Ottoman Law, Courts and Justice

From the fourteenth century to the empire’s end in 1922, Ottoman judges applied Islamic jurisprudence alongside sultanic regulations and changing state institutions. A case might begin in a neighborhood court, move through a petition to the imperial council, or be handled under a nineteenth-century code. Court registers show how people presented claims, what evidence judges accepted and how officials acted on decisions.

On this page5 sections

Sharia, kanun and the qadi

Sharia is the body of Islamic legal and ethical guidance interpreted by jurists. Ottoman judges followed the Hanafi school, one of Sunni Islam’s legal traditions. A qadi (also spelled kadi) was a judge appointed to a district; a mufti answered legal questions with a fatwa, an advisory opinion that was distinct from a judgment in a particular lawsuit. Sultans also issued kanun, regulations addressing matters such as administration, land and punishment. In practice, judges and officials worked with these different sources in specific disputes.

Aintab, now Gaziantep in southeastern Turkey, offers a close view of local procedure in 1540–41. In one complaint, a Kurdish man named Seyfeddin had been arrested on suspicion of theft by a subaşı, the governor-general’s police chief. The court summoned the officer and questioned him and Seyfeddin repeatedly. Finding no basis to hold the accused, it released him under a guarantor’s bond. The case shows a judge requiring an executive officer to account for an arrest and securing the defendant’s future appearance through another person’s guarantee.

Claims, evidence and court records

A litigant normally had to support a claim with witnesses or documents. If the plaintiff could not establish it, the judge could offer the defendant an oath; refusal could affect the court’s decision. Some proceedings also involved prosecutors, confessions or alibis. Several şuhud ul-hal, or witnesses to the proceedings, had their names entered on Aintab case records as observers; they were distinct from witnesses called to prove the facts of a case.

When witnesses could not establish a claim, an oath could decide the case. Historian Leslie Peirce counted roughly thirty cases of oath taking in Aintab during 1540–41; only twice was a woman offered that option. The oath could clear a defendant when witnesses were lacking, so the figures show how access to this defense differed by gender.

People also went to court to register transactions before any dispute arose. For example, Hacı Mehmed’s purchase of a house from Ayşe was entered in the Aintab register. The record later helped substantiate his title. The court might also register the contents of marriage dowers, recording property promised in a marriage. Armenian Christian residents of the town likewise used the qadi’s court for private claims and property business; the court recorded these cases through its procedure, with less Islamic legal terminology in some Christian transactions.

Violence cases could lead to negotiated settlements recorded by a judge. In 1540–41, after a murder feud in Orul village near Aintab, the victim’s mother received compensation, while the killer paid a fine of ten gold coins to the crown-estate trustee. The parties’ agreement was entered in court and backed by a guarantor. In another murder complaint, a father could not prove who had attacked his son; the accused men were placed under bond, and the governor ordered that they not be harassed. These cases reveal distinct responses to proof, compensation and continuing danger.

Petitions to the imperial council

The Imperial Council, or Divan-ı Hümayun, was a central political and judicial assembly led by the grand vizier, the chief minister. It could review petitions and direct a local governor or qadi to investigate. This gave a complainant a route beyond the district court, although bringing a matter to Istanbul required access to representatives and travel.

In early 1616, Covan Turigla, an Ottoman Christian living in Istanbul’s Galata district, sued the Venetian merchant Ijepu over a debt. The deputy qadi ruled against Ijepu and ordered his imprisonment. A Jewish interpreter had translated the proceedings, although the Capitulations, agreements governing Venetian privileges, required a Venetian dragoman for a Venetian subject’s case. The Venetian representative, or bailo, petitioned the Imperial Council, which ordered the qadi to send Ijepu and a Venetian dragoman to the council for a new hearing.

Religious communities and changing jurisdiction

After the 1856 reform decree, Christian and Jewish communities increasingly adopted formal regulations and councils for schools, communal funds and social services. These councils worked alongside Ottoman state courts.

Nineteenth-century codes and courts

The state issued criminal codes in 1840, 1851 and 1858. Provincial councils also heard some criminal cases. The 1864 Vilayet Regulation established district-level councils that included a qadi and Muslim and non-Muslim members; they handled specified cases within a developing network of state courts, later known as the Nizamiye courts. The new institutions changed where and under what written procedure some cases were heard.

Between 1869 and 1876, the Mecelle codified Hanafi rules for much of civil and commercial law and judicial procedure. Its sixteen books included thirteen on property and contracts and three on procedure, lawsuits, evidence and courts; it did not codify marriage, family law or inheritance. It supplied a written framework for these areas of litigation in the reorganized regular courts.