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

Özet

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.

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 factionsunder 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 t

Anahtar kelimeler: Memlükler, Osmanlılar, Mısır, hukuk, mahkeme, resmî mezhep, kadı, kanunnâme, Mısır Kanunnâmesi