A Treatise of Unknown Author in the Ottoman Cash Waqf Debates

Mahmut Salih Eser

Article Details

A Treatise of Unknown Author in the Ottoman Cash Waqf Debates

Authors:

Mahmut Salih Eser

Publisher:

Bartin University

Main Topics:

İslam Hukuku

Journal:

Bartın Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 21, pp.77-115

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001322227

pISSN:

2148-3507

Keywords:

Abstract:

 The Ottoman period represents an important period for fiqh and the history of fiqh studies due to both the new issues that emerged in this period and the different fiqh approaches and solutions that the Ottoman ulema brought to these issues. In the 16th century, one of the debates in which Ottoman legal thought manifested its liveliness, depth, and diversity was the debate over the validity ṣiḥḥah and bindingness luzūm of cash waqfs. In this context, many texts were written by prominent figures of the period such as Ibn Kemāl, Çivizāde, Fenārīzāde, Bālī of Sofia, Ebussuūd and Birgivī arguing in favor or against cash waqfs. Many contemporary scholars have studied, published, and evaluated the fatwas issued by them and the edicts firmans declaring the sultans preferences. The purpose of this study is to provide a contribution to this rich literature by analyzing a Turkish treatise from an unknown author, which has not yet been cited as far as we are aware, and by publishing a transcription of the only copy that has been identified so far. Since the treatise opposing the validity and bindingness of the cash waqf does not disclose the authors identity, the location and the date of composition, this study will initially present evaluations and possibilities regarding these issues. Reflecting on its basic features, scope, and primary addressees, answers will be sought to questions such as who wrote the treatise and when during the debates, can the text be attributed to Çivizāde, who banned cash waqfs during his tenure as kazasker chief judge or to a scholar close to him from ilmiyya scholarly class and can the text be considered a contribution to the cash waqf debates from outside Istanbul and Rumelia. In his treatise, the author relies on al-Hidāya, one of the authoritative works of the Hanafi madhhab by following the annotated translation approach common in Ottoman scholarly circles, and includes the majority of his own evaluations in the last part of the treatise. This is the only text on the cash waqfs that makes mention of the concept of luzūm bindingness in its title, and this is the prominent lens through which the cash waqf is evaluated in the treatise. Also prominent in the treatise is the objection expressed to views that are attributed to Zufar. Rather than evaluating these views in terms of their attribution to Zufar, the author examines them within the context of Zufars general theoretical approach to the waqf, concluding that his views cannot be used to establish the cash waqf on a valid and sufficient basis. This article discusses the objections raised in the treatise by the unknown author in the context of cash waqf debates and evaluates whether they received responses in scholarly circles.

 The Ottoman period represents an important period for fiqh and the history of fiqh studies due to both the new issues that emerged in this period and the different fiqh approaches and solutions that the Ottoman ulema brought to these issues. In the 16th century, one of the debates in which Ottoman legal thought manifested its liveliness, depth, and diversity was the debate over the validity ṣiḥḥah and bindingness luzūm of cash waqfs. In this context, many texts were written by prominent figures of the period such as Ibn Kemāl, Çivizāde, Fenārīzāde, Bālī of Sofia, Ebussuūd and Birgivī arguing in favor or against cash waqfs. Many contemporary scholars have studied, published, and evaluated the fatwas issued by them and the edicts firmans declaring the sultans preferences. The purpose of this study is to provide a contribution to this rich literature by analyzing a Turkish treatise from an unknown author, which has not yet been cited as far as we are aware, and by publishing a transcription of the only copy that has been identified so far. Since the treatise opposing the validity and bindingness of the cash waqf does not disclose the authors identity, the location and the date of composition, this study will initially present evaluations and possibilities regarding these issues. Reflecting on its basic features, scope, and primary addressees, answers will be sought to questions such as who wrote the treatise and when during the debates, can the text be attributed to Çivizāde, who banned cash waqfs during his tenure as kazasker chief judge or to a scholar close to him from ilmiyya scholarly class and can the text be considered a contribution to the cash waqf debates from outside Istanbul and Rumelia. In his treatise, the author relies on al-Hidāya, one of the authoritative works of the Hanafi madhhab by following the annotated translation approach common in Ottoman scholarly circles, and includes the majority of his own evaluations in the last part of the treatise. This is the only text on the cash waqfs that makes mention of the concept of luzūm bindingness in its title, and this is the prominent lens through which the cash waqf is evaluated in the treatise. Also prominent in the treatise is the objection expressed to views that are attributed to Zufar. Rather than evaluating these views in terms of their attribution to Zufar, the author examines them within the context of Zufars general theoretical approach to the waqf, concluding that his views cannot be used to establish the cash waqf on a valid and sufficient basis. This article discusses the objections raised in the treatise by the unknown author in the context of cash waqf debates and evaluates whether they received responses in scholarly circles.

 The Ottoman period represents an important period for fiqh and the history of fiqh studies due to both the new issues that emerged in this period and the different fiqh approaches and solutions that the Ottoman ulema brought to these issues. In the 16th century, one of the debates in which Ottoman legal thought manifested its liveliness, depth, and diversity was the debate over the validity ṣiḥḥah and bindingness luzūm of cash waqfs. In this context, many texts were written by prominent figures of the period such as Ibn Kemāl, Çivizāde, Fenārīzāde, Bālī of Sofia, Ebussuūd and Birgivī arguing in favor or against cash waqfs. Many contemporary scholars have studied, published, and evaluated the fatwas issued by them and the edicts firmans declaring the sultans preferences. The purpose of this study is to provide a contribution to this rich literature by analyzing a Turkish treatise from an unknown author, which has not yet been cited as far as we are aware, and by publishing a transcription of the only copy that has been identified so far. Since the treatise opposing the validity and bindingness of the cash waqf does not disclose the authors identity, the location and the date of composition, this study will initially present evaluations and possibilities regarding these issues. Reflecting on its basic features, scope, and primary addressees, answers will be sought to questions such as who wrote the treatise and when during the debates, can the text be attributed to Çivizāde, who banned cash waqfs during his tenure as kazasker chief judge or to a scholar close to him from ilmiyya scholarly class and can the text be considered a contribution to the cash waqf debates from outside Istanbul and Rumelia. In his treatise, the author relies on al-Hidāya, one of the authoritative works of the Hanafi madhhab by following the annotated translation approach common in Ottoman scholarly circles, and includes the majority of his own evaluations in the last part of the treatise. This is the only text on the cash waqfs that makes mention of the concept of luzūm bindingness in its title, and this is the prominent lens through which the cash waqf is evaluated in the treatise. Also prominent in the treatise is the objection expressed to views that are attributed to Zufar. Rather than evaluating these views in terms of their attribution to Zufar, the author examines them within the context of Zufars general theoretical approach to the waqf, concluding that his views cannot be used to establish the cash waqf on a valid and sufficient basis. This article discusses the objections raised in the treatise by the unknown author in the context of cash waqf debates and evaluates whether they received responses in scholarly circles.

 Osmanlı dönemi hem bu dönemde ortaya çıkan yeni meseleler hem de Osmanlı ulemasının bunlara getirdiği farklı fıkhî yaklaşımlar ve çözümler hasebiyle fıkıh ve fıkıh tarihi araştırmaları için önemli bir dönemi temsil etmektedir. Osmanlı hukuk düşüncesinin canlılık, derinlik ve çeşitliliğiyle tezahür ettiği tartışmalardan birisi de 16. yüzyılda para vakfının geçerliliği sıhhat ve bağlayıcılığı lüzum hakkında cereyan eden tartışmalardır. Bu çerçevede İbn Kemâl, Çivizâde, Fenârizâde, Sofyalı Bâlî, Ebussuûd, Birgivî gibi dönemin pek çok önemli isminin lehte veya aleyhte yazdığı metinler, verdiği fetvalar ve sultanın tercihini koyan hükm-i şerîfler büyük oranda çağdaş araştırmacılar tarafından ele alınmış, yayımlanmış ve çeşitli çalışmalarda değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışma bu konuda yazılmış ve görebildiğimiz kadarıyla henüz kendisine atıfta bulunulmamış olan müellifi meçhul Türkçe bir risalenin incelenmesi ve tespit edilebilen tek nüshasının hafif transkripsiyon yöntemi kullanılarak neşredilmesi yoluyla literatüre katkı sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Para vakfının sıhhatine ve bağlayıcılığına karşı çıkan risalede müellif ile telif yeri ve tarihine ilişkin bilgiler kaydedilmediği için öncelikle bu hususlara dair değerlendirmeler ve ihtimaller ortaya konulacaktır. Bu bağlamda temel özelliklerinden, kapsamından ve öncelikli muhataplarından hareketle, risalenin kim tarafından ve tartışmaların hangi aşamasında kaleme alındığı, kazaskerliği döneminde para vakfının yasaklanmasını sağlayan Çivizâdeye veya ilmiyeden ona yakın bir isme isnat edilip edilemeyeceği, para vakfı tartışmalarına İstanbul ve Rumeli dışından bir katkı olarak görülüp görülemeyeceği gibi sorulara cevap aranacaktır. Risalede büyük oranda Osmanlı ilim çevrelerinde yaygın olan şerhli tercüme usulünü takip eden müellif, bu hususta Hanefî mezhebinin otorite eserlerinden el-Hidâyeyi esas almış, kendi değerlendirmelerine ise daha ziyade risalesinin son kısmında yer vermiştir. Para vakfı tartışmalarında ortaya konan metinler arasında, başlığında lüzûm geçen tek metin olan risalenin içeriğinde de bağlayıcılık konusu öne çıkmaktadır ve özellikle Züfere isnat edilen görüş hakkındaki itirazlar dile getirilmektedir. Müellif söz konusu görüşü Züfere aidiyeti açısından değil onun vakıf konusundaki genel yaklaşımı çerçevesinde değerlendirmekte ve bu görüşün para vakfı için geçerli ve yeterli bir dayanak olamayacağı sonucuna varmaktadır. Bu makalede, müellifi bilinmeyen risalede dile getirilen itirazlar para vakfı tartışmaları bağlamında ele alınacak ve ilmi çevrelerde karşılık bulup bulmadığı değerlendirilecektir.

Article Details

A Treatise of Unknown Author in the Ottoman Cash Waqf Debates

Authors:

Mahmut Salih Eser

Publisher:

Bartin University

Main Topics:

İslam Hukuku

Journal:

Bartın Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 21, pp.77-115

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001322227

pISSN:

2148-3507

Islamic law

Hanafi fiqh

Ottoman legal thought

waqf law

cash waqfs

Çivizâdeİslam hukuku

Hanefî fıkhı

Osmanlı hukuk düşüncesi

vakıf hukuku

para vakfı

Çivizâde

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Mahmut Salih Eser

Publisher: Bartin University

Main Topics: İslam Hukuku

Journal: Bartın Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 21, pp.77-115

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 6/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001322227

pISSN: 2148-3507

Issues

Authors:

Mahmut Salih Eser

Publisher:

Bartin University

Main Topics:

İslam Hukuku

Journal:

Bartın Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 21, pp.77-115

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001322227

pISSN:

2148-3507