Symposium on the Laws of Yesterday’s Wars – Ottoman Martial Law

Editor’s Note: The following article highlights a chapter from Samuel White’s third processed Volume of Laws of yesterday’s wars published by Brill. For a general introduction to the series, see Dr. Samuel White and Professor Sean Watts’ Introductory article.

The Ottoman Empire was one of the largest and longest-lasting empires in history. The empire was built with divine sovereignty as its ideological foundation, while recognizing that without the administrative power of the Sultan, Islamic law (Sharia) could not be adequately implemented.

The Sultan announced Kanuna secular legal system based on customary law (örf) and finally took his place next to the ShariaThe literature on Sharia Kanun The legal debate is divided on the question of whether Kanun, in practice it was a complement to the Sharia or whether it replaced them, since the regulations issued by the Ottomans were sometimes in clear contradiction to the Sharia. Dueling ideas about the say goodbye System illustrates this gap well.

To analyze the relationship between the two sources of Ottoman law, this article examines the Ottoman laws of war and their compliance with the Sharia during the Empire’s Golden Age from 1452–1566 AD.

The Ottoman world order

As the longest-ruling Islamic dynasty, it is important to understand how the Ottomans ruled the vast territories that made up the empire. The concept of “world order” (Nizam-i ‘alem) was the basic principle of the Ottoman political and social order. The duty to Nizam-i ‘alem was entrusted to the Sultan as “God’s shadow on earth.” The concept of a state ruled by a divinely appointed ruler conferred legitimacy that protected the empire from internal and external threats. This concept of divine authority also underpinned the relationship between the government and the civilian population.

The theory of the circle of justice reflects the interdependence between rulers and ruled and the ultimate dependence on the Sharia as a basis for Nizam-i ‘alem. Each variable of the circle cannot function without the success of the others; the failure of one variable breaks the circle, which threatens the power and security of the state. The Ottomans adopted this political concept to express the imperative of maintaining justice as expressed in the Sharia with political expediency.

Another aspect of the Ottoman world order was to govern according to ancient customs (‘adet-i qadime). In order to maintain long-term peaceful relations with non-Muslim tributaries, the Ottomans adhered to the customary practices and traditions of their predecessors. The old customs of the Ottomans were a derivation of inherited structures from the Bedouins, Byzantines and earlier Turkish-Muslim states.

Nature of wars: An aggressive Gaza Strip and a justified jihad

The image of the Ottoman Empire in medieval Europe was dominated by the so-called “Fear of the Turks” or “the fear of Turks.” Soon after, the Orientalist notion of the “terrible Turk” became popular in historical literature, portraying the Ottoman Empire as a brooding, non-Western despotic state. Both served to portray the Ottomans as lawless beasts and shaped the way the Ottoman Empire was talked about. By rejecting the Orientalist view, this paper shows that the Ottomans adhered to Islamic laws to establish justice, especially in war.

The Ottomans categorised their concepts of war into wars against imperial campaigns (Jihad) and border wars (Gaza). They adopted the ideology of Jihad to justify their rule and to wage war for the purpose of territorial expansion. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Ottomans waged a continuous war of aggression against neighboring European states. The dichotomy of a defensive Jihad and an offensive Gaza is disputed as there is no justification under Islamic law. The Ottomans’ constant state of war is due to the historical circumstances of the Middle Ages, which saw incessant invasions between states for supremacy. Evaluating the Sultan’s role as the embodiment of justice and how this position was used to repel attacks on Islamic territories reveals the Islamic principles that the Ottomans applied to legitimize this resort to war.

Sultan Mehmed II established the character and nature of Ottoman warfare, which was based on the military goal of establishing a universal empire. The concept of a ruler with absolute sovereignty was central to the Ottomans’ decision to initiate armed conflict. Ottoman historian Halil Inalcik notes that the attainment of absolute power was possible by establishing justice, and that justice consolidated power. Therefore, it was the notion of a worldwide struggle against aggressive European powers that gave rise to the ideal of a universal empire with absolute power, an ideal that was based both on Sharia And örf. The goal of spreading Islamic hegemony and the Mongol-Genghisid ideas of a monistic caliphate corresponded.

Prohibitions and penalties

Ottoman Sultans regularly issued Kanunname as a complement to Islamic law regarding the punishment of “war crimes”. Ottoman penal policy and practice functioned in a fairly consistent manner in the 15th and 16th centuries, with the Sharia And Kanun were closely integrated and mutually legitimated. The Subscribe to were designed to authorize arbitrary punishments for those who violated the laws of war.

Prohibited acts during war were acts against the Sultan or the state. These crimes included: rebellion against the Sultan, possession of weapons by civilians, export of weapons to enemy states, appropriation of war booty without the Sultan’s permission, enslavement and plunder of protected peoples and taking up arms against fellow Muslims.

Under Ottoman law, physical punishment or exile was prescribed for violations of the rules of armed conflict. Such punishments were in line with the Quranic verse that permitted the execution or exile of a person who “spread corruption” or posed a “threat to social order.” These arbitrary punishments could only be imposed if the Islamic requirements for a trial were met. However, during military campaigns, high-ranking military officials were authorized, according to military custom, to punish rebels for violations of the laws of armed conflict without trial.

Exceptions to the rule

Also noteworthy are the defenses against violations of forbidden acts. The Islamic nice The issues discussed under “Prohibitions and Restrictions” may be addressed in the context of suspected violations of the the Sharia. The justification and admissibility of these restrictions takes place in the context of exceptional circumstances and Sharia regulations.

For example, the prohibition of wars within Dar Al-Islam did not apply in the context of the Ottoman-Safavid Wars, since the resort to armed conflict was legitimized by the defense of Islamic orthodoxy and thus occurred within the framework of lawful warfare.

The say goodbye system included the controversial practice of enslavement during armed conflicts. The practice was controversial because of its illegality, as Islamic law prohibited the enslavement of people with protected dhimmi Status. Regarding defences as exceptions to the Islamic niceThe practice of slavery by the Ottomans during the war is the only exception that cannot be defended, as it is a blatant violation without any legal justification. This violation of the Sharia was overlooked in favor of satisfying state interests and creating an Ottoman world order.

Diploma

The legal traditions of the Ottoman Empire observed during the Golden Age show a strong commitment to Islamic law. The Ottoman secularization that developed in later years was a byproduct of a modernization process that was seen as a necessary means of competing with the West.

The idea of ​​protecting themselves from Western powers by introducing modern institutions led to the decline and eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The lack of moral regulations in warfare will lead to the downfall of a once powerful military such as that of the Ottoman Empire. An analysis of the Ottoman military’s compliance with the Sharia during the Golden Age shows the causal relationships between strict adherence to laws and morality with a strong military power. I argue that the Kanun was implemented and used vis-a-vis The Sharia and that the efficiency of Ottoman warfare during this period depended on compliance with Sharia as a basis for the regulation of martial law.

***

Image credit: Turkish Government via Wikimedia Commons