The Concept of Ta‘zīr al-Shadīd in Ottoman Criminal Law: An Examination Based on Classical Islamic Law and Ottoman Fatwā Collections

Ebru Barış

Makale detayları

The Concept of Ta‘zīr al-Shadīd in Ottoman Criminal Law: An Examination Based on Classical Islamic Law and Ottoman Fatwā Collections

Yazarlar:

Ebru Barış

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.105-130

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352680

pISSN:

2757-6949

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Classical fiqh sources mention that tazīr punishments can take various forms, such as admonition, reprimand, flogging, imprisonment, exile, public exposure and death penalty. The Ottoman Empire, which based its legal system on Islamic law, extensively implemented tazīr punishments. These punishments are documented in sources such as qānūnnāmes, fatwā collections and sharīa court registers shariyya sijillāt. This study focuses on the tazīr punishments mentioned in Ottoman-era fatwā collections and it examines the crimes in which the terms tazīr and particularly tazīr al-shadīd are used in these sources, in addition to cases where tazīr punishments such as admonition, public exposure, dismissal from office, exile and imprisonment are explicitly mentioned. In cases where the punishment is explicitly stated, there is no ambiguity regarding its nature. However, when the punishment is referred to simply as tazīr or tazīr al-shadīd, various interpretations about its nature have emerged. Since these terms were incorporated into Ottoman fatwā collections from classical fiqh sources, the study first examines the usage of tazīr and tazīr al-shadīd in Islamic legal literature, outlining their theoretical background. After analyzing the usage of these terms in classical fiqh sources, the study investigates crimes that warranted tazīr al-shadīd punishments in Ottoman fatwā collections. In this context, the study addresses the concept of tazīr al-shadīd as used in Ottoman fatwā collections, based on both classical Islamic legal literature and the fatwā compilations themselves. Although these terms have been interpreted in the literature as the judge imposing any punishment deemed appropriate, it has been determined that in the Ottoman legal system, the term tazīr, which is used absolutely without any further explanation, generally refers to flogging, while the term tazīr al-shadīd always denotes flogging and often refers to the maximum number of lashes that can be administered as tazīr. This usage is found to be based on classical fiqh sources. The study cites numerous examples from Ottoman fatwā collections indicating that the term tazīr al-shadīd was commonly used to refer to flogging. Then, in order to make a comparison with the examples in classical fiqh sources, examples of tazīr al-shadīd punishment for crimes such as sodomy liwāṭa, marriage without ḥulla, adultery with incomplete conditions, false accusation of adultery qadhf and murder are given. In this context, as seen in the examples above, tazīr al-shadīd played a significant role in crimes that warranted a ḥadd punishment but could not be implemented due to deficiencies in the required conditions. It has been determined that in Ottoman fatwās, the punishments prescribed for such crimes were expressed with the term of tazīr al-shadīd. As reported in classical fiqh works, in such cases, the perpetrator was deemed liable for the maximum number of lashes, and the judge was not granted the authority to impose any other form of punishment. Some Ottoman fatwā collections even contain direct inquiries regarding the nature of the tazīr al-shadīd punishment, reflecting ongoing interest in this matter during the Ottoman period. Interestingly, these inquiries predominantly focus on the quantity rather than the nature of the punishment. Indeed, the questions were directly associated with the punishment of flogging, and responses were sought regarding the number of lashes for tazīr al-shadīd punishment. It is understood from the fatwā questions that tazīr al-shadīd was known to refer to flogging however due to the disagreement within the madhhab regarding the maximum number of lashes applied as tazīr, there was curiosity about the opinion preferred in the fatwā. The fatwās provide details on the maximum number of lashes allowed under the Ḥanafī school of thought, referencing differing opinions within the school. For instance, Abū Ḥanīfa d. 150767 and Imām Muḥammad d. 189805 set this limit at 39 lashes, while Abū Yūsuf d. 182798 set it at 75 lashes. It is observed that these different views were reflected in the Ottoman fatwās and mostly Abū Yūsufs view was preferred. Additionally, some Shaykh al-Islāms, in accordance with the Ḥanafī understanding of tazīr, have considered not only the number of lashes but also the severity of the beating within the scope of tazīr al-shadīd. In conclusion, the concept of tazīr al-shadīd emerges in classical Islamic law and Ottoman law as a form of punishment in which flogging is administered in proportion to the severity of the offense. The description of the punishment as shadīd does not stem from the imposition of a severe tazīr penalty but rather from the notion, as stated in classical fiqh sources, that the flogging applied in tazīr should be more severe than that in ḥadd penalties.

 Klasik fıkıh kaynaklarında tazîr cezalarının öğüt verme, kınama, sopa, hapis, sürgün, teşhir ve ölüm gibi çeşitli şekillerde uygulanabileceği zikredilmiştir. Hukuk sisteminde İslâm hukukunu esas alan Osmanlı İmparatorluğu da tazîr cezalarını yaygın bir şekilde uygulamış, bu cezalar kanunnâmeler, fetva mecmuaları ve şeriyye sicilleri gibi kaynaklarda kayıt altına alınmıştır. Çalışmamız Osmanlı dönemi fetva mecmualarında zikredilen tazîr-i şedîd cezalarına odaklanmış ve bu kaynaklarda nasihat etme, teşhir, görevden azletme, sürgün, hapis gibi tazîr cezalarının açık bir şekilde zikredildiği örneklerin yanında tazîr ve özellikle tazîr-i şedîd kavramlarının kullanıldığı suçları incelemiştir. Zira tazîr cezasının açık bir şekilde belirtildiği fetvalarda cezanın mahiyetine yönelik herhangi bir belirsizlik bulunmazken cezadan yalnızca tazîr veya tazîr-i şedîd şeklinde bahsedilmesi durumunda cezanın mahiyeti hakkında çeşitli yorumlar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu terimler, Osmanlı fetva mecmualarına klasik fıkıh kaynaklarından aktarıldığı için çalışmada öncelikle tazîr ve tazîr-i şedîd kavramlarının İslâmî literatürdeki kullanımları incelenmiş ve bu kavramların teorik arka planı ortaya konmuştur. Kavramların klasik fıkıh kaynaklarındaki kullanımları incelendikten sonra Osmanlı dönemi fetva mecmuaları ele alınmış ve tazîr-i şedîd cezasının verildiği suçlar analiz edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda çalışmamız Osmanlı dönemi fetva mecmualarında kullanılan tazîr-i şedîd kavramını, klasik İslâm hukuku literatürü ve fetva mecmuaları üzerinden ele almaktadır. Literatürde bu kavramların hâkimin uygun gördüğü herhangi bir cezayı uygulaması şeklinde yorumlandığı görülse de Osmanlı hukuk sisteminde herhangi bir açıklama yapılmadan mutlak olarak kullanılan tazîr kavramının genellikle sopa cezasını, tazîr-i şedîd kavramının ise daima sopa cezasını ve çoğunlukla da tazîr olarak uygulanabilen âzami miktar sopa cezasını ifade ettiği ve bu kullanımın klasik fıkıh kaynaklarına dayandığı tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmamızda Osmanlı dönemi fetva mecmualarında, tazîr-i şedîd kavramının sopa cezasını ifade etmek için kullanıldığına dair birçok fetva örneği zikredilmiş, ardından klasik fıkıh kaynaklarındaki örneklerle karşılaştırma yapılabilmesi amacıyla livâta, hulle yapılmadan evlenme, şartları eksik kalan zina, iftira ve öldürme gibi suçlar için tazîr-i şedîd cezasına karar verilen örneklere yer verilmiştir. Bu bağlamda yukarıdaki örneklerde olduğu gibi had cezasını gerektiren ancak şartlarındaki eksikliklerden dolayı had uygulanamayan suçlarda tazîr-i şedîd cezasının önemli bir yer tuttuğu ve Osmanlı fetvalarında bu tür suçlara öngörülen cezaların tazîr-i şedîd kavramıyla ifade edildiği tespit edilmiştir. Klasik fıkıh eserlerinde aktarıldığı üzere bu tür suçlarda fâile âzami miktarda sopa cezası vacip görülmüş ve kâdîye başka bir ceza belirleme yetkisi tanınmamıştır. Öte yandan Osmanlı fetva mecmularının bir kısmında doğrudan tazîr-i şedîd cezasına ilişkin soruların yer aldığı görülmüştür. Dolayısıyla çeşitli suçlar için uygulanan tazîr-i şedîd cezası Osmanlı döneminde de merak konusu olmuş ve bu durum fetva sorularına yansımıştır. Ancak sorularda dikkat çeken husus, sorunun cezanın mahiyetinden ziyade miktarına yönelik olmasıdır. Nitekim sorular doğrudan sopa cezasıyla ilişkilendirilmiş ve tazîr-i şedîd cezasının kaç celde olduğuna dair yanıtlar talep edilmiştir. Fetva sorularından tazîr-i şedîd ile sopa cezasının kastedildiğinin bilinen bir şey olduğu ancak mezhepte tazîr olarak uygulanan sopa cezasının âzami miktarı konusunda ihtilaf bulunması sebebiyle fetvaya esas olan görüşün merak edildiği anlaşılmaktadır. Fetvalarda Hanefî mezhebine göre tazîr kapsamında uygulanan sopa cezasının âzami miktarı belirtilmiş ve Hanefî mezhebinin bu konudaki farklı görüşlerine yer verilmiştir. Ebû Hanîfe ö. 150767 ve İmam Muhammed ö. 189805 bu miktarı 39 celde olarak belirlerken Ebû Yûsuf ö. 182798 75 celde olarak belirlemiştir. Osmanlı fetvalarına bu farklı görüşlerin yansıtıldığı, çoğunlukla da Ebû Yûsufun görüşünün tercih edildiği görülmektedir. Ayrıca bazı şeyhülislâmlar Hanefî tazîr anlayışıyla uyumlu bir şekilde, celde cezasının miktarının yanı sıra dayağın şiddetini de tazîr-i şedîd kapsamında değerlendirmiştir. Sonuç olarak tazîr-i şedîd kavramı, klasik İslâm hukuku ve Osmanlı hukukunda suçun ciddiyetine uygun olarak sopa cezasının uygulandığı bir ceza türü olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Cezaya ilişkin şedîd nitelemesi ise ağır bir tazîr cezası uygulanması anlamında değil klasik fıkıh kaynaklarında belirtildiği üzere tazîr kapsamında verilen sopa cezasının had cezalarındaki sopaya kıyasla daha şiddetli vurulması gerektiği yönündeki kabulden kaynaklanmaktadır.

 Classical fiqh sources mention that tazīr punishments can take various forms, such as admonition, reprimand, flogging, imprisonment, exile, public exposure and death penalty. The Ottoman Empire, which based its legal system on Islamic law, extensively implemented tazīr punishments. These punishments are documented in sources such as qānūnnāmes, fatwā collections and sharīa court registers shariyya sijillāt. This study focuses on the tazīr punishments mentioned in Ottoman-era fatwā collections and it examines the crimes in which the terms tazīr and particularly tazīr al-shadīd are used in these sources, in addition to cases where tazīr punishments such as admonition, public exposure, dismissal from office, exile and imprisonment are explicitly mentioned. In cases where the punishment is explicitly stated, there is no ambiguity regarding its nature. However, when the punishment is referred to simply as tazīr or tazīr al-shadīd, various interpretations about its nature have emerged. Since these terms were incorporated into Ottoman fatwā collections from classical fiqh sources, the study first examines the usage of tazīr and tazīr al-shadīd in Islamic legal literature, outlining their theoretical background. After analyzing the usage of these terms in classical fiqh sources, the study investigates crimes that warranted tazīr al-shadīd punishments in Ottoman fatwā collections. In this context, the study addresses the concept of tazīr al-shadīd as used in Ottoman fatwā collections, based on both classical Islamic legal literature and the fatwā compilations themselves. Although these terms have been interpreted in the literature as the judge imposing any punishment deemed appropriate, it has been determined that in the Ottoman legal system, the term tazīr, which is used absolutely without any further explanation, generally refers to flogging, while the term tazīr al-shadīd always denotes flogging and often refers to the maximum number of lashes that can be administered as tazīr. This usage is found to be based on classical fiqh sources. The study cites numerous examples from Ottoman fatwā collections indicating that the term tazīr al-shadīd was commonly used to refer to flogging. Then, in order to make a comparison with the examples in classical fiqh sources, examples of tazīr al-shadīd punishment for crimes such as sodomy liwāṭa, marriage without ḥulla, adultery with incomplete conditions, false accusation of adultery qadhf and murder are given. In this context, as seen in the examples above, tazīr al-shadīd played a significant role in crimes that warranted a ḥadd punishment but could not be implemented due to deficiencies in the required conditions. It has been determined that in Ottoman fatwās, the punishments prescribed for such crimes were expressed with the term of tazīr al-shadīd. As reported in classical fiqh works, in such cases, the perpetrator was deemed liable for the maximum number of lashes, and the judge was not granted the authority to impose any other form of punishment. Some Ottoman fatwā collections even contain direct inquiries regarding the nature of the tazīr al-shadīd punishment, reflecting ongoing interest in this matter during the Ottoman period. Interestingly, these inquiries predominantly focus on the quantity rather than the nature of the punishment. Indeed, the questions were directly associated with the punishment of flogging, and responses were sought regarding the number of lashes for tazīr al-shadīd punishment. It is understood from the fatwā questions that tazīr al-shadīd was known to refer to flogging however due to the disagreement within the madhhab regarding the maximum number of lashes applied as tazīr, there was curiosity about the opinion preferred in the fatwā. The fatwās provide details on the maximum number of lashes allowed under the Ḥanafī school of thought, referencing differing opinions within the school. For instance, Abū Ḥanīfa d. 150767 and Imām Muḥammad d. 189805 set this limit at 39 lashes, while Abū Yūsuf d. 182798 set it at 75 lashes. It is observed that these different views were reflected in the Ottoman fatwās and mostly Abū Yūsufs view was preferred. Additionally, some Shaykh al-Islāms, in accordance with the Ḥanafī understanding of tazīr, have considered not only the number of lashes but also the severity of the beating within the scope of tazīr al-shadīd. In conclusion, the concept of tazīr al-shadīd emerges in classical Islamic law and Ottoman law as a form of punishment in which flogging is administered in proportion to the severity of the offense. The description of the punishment as shadīd does not stem from the imposition of a severe tazīr penalty but rather from the notion, as stated in classical fiqh sources, that the flogging applied in tazīr should be more severe than that in ḥadd penalties.

 Classical fiqh sources mention that tazīr punishments can take various forms, such as admonition, reprimand, flogging, imprisonment, exile, public exposure and death penalty. The Ottoman Empire, which based its legal system on Islamic law, extensively implemented tazīr punishments. These punishments are documented in sources such as qānūnnāmes, fatwā collections and sharīa court registers shariyya sijillāt. This study focuses on the tazīr punishments mentioned in Ottoman-era fatwā collections and it examines the crimes in which the terms tazīr and particularly tazīr al-shadīd are used in these sources, in addition to cases where tazīr punishments such as admonition, public exposure, dismissal from office, exile and imprisonment are explicitly mentioned. In cases where the punishment is explicitly stated, there is no ambiguity regarding its nature. However, when the punishment is referred to simply as tazīr or tazīr al-shadīd, various interpretations about its nature have emerged. Since these terms were incorporated into Ottoman fatwā collections from classical fiqh sources, the study first examines the usage of tazīr and tazīr al-shadīd in Islamic legal literature, outlining their theoretical background. After analyzing the usage of these terms in classical fiqh sources, the study investigates crimes that warranted tazīr al-shadīd punishments in Ottoman fatwā collections. In this context, the study addresses the concept of tazīr al-shadīd as used in Ottoman fatwā collections, based on both classical Islamic legal literature and the fatwā compilations themselves. Although these terms have been interpreted in the literature as the judge imposing any punishment deemed appropriate, it has been determined that in the Ottoman legal system, the term tazīr, which is used absolutely without any further explanation, generally refers to flogging, while the term tazīr al-shadīd always denotes flogging and often refers to the maximum number of lashes that can be administered as tazīr. This usage is found to be based on classical fiqh sources. The study cites numerous examples from Ottoman fatwā collections indicating that the term tazīr al-shadīd was commonly used to refer to flogging. Then, in order to make a comparison with the examples in classical fiqh sources, examples of tazīr al-shadīd punishment for crimes such as sodomy liwāṭa, marriage without ḥulla, adultery with incomplete conditions, false accusation of adultery qadhf and murder are given. In this context, as seen in the examples above, tazīr al-shadīd played a significant role in crimes that warranted a ḥadd punishment but could not be implemented due to deficiencies in the required conditions. It has been determined that in Ottoman fatwās, the punishments prescribed for such crimes were expressed with the term of tazīr al-shadīd. As reported in classical fiqh works, in such cases, the perpetrator was deemed liable for the maximum number of lashes, and the judge was not granted the authority to impose any other form of punishment. Some Ottoman fatwā collections even contain direct inquiries regarding the nature of the tazīr al-shadīd punishment, reflecting ongoing interest in this matter during the Ottoman period. Interestingly, these inquiries predominantly focus on the quantity rather than the nature of the punishment. Indeed, the questions were directly associated with the punishment of flogging, and responses were sought regarding the number of lashes for tazīr al-shadīd punishment. It is understood from the fatwā questions that tazīr al-shadīd was known to refer to flogging however due to the disagreement within the madhhab regarding the maximum number of lashes applied as tazīr, there was curiosity about the opinion preferred in the fatwā. The fatwās provide details on the maximum number of lashes allowed under the Ḥanafī school of thought, referencing differing opinions within the school. For instance, Abū Ḥanīfa d. 150767 and Imām Muḥammad d. 189805 set this limit at 39 lashes, while Abū Yūsuf d. 182798 set it at 75 lashes. It is observed that these different views were reflected in the Ottoman fatwās and mostly Abū Yūsufs view was preferred. Additionally, some Shaykh al-Islāms, in accordance with the Ḥanafī understanding of tazīr, have considered not only the number of lashes but also the severity of the beating within the scope of tazīr al-shadīd. In conclusion, the concept of tazīr al-shadīd emerges in classical Islamic law and Ottoman law as a form of punishment in which flogging is administered in proportion to the severity of the offense. The description of the punishment as shadīd does not stem from the imposition of a severe tazīr penalty but rather from the notion, as stated in classical fiqh sources, that the flogging applied in tazīr should be more severe than that in ḥadd penalties.

Makale detayları

The Concept of Ta‘zīr al-Shadīd in Ottoman Criminal Law: An Examination Based on Classical Islamic Law and Ottoman Fatwā Collections

Yazarlar:

Ebru Barış

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.105-130

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352680

pISSN:

2757-6949

Ottoman Criminal Law

Ta‘zīr

Fiqh

Fatwā Collections

ShadīdFıkıh

Osmanlı Ceza Hukuku

Fetva Mecmuaları

Ta‘zîr

Şedîd

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ebru Barış

Yayıncı: Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.105-130

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001352680

pISSN: 2757-6949

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ebru Barış

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.105-130

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352680

pISSN:

2757-6949