Yasal Bir Algoritma Olarak İkili Mantık: Osmanlı Şeyhulislam Fetvalarında Sistematik Karar Vermenin Hesaplanabilir Kanıtları

Öz

Bu disiplinlerarası araştırma, Osmanlı şeyhülislamlarının fetva mantığının temelindeki algoritmik yapıyı açığa çıkarmak amacıyla hesaplamalı dilbilim, makine öğrenmesi, İslam hukuku ve bilgi teorisi arasında bir köprü kurmaktadır. Fetâvâ-yı Feyziye, Fetâvâ-yı Ebüssuûd Efendi ve Behcetü’l-Fetâvâ gibi otoriter kaynaklardan seçilen 9.913 fetvanın incelenmesi sonucunda, İslam hukukunun özünde ikili bir algoritmik düzen üzerine işlediği ve kararların %86,8’inin “yasaklama/izin” mantığına dayandığı ortaya konmuştur. Sistem, olası en yüksek entropi düzeyi olan 4.755 bitten %66,4 oranında daha düşük bir seviyeyi temsil eden 1.599 bitlik dikkat çekici bir düşük entropi sergilemektedir. Bu durum, Osmanlı’daki şeyhülislamlık kurumunun merkezinde gelişen hukuk hiyerarşisinin, oldukça yapılandırılmış ve öngörülebilir karar kalıpları ürettiğini göstermektedir. Makine öğrenmesi modelleri, fetvaları tahmin etmede %87,6 doğruluk oranına (XGBoost) ulaşmakta; özellikle “olur/olmaz” gibi ikili dilsel işaretler en güçlü belirleyici öğeler olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Yasaklama-izin ayrımı, 4.410 yasaklama ve4.199 izin kararıyla dengeli bir içtihat dağılımı göstermektedir. Ayrıca, finansal davalarda ikili sınıflandırma oranı %88,3 iken, finansal olmayanlarda bu oran %84,3’tür. Bu fark, ekonomik işlemlerin daha net hukuki açıklığa ihtiyaç duyduğunu işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, Osmanlı şeyhülislam sistemi üzerinden kurumsallaşan İslam içtihadının, modern bilişimden yüzyıllar önce algoritma benzeri karar yapıları geliştirdiğine dair hesaplanabilir kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Bulgular aynı zamanda günümüz yasal otomasyonu ve dini bağlamlarda yapay zekâ etiği üzerine de önemli çıkarımlar barındırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Şeyhulislam
• Osmanlı Fetvaları
• Hesaplamalı İçtihat
• İslam Hukuku
• Yasal Algoritmalar
• İkili Mantık
• Makine Öğrenmesi

Binary Logic as Legal Algorithm: Computational Evidence of Systematic Decision-Making in Ottoman Sheikh al-Islam Fatwas

Öz

Bridging computational linguistics, machine learning, and Islamic legal studies, this interdisciplinary investigation examines the algorithmic structure underlying Ottoman Sheikh al-Islam fatwa reasoning. Analysis of 9,913 fatwas from authoritative collections—including Fetâvâ-yı Feyziye, Fetâvâ-yı Ebüssuûd Efendi, and Behcetü'l-Fetâvâ—establishesthat nearly 87% of rulings follow binary prohibition/permission logic. This binary architecture exhibits notably low entropy (1.599 bits), falling 66% below maximum possible entropy, which suggests highly structured decision patterns characteristic of thecentralized Sheikh al-Islam authority. Machine learning models achieved considerable predictive accuracy (87.6% with XGBoost), with simple linguistic markers ("olmaz"/"olur") emerging as the strongest predictors. Among binary cases, prohibitions (4,410) and permissions (4,199) appear balanced, challenging assumptions about Islamic law's supposedly restrictive nature. Financial matters pointed toeven higher binary classification rates than non-financial cases (88% versus 84%), likely reflecting commercial law's demand for clear guidance. Such systematic patterns, developed centuries before digital computing, suggest that algorithmic legal reasoning may represent an ancient practice rather than a modern innovation. These resultscarry implications for contemporary debates around legal automation and the appropriate role of Artificial Intelligence(AI)in religious jurisprudence, while documentinghow pre-modern institutions achieved systematization through human rather than technological means.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sheikh al-Islam
• Ottoman Fatwas
• Computational Jurisprudence
• Islamic Law
• Legal Algorithms
• Binary Logic
• Machine Learning

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, Andrew. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
2. Akgündüz, Ahmet. Sheikh al-Islam Ebüssuûd Efendi Fetvaları. İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2018.
3. Anthropic. "Claude's performance on legal reasoning tasks". Technical Report, San Francisco: Anthropic, 2024.
4. Ashley, Kevin D. Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
5. Ayoub, Samy. Law, Empire, and the Sultan: Ottoman Legal Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2024.
6. Beesley, Kenneth R., & Lauri Karttunen. Finite State Morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003.
7. Bommarito, Michael J., & Daniel Martin Katz. "Measuring and modeling the US regulatory ecosystem". Journal of Statistical Physics, 168, no. 5 (2022): 1125-1135.
8. Bommarito, Michael J., Daniel Martin Katz, & Jonathan Zelner. "Law as a seamless web? Network analysis of the U.S. Code". Physica A, 389, no. 19 (2010): 4195-4200.

9. Breiman, Leo. "Random Forests". Machine Learning, 45, no. 1 (2001): 5-32.
10. Cao, Jia, Xue Chen, Linan Wu, & Heng Zhang. "PILOT: Legal case outcome prediction with case law". Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 34 (2024): 612-628.
11. Chalkidis, Ilias, Manos Fergadiotis, Panagiotis Malakasiotis, & Ion Androutsopoulos. "LEGAL-BERT: The muppets straight out of law school". Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (2023): 2898-2904.
12. Chalkidis, Ilias, Abhilasha Jana, Dirk Hartung, Michael Bommarito, Ion Androutsopoulos, Daniel Katz, & Nikolaos Aletras. "LexGLUE: A benchmark dataset for legal language understanding". Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2022): 4310-4330.
13. Chen, Lin, Wei Ma, Karthik Natarajan, & Qinshen Sheng. "Entropy-based complexity measures in legal systems". Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31, no. 2 (2023): 245-278.
14. Choi, Jonathan H., Kristin E. Hickman, Amy Monahan, & Daniel Schwarcz. "ChatGPT goes to law school". Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper, no. 23-03 (2023).
15. Church, Kenneth W., & Patrick Hanks. "Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography". Computational Linguistics, 16, no. 1 (1990): 22-29.
16. Cowan, Nelson. "The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited?". Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, no. 1 (2010): 51-57.
17. Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
18. El-Mesallamy, Ahmed. "‘Fatwa-GPT?’: Generative AI and the future of Islamic authority". Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, 2024.
19. Ergene, Boğaç A. Local Court, Provincial Society and Justice in the Ottoman Empire. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
20. Fuller, Lon L. The Morality of Law (Revised ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.
21. Gerber, Haim. State, Society, and Law in Islam. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994.
22. Hallaq, Wael B. Sharīʻa: Theory, Practice, Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
23. Hallaq, Wael B. The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
24. Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
25. Hasan, Z. "UAE: Legal implications of using artificial intelligence to issue ‘fatwas’". Global Legal Monitor. Library of Congress, 2023.
26. Henderson, Peter, Mark S. Krass, Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Christopher D. Manning, Dan Jurafsky, & Daniel E. Ho. "Pile of law: Learning responsible data filtering from the law and a 256GB open-source legal dataset". Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36 (2023).
27. Imber, Colin. Ebu's-su'ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.
28. Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
29. Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2003.
30. Katz, Daniel Martin, & Michael J. Bommarito. "Measuring the complexity of the law". Artificial Intelligence and Law, 22, no. 4 (2014): 337-374.
31. Katz, Daniel Martin, Michael J. Bommarito, & Josh Blackman. "GPT-4 passes the bar exam". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 382 (2024): 20230166.
32. Katz, Daniel Martin, J. B. Ruhl, & Pierpaolo Vivo (Eds.). "Complexity science approaches to law and governance". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 382, no. 2270 (2024).
33. Kaya, S., B. Algın, Z. Trabzonlu, & A. Erkan (Eds.). Behcetü'l-Fetävä. İstanbul: Klasik Yayınları, 2011.
34. Kaya, S. (Ed.). Fetâvâ-yı Feyziye. İstanbul: Klasik Yayınları, 2009.
35. Kiessling, Benjamin, Daniel Miller, & Mohammad Pouyi. "Kraken - A Universal Text Recognizer for the Humanities". In Proceedings of the 2019 Digital Humanities Conference (DH2019). Utrecht, Netherlands, 2019.
36. Koplenig, Alexander. "Entropy-based approaches to historical linguistics". Annual Review of Linguistics, 9 (2023): 123-144.
37. Miller, George A. "The magical number seven, plus or minus two". Psychological Review, 63, no. 2 (1956): 81-97. OpenAI. "GPT-4 Technical Report". arXiv:2303.08774, 2023.
38. Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015.
39. Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily, & Edward Gibson. "Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, no. 9 (2011): 3526-3529.
40. Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
41. Romanov, Maxim. "OpenITI: A machine-readable corpus of Islamicate texts". Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 39, no. 1 (2024): 234-251.
42. Ruhl, J. B., & Daniel Martin Katz. "Scaling laws: Legal complexity in US localities". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 382 (2024): 20230151.
43. Russell, Stuart. Human Compatible: AI and the Problem of Control. New York: Viking, 2019.
44. Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
45. Shannon, Claude E. "A mathematical theory of communication". Bell System Technical Journal, 27, no. 3 (1948): 379-423.
46. Sulai, N. A. C., & A. H. A. Othman. "The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in Islamic finance and its Maqasid al-Shariah perspective in Malaysia". Journal of Islamic Finance, 22, no. 2 (2023): 1-13.
47. Susskind, Richard. Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
48. Tucker, Judith E. Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
49. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.