Mamluk-Ottoman Transition in Egypt: Judicial Administration and Law (1517-1525)

Abstract

In this article, I examine developments related to judicial administration and law in Egypt during 1517-1525, with the purpose of shedding light on the legal aspect of Egypt’s integration into the Ottoman Empire. The majority of studies on the related topics support the observation that the Ottoman central government imposed on Egypt, in a top-down fashion, the legal practices that had been prevalent in Anatolia and Rumelia, and ended the Mamluk system of judicial administration, characterized by plurality. Distinct from these studies, this article aims to show variant tendencies of continuity and discontinuity in Mamluk- Ottoman transition, by distinguishing between judicial administration and law.

It appears that, during the period under study, the Ottomans wanted to establish strong central control over the judicial administration. Although local objections and demands forced the Ottomans to change their initial intentions, scholars, who served as bureaucrats of the Ottoman central bureaucracy (scholar-bureaucrats), gradually grew in importance in the judicial administration in Egypt. Scholar-bureaucrats began to supervise people, institutions and transactions in the sharia courts of Egypt.

On the other hand, during the same period, it is apparent that the Ottomans did not impose a particular law in the courts and legal transactions in Egypt in a top-down manner, but mostly maintained the Mamluk status quo. For example, following the Mamluk practice, they appointed judges from four madhhabs (legal schools; Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki and Hanbali) and allowed them to apply the doctrine of their own school in legal decisions and approvals. Along the same lines, the Kanunname (Law Code) of Egypt, promulgated in 1525, ratified many administrative, legal and financial practices of the Mamluk period as legal and affirmed the privileges of local groups.

In the first part of the article, I give a brief overview of the political developments, marked with ups and downs from the perspective of the Ottoman center. I discuss Sultan Selim I’s (r. 1512-1520) efforts to establish a stable order in Egypt by appointing Grand Vizier Yunus Pasha (d. 1517) as the governor. As the pasha failed to reach out to the fugitive Mamluk soldiers and the Arab Bedouin, Selim replaced him with Hayır Bey, a former Mamluk commander. Hayır Bey maintained order in the region for five years, largely by coopting the powerful groups of the former Mamluk regime. When he died in 1522, Sultan Süleyman appointed as governor Mustafa Pasha (d. 1529), who was a vizier of Bosnian origin in the Imperial Council. Mustafa Pasha’s policies instigated a rebellion by former Mamluk commanders, Arab Bedouin and urban folk of Cairo. After this uprising was brought under control, Ahmed Pasha (d. 1524), another vizier from the Imperial Council, became the governor in 1523. Collaborating with some of the groups that had rebelled, Ahmed Pasha attempted to gain independence from the empire. Some soldiers in the Ottoman garrison in Egypt toppled and killed Ahmed Pasha in 1524. Then, Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha led an expeditionof investigation to Egypt during 1524-1525. After bringing rebellious factions

under control, he communicated with different groups in Egypt, listened to their demands and succeeded in drawing up the Law Code of Egypt in 1525, which became the instrument and sign of the establishment of a stable order.

In the second part, I delve into developments related to the judicial administration in Egypt. I identify five distinct phases in this regard during 1517-1525.

(1) The Failed Attempt of Radical Ottoman Centralization (22 January-5 March 1517): During the time of his residence, Selim I first dismissed the judges of the four legal schools and appointed a scholar-bureaucrat as the judge of Egypt. He then changed his mind and returned to the former judicial structure through the reinstitution of the judges of the four legal schools on March 5, 2017.

(2) The Continuation of the Mamluk System under the Ottoman Rule (5 Marchn 1517 – May 1522): The judges of the four legal schools continued to preside over the courts as they did during the Mamluk times, except that Hayır Bey and other Ottoman officials pressured these judges to limit the number of their deputies (naib) and professional witnesses (‘udul).

(3) Seydi Çelebi’s Reforms and the Establishment of the Control of the Ottoman Central Government over the Judicial Administration (May 1522- August 1523): In May 1522, the Ottoman central government appointed Seydi Çelebi (d. 1524/25), who had previously served as the chief judge of Anatolia, as the chief judge of Egypt with the special mission of reorganizing the judicial administration in Cairo and adjacent districts. He would preside over the whole judicial organization. For this, he dismissed the judges of the four legal schools and appointed deputies from all legal schools. In addition, he appointed deputies to the different districts of Cairo, such as Bulaq, Old Cairo and the Mosque of Ibn Tulun. With this new organizational structure, Seydi Çelebi, who represented and reported directly to the Ottoman center, was placed over all other judicial staff, such as deputies and professional witnesses, whether they were appointed from the Ottoman center or they were from the local people.

(4) The Reinstitution of the Judges of Four Legal Schools (September 1523 September 1524): Ahmed Pasha revoked the central piece of Seydi Çelebi’s reforms by appointing the judges of four legal schools, and thereby returning to the Mamluk practice in this respect.

(5) The Reestablishment of the Control of the Central Government (September 1524): Pir Ahmed Çelebi (d. 1545/46) was appointed as the chief judge of Egypt with the duty to put Seydi Çelebi’s reforms back in place.

In the third part, I inquire if the Ottomans ended the Mamluk plural justice, based on the doctrines of the four legal schools, and imposed particular legal doctrines and laws in Egypt. I argue that, regardless of the changes in the relative positions of the judges from the four legal schools, the Ottomans allowed the implementation of each of the doctrines according to the wishes and needs of court users—although this policy did not accord with the legal practice in Anatolia and Rumelia, requiring the implementation of the Hanafi doctrine. In addition, I briefly discuss the Law Code of Egypt and suggest that it made many practices of the Mamluk period legal under Ottoman rule and protected  the rights of several groups that had been enjoyed during the Mamluk period.

In the conclusion, I relate the findings of the study to some prominent historiographical themes. I briefly discuss Egypt’s distinction from many other lands, for example those in the Balkans, in terms of its integration into the Ottoman Empire. Egypt had been one of the important administrative and scholarly centers and had a long history of Islamic justice since the early decades of Islam. Religious and legal practice, which was based on the doctrine of the established legal schools, in Egypt differed from that which had been in place in the empire’s lands in Anatolia and the Balkans. In this situation, the Ottomans had to develop a policy that aimed to accommodate the distinctive legal practice of Egypt. In addition, I touch upon the issue of uniformity vs. plurality in legal practice in the Ottoman Empire. During the period under study, the Ottomans were keen on establishing a centralized administration, which was based on training and appointing key officials from the center. However, as illustrated in this article, they were open to accommodate diversity in judicial administration and law. Finally, I reflect on the prevalent notion that the Ottomans adopted the Hanafi legal school as the “official legal school.” The examination in this article suggest that Hanafi doctrine did not have a privileged position in court procedures in Egypt—in certain legal matters, the divorce of women from their absent husbands, for example, the doctrines of other schools had precedence. In this situation, as far as Egypt was concerned, the “official legal school” could denote that after the establishment of the center control over the judicial administration, the chief judge of Egypt was always chosen from among scholar-bureaucrats almost all of whom were Hanafis.

 

Keywords

• Mamluks,Ottomans,Egypt,Law,Court,Official Legal School (Resmi Madhhab),Judge,Law Code (Kanunname),Law Code of Egypt (Mısır Kanunnamesi)

Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a Geçişte Mısır’da Adlî Teşkilât ve Hukuk (922-931/1517-1525)

Abstract

Bu makalede Mısır’ın Osmanlı idaresine entegrasyonunun hukukî yönüne ışık tutmak amacıyla 922-931 (1517-1525) yılları arasındaki döneminde bölgede adlî teşkilât ve hukukla ilgili gelişmeler ele alınmaktadır. Mevcut akademik çalışmaların çoğu, Osmanlı merkezî idaresinin Anadolu ve Rumeli’de yaygın olan hukukî uygulamaları Mısır’a tepeden inmeci bir yaklaşımla empoze ettiği ve bölgede Memlük döneminin çoğulcu sisteminden bir kopuş olduğunu savunmaktadır. Söz konusu çalışmalardan farklı olarak, bu makalede adlî teşkilât ve hukuk birbirinden ayrı olarak ele alınmakta ve Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a geçişte süreklilik-kopuş açısından farklı yönelimler gösterilmektedir. İncelenen dönemde Osmanlılar’ın adlî teşkilât üzerinde merkezî otoriteyi kurmak istedikleri görülmektedir. Mahallî itiraz ve talepler adlî idarede başlangıçta planlanan icraatların değişmesine sebep olsa da zaman içerisinde merkezî bürokratik teşkilâta bağlı âlimler (âlimbürokrat) arasından seçilen kadılar, Mısır’daki adaletle ilgili kişiler, kurumlar ve işlemler üzerindeki denetimlerini artırmıştı. Diğer taraftan, aynı dönemde, davalara ve işlemlere esas olan hukuk açısından merkezden Mısır’a bir dayatma olmadığı ve Memlük dönemi uygulamalarının büyük oranda devam ettiği dikkat çekmektedir. Meselâ Memlük dönemindeki durumun bir devamı olarak Osmanlı dönemi mahkemelerinde dört mezhebin (Hanefî, Şâfiî, Mâlikî ve Hanbelî) kadıları istihdam edilmekte ve bu mezheplerin görüşleri kadıların yaptığı hukukî işlemlere ve verdiği kararlara dayanak olabilmekteydi. Yine 931 (1525) yılında ilân edilen Mısır Kanunnâmesi birçok Memlük dönemi uygulamasını Osmanlı hukuk çerçevesinin içine almakta ve yerel grupların imtiyazlarını tanımaktaydı.

 

Keywords

• Memlükler,Osmanlılar,Mısır,hukuk,mahkeme,resmî mezhep,kadı,kanunnâme,Mısır Kanunnâmesi

References

1. Akarlı, Engin Deniz, “The Ruler and Law Making in the Ottoman Empire”, Law and Empire: Ideas, Practices, Actors, ed. Jeroen Duindam v.dğr., Leiden: Brill, 2013, s. 87-109.
2. Akgündüz, Ahmed, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri, I-IX, İstanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990-96.
3. Atçıl, Abdurrahman, Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
4. Ayalon, Dawid, Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom: A Challenge to a Medieval Society, London: Vallentine, Mitchell & Co. Ltd., 1956.
5. Ayalon, David, “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A Reexamination (Part A)”, Studia Islamica, 33 (1971): 97-140.
6. Aydın, M. Akif, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hukuk ve Adalet, İstanbul: Klasik, 2014. Baldwin, James E., Islamic Law and Empire in Ottoman Cairo, Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press, 2017.
7. Behrens-Abouseif, Doris, Egypt’s Adjustment to Ottoman Rule, Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo (16th and 17th Centuries), Leiden: Brill, 1994.
8. Bostan Çelebi, Süleymannâme, Süleymaniye Ktp., Ayasofya, nr. 3317.

9. Burak, Guy, “Between the Ḳānūn of Qāytbāy and Ottoman Yasaq: A Note on the Ottomans’ Dynastic Law”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 26/1 (2015): 1-23.
10. Burak, Guy, The Second Formation of Islamic Law, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
11. Celâlzâde Mustafa Çelebi, Tabakātü’l-memâlik ve derecâtü’l-mesâlik, Süleymaniye Ktp., Ayasofya, nr. 3296.
12. Diyarbekrî, Abdüssamed b. Seyyidî Ali b. Dâvûd, Nevâdirü’t-tevârîh, Millet Ktp., Ali Emîrî, Tarih, nr. 596.
13. Duran, Ahmet, “İslam Hukukunda Olağanüstü Yetkili bir Mahkeme Olarak Velâyetü’l-Mezâlim (Mezâlim Mahkemeleri)”, İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25 (2015): 251-73.
14. Emecen, Feridun M., Yavuz Sultan Selim, İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2016.
15. Emre, Side, “Anatomy of a Rebellion in Sixteenth-Century Egypt: A Case Study of Ahmed Pasha’s Governorship, Revolt, Sultanate, and Critique of the Ottoman Imperial Enterprise”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 46 (2015): 77-129.
16. Escovitz, Joseph H., “The Establishment of Four Chief Judgeships in the Mamlūk Empire”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 102 (1982): 529-31.
17. Fitzgerald, Timothy J., “Reaching the Flocks: Literacy and the Mass Reception of Ottoman Law in the Sixteenth-Century Arab World”, Law and Legality in the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey, ed. Kent F. Schull v.dğr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2016, s. 5-20.
18. Fuess, Albrecht, “Ẓulm by Maẓālim? The Political Implications of the Use of Maẓālim Jurisdiction by the Mamluk Sultans”, Mamlūk Studies Review, 8 (2009): 121-47.
19. “Gaib Olanların Zevceleri Hususu İçin Ahkâm”, Beyazıt Devlet Ktp., Veliyyüddin Efendi, nr. 1970.
20. Gözübenli, Beşir, “Mefkūd”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), 2003, XXVIII, 353-56.
21. Hallaq, Wael B., The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
22. Hanna, Nelly, “The Administration of Courts in Ottoman Cairo”, The State and its Servants, Administration in Egypt from Ottoman Times to the Present, ed. Nelly Hanna, Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1995, s. 44-59.
23. Hathaway, Jane, The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800, New York: Routledge, 2008.
24. Hathaway, Jane, The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
25. Hızlı, Mefail, “Osmanlı Medreselerinde Okutulan Dersler ve Eserler”, Uludağ Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (2008): 25-46.
26. Ibrahim, Ahmed Fekry, Pragmatism in Islamic Law: A Social and Intellectual History, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2015.
27. Imber, Colin, Ebu’s-Su‘ud, The Islamic Legal Tradition, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997.
28. Irwin, Robert, “The Privatization of ‘Justice’ under the Circassian Mamluks”, Mamlūk Studies Review, 6 (2002): 63-70.
29. İbn İyâs, Bedâiu’z-zühûr fî vekāiu’d-dühûr, nşr. Muhammed Mustafa, I-V, Beyrut: el- Ma‘hedü’l-almânî li’l-ebhâsi’ş-şarkıyye, 1431/2010.
30. İbn İyâs, Yavuz’un Mısır’ı Fethi ve Mısır’da Osmanlı İdaresi, trc. Ramazan Şeşen, İstanbul: Yeditepe, 2016.
31. İdrîs-i Bitlisî, Selimşahnâme, haz. Hicabi Kırlangıç, Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001.
32. İnalcık, Halil, “Mahkama”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, 1991, VI, 3-5.
33. İnalcık, Halil, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest”, Studia Islamica, 2 (1954): 103-29.
34. Îsâ, Abdürrezzâk İbrâhim, Târîhu’l-kazâ’ fî Mısri’l-Osmâniyye: 1517-1798, Kahire: el- Hey’etü’l-Mısriyyetü’l-âmme li’l-kitâb, 1998.
35. Jackson, Sherman A., Islamic Law and the State: The Constitutional Jurisprudence of Shihāb al-Dīn Al-Qarāfī, Leiden: Brill, 1996.
36. Kavak, Özgür, “XV. Yüzyılda Kahire’de Siyaset, Hukuk ve Ahlakı Birlikte Düşünmek: Ali Gazzali’nin Tahrîrü’s-sülûk fî tedbîri’l-mülûk İsimli Risalesi”, Dîvân: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, 39 (2015): 103-40.
37. Kosei, Morimoto, “What Ibn Khaldūn Saw: The Judiciary of Mamluk Egypt”, Mamlūk Studies Review, 6 (2002): 109-31.
38. Kuşçu, Ayşe D., “Eyyûbîler’de Mezâlim Mahkemeleri ve Dârü’l-Adl”, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26 (2009): 207-29.
39. Lellouch, Benjamin, Les Ottomans en Égypte: historiens et conquérants au XVIe siècle, Leuven: Peeters, 2006.
40. Masters, Bruce, The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire: A Social and Cultural History, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
41. Melchert, Christopher, The Formation of the Sunni Schools of Law: 9th-10th Centuries C. E., Leiden: Brill, 1997.
42. Meshal, Reem A., Sharia and the Making of the Modern Egyptian: Islamic Law and Custom in the Courts of Ottoman Cairo, Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2014.
43. Mumcu, Ahmet, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara: Phoenix, 2007.
44. Muslu, Cihan Yüksel, The Ottomans and the Mamluks, Imperial Diplomacy and Warfare in the Islamic World, London: I. B. Tauris, 2014.
45. Nahal, Galal H., Judicial Administration of Ottoman Egypt in the Seventeenth Century, Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979.
46. Necipoğlu, Gülru, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
47. Nielsen, Jørgen S., “Maẓālim and Dār al-‘Adl under the Early Mamluks”, Muslim World, 66 (1976): 114-32;
48. Peters, Rudolph, “What does it Mean to be an Official Madhhab? Hanafism and the Ottoman Empire”, The Islamic School of Law, Evolution, Devolution and Progress, ed. Peri Bearman v.dğr., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005, 147-58.
49. Petry, Carl F., Twilight of Majesty: The Reigns of the Mamlūk Sultans al- Ashrāf Qāytbāy and Qanṣūh al-Ghawrī in Egypt, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993.
50. Rabbat, Nasser O., “The Ideological Significance of the Dār al- Adl in the Medieval Islamic Orient”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27 (1995): 3-28.
51. Rapoport, Yossef, “Legal Diversity in the Age of Taqlīd: The Four Chief Qᾱḍis under the Mamluks”, Islamic Law and Society, 10 (2003): 210-28.
52. Rapoport, Yossef, “Royal Justice and Religious Law: Siyāsah and Shariʿah under the Mamluks”, Mamlūk Studies Review, 16 (2012): 71-101.
53. Salîbî, Kemâl Süleyman, “en-Nizâmü’l-kazâ’ fî Mısr ve’ş-Şâm fî asri’l-Memâlîk (1250- 1517)”, el-Ebhâs, 11 (1958): 473-89.
54. Schacht, Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
55. Seyyid Mahmud, Seyyid Muhammed, XVI. Asırda Mısır Eyâleti, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1990.
56. Söylemez, Mehmet Mahfuz, “Mısır’da Osmanlı Adliye Teşkilatının Kuruluşu ve İlk Mısır Kadıları Hakkında Bir Araştırma”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Egypt during the Ottoman Era, 26-30 November 2007, Cairo, ed. Cengiz Tomar, İstanbul: IRCICA, 2010, s. 115-36.
57. Stilt, Kristen, Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion, and Everyday Experiences in Mamluk Egypt, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
58. “Sûret-i Berât”, Beyazıt Devlet Ktp., Veliyyüddin Efendi, nr. 1969.
59. Şahin, Kaya, Empire and Power in the Reign of Süleyman, Narrating the Sixteenth-Century Ottoman World, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
60. Taşköprizâde Ahmed Efendi, eş-Şekāiku’n-nu‘mâniyye, nşr. Ahmed Subhi Furat, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1405/1985.
61. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi, D. 8823.
62. Turan, Ebru, “The Sultan’s Favorite: İbrahim Paşa and the Making of the Ottoman Universal Sovereignty in the Reign of Sultan Süleyman (1516-1526)” (doktora tezi), University of Chicago, 2007.
63. Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilâtı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998.
64. Winter, Michael, “Egypt and Syria in the Sixteenth Century”, The Mamluk-Ottoman Transition, ed. Stephan Conermann - Gül Şen, Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2017, s. 33-56.
65. Winter, Michael, “The Conquest of Syria and Egypt by Sultan Selim I, According to Evliyâ Çelebi”, The Mamluk-Ottoman Transition, ed. Stephan Conermann - Gül Şen, Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2017, s. 127-44.
66. Winter, Michael, Egyptian Society under Ottoman Rule: 1517-1789, London: Routledge, 1992.