ILLEGALITY OF APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CHIEF QADIS DURING THE MAMLUK PERIODS

Year 2020, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 179 - 193, 24.06.2020

Burak Gani Erol

Abstract

The Mamelukes dominated the entire Middle East, including Egypt and Syria, between 1250 and 1517. They had some achievements that would change the destiny of both the Middle East and the world during their time. The Mamelukes became prominent in the Islamic world with their own institutions. One of the most important actions that Mamelukes brought to the Islamic world was that they expanded the chief cadi establishment to four Sunni sects with the period of Sultan ez-Zâhir Baybars, which had been only on one sect before them. Cadi, whose main mission was to ensure the justice of religious decisions, represented an authority that undertook religious, financial, and administrative duties in the Islamic world and was one of the most important elements for running the state. The authority to which the cadis were affiliated was the chief cadi, which was appointed, dismissed, and chosen by the caliph/sultan. Established in the period of Abbâsî in the history of Islam, the chief cadi institution was institutionalised in time. It implemented a very important function by being applied in all Islamic states. For their assignments, the predominant sect of the Islamic country in which the chief cadis were present was taken into consideration. Since many of the Muslims living in Egypt and its surroundings belonged to the Shafi sect, the chief cadis were Shafi as well. Among the cadis chosen by the Shafi chief as their deputies, the number of Shafi was superior to other sect cadis in number, which are Hanafi, Mâlikî, and Hanbelî. During the Mamelukes period, Sultan Ez-Zâhir Baybars appointed one chief cadi from the other three Sunni sect cadis for the first time in history. According to the researchers, the reasons for such an application were as follows: the members of other sects began to increase in Cairo within Shafi-dominated as a result of the increase in the population of Cairo because of immigration, and it was obliged to adopt that new system in relation to the solution of the legal issues. The last reason was that it was a part of the policy of strengthening the Hanafi sect. It is observed that after the Ottomans ended the Mameluke state and seized Egypt, the central government gave up this practice over time. The chief cadi, who carried out the appointment and promotion of the cadis, was carefully chosen by the president among the well-known and distinguished people of each sect. It was important because a mistake that would occur during the assignment of this person would affect the entire justice mechanism deeply through their determinations. However, as it is understood from the practices, some periods of unlawful practices were applied during the assignment and dismissal of four cadis elected by the sultan himself. During the assignments and dismissals of cadis, activities such as bribery, favouritism, and political interventions of powerful amirs compromised the respect for this authority. In fact, this title was sold by the sultan himself with money and a gift for high amounts. Sultan or the amirs that had an effect on each sultan on the throne would exclude the chief cadis appointed by the previous sultan or amirs. The cadis who were impartial and objective would be dismissed. The main reason for the dismissal was gossip and slander about the dismissed person. Reducing the respect for the justice institution in this way was explicitly criticized by the sultans of other states, which were contemporary with the Mamelukes. Also, attention was drawn to the contradiction of this situation to Islam and justice. If the caliph/sultan/the president managed the justice organization in his country with the help of the chief cadi and he handled the work of distributing justice to the chief cadi, then the chef cadi would do it through his representatives. Therefore, the chief cadi elected by the sultan would appoint deputies to him.

There is no doubt that the bribes and gifts that the sect chief cadis in the Mameluke State gave in order to be able to be assigned or prolong their duties in the office were a burden. Undoubtedly, the chief cadis had the same expectations from the cadis they appointed as their deputies in order to meet this financial burden they faced. Therefore, the high number of cadis was considered to be very positive for the chief cadi. For this reason, the chief cadis constantly wanted to increase the number of their deputies, namely cadis. The number of these cadis who were accused of being illiterate and ignorant by the historians of that period sometimes fell into the eyes of the sultans. So, their number was limited by their pressure. However, this pressure was temporary, and the number of cadis increased in a short time. In this study, the reasons for this practice were examined after pointing out the assignment of a chief cadi from four sects by referring to the sources written in the Mamelukes period. Later, the unlawfulness during the assignments and dismissals of chief cadis in the Mamelukes was explained in detail under the heading of 4 Sunni sects with evident and prominent examples. Attempts to reduce the number of cadis (deputies) appointed by the chief cadis were given under a separate heading, and examples were included. Thus, the effect of bribery on the justice system in the Mamelukes state was tried to be revealed.

MEMLÛKLER DÖNEMİNDE BAŞKADILARIN TAYİN VE AZİLLERİNDEKİ USULSÜZLÜKLER

Abstract

1250-1517 yılları arasında Mısır ve Suriye merkez olmak üzere tüm Orta Doğu'ya hâkim olan Memlûkler, bulundukları dönem içerisinde hem Ortadoğu'nun hem de dünyanın kaderini değiştirecek olaylara imza atmışlar, kendilerine mahsus müesseseleri ile İslâm dünyası içinde öne çıkmışlardır. Memlûklerin İslâm âlemine kazandırdıkları en önemli müesseselerden birisi de, Sultan ez-Zâhir Baybars döneminden itibaren, kendilerinden önce sadece bir mezhep üzerine olan başkadılık müessesesini, sünnî dört mezhep üzerine genişletmeleri olmuştur. Ancak uygulamalardan anlaşıldığı kadarıyla, bizzat sultan tarafından seçilen başkadıların tayin ve görevden alınmaları esnasında bazı dönemler hukuksuz uygulamalara müracaat edilmiştir. Başkadıların tayinleri ve azilleri esnasında rüşvet, iltimas, güçlü emîrlerin siyasi müdahaleleri gibi bu makamın saygınlığına gölge düşürecek faaliyetlerde bulunulmuştur. Bu çalışmada başkadı tayin ve azilleri esnasında meydana gelen hukuksuz uygulamaların bariz örnekleri verilmek suretiyle konuya açıklık getirilmeye çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

Memlûk, Rüşvet, Başkadı

References

• Atçıl, Abdurrahman, (2017), “Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a Geçişte Mısır’da Adlî Teşkilât ve Hukuk (922-931/1517-1525)”, İslâm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38, 89-121.
• Abdülbâsıt el-Malatî, Zeynü'd-Dîn 'Abdu'l-Bâsit b. Halîl b. Şâhin, (2002), Neylü’l-Emel fî Zeyli’d-Düvel. (Nşr. Ömer A. Tedmürî). I-IX. Beyrut: Mektebeti’l-Asriyye.
• Çetin, Altan, (2013), Ortaçağda Devletin İki Yüzü, Ankara: Lotus Yayınevi.
• Çetin, Altan, (2007). Memlûk Devletinde Askerî Teşkilât. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık.
• Çetin, Altan, (2004). Memlûk Kaynaklarına Göre Mısır’ın Hududları. Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (X ). 1-7.
• ‘Âşûr, Saîd ‛Abdu'l-Fettâh (1992). el-Müctema‘u’l-Mısrî fî ‘Asri Selâtîni’l-Memâlîk. Kahire: Dârü’n-Nehdati’l-Arabiyye
• Ayaz, Fatih Yahya-Eren, Fatmanur Alibekiroğlu, (2019) “Memlük Devletinde Sultan ve Emîrlerin Hanefîliğe İlgisi”, İBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5, 284-296
• Kanat, Cüneyt, (1996), Memlûk-Timurlu Münasebetleri (1382-1447), Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İzmir.
• Durmuş, İsmail, (2002), “Kazvînî, Hatîb”, DİA, C. 25, İstanbul: Diyanet Vakfı Yay ., 156-157.
• 'Aynî, Bedreddîn Mahmud b. Ahmed. (1992). ‘İkdu'l-Cumân fî Tarîhi Ehli'z-Zamân. Tah. Muhammed Muhammed Emîn, I-IV, Kâhire: el-Hey’etü’l-Mısriyyeti’l-‘Amme l’l-Kitâb.
• 'Aynî, Bedreddîn Mahmud b. Ahmed, (1989), ‘İkdu'l-Cumân fî Tarîhi Ehli'z-Zamân, Tah. ‘Abdurrezzâk el-Tantâvî el-Karmût, Kahire: ez-Zehrâ’ li’l-İ’lâmi’l-‘Arabî
• Kalkaşendî, Ebû'l-'Âbbâs Ahmed b. 'Ali. (1922). Subhu'l-'Aşâ fî Sınâati'l-İnşâ, I-XIV, Kâhire: Dârü'l-Kutubi'l-Hadîviyye.
• Nüveyrî, Ahmed b. ‘Abd el-Vahhâb. (2004), Nihâyetü’l-Ereb fî Funûni'l-Edeb, Tah. Mufîd Kameyuha, I-XXXIII, Beyrût: Dârü'l-Kutubi'l-'İlmiyye.
• Escovitz, J. H. (1982). The Establishment of Four Chief Judgeships in The Mamlûk Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 102(3), 529-531. ez-Züheylî, Muhammed, (1995), Tarîhu'l-Kadâ' fî'l-İslâm, Dımaşk.
• Gökhan, İlyas, (2014), “İbn Haldun’un Memlûk Sultanları ile İlişkisi”, Kapadokya Tarih ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3, 35-43.
• İbn Abdü’z-Zâhir, (1976), er-Ravzü’z-Zâhir fî Sîreti’l-Meliki’z-Zâhir, Nşr. Abdülaziz el-Huveytır, Riyad.
• İBN FEHD, en-Necm ‘Ömer, (1983-2005), İthâfü’l-Verâ bi-Ahbâri’l-Ummi’l-Kurâ, Tah. Fehîm Muhammed Şeltût, Kahire: Mektebetü’l-Hâncî.
• İbn Hacer el-‘Askalânî, Ebu’l-Fazl Şihâbüddîn Ahmed b. Ali b. Muhammed, (1988), Ref ‘i’l-İsr an Kudâti Mısr, Tah. Ali Muhammed Ömer, Kahire: Mektebetü’l-Hâncî.
• İbn Hacer el-‘Askalânî, Ebu’l-Fazl Şihâbüddîn Ahmed b. Ali b. Muhammed. (1980), ed-Dürerü’l-Kâmine fî A’yâni’l-Mi’eti’s-Sâmine, I-IV. Beyrût: Dâru İhyâ’i’t-Turâsi’l-‘Arabî.
• İbn Hacer el-'Askalanî, Ebu’l-Fazl Şihâbüddîn Ahmed b. Ali b. Muhammed (1969-1998), İnbâu'l-Ğumr bi-Ebnâi'l-'Umr, Tah. Hasan Habeşî, Kâhire.
• İbn Haldun, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed, (2017), Mukaddime, Haz. Süleyman Uludağ, Ankara: Dergâh Yayınları.
• İbn İyâs, Muhammed b. Ahmed. (1984). Bedâ'u'z-Zuhûr fî Vakâi'i'd-Duhûr, Tah. Muhammed Mustafâ, I-V. Kâhire: el-Hey’etü’l-Mısriyyeti’l-‘Amme l’l-Kitâb.
• İbn Kesîr, Ebû’l-Fidâ’. (1997-1999). el-Bidâye ve’n-Nihâye, Tah. Abdullah b. ʼAbdu’l-Muhsin et-Türkî, I-XXI, Cîze: Dâru Hecer.
• İbn Tagrıberdi, Ebû'l-Mehâsin Cemâlü'd-dîn Yûsuf. (1992). en-Nücûmu'z-Zâhire fÎ Mülûki'l-Mısr ve'l-Kâhire, Tah. Muhammed Kemâleddîn 'İzzeddîn, I-XVI. Lübnan: Dârü'l-Kutubi'l-'İlmiyye.
• İbn Tagriberdî, E.M. (1984-2006). El-Menhelü’s-Sâfî ve’l-Müstevfî Ba‘de’l-Vâfî. Nşr. Muhammed M. Emin-Nebîl Muhammed Abdülaziz, I-XII. Kahire: Matbaatü Dârü'l-Kutub.
• İbn Tolun, Şemseddîn Muhammed b. ‛Alî, (1956), Kudâtu Dımaşk, Tah. Selâhad-Dîn el-Muneccîd, Dımaşk.
• İbn Tolun, Şemseddîn Muhammed b. ‛Alî, (1998), Mufâkehetü’l-Hillân fî Havâdisi’z-Zamân, Tah. Halîl el-Mansûr, Beyrut: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-‘İlmiyye.
• İbnü’l-Cezerî, Şemseddîn, (1998), Tarîhu İbni’l-Cezerî, Tah. Ömer Abdusselâm Tedmurî, I-II, Beyrut: el-Mektebetü’l-‘Asriyye
• Kandemir, M. Yaşar, (1999), “İbn Hacer el-Askalânî”, DİA, C. 19, İstanbul: Diyanet Vakfı Yay .,514-531.
• Kortantamer, Samira (1993), Bahrî Memlûklar’da Üst Yönetim Mensupları ve Aralarındaki İlişkiler, İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Kortantamer, Samira, (2010), “Memlûklerde Hapishaneler”, Hapishane Kitabı, Edt. Emine Gürsoy Naskali, Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Kitabevi.
• Mâcid, ‛Abdü'l-Men‛am, (1979), Nazmu Devletu Selâtîni'l-Memâlîk ve Rusûmihim fî Mısr, Kâhire.
• Makrîzî, Takiyyü'd-Dîn Ahmed b. 'Ali, (1956-1973). Kitâbü’s-sülûk li-ma‘rifeti düveli’l-mülûk, Nşr. M. Mustafa Ziyâde-Saîd A. ‘Âşûr, I-XII. Kahire: Lecnetü’t-Te’lîf ve’t-Terceme ve’n-Neşr.
• Nielsen, J. S. (1984). Sultan al-zâhir Baybars and the appointment of four chief qâdîs 663/1265. Studia Islamica (60), 167-176.
• Özen, Ş. (2001). Kâdılkudât, DİA, C. 25, İstanbul: Diyanet Vakfı Yay ., 77-82.
• Rapoport, Y. (2003), “Legal Diversity in The Age of Taqlîd: The Four Chief Qâdîs Under The Mamluks”, Islamic Law and Society 10(2), 210-228.
• Sayrafî, el-Hatîb el-Cevherî ‘Ali b. Dâvud, (1970-1973), Nüzhetü'n-Nüfûs ve'l-Ebdân fî Tevârîhi’z-Zamân, Tah. Hasan Habeşî, I-III. Kahire: Dâru’l-Kutub, el-Meclisü’l-A’lâ li’ş-Şu’uni’l-İslâmiyye.
• Sehâvî, Şemsüddîn Muhammed b. ‘Abdirrahmân b. Muhammed, (1966), Bugyetü’l-‘Ulemâ ve’r-Ruvât ev ez-Zeyl alâ Ref’i’l-İsr, tah. Cevdet Hilal, Muhammed Mahmûd Subh, Kahire.
• Sehâvî, Şemsüddîn Muhammed b. ‘Abdirrahmân b. Muhammed, (1992), ed-Dav’ü’l-Lâmi‘ li-Ehli’l-Karni’t-Tâsi‘. I-XII, Beyrut: Dârü’l-Cîl
• Suyûtî, el-Hâfız Celâleddîn ‛Abdurrahman, (1967), Hüsnü’l-Muhâdara fîTârîhi Mısr ve’l-Kâhire, Tah. Muhammed Ebû’l-Fadl İbrâhîm, I-II, Dâru İhyâ’i’l-Kutubi’l-‛Arabiyye.
• Şeker, Mehmet, (2018), “Türk Devlet Yönetiminde Farklı Başkadılık Uygulamaları: Hazarlar, Altın Orda ve Memlûkler Örneği”, ABAD 1, 71-88.
• Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (1998). Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilatına Medhal, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
• Üner, M. Orhan, (1978), Memlûklular’da Dinî ve Adlî Kurumlar, Basılmamış Doçentlik Tezi, Erzurum.
• Yûnînî, Kutbüddîn el-Ba'lbekî el-Hanbelî, (1954-1961), Zeylü Mir’âti’z-Zamân, I-IV, Haydarâbâd: Dâiretü’l-Maârifi’l-Osmânî
• Yüksel, Musa Şamil (2008), “Arap Kaynaklarına Göre Timur ve Din”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, C. 23, 239,258.