, ikincil kaynaklar dikkatli bir şekilde incelenmiştir. Belgelerin ve ikincil kaynakların ışığında, Osmanlı yönetim anlayışına göre, gayrimüslimlerin de İslam Hukuku’nun verdiği imkan dahilinde, vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya olarak Müslümanlardan farksız oldukları sonucuna varılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, Pre-Modern Dönem, Gayrimüslim, Re’âya, Zimmet
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Dr. Özer Ergenç, for his endless support. His in-depth knowledge of Ottoman history, motivational talks, and support enlightened my way throughout my journey. He is an advisor, always encouraging his students, and being one of his students is priceless to me. I am always proud of becoming his student and feel lucky about that. During the writing process of my thesis, Özer Hoca never stopped supporting me in my adventure between Eskişehir and Ankara. This thesis would have never been accomplished without Özer Hoca’s guidance and patience. Also, I am grateful to the examining committee members, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Veli Seyitdanlıoğlu and Asst. Prof. Dr. Berke Torunoğlu for their insightful comments and encouragement. Their contributions bestowed a greater value on the study. I also must thank Dr. Nil Tekgül. She supports her students in every aspect, and it was a chance to meet Nil Hoca since my early days at Bilkent University.
I want to thank my dear friends Aybüke Soylu, Gamze Yılmaz, and Melike Aras. Special thanks go to Merve Gencer, my dear friend from Middle East Technical University and Bilkent University. I am thankful for her constant support throughout my undergraduate and graduate years. Finally, my family has made the greatest contribution to the creation of this work. They have never spared their support for this study and all my academic studies. I am especially indebted to my mom, Emine Ülker, for always encouraging me despite all the difficulties she has experienced in life. Also, I owe a special thanks to my dear brother, S. Berat Cinkılıç whose presence always makes me happy.
viii
Last but not least, my dearest, Alp Çağrı Akıl shared every moment of this journey. He motivated me every time I felt stressed. Without his moral support, completing this study would be more challenging. Also, our lovely cats,Yumak, Pakize, and Mazlum were always by my side during this process. I would like to thank my husband, who always stands by me. Thank you, all!
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………….......................................................................iii
ÖZET…………………………………………………………………………………………………...v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………... ……………..vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………...ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………1
1.1. Objective of the Thesis ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Sources and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER II : LEGAL AND SOCIAL STATUS OF NON-MUSLIMS ......................................... 16
2.1. The Zimma ............................................................................................................................... 16
2.2. The Position of Non-Muslim Subjects in İtâat-Emanet Relationship ...................................... 32
2.3. The Difference between Harbî and Müste’men ........................................................................ 56 CHAPTER III : CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 66
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………………………70
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective of the Thesis
This thesis tries to examine the position of non-Muslims among the Ottoman subjects (re’âyâ). It focuses on the status of non-Muslims in the Ottoman classical order and how this status changed over time. Also, the thesis aims to show the network of relations between the state and non-Muslim subjects and the place of non-Muslims in Ottoman society.
Non-Muslim constituents formed an integral aspect of the Ottoman Empire's composition, spanning its evolution from a nascent principality to its eventual dissolution as a prominent imperial entity in the early 20th century. Since its establishment, the Ottoman Empire interacted with individuals outside the Muslim faith due to its geographical location. The character of these interactions varied based on the prevailing circumstances. While the Ottomans were mostly fighting with non-Muslims, occasionally, they forged alliances with them, establishing connections grounded in the principles of peace. The Ottomans followed an expansionist policy and began to take control of their non-Muslim neighbours in a short time. Advancing to the Balkan regions, whose people were mostly Christian, meant that many non-Muslims became Ottoman subjects. The Ottomans established a Balkan Empire at the
2
end of the 15th century, and its borders stretched from Bosnia to Bessarabia.1 Although the majority of its non-Muslim subjects were people living in the Balkan region, Ottomans also had a non-Muslim population in the territories it ruled, especially in Anatolia. As the 16th century drew to a close, Ottoman Sultans governed an empire where diverse religious and ethnic components coexisted. In pre-modern societies, religion was one of the fundamental factors, perhaps the most important one, that determined one’s status in society. The Ottoman Empire was a political entity ruled by the Muslims. Therefore, the issue of how non-Muslims were governed by the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic state, is a question that naturally comes to mind. The Ottomans accepted the non-Muslims in the territories they dominated as their subjects thanks to the possibilities provided by Islamic Law.2 In other words, Islamic Law, unlike Christianity, made it possible for non-Muslims to become subjects of the Muslim state. Accordingly, Ottoman subjects, which were Muslim or non-Muslim, were accepted as re’âyâ.3 The status of re’âyâ was used for Muslims and non-Muslims, regardless of their religion. However, the non-Muslims could become the subject of the sultan thanks to the zimma (zimmet) contract. Its origin can be traced back to Islam and it has been practiced since the early days of the religion. The non-Muslims who accepted the rule of the Ottoman Sultan and paid the cizye were under the responsibility of the sultan and protected by him. The protection of the subjects was the primary obligation of the sultan. As long as non-Muslims paid their cizye, they were subject to the protection of the sultan. Non-Muslim subjects, who were subjected to fıqh, were not different from the Muslim ones since the lives
1 İlber Ortaylı, İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı (İstanbul: Hil Yayın, 1987), 47.
2 Özer Ergenç, “Üretim Süreçleri İçinde Osmanlı Belgeleri,” in Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013), 462.
3 The word of re’âyâ is the plural form of raiyya,which means flock in dictionary.
3
and properties of non-Muslims were guaranteed by the sultan through zimma contract.4 Non-Muslim individuals under the rule of the Ottomans were accepted as entrusted by God to them. In Ottoman political thought the entrustment of the subjects to the sultan was explained with the discourse of vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya (entrusted by God, the Almighty). In the Ottoman archival documents, re’âyâ ki vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriyadır (the subjects were entrusted by the God, the Almighty) is the phrase to express this position. Non-Muslims who were under the responsibility of the sultan had to obey him, this was a mutual understanding between the sultan and his subjects. While the sultan accepted his subjects as entrusted by God and protected them, in return, the subjects submitted their obedience to their Sultan. This relationship was based on obedience (itâat) and trust (emânet) between the sultan and the subjects. In this context, non-Muslim subjects fulfilled their obligations by paying taxes and adhering to the sultan's directives in a manner akin to their Muslim counterparts. These constituted the fundamental responsibilities of all subjects. Hence, the sultan treated all of his subjects, regardless of their religious affiliation, equally if they demonstrated obedience and met the criteria of compliance. For this reason, a society characterized by a distinct division between Muslims and non-Muslims did not materialize. The re’âyâ status served as an identity above all differences for Muslim and non-Muslim, making Muslims and non-Muslims identical in the eyes of the Ottoman Sultan. Nevertheless, during the 19th century, European nations contended that the Ottoman Empire was incapable of governing non-Muslim populations. Their assertion rested on the premise that the legal framework of the
4 Yaşar Yücel and Özer Ergenç, “General Charâcteristic of Ottoman State Policy During the XVIIIth to the XIXth Centuries,” Belleten 54, no. 209 (1990).
4
Empire was inadequate for governing non-Muslim subjects.5 With these claims, the issue of non-Muslim subjects being second-class citizens came to the fore. However, these assertions were driven by political motives and arose during the exceptional circumstances of the 19th century. They were contingent upon the prevailing conditions of the time. As a result, it becomes imperative to individually analyze every advancement concerning non-Muslims, delving into their underlying reasons without resorting to broad generalizations. The objective of this thesis is to assess these assertions and to provide an elucidation for the politically motivated argument upon which are constructed. 1.2 Literature Review For various reasons, non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire have been an interesting subject for researchers. Works on non-Muslims began to appear from the beginning of the 19th century, especially Westerners and Western historians became interested in the topic. This brings about the literature-influenced policies of the 19th century aforementioned.6 Until today, many works on non-Muslims have existed, and there is a vast literature about that. It will not be misleading to say that the studies on Ottoman non-Muslims have focused on particular matters such as the Patriarchate, devshirme, millet system, co-existence, and national uprisings. Here, the previous sentence needs clarification. What is meant here is not that the works are limited to these. However, these issues are generally emphasized in research on non-Muslims.
5 For example, see; Daniel Seely Gregory, The Crime of Christendom (New York: The Abbey Press, 1900); Frederick Davis Greene, The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance (New York; London: G.P. Putnâm’s Sons, 1895); John Llewelyn Davies, Religious Aspects of the Eastern Question (London; Paris ;New York: Cassell Petter & Galpin, 1877).
6 For example, see; Cyrus Hamlin, Among the Turks (Newyork: America Tract Society, 1877); Miss Pardoe, The City ofthe sultan; and Domestic Manners of the Turks, vol. I, II vols. (London: Henry Colburn, 1837); St. John Bayle, The Turks in Europe : A Sketch of Manners&Politics in the Ottoman Empire (London: Chapman and Hall, 1853); Hyde Clarke, “On the Supposed Extinction of the Turks and Increase of the Christians in Turkey.”
5
The available literature predominantly comprises writings that focus on specific subsets of non-Muslims, particular geographic regions, specific periods, or distinct facets.7
In Islamic Society and the West8, H.A.R Gibb and Harold Bowen remark on the position of the zimmîs in the Ottoman Empire. Gibb and Bowen emphasize that the early Ottoman conquest resulted in a significant number of zimmîs being brought under Ottoman control, akin to the early expansion of the caliphate. While the initial Ottoman expansion focused on subduing non-Muslims, the interaction between the Ottomans and non-Muslims assumed a more amicable tone due to the influence of Batini-Sufi orders on the Ottomans. Gibb and Bowen support this idea by giving examples of alliances and marriages between the Christians and early Ottomans. Furthermore, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims was defined by the Sacred Law, which served as the determinant for the organization of Ottoman society. In the context of Ottoman society, people referred to as zimmîs were members of a protected community, and their status derived from their affiliation with this group. Gibb and Bowen underscore that this specific community was recognized as a millet within the Ottoman Empire. In Islamic Society and the West, the zimmîs in the Ottoman Empire are examined in three periods. The first is the establishment period of the Ottoman Empire in Anatolia and Rumelia. In this period, the Ottoman Empire
7 Stanford J. Shaw, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1991); Victor Roudometof, “From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453-1821,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 16, no. 1 (1998): 11–48; Joseph R. Hacker, “Jews in the Ottoman Empire (1580–1839),” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 831–63; Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982); Haim Gerber, Crossing Borders: Jews and Muslims in Ottoman Law, Economy, and Society (Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2011).
8 H.A.R Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Muslem Culture in the Near East, vol. 1, Islamic Society in the Eighteenth Century (London; New York; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1957).
6
dealt with three kinds of zimmîs; Orthodox, Armenian, and Jews. The second is when the Arabic-speaking communities were controlled by Selim and Suleiman. The sultan had more Muslim subjects than non-Muslims with the conquest of these lands, and this brought the sultans to follow a stricter policy of Sunnism. Furthermore, additional zimmî cohorts were incorporated into the empire's existing framework. Lastly, Gibb and Bowen examine the status of zimmîs in the period of decline and focuses on the developments in the 18th century. During this period, it is asserted that the Orthodox were the most affected since they were the sole group with access to the ruling institution; however, their position was compromised as the ruling group gradually became predominantly Muslim. According to Gibb and Bowen, the Treaty of Karlowitz led to important changes in the situation of the zimmî subjects of the empire. The writers refer to the Treaty as a turning point for the zimmîs. The ideas about overthrowing Ottoman rule among the subjects, especially in the Balkans, began to develop during the end of the 17th and 18th centuries.
“Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler: Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları”9 written by Yavuz Ercan is one of the exclusive works about the non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. The book covers the period of the early times of the Ottomans when relationships began with non-Muslims. Also, Yavuz Ercan examines the legal, social, and economic situations of the non-Muslims as a whole rather than focusing on one aspect. A lot of archival documents related to non-Muslims are utilized in the book. At first, the writer provides background information about the position of the non-Muslims before the Ottoman Empire, and the non-Muslim groups in the empire and their organizations are explained in detail.
9 Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları (Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 2001).
7
The legal status of zimmîs is one of the matters the writer emphasizes. As stated in the book's preface, the writer aims to scrutinize the origin of the minority issues in Turkey, and he makes comments about both the positive and negative effects of Ottoman rule over non-Muslims at the end. According to him, the Ottoman administration made it possible for non-Muslims to maintain their existence until today.
Karen Barkey, in Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective,10 raises questions about the Empire's longevity within an analytical framework. One of the focus points of the Barkey is organizations and networks in the Ottoman Empire. The writer examines the politics of difference and what kind of relationship exists between communities and the state. The concept of difference is the key factor, and she discusses tolerance towards differences. According to Karen Barkey, tolerance is also a tool for the administration and one of the incorporation policies. Barkey emphasizes that the Ottoman Empire approached the differences as a norm necessary to manage, not change. Moreover, she defines the non-Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire as separate, unequal, and protected.11
“Christians and Jews in The Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society”12 edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, is one of the prominent works about the history of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. The edited volume compiles essays concerning non-Muslims, addressing the socio-economic and political contexts relevant to historians specialized in this field. It encompasses the period from roughly the 14th century to the conclusion of the 19th century. A few essays in the book should be addressed in connection with the subject of this thesis.
10 Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
11 Ibid., 120.
12 Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, vol. 1 (New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982).
8
C.E. Bosworth examines the zimma institution from a historical perspective in “The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam”13. His observation regarding the zimmîs is that they held the status of second-class citizens. As per C.E. Bosworth, while non-Muslims received protection, they perpetually remained relegated to the position of second-class citizens within the Islamic social framework. The reason why they were tolerated was that they fulfilled various functions.14 In his essay on the book “Foundation Myths of the Ottoman Millet System”15 Benjamin Braude discussed the so-called millet system. When critiquing the presence of the millet system within the Empire, he presents arguments on the arrangement of non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire. He questions the use of the word millet and says that tâife was the word used most commonly to describe the communities of non-Muslims.16
Belkıs Konan, in her article “Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşlarının Hukuki Durumuna İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme,”17 examines the legal status of the non-Muslim subjects. Konan’s study deals with the status of non-Muslims in terms of private and public law. She focuses on the responsibilities and the restrictions imposed on non-Muslims. In the last part of the article, the writer explains the regulations regarding the legal status of non-Muslims during the Tanzimat Era. An interesting point that should be mentioned is the title of the article; it involves the phrase Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşları (Non-Muslim Ottoman Citizens), although citizenship was a concept that the Ottoman subjects became familiar only in the 19th century. According
13 C.E Bosworth, “The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982).
14 Ibid., 49.
15 Benjamin Braude, “Foundation Myhts of the Ottoman Millet System,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, ed. Bernard Lewis and Benjamin Braude (New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982).
16 Ibid., 72.
17 Belkıs Konan, “Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşlarının Hukuki Durumuna İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme,” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 64, no. 1 (2015): 171–93.
9
to Konan, it is difficult to establish and determine the borders of the legal status of non-Muslims. She asserts that it is conceivable to discuss how non-Muslims were governed by the law of zimma in cases where an overarching evaluation is required. Furthermore, during the classical era, the objective wasn't to establish equality between Muslims and non-Muslims; rather, those who were unequally coexisted through tolerance. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimler: Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü18 is another work written about the non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. The book deals with the legal status of non-Muslims in the Classical Age. Tankut Soykan makes detailed explanations about the concepts of Islamic Law that are related to non-Muslims. Soykan examines the principles of Islamic law regarding non-Muslims and the application of this law in detail. He discusses the law imposed on non-Muslims in two categories; private and public law, which is similar to Belkıs Konan’s article. While the writer studies the legal status of the non-Muslims of the Ottoman Empire, he makes comparisons with the previous empires. The writer highlights that the Ottomans exhibited varying approaches towards non-Muslims depending on the era. While relations with non-Muslims were characterized by conciliation during the establishment period owing to the principality's heterodox nature, it progressively became less tolerant as the empire shifted towards adopting a Sunni identity.19 Bilal Eryılmaz, in “Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslim Teb’anın Yönetimi”20 studies the administration of the non-Muslims in three different periods. The work
18 Tankut Soykan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimler : Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü (İstanbul: Ütopya Kitabevi, 1999).
19 Ibid., 41–42.
20 Bilal Eryılmaz, Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslim Teb’anın Yönetimi (İstanbul: Risale Yayınları, 1990).
10
covers a large period. The writer sequentially examines the status of non-Muslims with the inception of the millet system, the developments during the Tanzimat Period, and the Constitutional Era. Also, the writer provides diverse information about the non-Muslim population in the Ottoman Empire. However, as the author himself states, he does not benefit from archival materials in the work; instead, he makes use of secondary sources.21 In “Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslimlerin Yönetimi: Pax-Ottomana”22 Ahmet Akgündüz discusses the attitude of the Ottoman Empire towards the non-Muslim subjects. The non-Muslim subjects are referred to as azınlık (minority) by Akgündüz.23 Although the book is related to non-Muslims, it includes matters different from that, such as the administration of Kurds or disagreement between the Shiites and Sunnis. Ahmet Akgündüz emphasizes that the non-Muslims were ruled according to the principles of Islamic Law and explains the attitude of the Ottomans to zimmîs within these principles. To illustrate the Ottoman approach towards non-Muslims, the author draws comparisons between Europe and the Ottoman Empire concerning human rights. According to him, there were profound differences between the Ottomans and the West on this issue.24 Archival documents are frequently utilized in this work, forming the basis for the study's examination of various regions. Therefore, it is possible to say that it is a rich work in terms of the materials used. However, Akgündüz employs the expression we to denote the Ottomans and Muslims. For instance, the book's second chapter starts with the question, “How Did We Treat
21 Ibid., 13.
22 Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslimlerin Yönetimi: Pax-Ottomana (İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2017).
23 Ibid., 58.
24 Ibid., 21.
11
Non-Muslims (Gayrimüslimlere Nasıl Davrandık?)”. This situation is inconsistent with the principle of objectivity. Eleni Gara examines the position of non-Muslims within the frame of inter-religious relations in “Conceptualizing Inter-Religious Relations in the Ottoman Empire: The Early Modern Centuries”25 The article also features a detailed literature search. In other words, Gara discusses the approach of historiography writing the history of Ottoman non-Muslims. In the article, different approaches are analysed by the author. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims constituted a foundational aspect of the Ottoman imperial structure. Her attention is directed towards the legal disparities experienced by non-Muslims, and this circumstance came to a close through the Tanzimat reforms, which she characterizes as a form of emancipation. An aspect that lends significance to the article is its comprehensive examination of prominent research on non-Muslims. It establishes a framework for topics like tolerance and intolerance, which are frequently debated in scholarly discourse. In addition to the previously mentioned works, significant contributions have been derived from the writings of Halil İnalcık and the advisor of this thesis, Özer Ergenç, both eminent figures in Ottoman historiography. Although their works do not directly focus on non-Muslims, their studies illuminate the history of Ottoman society. 1.3 Sources and Methodology As mentioned at the study's outset, there is a substantial volume of secondary sources concerning non-Muslims, resulting in a fragmented literature landscape. This proliferation has given rise to a multitude of diverse perspectives regarding non-Muslims. It is necessary to clarify that this thesis does not claim to be more accurate
25 Eleni Gara, “Conceptualizing Inter-Religious Relations in the Ottoman Empire: The Early Modern Centuries” 116 (2017): 57–91.
12
than existing studies in the literature. Instead, I aim to bring a new perspective to the position of non-Muslims among the subjects. Also, it should be noted that non-Muslims can become an element of political issues, as stated in the introduction. The reason why I mention this here is that this thesis will be constructed by completely evaluating the sources and by avoiding a nationalist discourse. The main primary source which will be used in the thesis is Mühimme Registers. They are the collection of the provisions of Divân-ı Hümâyûn, which was the supreme court of the Ottoman Empire. Every kind of matter from each corner of memâlîk-i mahrûse (protected lands) was discussed in the Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn meetings. Therefore, registers have considerable content. The broader context enables the registers to be used in studies about administration in provinces, political and diplomatic history, and socio-economic life.26 Mühimme Registers cover the period 1553 to 190527, and the oldest register used in this work belongs to 1571 (H.978). Certainly, it cannot be assumed that a source with such extensive content lacks information concerning non-Muslims. Mühimme Registers are among the most crucial sources for affairs related to non-Muslims and organization in the Ottoman Empire.28 They contain documents regarding all kinds of relations between the state and non-Muslims as collective and incollective.29 Let's examine the source specifically for this thesis. They constitute great importance in terms of examining the mutual understanding between the sultan and his subjects, which will be discussed in detail in the second part.
26 Suraıya Farooqhi, “Mühimme Defterleri,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. C.E Bosworth et al., vol. VII (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 471.
27 Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Archival Materials on Milets,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982), 438.
28 Ibid., 438.
29 Ibid., 438.
13
This study aims to extract historical knowledge by consulting primary sources. Nonetheless, it should not overlook the problems of the source. Mühimme Registers consist of the decrees (fermans) related to the cases brought by the subjects to Divân-ı Hümâyûn. Divânı-ı Hümâyûn was the highest court in which each Ottoman subject had the right to bring their complaint.30Therefore, Mühimme Registers include petitions of the subjects from the lands of the Empire. However, it is impossible to know whether each subject could appeal Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn in practice or not. Accordingly, the source enables us to evaluate the complaints received from Dîvân. Also, the decrees written on Mühimme Registers are not the last decision about the case. In the decrees, the investigation of cases is ordered.31 However, it cannot be understood from the edicts in Mühimme Registers how a case was concluded or what kind of sanction was applied. The Sharia court records had a highly important place in the studies of the Ottoman Empire's social, economic, and cultural history.32 Since these records provide information about the place of non-Muslims in social and economic life, they are used in this thesis as another primary source. The qadi courts opened to non-Muslim subjects as well as Muslims. The courts were applied frequently by the non-Muslims to solve their internal disputes, even sometimes the disputes with their families.33 The records used in the thesis belong to different cases about the non-Muslims because one of the subjects of the thesis is the place of the non-Muslims in Ottoman society. Dror
30 For detailed information about Divân-ı Hümâyûn see;Ahmet Mumcu, Divan-ı Hümayun (Ankara: Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, 1986).
31 Feridun M Emecen, “Osmanlı Divanının Ana Defter Serileri: Ahkâm-ı Mîrî, Ahkâm-ı Kuyûd-ı Mühimme ve Ahkâm-ı Şikâyet,” Türkiye Araştırrmaları Literatür Dergisi, 3, no. 5 (2005): 1–34.
32 Dror Ze’Evi, “The Use of Ottoman Sharīʿa Court Records As a Source for Middle Eastern Social History: A Reappraisal,” Islamic Law and Society 5, no. 1 (1998): 35–56, https://doi.org/10.1163/1568519982599616.
33 Ronald C. Jennings, “Zimmîs (Non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21, no. 3 (October 1978): 225–93.
14
Ze’evi mentions three kinds of methods to use sijills quantitative, narrative, and microhistory. According to Ze’evi, each method has different problems.34 While making use of sijills in studies related to non-Muslims, it should be kept in mind that non-Muslims' use of qadi court depended on their own preferences. Although sijilss contain rich information about the private sphere of non-Muslims such as marriage, divorce and internal disputes, it should not be neglected that they were limited to reflected cases. Another primary source used in this thesis is Ahlâk-ı Alâî written by Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi in the 16th century. The work of Kınalızâde does not address the information about non-Muslims directly. However, what makes Ahlak-ı Alâî essential as the primary source for this thesis is its content's relevance to the interaction between the state and its subjects. The book constitutes a vital place to comprehend the Ottoman understanding of governance. In the last part of the book, Ilm-i Tedbir’ül Medine, the framework delineating the sultan's conduct towards his subjects is established. The method used in constructing this thesis is to turn the information presented by primary sources into historical knowledge. The vocabulary related to non-Muslims is taken from the sources as data. As stated above, the claims about the non-Muslims derive from the 19th century. Since these claims need an explanation, the thesis aims to analyse the position of non-Muslims in Ottoman society in the pre-modern era. To understand the position of non-Muslims, the zimma should be explained in detail because it was the zimma that made the non-Muslims Sultan’s re’âyâ. It is crucial to understand the nature of the zimma contract to understand the place of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.
34 Ze’Evi, “The Use of Ottoman Sharīʿa Court Records As a Source for Middle Eastern Social History.”
15
After examining the zimma, the itâat-emânet (obedience-trust) relationship will be examined. Understanding the itâat-emânet relationship is essential not only to discover the relationship between the state and non-Muslims but also to understand their position compared to Muslims. This part will focus on the word re’âyâ and its comprehensiveness to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Also, the tâife structure of Ottoman society will be discussed in this part.
The relations of the Ottoman Empire with the non-Muslims were not limited to those who became their subjects with the zimma contract. The subjects of foreign countries could reside for various reasons in the Ottoman realm with the permission of the sultan. In the last part, the relations with the non-Muslims who were not zimmî will be explained. I explained their relevance to the alteration in the status of non-Muslim subjects. This part aims to explain that the change in the status of non-Muslims did not happen all at once and that the attempts of non-Muslim people to become independent from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century were the result of a process. Here, it is necessary to clarify that the time scope of the thesis is limited to pre-modern times. Periodizing history is an issue that is turbulent all the time.35 The Pre-modern era can refer to various times based on periodization.36 In this study, the pre-modern era defines the period from the end of the 15th century to the period before the Tanzimat Era.
35 Virginia H Aksan and Daniel Goffman, “Introduction: Situating the Early Modern Ottoman World,” in The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia H Aksan and Daniel Goffman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1.
36 For example, see;Jakub Grygiel, “The Primacy of Premodern History,” Security Studies, no. 22 (2013): 1–32.
16
CHAPTER II
LEGAL AND SOCIAL STATUS OF NON-MUSLIMS 2.1 The Zimma The Ottoman principality, which emerged at the end of the 13th century in the West of Anatolia, on the border of the Byzantine Empire, was a political organization that was familiar with various religious and ethnic groups because of its geography.37 That means the Ottomans dealt with the non-Muslims since their early days. It is known that Osman Beg established good relations with non-Muslims; also, Orhan Beg visited his non-Muslim neighbours occasionally and brought them gifts.38 Over time, their non-Muslim neighbours began to become subjects of the Ottomans, and as Ottoman rule expanded, especially in the Balkan Region, the number of non-Muslim subjects increased. At the end of the 16th century, the Ottomans governed an empire comprising subjects of diverse religions and ethnic backgrounds. In the newly conquered territories, the non-Muslim population was subject to the authority of Muslim rulers. However, being a subject of the Islamic state under a Muslim ruler did not prevent non-Muslim people in the conquered lands from maintaining their religion.
37 Feridun Emecen, “Osmanlı Toplumunda Birlikte Yaşama Mutabakatı,” in Çeşitli Yönlerden Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri ed. Şafak Ural, Kâzım Yetiş, and Feridun Emecen (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2006), 25.
38 Bilal Eryılmaz, Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslim Teb’anın Yönetimi (İstanbul: Risale Yayınları, 1990), 24–25.
17
The treatment of Islam to non-Muslims relied on their stipulations of the zimma. These stipulations continued to be followed by the Ottoman Empire as an Islamic state exactly in the same way.39 The Ottomans' approach to non-Muslim subjects was often associated with tolerance. Yet, the tolerance was not an arbitrary practice of the sultan but was a result of the rights granted to non-Muslims by the zimma contract. It obliged all administrators to treat all People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), whether Christian or Jewish, as commanded by the Qur'an. In parallel with that, Christians and Jews enjoyed religious and personal freedom and had the right to own property and solve the matters of marriages and inheritance, and disputes according to their own canon laws in the Ottoman Empire, like in other Islamic empires.40 The term zimma is used to define the contract regulating the relationship between the Islamic state and non-Muslims. It means agreement, deal, security, and protection, literally.41 Those who benefitted from zimma are called zimmî; the term ahl al-zimma refers to a collective group of zimmîs.42 However, all non-Muslims could not be beneficiaries of the zimma. According to the Islamic view, the world was divided between believers and unbelievers. The believers, Muslims (pl. müminin) formed a single group as ummah. The lands under the domain of Islam were called Dar’al-Islam (House of Islam), while the territories controlled by non-Muslims were called Dar’al-Harb (House of War). Unbelievers were classified among them as polytheists (pl. müşrikin) and People of Book (ahl al-Kitab). Each Muslim obliged to Holy War (cihad) against the non-Muslims since it was their owe to God. The target of the Holy
39 Aron Rodrigue, Difference and Tolerance in the Ottoman Empire.
40 Eleni Gara, “Conceptualizing Inter-Religious Relations in the Ottoman Empire: The Early Modern Centuries” 116 (2017): 57–91.
41 Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları, 7.
42 CL Cohen, “Dhimma,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Bernard Lewis, J. Schacht, and C.P Hellat, vol. II (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 227.
18
War (cihad) was to exalt Islam and overpower infidelity.43 Therefore, the choice for the polytheist was clear; they would either convert to Islam or die.44 On the other hand, the People of the Book, including Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Sabians, could be beneficiaries of the zimma contract by accepting the rule of the Islamic state. According to the zimma contract, the People of Book were under the protection of the Islamic state because they accepted the rule of the Islamic state and paid cizye, the poll tax, as the symbol of their subordination and in exchange for protection. This is explained in a verse (Tevbe 29).45 The beginning of the relations between the Islamic State and its non-Muslim subjects was traced back to the career of the Prophet.46 After the Prophet migrated to Medina, with the events that took place between Muslims and non-Muslims, the provisions of Islamic law regarding non-Muslims began to form.47 Agreements were made with Jewish tribes and Christians that would determine the principles of the zimma after the migration. The agreements made with the Jews in Khaybar and the agreements with the Christians of Najran are the most well-known agreements among them. The Jews of Khaybar were given the right to stay in their places and keep their property, but they had to give half of their produce. The last agreement of the Prophet with the Christians of Najran is considered to be the most important agreement. According to the deal, the property, worship, and personal freedoms of the people of
43 Colin Imber, Ebu’s-Su’ud:The Islamic Legal Tradition (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), 68.
44 Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1984), 10. 45Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the djizya (cizye) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
46 Ibid.
47 Tankut Soykan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimler : Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü (İstanbul: Ütopya Kitabevi, 1999), 39.
19
Najran would be guaranteed by the Islamic state.48 During the period of the Rashidun Caliphate after the Prophet, the legal status of non-Muslims continued to be determined in detail depending on the developments in Islamic law.49 The status of non-Muslims became apparent with the expansion of Islam in the Near East.50 Islam gathered Muslims under a single group as an ummah but also established the zimma for non-Muslims who were the People of the Book. This was related to the fact that Islam was based on a universal revelation concept.51 On the contrary, in Christianity and Judaism, there was no status to correspond to zimma in Islam. The expulsion of Jews in 1492 and Muslims in 1502 from Spain might be an example of that.52 Before the expulsion, many Jews converted to Christianity with the increase of persecution in the 14th century.53 Also, the Muslim people of Granada experienced encouraging policies to convert to Christianity after the conquest of Granada by Isabella and Ferdinand.54 In Judaism, policies of forced conversion were not followed as in Christianity. However, Jews were believed to be chosen by God and given privileges and responsibilities.55 According to the recognition of the Quran, Judaism and Christianity are missing and misinterpreted forms of the same divine message and
48 Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları, 4.
49 Tankut Soykan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimler : Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü, 39.
50 Haim Gerber, Crossing Borders: Jews and Muslims in Ottoman Law, Economy, and Society (Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2011), 35.
51 Bülent Şenay, “Islam and Other Religions:Religious Diversity and Living Together,” Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 9, no. 9 (2000): 409–30.
52 The life story of İsmail,an Ottoman subject becaming captive, which transferred by Aykut Kansu in; “18. Yüzyılda İngiltere’de Bir Yeniçeri Ya Da Yasalara Bağlı Bir ‘Serserinin’ Yaşamından Kesitler,” in Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Problemler,Araştırmalar,Tartışmalar (Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998) might be constitued another example about that issue.
53 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, Seventh Edition (Canada: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009), 365.
54 Ibid.
55 Matt Stefon, Judaism : History, Belief, and Practice, The Britannica Guide to Religion (New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2012), 2.
20
Islam leads perfection and finality of Christianity and Judaism.56 The new subjects were not expected to embrace Islam,57 and Islamization by force was considered cruel and unacceptable.58
The division of the world into Dar’al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar’al-Harb (House of War), the distinction applied by Islamic law, was also practiced by the Ottomans. Accordingly, the lands that belonged to the Ottomans were accepted as Dar’al-Islam, while the lands controlled by the non-Muslim states were regarded as Dar’al-Harb. As mentioned above, cihad was the obligation of each Muslim. The Ottomans were motivated by the gazâ ideology from the beginning. Both words gazâ and cihad are used synonymously, but there is a difference between them. Most canonical source defines cihad as a war that is undertaken if the world of Islam or the peace of ummah is threatened.59 On the other hand, gazâ, which was defined as "fighting the enemy" in old dictionaries, was often used as both a motivation and an element of legitimacy in the late 13th century and the beginning of the 15th century, when the Ottoman Principality emerged. It had acquired the connotation of engagement in raids and "combat" aimed at endeavors such as propagating Islam and extending territory or influence, all under the dominion of Muslims.60 In this context, it is possible to say that while cihad refers to a defensive war, gazâ means an offensive one. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the ideology of offensive holy war held dominance. However, the failure of the second siege of Vienna in 1683 led to the prevalence of the
56 Oded Peri, Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem: The Question of the Holy Sites in Early Ottoman Times (Brill, 2001), 51.
57 Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 20.
58 Gerber, Crossing Borders, 35.
59 Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds:The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 79.
60 Cemal Kafadar, “Gaza,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 13 (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1996), 427.
21
ideology of defensive cihad.61 However, the crucial aspect to note here is that cihad and gazâ were referred to as "holy war" and conducted in the name of God and religion. The phrase “niyyet-i gazâ fi sebîl-i Allah” was the standard of the Ottoman chronicles when defining the holy war against the enemies. It means to intend to wage a holy war on the path of God.62 The Ottoman rulers saw themselves as the sultans of gazis63 and conquered the non-Muslim territories on the way to turning Dar’al-Harb into Dar’al-Islam. The Ottomans extended an offer of surrender to the non-Muslims within the besieged region. This offer is made before attempting to conquer the city with the sword.64 With the acceptance of this offer, the Ottoman sovereignty would have been accepted, and amânnâme or ahîdnâme, which was a document promising that they were secured by the Ottomans, would be given. Thus, the zimma contract would have been realized. This contract made with zimmîs and this guarantee of protection were expressed with the word of amân (ensuring, relying upon).65 In the archival documents, it is seen frequently that the phrase ‘ahd u amâna mugâyir iş olmamak. This explains the sultan's order of not acting opposite of the agreement (‘ahd u amân). As long as actions from the opposing side did not breach the agreement, it would remain in effect, and efforts would be made to ensure its preservation. The decree dating H.97466 belonged to the time of Suleiman I and was sent to his grand vizier. It pertains to the violation of the terms of the agreement provided to
61 Viorel Panaite, Ottoman Law of War and Peace, 2nd ed. (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2019), 40.
62 Ibid., 58.
63 Osmanlılar:Fütühat,İmparatorluk,Avrupa Ile İlişkiler (İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010), 110.
64 Ibid., 107.
65 Mehmet İpşirli, “Eman,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 11 (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995), 77.
66 BOA,Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Evrakı,No:867/10: “Hakk-ı te’âlânun ‘inâyeti ile cihân fahri Muhammed Mustafa ‘aleyhisselam mu’cizâtı ile cemm’-i enbiyâlar ve evliyâlar himmeti ile sefere kasd olunub Belgrad’a gelindikde sizki ser’askerim ve vezîr-i azamımsız şöyle ‘arz itmiş idin ki memleket kâfirleri gelüb amân isteyüb ‘asker-i mansûreye azık getürüb hiçbirü zarar ve ziyân etmeyeler bu takdirce amân-ı şerîf verilmiş idi ki müslümânlardan ber-‘ahd mezkûrların amânlarına ve oğullarına
22
the non-Muslims of Belgrade. According to the document, the grand vizier informed the sultan that when the Ottoman army reached Belgrade, the non-Muslims there came to the Ottoman side and demanded amân (guarantee of protection)” and they brought food to the Ottoman soldiers, and they had no harm (ki memleket kâfîrleri gelüb amân isteyüb ‘asker-i mansûreye azık getürüb hiçbirü zarar ve ziyân etmeyeler). Therefore, they were given amân (guarantee of protection) and according to the contract, Muslims, their daughters, and sons could not damage the agreement. However, the non-Muslims of Belgrade violated the conditions of the agreement and stopped bringing food to Ottoman soldiers. They inflicted harm upon the Muslims, prompting the sultan to declare the termination of the agreement. Subsequently, non-Muslims' possessions were to be plundered, and they would face violence, while their daughters and sons would be enslaved (ben de ‘ahd u amânı bozub emr-i hak ile mallarına garet olub hepsi kılıcdan geçüb oğulları ve kızları esir ola). A decree from Mühimme Registers, dating H.97867 can set an example for the importance given to the ‘ahd u amân. The decree was sent to beylerbey of Budin. It
ve kızlarına el uzatmayalar sonra yine şöyle arz eyledinki kâfirler ‘ahdına durmayub ‘asker-i mansûreye azık getürmeyüb belliki buldukları müslümânı katl idüb kimine dürlü dürlü ceza ederler imiş bu takdirce ben de ahd u amânı bozub emr-i hak ile mallarına garet olub hepsi kılıcdan geçüb oğulları ve kızları esir ola ?’asker-i mansûreye ısmarlayasız gaflet üzre almayalar hakk-ı te’alanun ‘inâyeti iki cihân fahri Muhammed Mustafa ve cemm-i ‘enbiyâlar ve evliyâlar himmeti ile olasız bu emirle ‘amel edesiz bu kağıd Mohac Ovası’na kârib yerde yazıldı” 67 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:14/1098:“Budin Beylerbeyisine hüküm ki: Südde-i sa’âdetime mektûb gönderüb Estergon Sancağı Beyi Mahmud dâme ‘izzihû sana mektûb gönderüb Uyvar nâm harbî kaleden hayli küffâr çıkub Ciğerdelen Barkanı gazîlerinden oduna varanları almağ içün pusuya girüb voyvodasın anda olan guzzat ile pusu yerlerinde tecessüs için gönderüb küffâra rast gelüb muhkem cenk olub küffâr münhezim olub otuz dört nefer kâfîr diri tutulub serdarları ve hayli keferenin başları kesülüb on neferi harb içün irsal olunduğun ve müşârünileyhin yararlığın bildirmişsiz imdi bir sancağa sancakbeyi nasb olunmakdan murâd-ı hümâyunum ol sancağı gereği gibi hıfz ve hırâset eyleyüb eğer sâir ehl-i fesâddan siyânet eyleyüb eyyâm-ı hümâyun ‘adâlet makrûn-ı sa’âdet encâmımda tâife-i re’âyâ ki vedâyi-i hâlik-i berâyadır âsûde olmakdır buyurdum ki vusûl buldukda bu bâbda dâima mukayyed olup ol cevânibin hıfz ve hırâsetinde ve ahd u amâna mugâyir iş olmamakda enva'i say’ u ikdâm eyleyüb müşârunileyhe tenbîh eyleyesin ki sancağının hıfz ve hırâsetinde mücidd ve merdâne olup gaflet ile küffâr-ı haksâr cânibinden ve sâir ehl-i fesâddan bir mahale zarar ve güzend erişdirmeyüp amma Mâbeyn'de vâki olan ahd u amana mugâyir madem ki ol tarafdan bir vaz-ı sudûr eylemeye bu cânibden dahi ahde muhâlif iş olmakdan ziyâde hazer eyleyüb anun gibi memâlik-i mahrûse hududu dâhiline fesâd ve mazarrat kasdına gelen ehl-i fesâda himâyet eylemeyüb mümkün olduğu üzere ele getürüb haklarından gelmek bâbında envâ'-i ihtimâm üzere ola
23
was a letter sent to the sultan by the beylerbey. According to the letter, Mahmud, sancakbey of Estergon, sent a letter to beylerbey of Budin and informed him that the Castle of Uyvar had a lot of enemy soldiers and they ambushed to hold gazis of Ciğerdelen Barkanı, who went to the wood. When voyvoda sent the gazis to gather information, they encountered the enemy and a battle occurred. Following their victory over the enemy, the gazis slew both their leader and a substantial number of his followers. The sultan commanded the beylerbey of Budin to strive in safeguarding the region and to refrain from any actions contradicting the ‘ahd u amân agreement.the sultan directed the beylerbey of Budin to instruct the sancakbey of Estergon to exhibit diligence and courage in safeguarding the sancak, preventing any harm from the enemy or ehl-i fesâd (agitators). As long as there was no contravention of ‘ahd u amân, it was mandated to ensure peace and to confine those who aimed to plot and inflict harm within the borders of memâlik-i mahrûse. The edict underscored the repeated emphasis on not breaking the covenant unless confronted with exceptional circumstances. The zimma contract provided certain rights and guarantees to non-Muslims. The Ottomans applied the zimma contract in its widest sense.68 The most fundamental right given by the contract was to protect the lives, property, and honor of zimmîs. Since these were guaranteed, it will not be permissible to reach out to them.69 Non-Muslims were not subjected to any policy of forcible conversion to Islam by the
lakin bu bahâne ile ol tarafdan ahde mugâyir vaz-ı sâdır olmadan bu cânibden sulhe muhâlif iş olmakdan ziyade ihtirâz üzere olasız”
68 Halil İnalcık, “Türkler ve Balkanlar,” Baltam Türklük Bilgisi, no. 3 (2005): 20–44.
69 Yılmaz Yurtseven, “İslam Hukuku ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Uygulamasında Zimmîlerin Hukuki Statüsü,” Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 8, no. 1–2 (2000): 439–62.
24
Ottoman Empire, and even the state intervened when it hindered their freedom of worship. The decree dating H.1027 can be constituted as an example of this situation.70 In the decree, it is mentioned that a zimmî whose name was Kiriko repaired his house on his property and built a new one. Also, it is stated that Kiriko was harmless (kendü halinde olub) and did not harm anybody. However, he was accused of building another house and giving advice when he read the Bible according to the rites of the military class and someone from the outside (içinde gayri nesne dahı binâ itmis diyü ve âyînleri üzre incîl okudukda va‘z u nasîhat ider imişsin.). The accusation attributed to Kiriko here is to propagate his own religion, which was an act not allowed.the sultan was informed Kiriko was hurt (rencîde) and scared (remîde), but he had a fatwa given by sheyk’ul-Islam about Kiriko who could not be hurt due to these accusations. Although the fatwa was an Islamic institution, non-Muslims could reach it. Zimmîs appealed the fatwa of muftî if they discussed it with Muslims or their co-religionist.71 Kiriko did not harm or oppress anyone and was harmless. Nil Tekgül explains those who were “kendü halinde” as people who are not perceived as a potential threat to the physical and moral order.72the sultan decreed that the fatwa should not be disregarded,
70“Fetvâ mûcebince buyurılmısdur Kaysariyye kadısına hüküm ki:Nefs-i Kaysariyye'de sâkîn Kiriko nâm zimmî mülk bâğı içinde olan evini ta‘mîr idüb ve bir ev binâ idüb kendü hâlinde olub şer‘an kimesneye zarar ve ta‘addîsi yoğken ehl-i örf tâifesinden ve hâricden ba‘zı kimesneler mücerred celb ü ahz içün içinde gayri nesne dahı binâ itmis diyü ve âyînleri üzre incîl okudukda va‘z u nasîhat ider imissin diyü hilâf-ı şer‘-ı serîf rencîde ve remîde idüb ta‘addîden hâlî olmadukları i‘lâm olunmağın bu bâbda ol vechile rencîde itmeğe kâdir olmazlar." diyü elinde şeyhü'l-islâmdan fetvâ-yı serîfe olmağla fetvâya muhâlif rencîde olunmamak emrüm olmısdur buyurdum ki vusûl buldukda mezbûra ol vechile dahl ve rencîde olunur ise fetvâsına nazar idüp göresin; mezbûrun bi-hasbiş-şer‘i serîf kimesneye ta‘addîsi olmayup kendü hâlinde iken ve bâğı içinde binâ eyledüği evin şer‘an kimesneye zararı yoğken mücerred celb ve ahz içün ol vechile rencîde eyledükleri vâkî ise ve fetvâsı da‘vâsına mutâbık ise mûcebi ile amel idüp ehl-i [örf] tâifesine dahi hılâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf rencîde itdürmeyüb men‘ u def‘ eyleyesin memnû‘ olmayub ol vechile yine rencîde itmek isteyenleri südde-i saâdetüme havâle eyleyesin” 82 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(1026-1027/1617-1618) (Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2000), 226–27.
71 Ronald C. Jennings, “Zimmîs (Non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21, no. 3 (October 1978): 225–93.
72 Nil Tekgül, Emotions in the Ottoman Empire: Politics, Society, and Family in the Early Modern Era, 83.
25
and if anyone were to harm the zimmî for the same reason once their authority was established, the qadi should review their fatwa. If Kiriko were accused, even though he was acting on his own and not causing harm to anyone, and if the house he built complied with Sharia law and his fatwa aligned with his inquiry, then there should be no permission to harm or intimidate him through military means. It should be stated here that this can be defined as injustice. Those who continued to do the same act were ordered to be sent to the presence of the sultan. According to the decree, the sultan ordered that a Christian subject should not be prevented from fulfilling his religious duties. The Ottomans did not constrain non-Muslims in matters forbidden by Islam but not prohibited by their own faith. The most concrete example of this was drinking wine and eating pork. There was no prohibition for non-Muslims to consume wine or pork, as it was not forbidden according to their own religious convictions. They were even permitted to engage in trading pork and wine amongst themselves, but they were required to pay special taxes.73 The edict dating H. 97274 serves as an example in this regard. In the edict addressed to the qadi of Gallipoli, it was indicated that Christians stored an excessive amount of wine in their homes, sold the surplus to Muslims and that this wine was being consumed.the sultan ordered that the houses that were likely to contain wine were inspected and if there was a surplus, the zimmîs would take the amount they
73 Macit Kenanoğlu, “Osmanlı Devletinde Millet Sistemi ve Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüleri,” 43–44.
74 “Yazıldı.Gelibolı kadîsına hüküm ki:Mahmiyye-i Gelibolı'da sâkin ba‘zı kefere tâifesi kendü nefslerine kifâyet ider hamrdan ziyâde evlerinde hamrları olup âhara bey‘ itmekle hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf muttasıl şürb-i hamr olunmakdan hâlî olunmaduğı istimâ‘ olunmağın buyurdum ki: Hükm-i şerîfüm varıcak, bu husûsı kimesneye i‘timâd itmeyüb bi'z-zât kendü nefsünlen mahmiyye-i mezbûrede olan kefere tâifesinden hamr ihtimâli olan evlerin yoklayup gereği gibi tetebbu‘ u tefahhus idüp kefere tâifesine kendü nefsleri içün kifâyet mikdârı hamr alıkoyub dahı mâ-adâsın sirke itdürüp bey‘ itdüresin. Bu bahâne ile kimesneye dahl olunup celb ve ahz olunmakdan ve şer‘a ve emre muhâlif iş olmakdan ziyâde hazer eyleyesin” 6 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(972 / 1564–1565) (Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti BaşbakanlıkDevlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1995), 207.
26
needed and the rest should be made into vinegar. The sultan ordered the qadi to inspect it himself without entrusting it to anyone. It should be noted here that the problem was not that zimmîs keep wine, but that they sell it to Muslims, although it was forbidden in Islam. The prohibition of non-Muslims selling wine to Muslims is a recurring topic in archival documents. Apart from personal and religious liberties, non-Muslims enjoyed unrestricted property ownership and possessed the entitlement to engage in contracts and trade without hindrance.75 Also, a zimmî had the right to inheritance and to establish waqf. At this point, it should be stated that all of these rights derived from the zimma that the Ottomans granted to their non-Muslim subjects. With the zimma contract, non-Muslim subjects had all the basic rights that Muslim subjects had. Inheritance, marriage, and divorce fell under private domains, with non-Muslims governing family and inheritance affairs, resolving disputes among themselves according to their canonical law.76 However, they could appeal to the Sharia courts regarding these issues. The court records include several cases of dissension between the non-Muslims. Not only the disputes but also marriage and divorce records of zimmîs are also included in sijills. For example, the record of the marriages of two zimmîs, which the qadi court held is given below.77 The document
75 Belkıs Konan, “GAYRİMÜSLİM OSMANLI VATANDAŞLARININ HUKUKİ DURUMUNA İLİŞKİN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME,” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 64, no. 1 (2015): 171–93.
76 Eleni Gara, “Conceptualizing Inter-Religious Relations in the Ottoman Empire: The Early Modern Centuries.” 77 “Vech-i tahrîr-i sicil oldur ki Posa bt. Nikola nâm zimmîyyenin Yorgi b. Andon nâm zimmîye nefsini Müslümân nikâhı ile nikâh olunmasını İstani b. Yorgi ve Ali b. Halil şehâdetleri ile sâbit oldukdan sonra mezkûre[y]i mezbûr Yorgi’ye meclis-i şer‘de akd-i nikâh olunduğu bi’t-taleb kayd olundu. Şuhûd: İsmail Çelebi b. Hayreddin, Mehmed b. Hasan, Hüsam b. Nebî el-muhzır, Mehmed b. Mustafa el-muhzır, Hasan b. Abdullah, Ali Çelebi, Hâcı Ahmed b. Hâcı Şeyh ve gayruhüm mine’l-hâzırîn.” Transcribed by ISAM. Beşiktaş Mahkemesi JCR 2,v.42:172 http://www.kadisicilleri.org/goster.php?blm=bsk002&bsm=bsk002b172
27
recorded that Posa b. Nikola and Yorgi b. Andom entered into a Muslim marriage (Müslümân nikâhı) with Istani b. Yorgi and Ali b. Halil as witnesses. The other case in the records dates H.1077.78According to the case, a Jewish woman from Keçeci Neighborhood in Hasköy sued her husband. Her complaint about her husband was that despite their divorce, the husband continued acting as if the marriage was not over. The woman's request was to prevent her husband from this action, asserting that the marriage had terminated. When asked to substantiate her assertion, Abdurrahman Efendi b. Maksud, the local imam, and Mustafa b. Yunus declared that İlya v. Yasef had divorced his wife in their presence. Based on their testimonies, the case was resolved in favor of the woman. Although non-Muslims were subjected to their own canonical laws regarding matters of private law, they were subjected to limitations in terms of criminal law. There were two competent authorities for non-Muslims in the field of criminal law. While the first was the criminal law of the Ottoman law, the second was the criminal law, which fell under the jurisdiction of their own religious authorities.79 However, the jurisdiction of their own religious authorities in terms of criminal law was limited only
78“Havâss-ı aliyye müzâfâtından kasaba-i Hasköy’de Keçeci mahallesi sâkinelerinden Nehime bt. Robin nâm Yahudiye mahfil-i kazâda zevc-i sâbıkı İlya v. Yasef nâm Yahudi muvâcehesinde üzerine da‘vâ ve takrîr-i kelâm edip mezbûr İlya târih-i kitâbdan on sekiz gün mukaddem beni selâsen tatlîk eylemişken hâlâ yine benim ile zevciyyet mu‘âmelesi etmek murâd eder suâl olunup men‘ olunmak murâdımdır dedikde gıbbe’s-suâl ve’l-inkâr müdde‘iyye-i mezbûreden müdde‘âsını mübeyyine beyyine taleb olundukda udûl-i müslimînden olup yine mahalle-i mezbûre imâmı olan Abdurrahman Efendi b. Maksud ve Mustafa b. Yunus nâm kimesne li ecli’ş-şehâde meclis-i şer‘a hâzırân olup istişhâd olunduklarında fi’l-hakīka müdde‘iyye-i mezbûre Nehime’yi zevc-i sâbıkı mezbûr İlya târih-i kitâbdan on sekiz gün mukaddem zikr olunan mahallede bizim huzûrumuzda selâsen tatlîk eyledi hâlâ mezbûre Nehime mezbûr İlya’dan selâsen mutallakadır, biz bu hususa bu vech üzre şâhidleriz şehâdet dahi ederiz deyû her biri edâ-i şehâdet-i şer‘iyye eylediklerinde ba‘de’t-ta‘dîl ve’t-tezkiyye şehâdetleri makbûle olmağın mûcebince ba‘de’l-hükm mâ vaka‘a bi’t-taleb ketb olundu. Fi’l-yevmi’s-sâmin aşer min Cumâdelâhire li sene seb‘a ve seb‘în ve elf.
Şuhûdü’l-hâl: Ârif Mehmed Efendi b. Mehmed, Mustafa Beşe b. Receb, Ali Bey b. Muharrem, Mehmed Bey b. Ahmed, Veli Beşe b. Ahmed, Ahmed b. Mehmed, Şükrullah b. Mustafa, Abdi Çelebi b. Hüseyin.” Transcribed by ISAM. Bab Mahkemesi JCR 3,v.17:282.
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/goster.php?blm=bab003&bsm=bab003b282
79 Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları, 197.
28
to the fact that it was a violation of religious rules.80 Apart from this, they were subject to Ottoman law for crimes falling within the scope of criminal law. The most interesting principle of Ottoman criminal law was that the non-Muslims had to pay only half of the fine imposed on Muslims for the same offense.81 Until now, efforts have been made to elucidate the concept of zimma and the rights bestowed upon non-Muslims under the scope of the zimma contract. With the zimma contract, non-Muslims became the subjects of the sultan. Accordingly, they had certain obligations. Taxation was at the forefront of them since it was the indication of the obedience of the subjects.82 Cizye is the first tax type that comes to mind when non-Muslims are mentioned.83 Taxes that the re’âyâ was liable in the Ottoman state consisted of two types, mainly customary (rüsûm-ı ‘örfîyye) and religious (rüsûm-ı şer’îyye) taxes. Cizye belonged to the group of religious taxes. It was a poll tax and was paid by the zimmî subjects of the Islamic state in return for protection provided to them.84 It should be underlined that cizye was not an additional tax. This is because, within the Ottoman Empire, taxation encompassed the allocation of various services rendered to the subjects.85 If a service was not provided to re’âyâ, the tax could not be claimed. Cizye was a poll tax that was paid by non-Muslim subjects in return for the same protection provided to Muslim subjects by an Islamic state.86
80 Konan, “GAYRİMÜSLİM OSMANLI VATANDAŞLARININ HUKUKİ DURUMUNA İLİŞKİN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME.”
81 Uriel Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law (Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1973), 286.
82 This will be explained in the next section.
83 Yavuz Ercan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimlerin Ödedikleri Vergiler ve Bu Vergilerin Doğurduğu Sosyal Sonuçlar,” Belleten 55, no. 213 (1991): 371–91.
84 Boris Christoff Nedkoff, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Cizye (Baş Vergisi),” trans. Şinasi Altundağ, Belleten VIII, no. 32 (1994): 599–652.
85 Yunus Emre Tortamış, “A Study Over Tax and Relationship Formed Around Taxation in the Ottoman Empire(16th-17th Century)” (Unpublished Master Thesis, Ankara, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2019), 1.
86 Halil İnalcık, “Sephardic Jews in the Ottoman Empire,” in From Empire to Republic:Essays on Ottoman and Turkish Social History (İstanbul: The Isıs Press, 2010), 108.
29
Until the 16th century, the word harâc was used to express the cizye in the Ottoman Empire, then the cizye or cizye-i şer'î became widespread.87 The records containing the cizye payers in the newly conquered areas were called defter-i cizye-i gebrân. Inspections were made every three years in order to identify those who paid the cizye and the name of the general inspections was nev yafte yılı.88 Every man who was considered baliğ (adult) had to pay the cizye. Subjects who paid the cizye were called harâçgüzâr, but they also appear in documents as cizyegüzâr. Those who paid the cizye were classified as ednâ, evsât and alâ. The rationale behind this categorization was the collection of the cizye tax based on income. Those classified as ednâ was considered poor and generally paid their cizye at 12 akçes. Evsât, on the other hand, were middle class and paid 24 akçes. Alâ were the ones with the highest income and 48 akçes were taken from them. The amount of cizye was determined by the sultan following Sharia. A fatwa from the shaykh al-Islam was necessary to determine the amount. The Ottomans, following a conservative policy in the places they conquered, equated the taxes that existed before them with the cizye.89 The collection of the cizye could be done in two different ways. The first one was the collection of a certain amount from the taxpayers. This kind was called ber vech-i maktu. The second type was collected from the individuals, which was called cizye al-ruûs. The first kind (ber vech-i maktu) was applied in two fields. Principalities, which were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, submitted the determined amount as annual tax and the subjects of these principalities were treated as the same sultan’s own harâçgüzar subjects.90 Also, a community (tâife or cemâ’at) could pay their cizyes
87 Halil İnalcık, “Djizya,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Bernard Lewis, C.P Hellat, and J. Schacht, vol. Second (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 562.
88 Ibid., 563.
89 Ibid., 562.
90 Ibid., 563.
30
based on the ber vech-i maktu system. That is, the fixed amount was paid by the whole community. For example, the Armenian community of Jerusalem paid the cizye as maktu in the sixteenth century.91 This system can be associated with the mutual agreement between the sultan and his subjects since it will protect the subjects against abuses, its implementation is in favor of them. Cizye was collected in Muharram, the beginning of the Hijri year92 , and its payment was in cash. Officers called harâççı or cizyedâr were appointed to collect the cizye. In the Ottoman Empire, the financial obligations of non-Muslim communities were managed by their religious leaders.93 Apart from harâc, cizye, and ispençe, related taxes belonging to non-Muslim people were collected by rabbis and patriarchates.94 İspençe was the poll tax, which was a customary tax that taxpayers had to pay. The elderly, children, the disabled and those who had no income were exempt from the cizye. Otherwise, zimmîs were usually exempt from cizye in return for military services such as martolos, voynuks, and eflaks.95 Although non-Muslim clergy was exempted from cizye until a certain time, it was later abolished. The exception in this regard was the disability of the clergyman. A comprehensive cizye reform was carried out in 1691. Papers were distributed to the cizye payers in return for the tax they paid due to the increase in corruption in the collection of the cizye.96 Each person was responsible for his/her own cizye, unlike the previous practice, after collecting the cizye, papers were given to everyone
91 Amnon Cohen and Bernard Lewis, Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 97.
92 Boris Christoff Nedkoff, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Cizye (Baş Vergisi).”
93 Mehmet Öz, “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Toplumu ve Ekonomisine Genel Bir Bakış,” in Osmanlı Tarihi Üzerine:İnsan,Toplum,Ekonomi II (Ankara: Cedit Neşriyat, 2020), 50.
94 Yavuz Ercan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimlerin Ödedikleri Vergiler ve Bu Vergilerin Doğurduğu Sosyal Sonuçlar.”
95 Halil İnalcık, “Djizya,” 563.
96 Yavuz Ercan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimlerin Ödedikleri Vergiler ve Bu Vergilerin Doğurduğu Sosyal Sonuçlar.”
31
individually, not collectively. The regulations made in 1691 provided the fixed system and all kinds of exemptions were abolished. However, many old practices and exemptions survived, and only in 1839, with the proclamation of equality in payment of taxes all such exemptions and privileges were abolished.97 With this reform, the aim was to eliminate the abuses in collecting the cizye and the practices that were a burden on the subjects. A few more additional points should be mentioned regarding the cizye. Muslims who had the right to use large farms called baştina, which belonged to non-Muslims in the Balkan regions, were required to pay the cizye. It was also collected from Gypsies even though they adopted Islam.98 Harâc was the other religious tax that non-Muslims were obliged to pay, other than cizye. Harâc was a tax which was paid based on land. In the Ottoman Empire, the land was divided into three parts: the first one was arz-ı ‘öşrîyye, the second was arz-ı harâcîyye and the last one was arz-ı memleket.99 This classification was shaped in the mid-sixteenth century by Ebu’s-suud. The property of arz-ı ‘öşriyye belonged to Muslims. On the other hand, the ownership of the arz-ı harâcîyye was left in the hands of the non-Muslim people of the conquered region and all kinds of usage rights in such lands belonged to the owner.100 While the owners of the arz-ı öşrîyye paid the 'öşr (tithe), the owners of arz-ı harâcîyye were obliged to pay harâc. Harâc was divided into two types. These were harâc-ı muvazzafa and harâc-ı mukasama. Harâc-ı muvazzafa was paid for ownership of the land. The amount of harâc-ı muvazzafa was fixed and the person who saved the land, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, was
97 Halil İnalcık, “Djizya,” 565.
98 Emine Dingeç, “Ottoman Gypsies and the Head Tax Collection:A Case Study of the Gypsies Living in Silistre in 1843,” Türk İslam Medeniyeti Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, no. 4 (2007): 211–29; Eyal Ginio, “Neither Muslims nor Zimmîs: The Gypsies (Roma) in the Ottoman State,” Romani Studies 5 14, no. 2 (2004): 117–44.
99 Cengiz Orhonlu, “Kharadj,” in The Encylopaedia of Islam, ed. E. Von Donzel, Bernard Lewis, and C.H Pellat, vol. IV (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1053.
100 Halil İnalcık, “İslam Arazi ve Vergi Sisteminin Teşekkülü ve Osmanlı Devrindeki Şekillerle Mukayesesi,” İslam İlimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. I (1959): 29–46.
32
obliged to pay it. Harâc-ı mukasama was the tax demanded the products. Lands in the Ottoman Empire was arz-ı memleket, also known as miri. The subjects had no property rights on such lands because their rakabe (tenure) belonged to the state. Muslims and non-Muslim subjects only had the right to dispose of these lands. Harâc-ı muvazzafa of miri lands was equivalent to çift akçesi (çift akçesi). The amount was calculated according to the size of the soil and was usually 100 dirhams.101 Harâc-ı mukasama paid for miri land was known as ‘öşr. There was no fixed amount for this, and it was paid according to the crops received. For each crop taken from the mîrî land, harâc-ı mukasama was paid. The way this tax was collected was in-kind and obtained from Muslims and non-Muslims at the same rate. Although harâc and cizye were paid by Muslims in certain circumstances, these taxes were specific to non-Muslims. 2.2 The Position of Non-Muslim Subjects in İtâat-Emânet Relationship Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi defines civilization as consisting of the coexistence of different communities and opposite people, getting along with each other and their order.102 Similarly,Ottoman society consisted of people belonging to different ethnicities and religions. The Ottoman society, which was formed by the combination of many different elements, was divided into two, askerî (military) and re’âyâ (subjects) in terms of legal division. In other words, this was the division between the groups of ruling and ruled. Askerî, consisting of seyfiyye, ilmiyye, and kalemiyye were authorized bythe sultan with a berât (charter). Askerî was in the government service and received a salary with the charter. They were exempted from taxes and had some
101 Yavuz Ercan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimlerin Ödedikleri Vergiler ve Bu Vergilerin Doğurduğu Sosyal Sonuçlar.”
102 Pes ma’lûm olsun ki temeddün ki-tavâyif-i muhtelîfe ve ümem-i mütebâyînenin ictimâ’-i ‘amm ve te’ellüf ü intizâmından ibarettir…Kınalızade Ali Çelebi, Ahlâk-ı Alâî, ed. Mustafa Koç (İstanbul: Klasik, 2007), 474.
33
privileges over the subjects. On the contrary, re’âyâ was the tax-paying subjects, which were agriculturists, craftsmen, and merchants.103 While the ruling group did not pay the taxes and did not produce, the ruled were the tax-payers and responsible for the production. This was the main factor of the differentiation between the military and subjects.
In addition to the legal division, different elements determined the status of the person in society. Religion was one of the most decisive elements to the status of the individual in Ottoman society.104 In terms of religious affiliation, the society consisted of Muslims and non-Muslims. The status of both Muslims and non-Muslims was re’âyâ, that is; as tax-payers of the Empire, they both had the same status as separate from the military group, regardless of their religion. Non-Muslims were becoming the Ottoman Sultan's re’âyâ through the zimma contract. Therefore, there was no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims in terms of basic rights.105 The word re’âyâ had three basic meanings. The first one was those who were tax-paying under a ruler, the second one was the whole society and the last one was the subjects who were not Muslim.106 In the pre-modern era, the term re’âyâ primarily carried the first meaning.
As elaborated earlier, the components comprising Ottoman society exhibited considerable diversity among themselves. The aspect where this divergence became most apparent was within the religious affiliations of the people. Muslims, Christians, and Jews collectively constituted the entirety of Ottoman society, and their religious identity delineated each individual as a member of a distinct community. Nevertheless,
103 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, ‘adâlet (İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2005), 36.
104 Öz, “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Toplumu ve Ekonomisine Genel Bir Bakış,” 49.
105 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, “Osmanlı İctimai Yapısının Ana Hatları,” in Osmanlı 4:Toplum, ed. Güler Eren (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999), 23.
106 Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları, XXI.
34
these distinctions did not hold significance for the Ottoman Sultan, as there existed no status associated with being Muslim, Jewish, or Christian. In Ottoman society, someone mainly holds the status of askerî (military) or re’âyâ (subjects). The Ottoman Sultans accepted all subjects, Muslims and non-Muslims, as re’âyâ.107 Re’âyâ functioned as an upper identity for all Ottoman subjects. Therefore, being re’âyâ was the foremost status for the Ottoman subjects. All identities of the subjects came after being re’âyâ.
It was Islamic Law shaping the state and the subject, so the relationship between these groups was shaped within the frame of Islamic Law. In the Ottoman Empire, the relationship between the state and its subjects was built on itâat-emânet (obedience-trust) relationship. The relationship between the ruling and the ruled was based on a mutual understanding. While this mutual understanding ensured the legitimacy of the sultan, at the same time, it aimed to raise the subjects’ living conditions.108 The relationship of the sultan with all his subjects, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, was based on this principle. Islam was the mainstay of Ottoman political thought; however, it was nourished by two other sources, Turkish and Middle Eastern traditions. Ottoman political thought focused on the matters of the ruler, bureaucracy, army, subjects, and their status, mutual duties, and responsibilities within the framework of ruling and ruled relationship.109 The subjects, the most important matter of the Ottoman books of government, constituted the cornerstone of the sultan’s politics.110 Subjects, referred to as vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya, were trusted (vedi’a) of God to the Ottoman sultan.
107 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluǧu Klasik Çaǧ (1300-1600) (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi, 2015), 73.
108 Hülya Taş, “Osmanlıda Şikayet Hakkının Kullanımı Üzerine Düşünceler,” Memleket Siyaset Yönetim 2, no. 3 (2007): 186–204.
109 Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “Din ve Düşünce,” in Osmanlı Devleti ve Medeniyeti Tarihi, ed. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, vol. II (Istanbul: IRCICA, 1998), 169.
110 Ibid., 171.
35
Vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya means entrusted by God, the Almighty. The decrees of Ottoman Sultans frequently reiterated that God had given them the subjects in trust.111112 Vedâyi is the plural form of the Arabic word vedi’a, which means entrusted. Hence, the sultan bore the responsibility for the well-being of the subjects. The Ottoman Empire named the lands under its rule memâlik-i mahrûse. It means protected lands. The Ottoman Sultan was obliged to establish a comfortable domain for the subjects within the boundaries of the protected lands.the sultan should have his subjects made prosperous. In other words, the subjects should have been müreffeh’ül-bal (prosperous) and âsûde-hâl (content). These phrases are seen in the Ottoman archival document frequently. For example, a decree from Mühimme Registers dating H.985,113 talks about the âsude-hâl of the subjects.
The sultan sent the decree to the sancakbey and qadi of Sigetvar. In the decree, it is stated the sancakbey sent a letter to the sultan and zeamet and tımar holders, cemm’-i gâfîr, and subjects came to the court and expressed their gratitude about sancakbey (senden her vehicle râzı ve şâkîr olduğuna.) Thanks to his justice, villages became liveable. On the other hand, the sancakbey, appointed by the sultan, was required to be just and ensure the safeguarding of the subjects from any form of oppression and danger. In the conclusion of the decree,the sultan mandated that the
111 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluǧu Klasik Çaǧ (1300-1600), 73.
112 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:78/4012:”Halîya eyâlet-i mezbûrede vâkî’ olan re’âyâ ve berâya ki vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriyadır[…];BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:73/1026: “Acara Beylerbeyisine hüküm ki hala sa’âdet ve ikbâl ile cülûs-ı hümâyunum olub etrâf ve eknâf-ı ‘alemde umûmen re’âyâve berâya refâhiyet ve itminân ve ve cihed-i istirahât ve amânda olmak iktizâ-yı murâdımdan olmağın buyurdum ki vardıkda mi’n-bad ahvâl-i refâhiyet-i re’âyâ ve berâyaya ziyâde takayyüd olub re’âyâki vedâyi-i hâlik’il berâyadır[…]”
113 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:30/190: “Ademisi Ali’ye virildi.Fi 29. M. Sen e 5 Sigetvar Sancağı Beyine Sigetvar Kadısına hüküm ki: Mektûb gönderüb züemâ ve erbâb-ı tımâr ve re’âyâ ve berâyadan cemm’-i gâfîr meclis-i şer’îye gelüb senden her vechile râzı ve şâkir olduğuna sunulan rik’alar halk vâkî olub ‘adîlâne sebeb ile vilâyet-i karyeler mâ’mur olmuşdur deyu bildirmeğin buyurdum ki vusûl buldukda min-ba’d dahi kemâl-i ‘‘adâlet üzere olub re’âyâ ve berâyayı zulmden himâyet ve memlekete varan ehl-i fesâd ve eşkiyâdan siyânet idüb adamların ve subaşıların gereği gibi zabt kimesneye zulm ve ta’addî iddürmeyüb re’âyâ ve berâyanın eyyâm-ı ‘adâletimde âsûde-hal olmalarına sa’y ve ihtimâm eyleyesiz şöyle bilesiz”
36
sancakbey exhibit the utmost care for the subjects' âsûde-hâl during the era of justice. At this point, it is necessary to explain that, the decree includes crucial points in terms of the relationship between the state and subjects, such as protections (siyânet), justice (‘adâlet), and oppression (zulm ve ta’addî) in addition to âsûde-hâl. Nonetheless, these expressions will be explored further in the subsequent sections. The sultan's authority originated from God; hence, the sultan held no obligations toward earthly rulers. While the sultan remained a servant of God, he was selected and granted power by divine providence. The title of the shadow of the God on the earth (zıllu’llahi fi’l ırz), which the Ottoman Sultans used, can be understood as a reflection of that. According to Kınalızâde, “reign, state, and sultanate are beneficence and gift of God. God crowns some of his subjects and honors them. This is the highest rank.”114 The sultan, whose power was derived from God, was supposed to rule his subjects properly. As mentioned above, Ottoman political thought had traces of Turkish and Middle Eastern Traditions. Similar to those who came before them, the Ottoman Empire placed the idea of justice (‘adâlet) as a focal point within its perspective on the state, and the concept of the Circle of Justice (dâire-i ‘adlîyye) was formulated as the understanding of a good government by the Ottoman Empire.115 The concept originated from ancient Middle Eastern tradition, but the name of the Circle of Justice was the invention of Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi, the Ottoman writer, in the 16th century. According to Circle of Justice;
114 “Ba’dehû ma’lûm olsun ki saltânât u hükümet ü padişâhî atıyye-i rabbânî ve hediyye-i ilâhîdir ki Hakk celle ve âlâ ba’zı bendelerinin ser-i sa’âdet-firâzını bu efserle serbülend ve efser-i saltânât tırâzın bu gevherle ercümend eyler.Ve bundan âlâ ne mertebe ola ki…”Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi, Ahlâk-ı Alâî, ed. Mustafa Koç (İstanbul: Klasik, 2007), 457.
115 Nil Tekgül, Emotions in the Ottoman Empire: Politics, Society, and Family in the Early Modern Era (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2022), 64.
37
“Justice is necessary for the world; the world is a vineyard and the state is its wall. The governor of the state is Sharia and its maintenance is based on the ruler. The troops are necessary for the ruler to govern. Without wealth, the ruler could not have troops. It is the subjects who gain wealth and justice become the subjects of the ruler.116 Each chain formed the whole of the Circle and each of them is interdependent. Thus, the problem in any part would affect the whole.” Justice had different meanings in different times and places, but it had been a key feature of a good ruler.117 The important policy and administrative principle that the Ottoman administration applied to all its Muslim and non-Muslim subjects was justice.118 The Ottoman Sultan was obliged to enjoin the good and forbid what was accepted as wrong by the society (emr bi’l ma’rûf neyh ani’l münker).119 “To enjoin the good and forbid the wrong was a command of God to the Ottoman Sultan. In Kınalızâde’s Ahlâk-ı Alâî, justice is defined as “the most honorable merit and the highest temperament.”120 However, what did the concept of justice, which was so important in the Ottoman understanding of administration, mean for the Ottoman Sultans and their subjects? The definition of justice in Ottoman political thought was to prevent and eliminate zulm or oppressive acts of those exercising power on behalf
116 “Adldir mucîb-i salahı cihan/Cihan bir bağdır divarı devlet/Devletin nazımı şeri’attir/Şer’iate olamaz hiç haris illa melîk/Melîk zabt eylemez illa leşker/Leşkeri cem’edemez illa mal/Malı kesb eyleyen ra’iyyettir/Raiyyeti kul eder padişah-ı ‘aleme ‘adl”. Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi, Ahlâk-ı Alâî, ed. Mustafa Koç (İstanbul: Klasik, 2007), 532.
117 Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (United States of America: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), 70.
118 Bilal Eryılmaz, Osmanlı’da Birlikte Yaşama Politikası (İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2019), 39.
119BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:78/4012:“[…]imdi her diyâra beylerbeyi ve sancakbeyi nasb olunub her birine müstakîl haslar tayin olunmakdan murâdım vilâyet üzerine çıkub cemm’-i emvâl eyleyüb memleket ve vilâyeti viran eylemek içün değildir vâli oldukları vilâyetde emr-i ma’rûf neyh-i münker idüb hilâf-ı şer’i şerif ve mugayir-i kanun-ı münif bir ferde zulm ve ta’addi itdürmeyüb zuhur eyleyen ehl-i fesâd hüsn-i tedârikle ele getürülüb muhtâc-ı ‘arz ise habs ve ‘arz eyleyüb değil ise şer’le gereği gibi hakkından gelüb memleket ve vilâyeti her vechile hırâset idüb ma’mûr ve abâdân eylemek içündür”
120 “Ma’lûm ola ki ‘adâlet eşref-i fezâyîl ve ala-yı hasâyîldir…”Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi, Ahlâk-ı Alâî, 129.
38
of the sultan.121 According to Ottoman Law, zulm (oppression) was the name of the offenses committed by public servants by introducing various bid’ats to the subjects that were recognized by Sharia (şer’i) and Customary (örfî) Law.122 The subjects, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, were poor (fukara) and weak (zuefa), and the highest authority to bring them justice was the sultan. In this context, Ottoman justice was related to preventing the powerful from oppressing the weak.123 Therefore, it was the sultan's primary duty of the sultan to protect the non-Muslim subjects whom God entrusted. One of the titles of the Ottoman Sultans was ‘alem-penah, which meant refuge of the world, and the title conveyed an image of the ruler as caretaker and protector of his subjects.124 The word ‘âlem expresses the inclusive nature of the sultan’s refuge; that is, he was the refuge of all world.
According to a decree dating H.979125 related to the oppression experienced by non-Muslims of Cyprus, qadi of Cyprus started giving a deputy (nayib) to the vilâyet muharrîri, the official responsible for tahrir registration since assigning the investigation, and the registration was made with the deputy of qadi since the qadis
121 Halil İnalcık, “State and Ideology under Sultan Suleıman I,” in The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Rule: Essays on Economy and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies, 1993), 71.
122 Ahmet Mumcu, Osmanlı Hukukunda Zulüm Kavramı, Toplumsal Araştırmalar Dizisi 1 (Ankara: Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, 1985), 9.
124 Marlene Kurz, “Gracious Sultan, Grateful Subjects: Spreading Ottoman Imperial ‘Ideology’throughout the Empire,” Studia Islamica 107, no. 1 (2012): 96–121, https://doi.org/10.1163/19585705-12341237.
125 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.16/309: “Kıbrıs Kadısına hüküm ki: hâlâ vilâyet tahrîrine mübâşeret idüb teftîşe bile tayin olundum deyu vilâyet muharririnin yanına bir nayîb koşub cümlesin nayîb-i mezbur ile yazub andan defteri mucîbince dört akçe alub cem’iyetine sümme cem’an(?) hüccet verülüb akçesi alınsun deyu teklîf eyledüğün ve bi’l-cümle nayîblerin memleket ve vilâyete külli dahl ve tecâvüz idüb cem’ olunan harâclardan naiblerin harâclardan her haneye üç akçe alub birin sana virüb maadası kendülerin ekl ü bel’ idüb kefereden resm-i nikâh alub ve maadası tahrîr olundukda cümle bin doksan dört evler olub her birine birer hüccet virmek istedüğün buna buna benzer hilâf-ı şer’i şerif ta’addi olunduğı istima’ olundu imdi tâife-i re’âyâ ki vedâyi-i hâlik-i berâyadır hilâf-ı şer’i şerif zulm ve ta’addi olunduğuna asla rızâ-yı şerîfim yokdur buyurdumki vusûl buldukda gafil olmayub nayîblerini onat zabt eyleyüb kimesne hilâf-ı şer’i şerif zulm ve ta’addî iddürtmeyüb ve tahrîr husûsuna karışmayub şer-i şerîf mucîbince ahkâm-ı şer’îyeyi kemâl-i ‘adâlet üzere icrâ eylemek bâbında ihtimâm üzere olub re’âyâya vegayrihû zulm ve ta’addî olunmakdan ihtiyât eyleyesiz şöyle bir daha istimâ oluna beyan olunan ‘özrün kabul olunmaz bilmiş ola Kıbrıs Çavuşlarından Ali’ye verildi fi 23 Zilhicce sene 979.”
39
were responsible for supporting the vilâyet muharrîri during the registration. According to the defter, he proposed to take four akçes and gave a script collectively and took the money. Four akçes was the price paid for their services. Also, his deputies damaged the region and the province. They received three akçes from the harâc, collected for each house, gave one akçe to the qadi, and took the left for themselves. Also, they collected resm-i nikâh (marriage fee) from the non-Muslims, but the marriage of the non-Muslims was carried out by their own church generally so they paid it to the metropolitan. In the continuation of the decree, the qadi wanted to give a script (hüccet) to each of the one thousand and ninety-four households determined with tahrir although a script was given collectively. the sultan said that he had heard of all these and similar oppressive acts contrary to şer’-i şerîf126 (buna benzer hilâf-ı şer’i şerîf ta’addî olunduğı istima’ olundu). The sultan stated that he knew everything that happened in every corner of the memâlik-i mahrûse. The awareness of the sultan was also expressed with the phrase Sem’i Hümâyûnuma vusul bulmuştur. Sem’i Hümâyûn was a word that indicated that the sultan was aware of what happened all over memâlik-i mahrûse. In such a reference, while it was pointed out the omnipresent position of the Ottoman Sultan, in every corner of the Ottoman realm, which encompassed many different areas and could be reached by traveling very long distances, it was envisaged the sultan’s degrees only would be valid in memâlik-i mahrûse.127
Then he emphasized that the subjects were entrusted by God and he never consented to oppression (zulm) and transgression (ta’addî) contrary to şer’-i şerîf (Sharia). Subsequently, he instructed the qadi not to overlook this circumstance, to prevent oppression and excess, and to refrain from involvement in tahrir. As can be
127 Berrak Burçak and Özer Ergenç, “İmge ve Siyaset: “Sem’-i Hümâyûn,” Journal of Turkish Studies 39 (2013): 233–44.
40
understood from the decree, the qadi of Cyprus and his deputies had unjustified demands from non-Muslim subjects. In other words, they oppressed them. In the end, the sultan sharply warned the qadi that he should be careful about applying the rules of religion based on justice and that he should be careful about the subjects not being oppressed or transgressed anymore. He also reminded that if he heard these kinds of acts again, his apology would not be accepted (şöyle bir daha istima’ oluna beyân olunan ‘özrün kabûl olunmaz bilmiş ola). Each sultan introduced certain dramatic measures when he acceded to the throne to declare that his reign would be an era of justice.128 Justice was directly related to the legitimacy of the sultan; that is, if he could not rule with justice, he would lose his legitimacy.the sultan was only responsible to God, but his absolute authority was restricted by the opinion of ‘ulema, established order, and tradition. İlmiyye class had the right to issue fatwas, which means the groups that supported the sultan could have dethroned him in that case. Justice and legitimacy have been interconnected concepts since the early days of the Ottoman Empire. According to Linda Darling, “justice was stressed by the Ottomans to establish their right to rule, and they reduced the taxes to gain popular loyalty because the Ottomans had no religious or dynastic claims to legitimize themselves.”129 The legitimacy of the Ottoman Sultan could not be questioned as long as he provided justice to his subjects. Within the Middle Eastern context, petitioning served as the primary mechanism through which the weak could seek justice from the powerful.130 Non-
128 İnalcık, “State and Ideology under Sultan Suleıman I,” 73.
129 Linda T. Darling, A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle of Justice From Mesopotamia to Globalization, 0 ed. (United States of America;Canada: Routledge, 2013), 128, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096857.
130 Linda T. Darling, A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle of Justice From Mesopotamia to Globalization, 0 ed. (United States of America;Canada: Routledge, 2013), 7, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096857.
41
Muslims could submit their complaints to the higher authorities about all kinds of injustice they experienced, and if these authorities could not provide justice, they had the right to complain directly to the sultan. The most influential person to provide justice was the sultan, who could provide justice to the whole subjects. For example, the non-Muslim subjects of the sultan in the Balkans saw the Tsar (sultan) sitting in Charigrad (Istanbul) as the last authority of justice and protection.131 There are many archival documents in which the non-Muslims demand the removal of injustice they have suffered by the authorities. Responses to complaints affirmed the government's desire to control oppression.132 Anyone who disregarded the principles of justice would be punished harshly if they belonged to the ulema class, who were not accepted as the slaves of the sultan and held a prestigious religious status.133 The plaintiff would initiate proceedings in the qadi court, and if their issue remained unresolved, they had the option to bring their petition to higher authorities. In other words, a plaintiff could apply Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn because Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn served as the supreme court. Petitioning Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn meant petitioning the sultan since it belonged to the sultan and responses to complaints were given on behalf of the sultan.134 Sultan was the highest authority that could eliminate injustice as the only authority who had accountability only towards God. The subjects could present their petitions to the sultan (rik’a) directly as well as to Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn during the Friday Prayer, hunting, and on the way of the campaign. As different from modern times, it was possible that an individual of the pre-modern era may not have seen the sultan
131 Halil İnalcık, “Türkler ve Balkanlar,” Baltam Türklük Bilgisi, no. 3 (2005): 20–44.
132 Darling, A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East, 144.
133 Boğaç Ergene, “On Ottoman Justice:Interpretations in Conflict(1600-1800),” Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 1 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1163/156851901753129674.
134 Murat Tuğluca, Osmanlı Devlet-Toplum İlişkisinde Şikayet Mekanizması ve İşleyiş Biçimi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2020), 31.
42
physically in their life. Therefore, their opportunity to see the sultan and petition was limited.
The decree dating H.985135 was sent to the governor of Alacahisar and qadi of Prespa related to the complaint of Christians of Kaza of Skopje. The zimmîs mentioned in the decree petitioned to grand vizier about the oppressive acts of qadi of Skopje, Mevlânâ Mehmed. He made people pay one hundred and thirty akçes for a hundred sheep to the sipâhî, who came every year for the collection of ‘adet-i ağnâm. It was a tax collected for small cattle, and one akçe per two or three sheep was allocated in many places.136 Also, he took esîr akçesi (slave fee) for himself and his man. Esîr akçesi should have been paid to the state. In return for the signature, he demanded six thousand kuruş from the sipâhî under the name of imzâ akçesi (sign fee). He had the official who came to collect harâc take thirty akçes more than the actual amount and shared the inheritances of the deceased zimmîs forcibly (cebren kısmet idüb) despite the lack of consent of their children and received the overpaid amount. Qadis received a fee for the sharing of inheritance, called resm-i kısmet, but heirs did not have to
135 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.30/551: “Alacahisar beyine ve Prespa kadısına hüküm ki:Kazâ-i Üsküb keferesinden harâmi Rışk ve Mile ve Lazar ve Kaliba ve Nikoilye ve Poliko ve Poyo ve Kara Gavri ve Petri ve Estoyan nâm zimmîler kaz’a-i mezbûre keferesi tarafından rikâb-ı hümâyûna rik’a sunub bil-fi’il Üsküb kadısı olan Mevlana Mehmed ehl-i zulm olub cümle cümle zulmünden her bir sene a’det-i ağnâm cem’ine gelen sipahiye yüz koyuna yüz otuz akçe aldırub ve kendü için adamı ikişer akçe esir akçesi aldırub ve defterin imza etdikde sipâhiden imzâ akçesi deyu altı bin akçe alub ve bundan ma’ada harâc cem’ine gelen kuluma dahi asıl harâcdan ziyade otuz akçe aldırub ve kısmet deyu mürd olan olan zimmîlerin evlad-ı kibârı var iken kendülerinin rızâsı yoğiken cebren kısmet idüb ziyade bahâya tutub on beş akçe alınmak yerde yüz iki yüz akçe alub avârız akçesi içün dahi cümle kazâ-i mezburda iki bin iki yüz yetmiş beş hane iken dört bin haneden ziyade yazub ona göre akçe almışdır emri şerîfde hane başına ellişer akçe iken yetmiş beş akçe ve seksan akçe alınmışdır ve yağ ve bal alub narh-ı rûzi üzere akçe vermeyüb noksan üzere virüb bundan gayrı zulm ve ta’aadîsine nihayet yokdur deyu zulm eyledikleri ecilden buyurdum ki vardıkda müşârunileyhi davâ-yı hak edenlerle beraber idüb bir def’a şer’le fasl olmayub on beş yıl mürûr etmeyen husûsları onat vechile hak üzere muktezâ-yı şer’le teftîş idüb göresin vech-i ‘arz itdükleri gibi ise ki bi-hasbi’s-şer’ sabit ola ol babda emr-i şer’ ile ‘amîl olub ashâb-ı hukuka şer’le müteveccîh olan hakların bi-kusûr hükm idüb alıverdikden sonra üzerine şer’le ne makule hukûk sâbit olub ve kaç neferin hakları alıvirüldüğün mufassal ve meşrûh yazub bildiresiz hîn-i teftîş ve tamâm hak üzere olub ahz ve celb ile aher cânibine meyl ve muhâbâdan tamâm-ı hazer idesin”
136 Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990), 159.
43
appeal to qadi for the division of inheritance.137 While there was a total of two hundred and seventy-five avârızhâne in Skopje, they wrote more than four thousand avârızhânes and received akçe accordingly. The tax paid for avârızhânes was related to the total number of households, an increase in the number of avarızhânes meant an increase in the amount to be paid by taxpayers. As can be seen in the decree, while 50 akçes were to be taken per avârızhâne, 75 akçes were received. He took oil and honey without paying according to the fixed price (narh-ı ruzi) and the subjects stated that there was no end to his oppression (zulm) and transgression (ta’addî). Upon the complaint of the non-Muslim subjects about the oppression of the qadi, the sultan ordered those who complained and the qadi to be brought together. He ordered that matters which had not been pursued for fifteen years due to the statute of limitations should be reviewed, and if problems were presented, the individuals’ rights should be fully recognized and documented.
The case dating H.1072138 is related to petitions of monks. The monks, whose names were Abraham, Haçador, Tomar, Bedros, Gazar, Andriyas, and the other Haçador submitted a petition to the sultan and they complained about their patriarch
137 Murat Tuğluca, Osmanlı Devlet-Toplum İlişkisinde Şikayet Mekanizması ve İşleyiş Biçimi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2020), 208. 138“Keşişlere müte‘allikdir. Akzâ kuzâti’l-Müslimîn evlâ vülâti’l-muvahhidîn madenü’l-fazl ve’l-yakīn hüccetü’l-hakk ale’l-halk ecma‘în vâris-i ulûmi’l-enbiyâ ve’l-mürselîn el-muhtas bi mezîdi inâyeti’l-meliki’l-mu‘în Mevlânâ İstanbul kadısı -dâmet fezâ’iluhu- tevkī‘-i refî‘-i hümâyûn vâsıl olıcak ma‘lûm ola ki, kazâ-i mezbûr sâkinlerinden Abraham ve Haçador ve Tomar ve Bedros ve Gazar ve Andriyas ve diğer Haçador nâm papazlar Dersa‘âdet’ime arzuhâl sunup, bizler ra‘iyyet keşişlerinden olup kâr ü kisbde olmayıp, fukarâdan olup hâlâ patriğimiz olan ve sâir ehl-i örf tâ’ifesin hilâf-ı kānûn ve mugāyir-i berât-ı hümâyûn hamursuz nâmına ve çarhî nice bid‘at peydâ edip, küllî akçemiz alıp zulm ve ta‘addîden hâlî değildir hayfdır men‘ olunup hilâf-ı kānûn ziyâde bir akçe alınmamak bâbında emr-i şerîf recâ ederiz deyû bildirmeğin, kānûn üzre olagelenden ziyâde alınmaya deyû emr edip buyurdum ki, hükm-i şerîfim vardıkda husûs-ı mezbûra mukayyed olup göresin. Fi’l-vâki‘ mezbûrûn papazlar lâzım gelen rüsûmların kānûn üzre ve fermân-ı âlîşânım muktezâsınca edâ eylemeğe râzılar iken me’mûr olanlar kanâ‘at eylemeyip, hilâf-ı kānûn ve mugāyir-i berât-ı hümâyûn ziyâde akçelerin alıp zulm ü te‘addî eyledikleri vâki‘ ise men‘ u def‘ edip mezbûrları hilâf-ı kānûn ve olagelmişe mugāyir kimesneye fukarâyı rencîde vü remîde ettirmeyesin, husûs-ı mezbûr için tekrâr şikâyete gelmeli eylemeyesiz, şöyle bilesiz alâmet-i şerîfe i‘timâd kılasız. Tahrîren fi’l-yevmi’s-sâdis aşer min şehri Rebî‘ilâhir li sene seb‘a ve ışrîn ve elf. Be makām-ı Kostantıniyye el-mahrûse.” Transcribed by ISAM. İstanbul Mahkemesi JCR 3,v.13:486 http://www.kadisicilleri.org/goster.php?blm=ist003&bsm=ist003b486
44
and members of the military class (ehl-i ‘örf) who had introduced new taxes (bid’at) under the name of hamursuz and several taxes contrary to the law and the charter (mugâyir-i berât-ı hümâyûn). The reason why these taxes were contrary to berât-ı hümâyûn was that the patriarchs were given a charter (berât) and in that charter, the taxes that the patriarchs would collect from their own communities were specified one by one; thus it was aimed to prevent the collection of taxes under other names.139 The monks demanded the order ofthe sultan (emr-i şerîf), since the patriarch and the others took all monks’ akçes and did not stop oppressing and transgressing (küllî akçemiz alıp zulm ve ta‘addîden hâlî değildir hayfdır). They stated that they had no income and (kâr ü kisbde olmayub) they were poor (fukarâdan olub).the sultan issued an order to ensure that no more than what had been consistently taken following the law should be collected, (kânûn üzre olagelenden ziyâde alınmaya deyû emr edip) and further investigation into the matter was conducted. If the monks were prepared to fulfill their obligations as described, and yet the officials were dissatisfied and engaged in oppression and transgression, they were to be restrained.the sultan commanded that no one was allowed to hurt (rencîde) and scare (remîde) the poor and he ordered not to hear any complaint again for this issue (kimesneye fukarâyı rencîde ve remîde ettirmeyesin, husûs-ı mezbûr için tekrâr şikâyete gelmeli eylemeyesiz). Özer Ergenç defines the ideal Ottoman individual as; religious (mütedeyyîn), obedient to ulu’l emr, one who did not hold himself/herself responsible for order and the future of the world and question nizâm-ı ‘âlem, was therefore eager to change neither place and nor attitude.140 The Ottoman Sultan was ulu’l-emr according to
139 Macit Kenanoğlu, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin gayrımüslim teb’anın idaresinde kullandığı bir yöntem olarak ‘ruhanî iltizam’ sistemi,” Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, no. 14 (2003): 67–84.
140 Özer Ergenç, “‘İdeal İnsan Tipi’ Üzerinden Osmanlı Toplumun Evrimi Hakkında Bir Tahlil Denemesi,” in Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013), 424.
45
Islamic tradition. They followed a policy to govern their non-Muslim subjects properly and made various practices to ensure their welfare because they were entrusted to him by God, the Almighty. In return for this good administration, non-Muslim subjects were expected to submit their obedience (itâat) to ulu’l emr or the sultan. In other words, as previously explained, while one side of this mutual agreement was to ensure the subjects' welfare, the other was the subjects' obedience to the to the sultan. In this context, non-Muslim subjects were responsible for obeying the ulu’l-emr unconditionally. The point where they differed from the Muslims in this regard was that obedience to the ul’ul-emr was not a religious obligation like the Muslims. For Muslim subjects, the duty of obedience to legitimate authority is not one of political expediency. It is also a religious obligation.141 The obedience to ulu’l-emr by Muslims derived from Qur’an itself. In the Qur’an, it was commanded to obey God, the Prophet, and ul’ul-emr (An-Nisa:4/59).142 Muslim subjects fulfilled their religious duty by obeying the sultan. The Ottoman Sultans and their Muslim subjects belonged to the same religion. The sultans represented themselves as religious individuals. In societies, whose central organizing force is religion, the members of the society desire their leader to be religious, even if they are not devout individuals.143 Moreover, the Ottoman Sultan was also the caliph, who had the symbolic title of “The Servitor of Two Holy Shrines.” Religion was the spiritual bond between the Ottoman Sultans and their Muslim subjects and the base for legitimization for the sultans. According to Hakan Karateke, “Ottoman legitimacy was divided into two aspects; normative and factual. Normative legacy was based on matters such as the divine right to rule and conquer
141 Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, 91. 142“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you…”
143 Hakan Karateke, “Opium For the Subjects?Religiosity As A Legitimazing Factor For Ottoman Sultan,” in Legitimizing The Order:The Ottoman Rhetoric of The State, ed. Maurus Reinkowski and Hakan Karateke (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005), 113.
46
Muslim subjects. On the other hand, factual legitimacy implies a practical policy built on ensuring welfare, justice, and order. They were tools for propagating for establishing a victorious sultan, prosperous state, and generous ruler.”144 Istîmâlet was a policy of Ottomans in governing their subjects. In the Ottoman chronicles, it was used in the sense of “care for the subjects and especially the non-Muslim subjects, being tolerant towards them and raiyyetperver.”145146 Istîmâlet generally evokes a conciliatory policy of the Ottoman Empire that facilitated the advance in the Balkans.147 However, istîmâlet is a policy applied not only to non-Muslim subjects but also to Muslim subjects. Although it was not a policy applied exclusively to non-Muslim subjects, there is no doubt that it had a special place to ensure the obedience of them. The Ottomans removed the practices that caused difficulties for the people and provided privileges such as tax exemption. Also, it preserved the pre-Ottoman administrative boundaries of the conquered lands.148 Thus, they were not ruled by an administration alien to them, but by familiar rulers. The policy of istîmâlet which applied to non-Muslims was based on müellefe-i kulûb, a Quranic term (Tevbe:90/60). It denotes the ones who should be brought closer to Islam, non-Muslims.149
144 Hakan Karateke and Maurus Reinkowski, “Introduction,” in Legitimizing The Order:The Ottoman Rhetoric of The State, ed. Hakan Karateke and Maurus Reinkowski, Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage 34 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005), 7.
145 Mücteba İlgürel, “İstimâlet,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 23 (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2001), 362.
146 Raiyyetperver means the ones who taking care of the people .Raiyyet refers to the subjects,while perver means the ones who protect,feed and love.
147 Saim Savaş, “İstimâlet: Bir Osmanlı Yönetim Klasiği,” in Ötekilerin Peşinde Ahmet Yaşar Ocak’a Armağan, ed. Mehmet Öz and Fatih Yeşil (İstanbul: Timaş, 2015), 453.
148 Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest,” Studia Islamica, no. 2 (1954): 103–29, https://doi.org/10.2307/1595144. 149 Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah. and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.
47
Non-Muslim subjects submitted their unconditional obedience to the sultan, who was their protector and continued their lives under Ottoman rule, which was an umbrella for them. For example,the sultan was titled in the chronicle of Synadinos, a seventeenth-century Orthodox priest from Serres in modern Greece as basileus based on Byzantine fashion without ever calling into question the legitimacy of the sultan.150 Basileus, which was a Greek term that was the title of the Byzantine emperors, was used from the of Heraklius onwards.151 The expectation of the sultan from his non-Muslim subjects and his Muslim subjects was to obey his orders and pay their taxes. The individual who paid his taxes and fulfilled the sultan’s order had no responsibility toward the state.152 The sultan’s view of the subjects as ulu’l-emr was equally applied to everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim. Everyone who submitted obedience to the state by paying taxes theoretically had the same right in the eyes of the sultan.153
The decree dating H.978154 is related to rebels in sancak of Delvine. The document states that the rebels (âsî) within the sancak of Delvine were to be suppressed, and upon the arrival of the army, those who refused to end their rebellion were commanded to be subdued. To the ones who were obedient (mutî) and submissive (münkâd) by paying their harâc if they paid their cizyes to the sancak of Delvine same
150 Baki Tezcan, “Ethnicity,Race,Religion and Social Class:Ottoman Markers of Difference,” in The Ottoman World, ed. Christian Woodhead (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 163.
151 Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, 306-1453, Blackwell History of the Ancient World (Malden, Mass: Blackwell Pub, 2005), 360.
152 Hülya Taş, “Osmanlı Devlet ve Toplum Yapısında Sözleşme Kültürü,” The Multilateral Comparative Study on Documents from the 9th to the 19th Centuries (National Institutes for the Humanities, March 2012).
153 Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler:15-17. Yüzyıllar, 4th ed. (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013), 106.
154 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.14/1369:“Sinân Subaşı oğlu Ahmed Çavuş'a hüküm ki: Delvine sancağında vâkî‘ olan âsîlerün haklarından gelinmek lâzım ve mühimm olmağın ol cevânibe ‘asâkir-i mansûre vardukda ‘isyânda musîrr olanlarun gereği gibi haklarından gelinmek fermân olunmışdır buyurdum ki vardukda, onat vechile basîret üzre olup zikrolunan âsîlerden harâcın virüp mutî‘ ve münkâd olanlarun kemâ-kân cizyelerin Delvine sancağına vireler, kimesne dahl eylemez. Ammâ; itâat ve inkıyâd üzre olmayub inâd ve muhâlefet üzre olanlar iniâ’a'llâhü'l-E‘azz ol cevânibe ‘asker-i nusret-eser vardukda fermân-ı celîlü'l-kadrüm mûcebince haklarından gelürler ana göre sen dahi istimâlet virüb zikrolunan âsîlerden itâat ve inkıyâda tergîb eyleyüp müdârâ üzre olasın.”
48
as before, nobody should intervene. However, those who were not obedient, persistent in the rebellion (inâd), and continued to be against the orders (muhâlefet) should be subdued. At the end of the decree, the sultan warned the sancakbey of Delvine about imposing the policy of istimâlet. In the decree, it was used the phrase tergîb (encourage) eyleyüp müdârâ üzre olasın. It explains that the rebels should be encouraged to obey. Müdârâ as a term, refers to “behaviors that aim to prevent evil or to please people who are concerned about causing unrest with their excessive acts or who are overly touchy.”155 It is possible to say the emphasis here about the istîmâlet is the conciliatory aspect of the policy.
The other decree dating H.981 is quoted.156 It was informed that village of Ravniçe, one of the savings (has) of Ahmed Paşa rebelled (hala ‘isyân ve tuğyân ‘arz eyledüğünüz), but the people of this village paid their harâc and booties immaculately and they paid the tithe (‘öşr) and taxes (rüsûm) directed towards them in full obedience and did not rebel. Therefore, the sultan ordered that if the village of Ravniçe in question was the has (saving) of Ahmet Paşa, no one would be attacked or harmed. Upon reviewing both documents, a common theme emerges, which is the acknowledgment of non-Muslim subjects' compliance in paying the taxes solely assigned to them, and the other taxes. For the sultan's subjects to be obedient and to ensure justice, the society was subject to an organization based on the place, profession, religion, and sect of the
155 Mustafa Çağrıcı, “Müdara,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 31 (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2020), 459.
156 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.12/390: “Ahmed Paşa Hazretlerine gönderildi Avlonya ve Delvine beylerbeyine hüküm ki: Hala ‘isyân ve tuğyânı arz eyledüğünüz kurrâdan Ravniçe nâm karye düstûr-ı mükerrem Ahmed Paşa adem’allahü-teâla iclâlîhunun haslarından olmağın zikr olunan karye ahâlîsi harâc ve resîm ganîmetlerin bi-kusûr edâ idüb ve kendüye müteveccîh olan ‘öşr ve rüsûmun adamlarına kemâl-i itâatle edâ idüb bi-vech min’el-vech isyânları yokdur deyu bildirmeğin buyurdum ki arz eyledüğünüz Ravniçe köyü müşârûn-ileyhin haslarından olan Ravniçe ise atı urmayub ve garet ve hasârat itmeyüb hali üzere koyasın emrime muhâlif dahl ve ta’arruzdan hazer eyleyesin”
49
person, and in this system, transitions between groups were limited as much as possible.157 The social organization of the Ottoman society was sub-communities, which were called tâife used in general or cema’ât. Tâife (طائفة ) which was a word deriving from Arabic and means body, team, people, and tribe158 while cema’ât refers to people gathered in one place, body and team.159 Both words were used to express communities. In addition, the words millet and fırka were used sometimes, but they referred to religious identities.160 Several factors could be decisive in determining the tâifes. In other words, legal situation, religion, beliefs, occupation, gender, settlement, ethnicity, etc. could shape the tâifes. For example, re’âyâ tâifesi, ehl-i ‘örf tâifesi, Kızılbaş tâifesi, kul tâifesi, terzi tâifesi, Arab tâifesi, şehirli tâifesi or.etc. Religion was the main factor in defining the communities of non-Muslims. Besides religious differences, there were also sectarian differences among non-Muslims.161 Hence, the sects to which non-Muslims were associated constituted components of identification, alongside religion, with religion being the essential aspect. Christians were the most numerous among the non-Muslim population groups in the Ottoman Empire.162 Catholicism and Orthodoxy were major sects of Christianity, and most of the Christian subjects followed Orthodoxy. Those who belonged to Catholicism were fewer in number. Also, there was the Gregorian sect adopted by the Armenians. In the Ottoman Empire, there were two main churches; the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. Jews, the
157 Özer Ergenç, “Osmanlı Klasik Düzeni ve Özellikleri Üzerine Bazı Açıklamalar,” in Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013), 335.
158 Şemseddin Sami, Kamus-ı Türki (İstanbul: Şifa Yayınevi, 2015), 722.
159 Ibid., 397.
160 Nil Tekgül, “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-Modern Ottoman Society:An Attempt to Write Ottoman History from ‘The Inside Out’” (Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ankara, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2016), 150.
161 Öz, “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Toplumu ve Ekonomisine Genel Bir Bakış,” 49.
162 Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları, 55.
50
other major religious groups in the empire, were also divided into sects: Rabbanis, Karais, and Samiris. However, rather than their sects, Jews are divided into sub-groups according to the place and province of origin,163 such as Portakal164 or Portugal Cema’âti or Katalan Cema’âti.165 The sub-communities non-Muslim subjects belonged were referred in general as; Zimmî Tâifesi, Nasara Tâifesi, Kefere Tâifesi, Hristiyan Tâifesi, Rum Tâifesi, Ermeni Tâifesi for Christians and Yahudi Tâifesi, Yehud Tâifesi and Musevî Tâifesi, Yahudi Cema’âti, Musevî Cema’âti for Jews. According to the Ottoman perspective on the state, the cornerstone of the nizâm-ı ‘âlem (world order) was that everyone occupied a designated position, and this position was not to be altered. It should be noted that the term place in this context does not solely refer to physical space; it also signifies one's belonging to a specific group. In other words, subjects were expected to maintain their lives within a particular place and group. The desire to determine re’âyâ as a member of certain groups brought the regulations on clothing.166 Therefore, non-Muslims were subject to some rules about their clothing. Nonetheless, not only non-Muslims but also Muslims’ clothes were regulated167 since each group's outfit should reveal its belonging.168 A decree dating H.1040 from Mühimme Registers is examined.169 The order was sent to mutasarrıf (governor) of Dimetoka and qadi of Tağardı. It complained
163 Stanford J. Shaw, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1991), 45, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12235-6.
164 Prononciation of Portugal in Ottoman Turkish. 165 Katalan cemâ‘atinden Abraham v. Yasef ve Hayder v. David ve Portakal cemâ‘atinden Mosi v. Yasef ve İlya v. David ve Yako v. David nâm Yahudiler[…]Trancribed by ISAM.Bab Mahkemesi JCR 3,v.17:427 http://www.kadisicilleri.org/goster.php?blm=bab003&bsm=bab003b379
166 Ergenç, “Osmanlı Klasik Düzeni ve Özellikleri Üzerine Bazı Açıklamalar,” 334.
167 Betül İpşirli Argıt, “Clothing Habits, Regulations And Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Academic Studies 6, no. 24 (April 2005): 79–96.
168 For example,Lütfi Pasha says that the subjects should not been allowed to be adorned in clothing, horses and goods like cavalry: “Ve ra’iyyete çok yüz virmemek gerekdür.Malı çok olursa kimseye ta’arruz itmemek gerek. Emma libasda ve esbabda ve atda ve emlakda sipahi gibi tezyin ittirmemek gerekdür.”Lütfi Paşa, Asafnâme, trans. Ahmet Uğur (İstanbul: Büyüyen Ay, 2017), 79.
169“Bâ-takrîr-i hazret-i efendi.Cânib-i N. Efendi.Sâbıkâ Rûmili Kâdî-askeri olup hâliyâ ber-vech-i arpalık Dimetoka kazâsına mutasarrıf olan Mevlânâ Serîf Mehmed edâma'llâhü te‘âlâ fazâ’ilehûya ve Tağardı kâdîsına hüküm ki: Hâliyâ; "taht-ı kazânuzda sâkin kefere tâyifesinden ba‘zıları kendü
51
about kefere tâife were harmful (kendü hallerinde olmayub), and wore green cover by giving up their appearance contrary to the custom (hilâf-ı mûtâd). As a result, the difference between Muslims and non-Muslims disappeared and the non-Muslims oppressed the people with these clothes. The point that should be emphasized here is that non-Muslims caused a security problem by wearing Muslim clothes. The non-Muslims hiding their belongings by wearing Muslim clothes caused problems in terms of punishment for the crime they committed. The sultan ordered that the issue should be investigated, and whatever was necessary for the non-Muslims should be made. Non-Muslims should be warned firmly not to wear the clothes belonging to Muslims and continue to wear the clothes they wore since ancient times (kadîmî giyegeldikleri kefere libâsın giyeler) and they shall not oppress anybody.
In short, it was a system that disapproved of mobility in space and between groups. However, this did not mean an isolated Ottoman society. On the contrary, tâifes were transitive. That is, an individual could be a member of more than one tâife or cema’ât at the same time. In this way, one could unite in another tâife while leaving one tâife.
For instance, the decree dating H.993170 includes provisions for the complaints of butchers. Butchers of Yedikule, Edirnekapısı, Beşiktaş, and Istanbul came to the
hâllerinde olmayup hılâf-ı mu‘tâd baslarına yesil dülbend sarınup kendü kisvelerin bırakmağla kefere ile müslimân farkolunmadan kalup ve hılâf-ı ser‘-ı serîf ol libâsla ahâlî-i vilâyete ve ebnâ-ı sebîle zulm ü ta‘addîden hâlî olmadukları" i‘lâm olunmağın imdi; ol makûle kefere tâyifesi yirlü yirinden ma‘rifet-i ser‘le görilüp men‘ u def‘ olunmak bâbında fermân-ı âlî-sânum sâdır olmısdur. Buyurdum ki:Vusûl buldukda, husûs-ı mezbûra mukayyed olup göresin; i‘lâm olunduğı üzre ise olmakûle kefere tâyifesi her kande bulunur ise ma‘rifet-i ser‘le elegetürüp ser‘le haklarında lâzim geleni icrâ eyledükden sonra muhkem tenbîh ü te’kîd eyleyesin ki, min-ba‘d vech-i mesrûh üzre yasıl ve sâyir müslimânlara mahsûs olan libâsı giymeyüp kadîmî giyegeldükleri kefere libâsın giyeler ve hılâf-ı ser‘-ı serîf kimesneye dahl ü tecâvüz eylemeyeler. Memnû‘ olmayanları ism ü resmleri [ile] yazup arzeyleyesin ki, sonradan haklarında ne vechile emr-I serîfüm sâdır olur ise mûcebiyle amel oluna. Ammâ; mukayyed olasın ki, bu bahâne ile umûm teftîsinden ve ahz ü celb sebebi ile fukarâya zulm ü ta‘addî olmak ihtimâli olmaya.”85 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(1040-1041 (1042)/ 1630-1631 (1632)) (Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti BaşbakanlıkDevlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2002), 205.
170 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.55/239: “İstanbul kadısına hüküm ki Mahrûse-i İstanbulda Yedikule kasaplarından kethûdâları Hacı Ahmed ve Gedüzlüoğlu Ali ve İlyas bin Ali ve
52
court and complained about Yeniçeri (Janissaries) tâifesi who bought meat from only butchers of Edirnekapısı. While the butchers incurred losses, the Muslims had difficulties in finding meat. However, the important point here is that butchers formed a professional community. The names of Muslims and non-Muslims have appeared in the group of butchers. Especially, the butchers of Beşiktaş consisted of Sinan Hayreddin, Ahmed, and zimmî Yorgaki. Looking at their names, it is possible to say that Sinan Hayreddin and Ahmed were Muslim, on the other hand, Yorgaki was a non-Muslim. Also, the word zimmî indicates the religious affiliation of Yorgaki. While they have belonged to different groups in terms of religion, they united in a professional group. Moreover, their complaint was solved thanks to their consensus (anların ittîfâkları ile).
According to another example case taken from a court register, 171 the case Nikola v. Kosta, who was a non-Muslim, brought his Muslim neighbour, Hasna b. Abdülkadir to the court. Nikola v. Kosta said that he went to a village, named Kadı,
Hacı Hasan bin ‘abdullah ve Edirnekapısı kasablarından Karaca ve Yani ve Apostol ve Koni nâm zimmîler ve Galata ve Beşiktaş kasablarından Sinân Hayreddin ve Ahmed ve zimmî Yorgakî ve Üsküdâr kasablarından Kara Süleyman ve Kurd vesairlerinden cemm-i gâfir meclis-i şer’î mutahhârâda takrîr idüb yeniçeri tâifesi vesâirleri cem’an lahmı yedikule Edirnekapısı kasablarından alub gayrisinden almamağla mezbûrlara gadr olub sair müslümânlarda ed bulmakda külli müzâyaka çekdiklerine binâen anların ittîfâkları ile yeniçeri tâifesine yedikulede kifâyed mikdârı selh-hane ta’yîn olunub ve şehre koyun geldikçe cümleden sürüleri ? koyun emini marîfetiyle mezbûr selh-hane erbâbı olub ve zebh itdükleri koyunların derileri vesâir eczâsın itdükleri gibi tasarruf ideler ve her sene muhasebe zamanında yüz altmış beş zahir olan olan zararlarına ‘adet-i ağnâm içün vaz’ olunan akçe racdan ziyade akçesi deyu kasablara virilen meblâğ virile ? mahmîye-yi İstanbulda vâsıl oldukda vâkî kasablarından olan kasab dükkanları erbâbından eğer müslîm ve eğer zimmî ve eğer yahudî ve eğer sığır kasabı ve eğer koyun kasabıdır emîn-i mezbûr ma’rifetiyle bir mikdâr akçe alınan mezbûrlar ? ve etrafda vâkî olan mezbûrların zararları bi’l-külliye def oluna bu üslûb üzere olmağın müslümânlara ve yeniçeri tâifesine ve kasablara ehl-i vâkıf gördük deyu ihtiyârları vesâir ittîfâk eyledüklerinde vech-i meşrûh üzere olıcak yeniçeri tâifesinin ahvâli intizâm üzere olub vesâir müslümânlara dahi enfa’ olur deyu îlâm eylendüğü ecilden buyurdum ki vusûl buldukda ‘arz eyledükleri üzere kasablara ve müslümânlara enfa’lı olan ile ‘amel idüb kasablara gadr ve müslümânlara müzâyaka çekdirmeyesiz.” 171“Mahalle-i Ma‘mûre’den Nikola v. Kosta nâm zimmî komşusu olan Hasnâ bt. Abdülkādir nâm hâtunu meclis-i şer‘a ihzâr edip ben Kadı nâm karyeye evimi kilitleyip gittikde evimin kilidi bozulmayıp ve etrâfından bir yer kalmayıp içinde olan esbâbım sirkat olunmuş gelip gördüğümde işbu mezbûr Hasnâ’nın evi cânibinden benim evime merdiven konulmuş gördüm ba‘zı müslümânlara haber verdim dedikde mezbûr Hasnâ’ya suâl olundukda inkâr edip müslümânlardan Mehmed b. Süleyman ve Mustafa b. Yahya mezbûre Hasnâ’nın evi cânibinden merdiven konulmuş gördüm deyû şehâdetleri kayd şüd” Transcribed by ISAM.Üsküdar Mahkemesi JCR 51,v. 8:321 http://www.kadisicilleri.org/goster.php?blm=usk051&bsm=usk051b321
53
after locking his door. When he came back, he saw that his goods were stolen but the lock was not broken. He claimed that he saw a ladder was put from Hasna’s house towards his house and Nikola informed the Muslims about the situation. When Hasna was asked, she denied it, but Mehmed b. Süleyman and Mustafa b. Yahya testified to saw that a ladder was put from Hasna’s house to Nikola’s house. Nikola v. Kosta was a non-Muslim, and Hasna b. Abdülkadir, who was accused of stealing, was a Muslim woman. Their religious beliefs made them members of different communities. However, the place where they lived became the members of the same community. As the most important feature of pre-Ottoman Islamic cities, neighborhoods were separated according to religious and ethnic classes, this distinction was observed within the Ottoman city and although non-Muslims usually resided in separate neighborhoods, there was no such strict separation in Ottoman cities as in previous Islamic cities.172 Muslims and non-Muslims could live in the same neighborhoods and be neighbours. Accordingly, it is not quite possible to talk about pre-modern Ottoman society in which individuals were strictly separated and isolated from each other.
Tâifes were organized based on hierarchy. That is,hierarchical structure was like the pyramid, which was construction of three layers basically.173 At the top, there were the administrators of tâife, which were called kethüdâ and yiğitbaşı. In some archival documents, kethüdâs of non-Muslims are expressed as “kefere kethüdâsı.”174 The group that followed the administrators was the notables, who were the representatives of the subjects in the group they belonged to. They were called eşrâf
172 Özer Ergenç, “Osmanlı Şehrindeki Mahallenin İşlevleri ve Nitelikleri Üzerine Düşünceler,” in Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013), 79.
173 Nil Tekgül, “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-Modern Ottoman Society:An Attempt to Write Ottoman History from ‘The Inside Out,’” 152.
174 Dârende Yorgi nâm zimmî gelüp nefs-i İzmir'de kefere kethüdâsı olup sene-i sâbıkada donanma-yı hümâyûnum ol cânibe vardukda[…]3 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(H.966-968/M.1558-1560)(Ankara:Türkiye Cumhuriyeti BaşbakanlıkDevlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü,1993),59.
54
and ‘ayân, vûcûh, ihtîyârân. For non-Muslim representatives, kocabaşı was used. Kocabaşı were the equivalent of eşrâf and ‘ayân.175 These groups acted as a bridge between the subjects and the state. They consisted of wealthy merchants, elderly and old-hand artisans, imams, preachers, and well-known shayks of religious orders.176 At this point, it should be stated that in non-Muslim communities, imams were replaced by their own religious leaders. The determinants of these groups were members of the tâifes themselves. In addition to administrators and notables, members of the community appeared at the bottom. The structure of any religious group was the same. The rules of the tâifes were determined by the members of the community. The state did not interfere in the internal order of the tâifes. These were the rules, which were unwritten and formed by the customs and values of the community. In pre-modern Ottoman society, one of the necessities of living together was that the members of the community must consent and be grateful for each other's actions (rızâ ve şükrân üzere olmak).177 All members of a community were responsible for each other's actions; in other words, they were müteselsîlen kefîl (joint guarantors) with each other. Society could exclude individuals when people were not satisfied with their actions. To be the joint guarantor for someone, being content and grateful was a prerequisite.
The case from Mühimme Registers dating H.991178 is about two non-Muslims, which were husband and wife. According to the decree, Muslims and non-Muslims,
175 Özcan Mert, “Tanzimat Döneminde Çeşme Kocabaşıları(1839-1876),” Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 24, no. 35 (2004): 139–54.
176 Özer Ergenç, “Osmanlı Şehirlerindeki Yönetim Kurumarının Niteliği Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler,” in Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013), 98.
177 For detailed information about “rıza ve şükran üzere olmak”,see Nil Tekgül, “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-Modern Ottoman Society:An Attempt to Write Ottoman History from ‘The Inside Out.’”
178 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.52/235: “Arz getiren zimmîye verildi Çatalca kadısına hüküm ki:Mektûb gönderüb İstani nâm zimmî içün ve avreti harâmzâde ve şedîd ve yatakdır deyu ahâlî-yi vilâyetden nice müslümânlar ve nice zimmîler meclis-i şer’e gelüb şehâdet idüb ve bundan akdem vilâyetde teftîşe me’mûr olan Kara Ali ve diğer Ali Ağa mezkur zimmî ile mezkûreyi ele getürmek üzere iken firâr idüb nice zaman hâlâ mezkûre ele getürülüb habs olunmuştur deyu bildirdükleri ecilden buyurdum ki vardıkda bu bâbda bi’z-zat mukayyed olub merkûm zimmîyi hüsn-i tedbîr ve tedârikle ele getürüb ahvâlin şer’le hak üzere dikkat ve ihtimâm ile teftîş ve tefahhus idüb
55
who were the residents of Çatalca, came to the court and claimed that Istani and his wife were in actions that society did not accept (haramzâde,şedîd ve yatakdır). Muslims and non-Muslims informed that Istani and his wife fled, the wife could be held, but Istani could not. The sultan commanded that Istani be detained and Mehmeh Çavuş examine the matter. It can be inferred that the inhabitants of Çatalca had previously approached the court to file complaints regarding their actions. Not only Muslims but also non-Muslims testified against them. The reason why the people of Çatalca complained about the deeds of Istani and his wife is that the whole community was responsible for Istani and his wife’s actions in addition to the damage of their actions. If the necessary actions were not taken by the person responsible for the crime, the accountability for the outcomes of their actions fell upon all individuals within the community.
A decree dating H.987179 constitutes another example of society being content and grateful. Receb, Ali, the other Ali and Mustafa, who were Muslim residents of Çatalca and Apostol, Papas Mihayil and Papas Andreya and Aleks Kosta, who were non-Muslims of Çatalca came to court and testified for the good of Yorgi Dimo. He was accused of being a bandit and imprisoned. However, the people of Çatalca explained that Yorgi Dimo had been living in Çatalca for eighteenth years and had not shown any misbehavior and there was no previous indictment in the records (mezkûr
göresiz vech-i meşrûh üzerine tesis olan hukûk mezkûr zimmî ile mesfûreyi habs idüp mecâlleri ile ahvâlleri vukû üzere yazub arz eyleyesin ve bu bâbda dergâh-ı mu’allâm çavuşlarından Mehmed Çavuş zîde kadrihu mübâşir ta’yîn olunmuşdur amma hak üzere olub dâire-i hakdan tecâvüz etmeyesiz.”
179 BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.39/290: “Çatalca kadısına hüküm ki:Mektûb gönderüb nefs-i Çatalca’da sâkin olan Receb ve Ali ve diğer Ali ve Mustafa nâm müslümânlar ve Apostol ve Papas Mihayil ve Papas Andreya ve Aleks Kosta nâm zimmîler meclis-i şer’e gelüb bundan akdem Yorgi Dimo nâm zimmî şaki nâmına tutulub habs olunmuştur mezkûr Yorgi on sekiz yıl Çatalca’da sâkin olub hiç bir vechile yaramazlık zâhir olmayub sicil-i mahfûzlarda töhmet ile mücessel değildir ehl ü ‘iyal ve fakîr’ül-hâl olub cümlemiz eyülüğüne şâhidiz ehl-i garaz sözüyle olmuşdur didüklerinde de ‘arz eylemeğin ıtlâk olunmasın emr idüb buyurdum ki mezbûrı ecilden ıtlâk eyleyesin”
56
Yorgi on sekiz yıl Çatalca’da sakîn olub hiç bir vechile yaramazlık zahir olmayub sicîl-i mahfûzlarda töhmet ile mücessel değildir). He had dependents and he was poor (ehl ü ‘iyâl ve fakîr’ül-hal olub). They all said that they witnessed him being a good man and Yorgi was accused by the word of malicious people (cümlemiz eyülüğüne şâhîdiz ehl-i garaz sözüyle olmuşdur). Upon the testimony of the people, the sultan ordered the release of Yorgi Dimo. This case was the opposite of the case of Istani and his wife given above. The actions of Istani and his wife did not approve by the other members of society, so they complained to higher authorities; this was an act that expressed discontent among the community members, while Yorgi Dimo was released thanks to witnesses of other members of the community since the other members of the community expressed their content for him (cümlemiz eyülüğüne şâhîdiz).
2.3 The Difference Between Harbî and Müste’men In the previous section, it is stated that the division of the world into two as Dar’al-Islam and Dar’al-Harb by the Islamic view. The non-Muslim population of Dar’al-Harb was called harbî. Although they were members of the same religion as the non-Muslims living in Dar’al-Islam, the harbîs were deprived of all the rights granted to non-Muslims living the domain of Islam180 since the non-Muslims living Dar’al-Islam became the subject by accepting the rule of the Islamic state. However, even if harbîs were not subjects of the Islamic State, they could have security against the Muslims if they made a peace treaty with the Islamic State.181 In Islamic law, these agreements were expressed with terms such as muvâda'a, muhâdene, müsâleme,
180 Tankut Soykan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimler : Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü, 50.
181 Ibid., 51.
57
musâlâhâ, muâhede, hudne, sulh and silm.182 In addition to the guarantee of life and property, the subjects of Dar’al-harb, with whom a peace treaty was made, had the right to enter Dar’al-Islam without amân.183 If there were no peace treaty between a harbî’s country and the Islamic state, there would be no security of life and property if the harbî entered Dar’al-Islam. For this reason, for harbî to enter Dar’al-Islam, harbî must have been granted amân. The harbî that entered the Dar’al-Islam with amân was called müste’men. In the Ottoman Empire, the terms of amân given to merchants who were subjects of foreign states were stated in the ahîdnâmes. Ahîdnâmes were documents in the form of berât (charter), which included the privileges granted to merchants within the capitulations granted to foreign states by the Ottoman Empire, known as imtiyâzât.184 The ahîdnâmes, which were conferred in the form of berât, were not permanent and became valid with the renewal ofthe sultan who took the throne. The merchants of the countries that were given capitulation were in the status of müste’men, as they could enter the Ottoman territory with the amân given to them. Although the müste’men were subject to a different status from the zimmîs, they had the basic assurances that the zimmîs had. Their lives and property were protected, and they had the freedom of worship. These assurances were guaranteed to them by the sultan. However, to have these assurances, friendship and peace had to be promised by harbî.185 If a müste’men acted against the interests of the Muslim community, müste’men was expelled.186 As the ahîdname's owner, the merchants with various
182 Ahmet Özel, Darulislam,Darulharb:İslam Hukukunda Ülke Kavramı, 4th ed. (İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2019), 141.
183 Ibid., 148.
184 Halil İnalcık, “Imtıyazat,” in Encylopaedia of Islam, ed. Bernard Lewis et al., vol. III (Leiden;London: E.J. Brill;Luzac&Co., 1986), 1179.
185 Ibid.
186 Sh. Inayatullah, “Aman,” in Encylopaedia of Islam, ed. H.A.R Gibb et al. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986), 479.
58
privileges had the right to travel in the Ottoman country. They even had the freedom to wear Muslim clothing,187 which was strictly prohibited for zimmî subjects. Müste’men, who did not have the zimma contract between them and the Islamic state, did not have to pay cizye, but according to Islamic law, if they stayed for more than one year, they would be liable to pay cizye. Halil İnalcık states that this period was ten years for the müste’men in the Ottoman territory.188 Foreign merchants who could have representatives in the Ottoman country were represented by consuls. These consuls were appointed by the sultan by giving a berât (charter) to settle the issues of their own communities (millets).189 Consuls hold extra-territorial status and they were exempt from the taxes in addition to their economic privileges. The consuls had interpreters, and the interpreters, like consuls, had certain privileges. Also, the sons of translators were exempt from tax as well as commercial privileges.190 The Ottoman Sultans had granted privileges to the merchants of foreign countries since the earliest times.191 These privileges were based on reciprocal advantages.192 Also, they were motivated by political and economic reasons. However, later in the 18th and 19th centuries, privileges would pose a problem for the Ottomans. Especially, it would be one of the factors that played a role in the attempts of the non-Muslim subjects of the empire to leave the Ottoman subjecthood in the 19th century. The non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, who lived in harmony with the Muslims based on the rights granted to them within the framework of Islamic law, formed the basis of a painful process for the state in the 19th century.193
187 Halil İnalcık, “Imtıyazat,” 1181.
188 Ibid.
189 Bülent Arı, “Osmanlı Kapitülasyonlarının Tarihçesi ve Mahiyeti,” Yeni Türkiye 32, no. 2000 (n.d.): 242–51.
190 İbid.
191 İbid.
192 Halil İnalcık, “Imtıyazat,” 1179.
193 Jülide Akyüz, “19. Yüzyıl’da Osmanlı Gayrimüslim Reayasının Statüsündeki Değişimler,” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, no. 170 (October 2007): 209–20.
59
The Ottoman Empire started to experience a depression period at the end of the 16th century. Between 1578 and 1606, the Ottoman Empire was involved in long, grueling, but gainless wars with Persia and Austria. Moreover, the internal problems caused turmoil in the state and social order, resulting in the loss of human and financial resources.194 It will be more accurate to say that the depression period was the result of internal and external factors. The challenges encountered in the latter part of the 16th century were new and unfamiliar to the Ottoman Empire.195 Towards the end of the 16th century, a population increase in the eastern Mediterranean caused a large increase in the young population. This young population started looking for a new living space, causing a disorder within the Ottoman Empire. There were developments in weapon technology in Europe and a new era in which light portable firearms were used in Europe. On the other hand, there was a rise in the number of mercenaries within the Ottoman army to avoid inadequacy when confronted with Europe's advanced military technology. It should also be noted that the mercenaries in the Ottoman army did not only have a financial impact but also became the actors of the disorder caused by the population increase in the Ottoman lands. These young people, who were unemployed in non-war times, were engaged in banditry activities. From the end of the 15th century, the course of trade changed with the age of exploration, and the Ottoman finances were negatively affected by this. Significant changes occurred in the struggle for trade routes towards the end of the 16th century.196 Consequently, a financial crisis was inevitable.
194 Mehmet Öz, Kanun-ı Kadimin Peşinde:Osmanlı’da Çözülme ve Gelenekçi Yorumcuları (2021: Dergah Yayınları, İstanbul), 37.
195 Pal Fodor, “State and Society, Crisis and Reform in 15th-17th Century Ottoman Mirror for Princes,” in In Quest of the Golden Apple Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Adminsitration in the Ottoman Empire (United States of America: Gorgias Press, 2010), 24.
196 Ibid., 39.
60
The two basic systems of the Ottoman Empire were kul and tımar systems. It is possible to say that these systems were the backbones of the Empire’s Classical Age. In the 17th century, the tımar and kul system began to lose its functionality due to the above-mentioned events. With the dissolution of these two systems, changes began to occur in the administrative, financial, and social order of the Ottoman Empire. The 17th and 18th centuries were a period of transformation in which these changes continued. The tımar was a system that connected individuals to the place, and their belongings were determined. The dissolution of the system brought along horizontal and vertical mobility. One of the functions of the tımar system was to provide soldiers to the Ottoman army. However, the system, which started to lose its functionality in the 17th century, was insufficient to meet the need of soldiers. Also, the devshirme system, another source of the army's need for soldiers, was becoming inadequate. Therefore, conscription began among the subjects. Furthermore, the impact of the aforementioned population growth cannot be overlooked in conscription based on the subjects. This entailed that those subjects who engaged in production activities and fulfilled their tax obligations started to join the military class, distinct from the tax-exempted subjects. The change in the tımar and kul systems brought about the change in the institutions attached to these institutions. In the classical period, administrators who were trained in the slave system and ensured the continuation of this system were sent to the sancaks and provinces directly from the center. Amidst the transformation process, administrators dispatched from the center to the sancaks and provinces, while the latter began sending their deputies to the respective sancaks and provinces they were entrusted with. In time, ‘ayâns were started to be chosen to be the deputies of the
61
governors.197 This development was associated with the emergence of a different ruling class in the 18th century. In addition, it is necessary to underline one more issue in this regard. As a solution to the above-mentioned financial problems, tax farming (iltizâm) became widespread at the end of the 17th century. With the spread of the tax farming system, eşrâf and ‘ayân, who were the representatives of the people in the pyramid, emerged as tax farmers. In the 18th century, the notables assumed the role of administrators instead of the administrators sent from the center. While the notables acted as a bridge between the sultan and the subjects as the representative of the subjects, they were also the officers of the sultan as the administrator. In areas with densely populated Christians, the kocabaşıs gained power and served the same function as the ‘ayâns.198 Thus, a new ruling class emerged. Eventually, the Ottoman society, where certain lines determined everyone's group, lost this feature, and the distinction between the askerî and the re’âyâ class began to disappear. Horizontal mobility, on the other hand, occurred together with the mobility in the space. Tâifes were closed communities where outsiders were not accepted. However, what is meant by closedness here is not that tâifes were isolated communities from each other. With the increase in immigration, the entrance to tâifes consisting of occupational groups increased. Due to immigration, there were new residents as tenants in the neighborhoods. This meant the formation of new tâifes. As a result, it can be said that tâifes, which lost their old characteristics due to the increase in mobility in society, increased in number and turned into a different structure than before. However, as the tâifes were being redefined within Ottoman society, the tâifes
197 Yücel and Ergenç, “General Charâcteristic of Ottoman State Policy During the XVIIIth to the XIXth Centuries.”
198 Ali Yaycıoğlu, Partners of the Empire: The Crisis of the Ottoman Order in the Age of Revolutions (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2016), 149.
62
shaped by religious and ethnic affiliations remained unaffected. Individuals could not change their tâifes communities shaped by ethnicity and religious affiliation. Therefore, although the tâifes were being reshaped, the religious and ethnic tâifes preserved their old rigid structures. As a result, various religious communities entered an organization process depending on their millet or their religious communities.199 This brought a problem that the Ottomans had to deal with, especially in the last hundred years. It was explained above that tâifes were not isolated from each other and that individuals could be members of more than one group at the same time. Since the status of re’âyâ was the foremost status, sub-identities were not an element of distinction between individuals. As re’âyâ, everyone was united under the umbrella ofthe sultan. Since all subjects met in the upper identity of the re’âya, there was no sharp distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims in Ottoman society until the end of the 18th century. Ethnicity became politicized and constituted a ground for the political organization of Christian subjects in the 18th century.200 With religion and ethnicity coming to the fore, a nation-state process like in Europe did not come to the fore in Ottoman society. On the contrary, the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims started to appear. Along with the changes in the social order of the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Austria came into play. Both empires gained strength in the 18th century and the Mediterranean and Balkans became areas where they began to pursue an active policy of war and economic expansion.201 Russia and Austria engaged in some activities on
199 Metin Kunt, “Siyasal Tarih:1600-1789,” in Osmanlı Devleti:1600-1908, ed. Metin Kunt et al., Türkiye Tarihi 3 (Cem Yayınevi, 1988), 63.
200 Kemal H. Karpat, “The Ethnicity Problem in a Multi-Ethnic Anational Islamic State: Continuity and Recasting of Ethnic Identity in the Ottoman State,” in Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History:Selected Articles and Essays, Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia 81 (Leiden,Boston,Köln: Brill, 2002), 721.
201 İlber Ortaylı, Türkiye Teşkilât ve İdare Tarihi, 2. Baskı (Ankara: Cedit Neşriyat, 2008), 348.
63
subjects of the Balkan region in the 18th century. The target of these activities was non-Muslim subjects of the empire, and the aim was political. The influence of Russia and Austria on non-Muslim subjects was intended to further reinforce the ethnic and religious segregation between re’âyâ. That is, the demands of the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottomans for ethnic and religious separation were supported by these states. It would not be wrong to say that Russia was the most influential factor in its activities on non-Muslim subjects. It posed the danger of making an ethnic or religious claim on the sultan's orthodox subjects, the largest group of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, the allegiance of Christian subjects to the empire was open to question.202 It is known that since the 16th century, cultural and nationalist flutters had emerged among the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, even if they were not movements.203 Russia had the right to claim protection over orthodox subjects in 1774 with the Küçük Kaynarca Treaty. In the last quarter of the 18th century, the Ottoman classical order was forced by the events inside and outside and foreign intervention originated. Foreign intervention was generally implemented under the name of protection of non-Muslim subjects.204 In the 19th century, the intervention increased even more. The aim of the European Powers was the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire rather than assuring the security of non-Muslims.205 As mentioned above, the motivation behind this was political. The privileges given to the foreign states became
202 Cemal Kafadar, “The Question of Ottoman Decline,” Harvard Middle Eastern Islamic Review 4, no. 1–2 (1998 1997): 30–75.
203 Ortaylı, Türkiye Teşkilât ve İdare Tarihi, 373.
204 Yücel and Ergenç, “General Charâcteristic of Ottoman State Policy During the XVIIIth to the XIXth Centuries.”
205 Yavuz Ercan, “Türkiye’de Azınlık Sorununun Kökeni (Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Gayrimüslimler),” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, no. 20 (2006): 1–15.
64
a tool for foreign intervention. They enabled the Europeans to claim the right to protection over non-Muslim subjects. Previously, it was mentioned that the merchants of foreign countries were provided commercial privileges with the ahîdnames given by the Ottoman Sultans. The consuls of each community had the right to employ a translator. The translators called dragomans started to be chosen among the zimmî subjects of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century onwards.206 The translators of consuls could serve if they had a berât given by the sultan. Translators who held a berât to serve consuls had the right to diplomatic immunity, exemption from Ottoman criminal jurisdiction, and reduced custom levies and other commercial privileges.207 These privileges attracted some of the non-Muslim subjects. Non-Muslim subjects, who wanted to benefit from these privileges in return for service to the consuls, started to prefer to be under the protection of foreign states rather than being Ottoman subjects. Moreover, they commenced endeavors to become consuls or deputy consuls, as consuls and their deputies were exempt from the cizye tax. However, consuls were allowed as long as they were within each community itself.208 Although non-Muslim subjects were allowed to serve the consuls, they were not allowed to serve as consuls. Therefore, European states provide patents for non-Muslims who wanted to become a consul. Those who hold a patent had the right to claim to be under the protection of the state which provided the patent and benefitted from the privileges.209 By doing so,
206 Belkıs Konan, “Osmanlı Devletinde Protégé Sistemi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 58, no. 1 (2009): 169–88.
207 Salahi R. Sonyel, “THE PROTÉGÉ SYSTEM IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE,” Journal of Islamic Studies 2, no. 1 (1991): 56–66, https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/2.1.56.
208 Jülide Akyüz, “19. Yüzyıl’da Osmanlı Gayrimüslim Reayasının Statüsündeki Değişimler,” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, no. 170 (October 2007): 209–20.
209 Konan, “Osmanlı Devletinde Protégé Sistemi.”
65
they established a legitimate foundation for their claims regarding the right to protect non-Muslim subjects. The 19th century was a period in which non-Muslim Ottoman subjects were engaged in activities to renounce Ottoman subjecthood. While they were revolting for independence, those who did not participate in the revolts de facto were attempting to stop being Ottoman subjects by entering the protection of European states. It should be stated that this process started with the change of the Ottoman classical era and the dissolution of the tâifes in the 18th century. Being re’âyâ lost its edge as the foremost status; being Christian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian, etc. outweighed rather than being re’âyâ. Finally, re’âyâ did not serve as an upper identity for the Ottoman subjects but was a concept used to define non-Muslim subjects only in the 19th century.210 One of the crucial issues that occupied the agenda of the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century was the search for an upper identity to replace the re’âyâ. Ittîhâd-ı Anâsır (Unification of Elements) was the concept that explained the effort to keep all the different elements together. The state aimed to unify all the subjects with the bond of Ottomannes. 210 BOA,Hariciye,Siyasi,No: 4399/329913: “Preveze Kasabası civârında bulunan Metika ve Mihaliç çitfliklerinin hâsîlatı bin iki yüz otuz sene-yi hicrîyesinde bâ-fermân-ı ‘alî ahâlî-yi islâmiyyesine terk olunarak şimdiye kadar cevâmî’-yi şerîfe ve mekâtib-i ibtîdâî’ye ve bir kısmıda fukâra-yı müslîmîne sarf ve tevcî’ edilmekde iken üzerine ahâlî-yi gayrimüslime tarafından müdahale vuku’a geldiğinden ve fermân-ı ‘aliyyede ahâlî-yi islâmiyye tasrîh olunmayub kasaba ahâlîsine terk edildiği beyân olunmuş ise de o tarihde gayrimüslime hakkında re’âyâ ta’biri müstâmel fermân-ı ‘alideki ahâlîden maksûd ehl-i islâm bulunduğu aşîkar idüğünden[…]
66
CHAPTER III CONCLUSION This thesis studies the status of non-Muslims in the pre-modern era. The central focus of the thesis is to comprehend the status of non-Muslims, the nature of the relationship between the state and non-Muslims, the guiding principles of this relationship, and the position of non-Muslims within the Ottoman social structure. The introductory section of this thesis elucidates the rationale behind the selection of this subject matter. The assertions that emerged during the 19th century, positing that the Ottomans were incapable of effectively governing non-Muslims, necessitate deeper elucidation. Consequently, this study not only investigates the status of non-Muslims but also endeavors to dissect the change in their status throughout history. Firstly, the concept of the zimma delineated the intricate web of connections originating from the agreement of the zimma contract, which established the framework for interactions between the state and non-Muslim subjects. The Ottomans were a principality on the Byzantine border, which was the center of Orthodox Christianity. Also, they were motivated by gazâ ideology. It is an unavoidable fact in the discussion of the relationship between non-Muslims and the Ottomans. The Ottomans based their relations with non-Muslims on Islamic rules. In other words, the Islamic classification of the non-Muslims was a determinant of the relationship between non-Muslims and the Ottomans, whether they were subjects or not. The non-
67
Muslims who were subordinate to the Ottomans were accepted as zimmî. The Ottoman Sultans' approach toward their non-Muslim subjects was founded upon adherence to the zimma contract. They were different from other groups of non-Muslims, harbî, and müste’men, since they were not Ottoman subjects. The Ottoman Sultan treated the zimmîs who were becoming Ottoman subjects the same manner as Muslims. In this context, non-Muslims enjoyed parity in fundamental rights, a circumstance attributed to the provisions of the zimma contract. A mutual understanding existed between the non-Muslims and the sultan. This relationship was described as an itâat-emânet (obedience-trust) relationship. The sultan was responsible for protecting the subjects since ensuring justice was his main duty. The archival records substantiated the assertion that non-Muslims were under the guardianship of the sultan without any differentiation from Muslims. The reason why that non-Muslims were protected by the sultan was that subjects were entrusted (vedi’a) by God. The affiliation with a distinct religion did not serve as a hindrance in this regard.The sultan bore responsibility for any harm incurred by his non-Muslim subjects. As long as non-Muslim subjects submitted their obedience to the sultan and paid their cizyes, they were under his responsibility. Accordingly, each Christian or Jew had the right to be protected bythe sultan like his Muslim fellows since the Ottoman political thought was based on the discourse of vedâyi-i hâlik-i kibriya. The itâat-emânet relationship affected the organization of society. The organization of the Ottoman society based on the tâifes was related to the desire to ensure the subjects' obedience. Different groups formed the tâifes, but re’âyâ was the upper identity for the members of these tâifes. For the subjects, being re’âyâ was the most important status, and for the sultan, there was no difference between his re’âyâ.
68
In Ottoman society, where the re’âyâ was accepted as the upper identity, the tâifes were not isolated. As seen in the case from the Mühimme Registers about the butchers of Yedikule, a non-Muslim tradesman could petition the sultan together with his Muslim tradesman neighbour. The archival documents used in the thesis also help us to understand the worlds of non-Muslims and Muslims, which were not isolated from each other. After all, it is out of the question that non-Muslims were second-class citizens in a system in that all subjects united in an upper identity as re’âyâ, and re’âya provided an equal status for all the subjects before the sultan.
The main reason why a Muslim and non-Muslim distinction did not occur in the Ottoman Empire was that the status of re’âyâ was an upper identity. However, the 17th and 18th centuries were the periods the changes in the Ottoman classical order emerged. Based on internal and external changes, the dissolution of the social organization started. Eventually, Muslims and non-Muslims began to separate from each other contrary to the order in the Classical Era. Towards the end of the 18th century, non-Muslims initiated some movements to give up the Ottoman subjecthood. Now, they began to view the sultan not as their protector but rather regarded the Europeans, who shared their religious beliefs, as their own compatriots. His subjects, from whom the sultan expected to be obedient (mutî), began to disobey the sultan. Religion, which was related to one's belief in the classical period, became the main element of political issues at the end of the 18th century. The 19th century witnessed the Ottomans striving to maintain cohesion among their subjects while concurrently endeavoring to counteract the interventions of European states on matters about non-Muslim subjects. After all, the main attempt of this thesis is to understand the status of non-Muslim subjects in the pre-modern era. Upon scrutinizing the primary and secondary
69
sources within this study, it becomes viable to discuss the subsequent status of non-Muslims: Non-Muslims constituted an integral part of Ottoman society, and their religious identity did not set them apart from Muslims since they were all part of re’âyâ. Religion was not the sole cause for the distinct treatment by the sultan towards non-Muslim subjects compared to Muslim subjects, as even non-Muslims were regarded as entrusted by God. All those under Sultan's rule were considered re’âyâ, and the alteration in their status emerged as an outcome of a gradual process.
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources:
BOA,Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Evrakı,No:867/10(H.21.02.974/M.07.1566)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:14/1098(H.10.08.978/M.07.01.1571)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.12/390(H.02.11.978/M.28.03.1571)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.14/1369(H.03.11.978/29.03.1571)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:16/309(H.23.12.979/07.05.1572)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:30/190(H.10.02.985/29.04.1577)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.30/551(13.03.985/31.05.1577)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.39/290(H.06.12.987/M.24.01.1580)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.52/235(H.09.10.991/M.26.10.1583)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No.55/239(H.26.01.993/M.28.01.1585)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:73/1026(H.29.10.1003/M.07.07.1595)
BOA,Bab-ı Asafi,Mühimme Defterleri,No:78/4012(H.01.07.108/M.30.09.1609) BOA,Hariciye,Siyasi,No: 4399/329913(H.17.04.1334/M.22.02.1916)
Published Sources:
6 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(972 / 1564–1565). Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti BaşbakanlıkDevlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1995.
82 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(1026-1027 / 1617-1618). Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti BaşbakanlıkDevlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2000.
85 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri(1040-1041 (1042)/ 1630-1631 (1632)). Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti BaşbakanlıkDevlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2002.
Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslimlerin Yönetimi: Pax-Ottomana. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2017.
———. Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri. Vol. 1. İstanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990.
Aksan, Virginia H, and Daniel Goffman. “Introduction: Situating the Early Modern Ottoman World.” In The Early Modern Ottomans:Remapping the Empire, edited by Virginia H Aksan and Daniel Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
71
Akyüz, Jülide. “19. Yüzyıl’da Osmanlı Gayrimüslim Reayasının Statüsündeki Değişimler.” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, no. 170 (October 2007): 209–20.
Al-Qattan, Najwa. “Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 3 (1999): 429–44.
Argıt, Betül İpşirli. “Clothing Habits, Regulations And Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.” Journal of Academic Studies 6, no. 24 (April 2005): 79–96.
Arı, Bülent. “Osmanlı Kapitülasyonlarının Tarihçesi ve Mahiyeti.” Yeni Türkiye 32, no. 2000 (n.d.): 242–51.
Bayle, St. John. The Turks in Europe : A Sketch of Manners&Politics in the Ottoman Empire. London: Chapman and Hall, 1853.
Bozkurt, Gülnihal. Alman-İngiliz Belgelerinin ve Siyasi Gelişmelerin Işığı Altında Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşlarının Hukuki Durumu (1839-1914). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1989.
———. “İslam Hukukunda Zimmilerin Hukuki Statüleri.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 3 (n.d.): 115–55.
Braude, Benjamin. “Foundation Myhts of the Ottoman Millet System.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, edited by Bernard Lewis and Benjamin Braude. New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982.
Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Lewis, eds. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. 1. New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982.
Burçak, Berrak. “Osmanlı ‘Zımni Sözleşme’sinin Peşinde:Osmanlı Klasik Döneminde Yöneten-Yönetilen İlişkisi Üzerine.” İn Prof. Dr. Özer Ergenç’e Armağan, edited by Ümit Ekin, 1. basım. İstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013.
Burçak, Berrak, and Özer Ergenç. “İmge ve Siyaset: “Sem’-i Hümâyûn.” Journal of Turkish Studies 39 (2013): 233–44.
Çağrıcı, Mustafa. “Müdara.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 31. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2020.
Cohen, Amnon, and Bernard Lewis. Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Cyrus Hamlin. Among the Turks. Newyork: America Tract Society, 1877.
Darling, Linda T. A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle of Justice From Mesopotamia to Globalization. 0 ed. United States of America;Canada: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096857.
Davies, John Llewelyn. Religious Aspects of the Eastern Question. London; Paris ;New York: Cassell Petter & Galpin, 1877.
Dingeç, Emine. “Ottoman Gypsies and the Head Tax Collection:A Case Study of the Gypsies Living in Silistre in 1843.” Türk İslam Medeniyeti Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, no. 4 (2007): 211–29.
72
Emecen, Feridun. “Devre Çıkma.” In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 9. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1994.
———. “Osmanlı Toplumunda Birlikte Yaşama Mutabakatı.” In Çeşitli Yönlerden Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, edited by Şafak Ural, Kâzım Yetiş, and Feridun Emecen. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2006.
Ercan, Yavuz. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimlerin Ödedikleri Vergiler ve Bu Vergilerin Doğurduğu Sosyal Sonuçlar.” Belleten 55, no. 213 (1991): 371–91.
———. Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler:Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 2001.
———. “Türkiye’de Azınlık Sorununun Kökeni (Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Gayrimüslimler).” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, no. 20 (2006): 1–15.
Ergenç, Özer. “‘İdeal İnsan Tipi’ Üzerinden Osmanlı Toplumun Evrimi Hakkında Bir Tahlil Denemesi.” In Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013.
———. “Osmanlı Klasik Düzeni ve Özellikleri Üzerine Bazı Açıklamalar.” İn Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013.
———. “Osmanlı Şehirlerindeki Yönetim Kurumarının Niteliği Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler.” In Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013.
———. “Osmanlı Şehrindeki Mahallenin İşlevleri ve Nitelikleri Üzerine Düşünceler.” In Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013.
———. “Üretim Süreçleri İçinde Osmanlı Belgeleri.” In Osmanlı Tarihi Tazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013.
———. XVI. Yüzyılda Ankara ve Konya. Ankara Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1995.
Ergene, Boğaç. “On Ottoman Justice:Interpretations in Conflict(1600-1800).” Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 1 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1163/156851901753129674.
Eryılmaz, Bilal. Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslim Teb’anın Yönetimi. İstanbul: Risale Yayınları, 1990.
———. Osmanlı’da Birlikte Yaşama Politikası. İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2019.
Fodor, Pal. “State and Society, Crisis and Reform in 15th-17th Century Ottoman Mirror for Princes.” In In Quest of the Golden Apple Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Adminsitration in the Ottoman Empire. United States of America: Gorgias Press, 2010.
Gara, Eleni. “Conceptualizing Inter-Religious Relations in the Ottoman Empire: The Early Modern Centuries” 116 (2017): 57–91.
Gerber, Haim. Crossing Borders: Jews and Muslims in Ottoman Law, Economy, and Society. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463226015.
73
Ginio, Eyal. “Neither Muslims nor Zimmis: The Gypsies (Roma) in the Ottoman State.” Romani Studies 5 14, no. 2 (2004): 117–44.
Greene, Frederick Davis. The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance. New York; London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1895.
Gregory, Daniel Seely. The Crime of Christendom. New York: The Abbey Press, 1900.
Grygiel, Jakub. “The Primacy of Premodern History.” Security Studies, no. 22 (2013): 1–32.
Günalan, Rıfat, and Mehmet Akman. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Bâb Mahkemesi 3 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1077 / M. 1666 - 1667). İstanbul: İSAM, 2011.
Habergetiren, Ömer Faruk, and İshak Yalnız. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hisbe Teşkilatı.” Journal of Sciences and Humanities 5, no. 2 (2021): 280–96.
Heyd, Uriel. Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1973.
İlgürel, Mücteba. “İstimâlet.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 23. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2001.
Imber, Colin. Ebu’s-Su’ud:The Islamic Legal Tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997.
İnalcık, Halil. “Djizya.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, edited by Bernard Lewis, C.P Hellat, and J. Schacht, Vol. Second. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
———. “Imtıyazat.” In Encylopaedia of Islam, edited by Bernard Lewis, V.L. Menage, CH. Pellat, and J. Schacht, Vol. III. Leiden;London: E.J. Brill;Luzac&Co., 1986.
———. “İslam Arazi ve Vergi Sisteminin Teşekkülü ve Osmanlı Devrindeki Şekillerle Mukayesesi.” İslam İlimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. I (1959): 29–46.
———. Osmanlı İmparatorluǧu Klasik Çaǧ (1300-1600). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi, 2015.
———. “Osmanlı Padişahı.” Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 13, no. 04 (1958): 68–79.
———. Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adalet. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2005.
———. Osmanlılar:Fütühat,İmparatorluk,Avrupa Ile İlişkiler. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010.
———. “Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis. New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982.
———. “Ottoman Methods of Conquest.” Studia Islamica, no. 2 (1954): 103–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/1595144.
———. “Sephardic Jews in the Ottoman Empire.” In From Empire to Republic:Essays on Ottoman and Turkish Social History. İstanbul: The Isıs Press, 2010.
———. “State and Ideology under Sultan Suleıman I.” In The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Rule: Essays on Economy and Society, 70–94. Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies, 1993.
———. The Ottoman Empire:The Classical Age 1300-1600. London: Phoenix, 1997.
74
İnalcık ,Halil. “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.” Turcica, no. 0 (1991): 407–36. https://doi.org/10.2143/TURC.23.0.2014212.
İnalcık, Halil. “Türkler ve Balkanlar.” Baltam Türklük Bilgisi, no. 3 (2005): 20–44.
Inayatullah, Sh. “Aman.” In Encylopaedia of Islam, edited by H.A.R Gibb, J.H. Kramers, E. Levi Provençal, and J. Schacht. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.
İpşirli, Mehmet. “Eman.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 11. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995.
Jennings, Ronald C. “Zimmis (Non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21, no. 3 (October 1978): 225–93.
Kafadar, Cemal. Between Two Worlds:The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
———. “Gaza.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 13. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1996.
———. “The Question of Ottoman Decline.” Harvard Middle Eastern Islamic Review 4, no. 1–2 (1998 1997): 30–75.
Kansu, Aykut. “18. Yüzyılda İngiltere’de Bir Yeniçeri Ya Da Yasalara Bağlı Bir ‘Serserinin’ Yaşamından Kesitler.” In Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Problemler,Araştırmalar,Tartışmalar. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998.
Karaca, Yılmaz. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1027 / M. 1618). İstanbul: İSAM, 2010.
Karateke, Hakan. “Opium For the Subjects?Religiosity As A Legitimazing Factor For Ottoman Sultan.” In Legitimizing The Order:The Ottoman Rhetoric of The State, edited by Maurus Reinkowski and Hakan Karateke. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005.
Karateke, Hakan, and Maurus Reinkowski. “Introduction.” In Legitimizing The Order:The Ottoman Rhetoric of The State, edited by Hakan Karateke and Maurus Reinkowski. Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage 34. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005.
Karpat, Kemal H. “The Ethnicity Problem in a Multi-Ethnic Anational Islamic State: Continuity and Recasting of Ethnic Identity in the Ottoman State.” In Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History:Selected Articles and Essays. Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia 81. Leiden,Boston,Köln: Brill, 2002.
Kenanoğlu, Macit. “Osmanlı Devletinde Millet Sistemi ve Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüleri.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara University, 2001.
———. “Osmanlı Devleti’nin gayrımüslim teb’anın idaresinde kullandığı bir yöntem olarak ‘ruhanî iltizam’ sistemi.” Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, no. 14 (2003): 67–84.
Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi. Ahlâk-ı Alâî. Edited by Mustafa Koç. İstanbul: Klasik, 2007.
Konan, Belkıs. “Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşlarının Hukuki Durumuna İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 64, no. 1 (2015): 171–93.
75
———. “Osmanlı Devletinde Protégé Sistemi.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 58, no. 1 (2009): 169–88.
Küçük, Cevdet, and Güler Eren. “Osmanlı Devletinde Millet Sistemi.” In Osmanlı 4: Toplum. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999.
Kunt, Metin. “Siyasal Tarih:1600-1789.” In Osmanlı Devleti:1600-1908, edited by Metin Kunt, Sina Akşin, Ayla Ödekan, Zafer Toprak, and G. Yurdaydın. Türkiye Tarihi 3. Cem Yayınevi, 1988.
Kurz, Marlene. “Gracious Sultan, Grateful Subjects: Spreading Ottoman Imperial ‘Ideology’throughout the Empire.” Studia Islamica 107, no. 1 (2012): 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1163/19585705-12341237.
Lewis, Bernard. The Political Language of Islam. United States of America: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Lütfi Paşa. Asafnâme. Translated by Ahmet Uğur. İstanbul: Büyüyen Ay, 2017.
Masters, Bruce. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Mert, Özcan. “Tanzimat Döneminde Çeşme Kocabaşıları(1839-1876).” Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 24, no. 35 (2004): 139–54.
Mumcu, Ahmet. Divan-ı Hümayun. Ankara: Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, 1986.
———. Osmanlı Devletinde Rüşvet. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, 1969.
———. Osmanlı Hukukunda Zulüm Kavramı. Toplumsal Araştırmalar Dizisi 1. Ankara: Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, 1985.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. “Din ve Düşünce.” In Osmanlı Devleti ve Medeniyeti Tarihi, edited by Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Vol. II. Istanbul: IRCICA, 1998.
———. Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler:15-17. Yüzyıllar. 4th ed. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2013.
Orhonlu, Cengiz. “Kharadj.” In The Encylopaedia of Islam, edited by E. Von Donzel, Bernard Lewis, and C.H Pellat, Vol. IV. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Ortaylı, İlber. İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: Hil Yayın, 1987.
———. Türkiye Teşkilât ve İdare Tarihi. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Cedit Neşriyat, 2008.
Öz, Mehmet. Kanun-ı Kadimin Peşinde:Osmanlı’da Çözülme ve Gelenekçi Yorumcuları. 2021: Dergah Yayınları, İstanbul.
———. “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Toplumu ve Ekonomisine Genel Bir Bakış.” In Osmanlı Tarihi Üzerine:İnsan,Toplum,Ekonomi II. Ankara: Cedit Neşriyat, 2020.
Özel, Ahmet. Darulislam,Darulharb:İslam Hukukunda Ülke Kavramı. 4th ed. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2019.
Panaite, Viorel. Ottoman Law of War and Peace. 2nd ed. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2019.
Peri, Oded. Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem: The Question of the Holy Sites in Early Ottoman Times. Brill, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400806.
76
Richard Clogg. “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis. New York: Holmes&Meier Publishers, 1982.
Rodrigue, Aron. Difference and Tolerance in the Ottoman Empire. Interview by Nancy Reynolds. Stanford Electronic Humanities Review, 1996. https://www.academia.edu/44088508/Difference_and_and_Tolerance_in_the_Ottoman_Empire.
Roudometof, Victor. “From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453-1821.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 16, no. 1 (1998): 11–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.1998.0024.
Sami, Şemseddin. Kamus-ı Türki. İstanbul: Şifa Yayınevi, 2015.
Savaş, Saim. “İstimâlet: Bir Osmanlı Yönetim Klasiği.” In Ötekilerin Peşinde Ahmet Yaşar Ocak’a Armağan, edited by Mehmet Öz and Fatih Yeşil. İstanbul: Timaş, 2015.
Şenay, Bülent. “Islam and Other Religions:Religious Diversity and Living Together.” Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 9, no. 9 (2000): 409–30.
Shaw, Stanford J. The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12235-6.
Sonyel, Salahi R. “THE PROTÉGÉ SYSTEM IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.” Journal of Islamic Studies 2, no. 1 (1991): 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/2.1.56.
Soyer, François. The Persecution of the Jews and Muslims of Portugal: King Manuel I and the End of Religious Tolerance (1496-7). BRILL, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004162624.i-330.
Soykan, Tankut. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslimler : Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Hukukunda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü. İstanbul: Ütopya Kitabevi, 1999.
Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009.
Stefon, Matt. Judaism : History, Belief, and Practice. The Britannica Guide to Religion. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2012.
Tabakoğlu, Ahmet. “Osmanlı İctimai Yapısının Ana Hatları.” In Osmanlı 4:Toplum, edited by Güler Eren. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999.
Taş, Hülya. “Osmanlı Devlet ve Toplum Yapısında Sözleşme Kültürü.” The Multilateral Comparative Study on Documents from the 9th to the 19th Centuries. National Institutes for the Humanities, March 2012.
———. “Osmanlıda Şikayet Hakkının Kullanımı Üzerine Düşünceler.” Memleket Siyaset Yönetim 2, no. 3 (2007): 186–204.
Tekgül, Nil. “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-Modern Ottoman Society:An Attempt to Write Ottoman History from ‘The Inside Out.’” Unpublished PhD Thesis, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2016.
———. Emotions in the Ottoman Empire: Politics, Society, and Family in the Early Modern Era. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2022.
77
Tezcan, Baki. “Ethnicity,Race,Religion and Social Class:Ottoman Markers of Difference.” In The Ottoman World, edited by Christian Woodhead. London and New York: Routledge, 2012.
Tortamış, Yunus Emre. “A Study Over Tax and Relationship Formed Around Taxation in the Ottoman Empire(16th-17th Century).” Unpublished Master Thesis, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2019.
Tuğluca, Murat. Osmanlı Devlet-Toplum İlişkisinde Şikayet Mekanizması ve İşleyiş Biçimi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2020.
Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Osmanlı Tarihi. Vol. I. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1988.
Yaycıoğlu, Ali. Partners of the Empire: The Crisis of the Ottoman Order in the Age of Revolutions. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2016.
Yılmaz, Coşkun, ed. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Beşiktaş Mahkemesi 2 Numaralı Sicil (H. 966-968 / M. 1558- 1561). İstanbul: İstanbul : Kültür AŞ, 2019.
———. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Üsküdar Mahkemesi 51 Numaralı Sicil (H. 987-988 / M. 1579-1580). İstanbul: İSAM, 2010.
Yücel, Yaşar, and Özer Ergenç. “General Characteristic of Ottoman State Policy During the XVIIIth to the XIXth Centuries.” Belleten 54, no. 209 (1990).
Yunus Koç. “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Kanunnamelerinde Halk Algısı ve Tasnifi.” Milli Folklor, 2013, 32–45.
Yurtseven, Yılmaz. “İslam Hukuku ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Uygulamasında Zimmilerin Hukuki Statüsü.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 8, no. 1–2 (2000): 439–62.
Ze’Evi, Dror. “The Use of Ottoman Sharīʿa Court Records As a Source for Middle Eastern Social History: A Reappraisal.” Islamic Law and Society 5, no. 1 (1998): 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568519982599616.